This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Pamintuan Facts: Petitioner Victor Agustin was charged with 4 separate Informations of libel by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio. He was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to all the charges. On September 10, 2001, he then filed a Motion to Quash the Informations on the sole ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged. He pointed out that the said Informations did not contain any allegation that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in a newspaper of general circulation in Baguio City. Private complainant opposed the motion alleging that he was a bona fide resident and acting general manager of Baguio Country Club. The RTC issued an order denying the MTQ and the motion for reconsideration of the Order. Petitioner then brought the case to the CA. The CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition and the motion for reconsideration of the decision for lack of merit. Thus, petitioner filed a motion for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contented that in the absence of any allegations in the Informations that the private respondent was actually residing in Baguio City, or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio as mandated by Article 360 of the RPC, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offenses charged. He asserted that the amendments of the Informations would be improper, considering that the defects of the Informations were not of form but of substance. The OSG maintained that the failure of the Informations to allege that the private respondent is a resident of Baguio City is not a jurisdictional defect. It asserted that the averment in the Informations that the crimes charged were committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court in Baguio City, taken in conjunction
with the other allegations therein are sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the subject cases in the RTC of Baguio City. Issue: Whether the RTC of Baguio City has jurisdiction over the offenses charged in the four Informations. Ruling: The SC granted the petition, holding that the RTC of Baguio has no jurisdiction. The SC held that venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or Information, and the offense must have been committed or any of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Article 360 of the RPC provides that the criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, 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. In the case at bar, the Informations did not allege that the offended party was actually residing in Baguio City at the time of the commission of the offenses, or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio City. It cannot even be inferred from the allegation 'the offended party was the Acting General Manager of the Baguio Country Club and of good standing and reputation in the community that the private complainant was actually residing in Baguio City. Case 2 Macasaet v. People Facts:
Petitioners were charged with the crime of libel before the RTC of Quezon City. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the libel case on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the offense charged. According to petitioners, as the information discloses that the residence of private respondent was in Marikina, the RTC of Quezon City did not have jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Article 360 of the RPC. The public prosecutor argued that the RTC of QC had jurisdiction over the case. He maintained that during the time material to this case, the complainant was a resident of both QC and Marikina as shown in his Reply-Affidavit filed during his preliminary investigation of the case. The petitioners contended that the complaint-affidavit executed by complainant and the information filed before the court state that complainant‘s residence is in Marikina, thus the dismissal of the case is warranted for the rule is that jurisdiction is determined solely by the allegations contained in the complaint or information. The trial court rendered an Order dismissing the case due to lack of jurisdiction and it held that the editorial box of Abante is in Manila and that the address of complainant is in Marikina as provided in the information. The complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration insisting that at the time the alleged libelous article was published, he was actually residing in QC. According to him, he mistakenly stated that he was a resident of Marikina at the time of publication but he rectified the error by his supplemental affidavit which indicated QC as his actual residence at the time of publication of the defamatory article. However, the motion for reconsideration was denied. Respondents file a notice of appeal to the Court of appeals. The CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA, hence this petition before the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the RTC of QC had jurisdiction.
Ruling: The RTC of QC had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. In libel cases, the criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, 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. In the case at bar, private respondent was a private citizen at the time of the publication of the alleged libelous article, hence, he could only file his libel suit in the City of Manila where Abante was first published or in the province or city where he actually resided at the time the purported libelous article was printed. A perusal, however, of the information involved in this case easily reveals that the allegations contained therein are utterly insufficient to vest jurisdiction on the RTC of Quezon City. Other than perfunctorily stating ―Quezon City‖ at the beginning of the information, the assistant city prosecutor who prepared the information did not bother to indicate whether the jurisdiction of RTC Quezon City was invoked either because Abante was printed in that place or private respondent was a resident of said city at the time the claimed libelous article came out. As these matters deal with the fundamental issue of the court‘s jurisdiction, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates that either one of these statements must be alleged in the information itself and the absence of both from the very face of the information renders the latter fatally defective. Sadly for private respondent, the information filed before the trial court falls way short of this requirement. The assistant city prosecutor‘s failure to properly
lay the basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the RTC, Quezon City, effectively denied said court of the power to take cognizance of this case. Case 3 Campamano vs Datuin Facts: Seishin International Corporation, represented by its president-herein petitioner David B. Campanano, Jr. filed against respondent. An Information for violation ofB.P. Blg. 22. respondent was convicted of Estafa by the Regional Trial Court, of Pasig City by Decision of May 3, 1999. Meanwhile, sometime in July 15, 2003when he vacated his office, found the cash voucher evidencing his cash payment of the two (2) road rollers, Sakai brand, which he purchased from Mr. Yasonobu Hirota, representing Seishin International Corporation, in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos. The cash voucher was dated June 28, 1993, and it was signed by respondent and Mr. Hirota. Claiming that the complaint of Seishin International Corporation against him was false, unfounded and malicious respondent filed a complaint for Incriminating Against Innocent Persons, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon city against petitioner and a certain Yasunobu Hirota. In filing the complaint for Estafa - fully knowing that it was baseless and without factual or legal basis, according to respondent Mr. Campanano, Jr. and Mr. Hirota should be criminally liable for the crime of Incriminating Innocent Persons punishable under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code. By Resolution of January 20, 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed respondent's complaint for incriminating innocent person It appearing that the case of estafa was filed in Pasig City , and the testimony given by respondent David Campano, Jr. was also made in Pasig City , this office has no jurisdiction on the above-entitled complainant.
Issue: whether the City prosecutor of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the respondent Held: It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, venue is an essential element of jurisdiction; and that the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The complaint-affidavit for incriminating innocent person filed by respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on August 28, 2003 does not allege that the crime charged or any of its essential ingredients was committed in Quezon City . The only reference to Quezon City in the complaint-affidavit is that it is where respondent resides. Respondent's complaint-affidavit was thus properly dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City for lack of jurisdiction The Court of Appeals' conclusion-basis of its reversal of the DOJ Resolutions that since petitioner's November 20, 2003 CounterAffidavit to respondent's complaint for incriminating innocent person was executed in Quezon City, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City had acquired jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of the case is thus erroneous. In any event, the allegations in the complaint-affidavit do not make out a clear probable cause of incriminating innocent person under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code. the petition is Granted. The Court of Appeals Decision of December 9, 2005 is Reversed and set aside. The complaint of respondent for Incriminating Innocent Person filed against petitioner David Campamano, Jr. is Dismissed
prosecution under Republic Act (RA) No. for personal profit or gain. HON. Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc. the Amended Information inaccurately describes the offense by making it appear that what petitioner took were the international long distance telephone calls. In this regard. ABROGAR. Branch 150. on the ground that the factual allegations in the Amended Information do not constitute the felony of theft. the Amended Information describes the thing taken as. The CA then. international long distance calls. that it identifies the international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service of PLDT as the personal properties which were unlawfully taken by the accused. that control. directed the RTC to issue an order grating the motion of the petitioner to quash the Amended Information. The trial court denied the Motion to Quash the Amended Information. and only later mentions stealing the business from PLDT as the manner by which the gain was derived by the accused. as well petitioners subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. However. Facts: Petitioner is one of the accused in Criminal action filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Petitioner then went to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC. and that it satisfies the test of sufficiency as it enabled a person of common understanding to know the charge against him and the court to render judgment properly. ZEUS C. the quashal of the information would still not be proper. The Amended Information charged the accused with theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Ruling The SC resolved to grant the Motion for Reconsideration but remanded the case to the trial court for proper clarification of the Amended Information. In order to . LAURELvs. the special laws punish the surreptitious and advanced technical means employed to illegally obtain the subject service and business. committed by means of the unlawful use of the latter‘s facilities. and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of subtraction penalized under said article. 8484 or the Access Device Regulations Act of 1998and RA 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 does not preclude prosecution under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of theft. that it states the names of all the accused who were specifically charged with the crime of theft of PLDTs international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service in Makati City by conducting ISR or International Simple Resale. rather than respondent PLDTs business. Even assuming that the correct indictment should have been under RA 8484. 4 According to the OSG. The latter embraces unauthorized appropriation or use of PLDTs international calls. Issue: whether the information should be quashed for being insufficient.Case 4 LUIS MARCOS P. service and business. and not the designation of the crime. It maintains that the Amended Information charging petitioner with theft is valid and sufficient. holding that Amended Information does not contain material allegations charging petitioner with theft of personal property since international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication or telephone services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. to the prejudice of PLDT as owner thereof. On the other hand. the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore. The charge of theft as alleged in the Information should be taken in relation to RA 8484 because it is the elements. Petitioner‘s acts constitute theft of respondent PLDTs business and service. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash with Motion to Defer Arraignment.
R. 2. Branch 1. Respondent claims that: the conduct of the Preliminary Investigation and the subsequent issuance of the warrant of arrest are well within the authority given in the Sections 84 and 86. vs. to clearly state that the property subject of the theft are the services and business of respondent PLDT. The Charter of General Santos City. Facts Administrative complaint was filed against Judge Marie Ellengrid S. Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. dereliction of duty. this case must be remanded to the trial court and the prosecution is directed to amend the Amended Information. MTCC. respondent issued an Order for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against complainant and his co-accused without giving them a fair chance to file their respective counteraffidavits. complainant. No. Ruling: Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. the crime is properly designated as one of theft. Section 14 and Rule 119.9 And prior to the issuance of A. No. Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. which would have called for the dismissal of the information under Rule 110. Issue Whether or not the acts committed by the respondent judge constitute gross ignorance of the law. abuse of authority. General Santos City.L. the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. 2005. among the officers authorized by Sec. and thus guaranteed of his rights under the Constitution.M. Under Sec. 84.JUDGE MARIE ELLENGRID S. respondent. there was no usurpation of authority of an RTC Judge when she issued the assailed warrant of arrest as she has authority to do so under the City Charter. To be sure. and oppression warranting dismissal from judicial service and disbarment. with the object of issuing a warrant of arrest against all accused. Baliguat . 05-8-26-SC10 which took effect on October 3. that a probable cause . Municipal Trial Court in Cities. this amendment is not necessitated by a mistake in charging the proper offense. 5 A. respondent judge conducted the Preliminary Investigation without prior application for the issuance of warrant of arrest.correct this inaccuracy of description. Rule 11211 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary investigation are the city prosecutors and judges of the MTC and MCTC. case 5 NOTAN LUMBOS. General Santos City. respondent propounded a series of suggestive rather than searching questions and merely tried to confirm her preconceived presumption of guilt of all accused via suggestive questions. without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation. specifically Sec. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the accused is fully and sufficiently appraised of the nature and cause of the charge against him.BALIGUAT.12 authorizes the city court to conduct preliminary investigations for any offense without regard to the limits of punishment and may release or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court. 5412 (City Charter of General Santos City). there was no grave abuse of discretion when she held in abeyance the resolution of the prayer for the lifting of the warrant of arrest because the primary reason why it was withheld was the complainant's failure to submit a counter-affidavit. Parenthetically.L. Branch 1. 6(b). Complainant alleges that: instead of dismissing the case for patent lack of jurisdiction.
conspiring and 6 confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another in a syndicated manner consisting of five (5) or more persons through corporations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and/or unregistered foreign entities with intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act. Inc. which they made with the Complainant and the public in general to the effect that they were in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading successively or simultaneously operating under the following name and style of Asia Profits Philippines. in a transaction or series of transactions. Wherefore. 2001. did then and there willfully. Incorporation. Administrative case against Judge Baliguat is DISMISSED. Belkin Management Consultancy. 2001 against private respondents Reynaldo A.M. Enrico D. enterprise or scheme. The corresponding warrants of arrest were issued. On October 10. Winggold Management Philippines Incorporated. NO. with intent to gain and by means of fraud and deceit. except for Tafalla. Arellano. Jurado issued a Resolution finding the existence of a probable cause for syndicated Estafa against private respondents and Tafalla with no bail recommended. That on or about the 3rd week of January 2000 or subsequent thereto in Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 05-8-26-SC. Portuguez and a certain Margielyn Tafalla before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Judge Lucas P. In line with A. On November 7. No. the above-named accused.exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody not to frustrate the ends of justice. filed their joint counter-affidavits denying the charges against them. An Information was filed on the same day by Prosecutor Jurado against private respondents and Tafalla before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and raffled off to the sala of Honorable Judge Lucas Bersamin. . she is ADVISED to refer criminal cases for preliminary investigation to the Office of City Prosecutor for appropriate action. Patacsil. The Resolution was approved by City Prosecutor Claro A. Bersamin issued an Order finding probable cause against all the accused and approved the recommendation of the City Prosecutor that the charge be nonbailable.R. the latter and said persons gave and delivered to said accused the amount of at least US$ 123. Private respondents. No. 1689 (syndicated estafa) and other related offenses. unlawfully and feloniously defraud REGINO SY CATIIS and several other persons in the following manner. Assistant City Prosecutor Alessandro D. 2006 Facts: Petitioner filed a letter-complaint dated May 28. 315.461. 153979 February 6. and/or Belkin Profits Limited or other unregistered foreign entities induced and succeeded in inducing complainant and several other persons to give and deliver and in fact.14 or its equivalent in Philippine Pesos on the strength of said manifestations and representations. for violation of Art. Luzviminda A. withdrawing the power to conduct preliminary investigation from judges of the first level courts. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT Case 6 Catiis vs. 2001. CA anent to SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT G. transaction. the accused knowing fully well that the above-named corporations registered with the SEC and/or those unregistered foreign entities are not licensed nor authorized to engage in foreign exchange trading corporations and that such manifestations and representations to transact in foreign exchange were false and fraudulent that resulted to the damage and prejudice of the complainant and other persons and that the defraudation pertains to funds solicited from the public in general by such corporations/associations. Lopez. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. to wit: by falsely or fraudulently pretending or representing.
a corporation engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque. 2006 Facts: Petitioners John Eric Loney. private respondents. reclusion temporal. Camp Crame. i. Malabaguio. On November 20. Judge Bersamin is correct when he ruled that private respondents could only be punished with reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua in case of conviction since the amount of the fraud exceeds P100. and Pedro B. Steven Paul Reid. Private respondents on the same day filed an urgent motion to fix bail. with the information that except for Margielyn Tafalla. aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense. provide: 7 Sec. PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group. and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. and Resident Manager for Mining Operations.R. Sec. 9. No. If there is no designation of the offense. 2001 by declaring that the offense charged is bailable. entered pleas of not guilty. In finding that the accused are entitled to bail.000. Otherwise. 2001. the penalty of life imprisonment to death cannot be imposed on private respondents. it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Hernandez are the President and Chief Executive Officer. at the base of the pit ran a . Designation of the offense. 2000. all other accused were already detained at the Makati City Jail. if they are subsequently proved during trial. A reading of the Information shows that there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance. On December 18. 2001. even. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute. Coronel. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. Clearly. 2001. when arraigned. Issue: Whether Judge Bersamin is correct in finding that the crime charged is bailable despite that the imposable penalty ranges from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua? Held: The Court held that since the crime charged was not committed by a syndicate as defined under the law. Senior Manager.A return on the warrant of arrest was made by PO3 Joselito M. who remained at large. of Marcopper Mining Corporation ("Marcopper"). respectively. 2001. The Court further held that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.00. 152644 February 10. thus Judge Bersamin is correct when he found that the lesser penalty. they cannot be considered by the trial court in their judgment. which took effect on December 1. is imposable in case of conviction. On November 12. a notice of hearing was issued by Judge Bersamin setting the case for arraignment on November 20. Tapian. The Prosecution was required to file their comment/opposition on private respondents‘ motion to fix bail which they did through the Private Prosecutor with the conformity of Assistant City Prosecutor Arthur O. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. Cause of the accusations.e. reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.. 8. Quezon City. Marcopper had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt. Judge Bersamin issued an Order reconsidering his earlier Order of November 7. Case 7 JOHN ERIC LONEY VS.
and RA 7942. sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. Andaya was elected as president and general manager of AFPSLAI. on June 1.D. Marinduque with violation of Article 91(B). Section 8 of the National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (P. In a letter dated September 1991. Lisandro C. What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa). Issue: Whether or not there is duplicity of charges made against petitioner? Ruling: There is no duplicity of charges in the present case. then Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Tapian pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings into the rivers. 1988. the Central Bank wrote Gen. Duplicity of charges simply means a single complaint or information charges more than one offense. there is duplicity of charges when a single Information charges more than one offense. During his term. PD 984. double jeopardy is not at issue because not all of its elements are present. In a few days. the Mt. Abadia. and Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property. Case 8 Title: Andaya vs. On 24 March 1994. petitioner Noe S.A. 984). and RA 7942).D. Petitioner‘s contention that they should be charged with one offense only for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property because all the charges filed against them "proceed from and are based on a single act or incident of polluting the Boac and Makalupnit rivers thru dumping of mine tailings" has no merit because this Court had ruled that a single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the 8 accused for more than one offense. RS-88-006-048 setting up a Finder‘s Fee Program whereby any officer.‖ Here. PD 984. 7942). as Section 13 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. except investment counselors.drainage tunnel leading to the Boac and Makalupnit rivers. 1067). Section 108 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (R. member or employee. (AFPSLAI) is a non-stock and non-profit association authorized to engage in savings and loan transactions. Abadia requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an .000. People of the Philippines Facts: Complainant Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association. what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enacting them. Gen. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense. Consequently. On petitioners‘ claim that the charge for violation of Article 365 of the RPC "absorbs" the charges for violation of PD 1067. Inc. the Department of Justice separately charged petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court of Boac. In short. suffice it to say that a mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property) cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes (such as those violating PD 1067. of AFPSLAI who could solicit an investment of not less than P100. In 1986. regarding the precarious financial position of AFPSLAI due to its alleged flawed management. As a result. the Board of Trustees of AFPSLAI passed and approved Resolution No. On August 1996.00 would be entitled to a finder‘s fee equivalent to one percent of the amount solicited. tailings gushed out of or near the tunnel‘s end. he sought to increase the capitalization of AFPSLAI to boost its lending capacity to its members. Petitioners moved to quash the Informations on the ground that the Informations were "duplicitous" as the Department of Justice charged more than one offense for a single act.
Significantly. Diosdado Guilas and Judy Balangue. P21. contrary to these allegations in the information. However.e.00.investigation on alleged irregularities in the operations of AFPSLAI which led to the filing of several criminal cases against petitioner. petitioner admitted his participation in falsifying the voucher when he testified that he authorized the release of the voucher in the name of Guilas upon the request of Ernesto Hernandez. Specifically. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner should be acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence? Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner by granting the petition and acquit the petitioner based on reasonable doubt. namely.e..000. the falsification was committed in Disbursement Voucher No. In the information. he could be considered a principal by induction. and (3) the falsification caused damage to AFPSLAI in the amount of P21. While the first and second elements of the offense charged in the information were satisfactorily established by the prosecution.00 although not to Guilas but to Ernesto Hernandez. The facts alleged in the information are sufficient to constitute the crime of falsification of private document. i. 58380 that Diosdado Guillas was entitled to a finder‘s fee from AFPSLAI in the amount of P21. one of which is the instant case based on the alleged fraudulent implementation of the Finder‘s Fee Program. it is the third element which is decisive in the instant case. 52178 which was presented by the prosecution categorically stated that Rosario . is likewise present.000. 58380.. (2) the falsification was committed on Disbursement Voucher No. it is not a commercial document because it is not a document used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor is it defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law. a private document. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. However. The second element of the offense charged in the information. 58380 established that petitioner caused the preparation of the voucher in the name of Guilas despite knowledge that Guilas was not entitled to the finder‘s fee.00 to AFPSLAI because he caused it to appear in the disbursement voucher that Diosdado Guilas was entitled to a P21.00 when in truth and in fact no finder‘s fee was due to him.000. The first element of the offense charged in the information was proven by the prosecution. petitioner was able to prove that AFPSLAI owed a finder‘s fee in the amount of P21. 58380.100. had his conviction been proper.000.000.00 worth of investment for AFPSLAI from Rosario Mercader which entitled him to a finder‘s fee equivalent to one percent of the amount solicited (i.000. as well as the presentation of Disbursement Voucher No. the allegations in the information can be broken down into the three aforestated essential elements of this offense as follows: (1) petitioner caused it to appear in Disbursement Voucher No. the subject voucher is a private document only. it was alleged that petitioner caused damage in the amount of P21. The documentary evidence consisting of the Certificate of Capital Contribution Monthly No. since he was the president and general manager of AFPSLAI at the time so that his 9 employees merely followed his instructions in preparing the falsified voucher. It appears that the public prosecutor erroneously characterized the disbursement voucher as a commercial document so that he designated the offense as estafa through falsification of commercial document in the preamble of the information. It was positively shown that Hernandez was able to solicit a P2.000. While petitioner did not personally prepare the voucher.00 finder‘s fee when in truth and in fact AFPSLAI owed no such sum to him.00) under the Finder‘s Fee Program. as correctly ruled by the trial court.
box and hit the minors.. That on or about August 2. willfully. charging the accused-appellant with the crime of Arson with multiple homicide. As stated in the body of information. after Guilas received the P21. willfully. that she is charged with crime not defined and penalized by law. petitioner should be acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence. a 13 year old boy. the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. unlawfully and feloniously threaten the minor. he gave the money to petitioner who in turn surrendered the amount to Hernandez. Such is the case not withstanding the error in the designation of the offense in the information. one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Separa Sr.000. 2001. in the case at bar. On January 9. the information remains effective insofar as it states the facts constituting the crime alleged therein. The RTC as well as the Court of Appeals finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of 10 Case 10 Jumaquio vs. thereby causing physical injuries to the . Arson with multiple homicide. Edna. the prosecution failed to prove the third essential element of the crime charged in the information.Mercader deposited P2. accused-appellant was charged with having intentionally burned the house. It has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. with the crime of grave threats in relation to RA 7610 and also accuses with the crime of physical injuries. Case 9 People vs. 2003. nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated. However. an information was filed before the RTC of Manila. 13 years old and 17 years old.00 worth of investment in AFPSLAI.were also razed by fire. was accused of setting fire the house of his employer resulted in the destruction of his employer‘s house and the death of six persons including his employer Roberto Separa Sr. the defense showed that the disbursement voucher was merely placed in the name of Guilas upon the request of Hernandez so that he would have a lower tax base. Moreover. but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. In fact. did then and there. Thus. she may be convicted. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appelant is liable of the crime of arson with multiple homicide and whether or not the crime charged is not defined and penalized by law.00 from AFPSLAI. the said accused. Held: What is controlling is not the title of the complaint. Malngan Facts: On January 2. The accused-appellant asserts that the prosecution‘s evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt. In all criminal prosecutions. Consequently. Thus.100. and sentenced accordingly. of the crime of simple arson.000. unlawfully and feloniously attack. some seven adjoining residential houses. Rosario Mercader was no longer presented as a defense witness in view of the stipulation by the prosecution on the fact that Mercader was a depositor of AFPSLAI and that Hernandez was the one who convinced her to make such deposit. did then and there. 2001. and that on the same date the said accused. Villarosa Facts: The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses Resty Jumaquio. if proved at the trial.
Finding that there is probable cause. 168340. the Prosecutor filed information before the said court. Held: As correctly argued by the City Prosecutor. Issue: Whether or not amendment to information can be allowed subsequent to a grant of a Motion to Quash. Hence.latter. Once the court has granted the motion to quash the information and such order . Salvador. all of which constitute a single offense. On appeal with the CA. Thus. Hence. No. the questioned information separately charged two distinct offense of child abuse committed through the use of threatening words and child abuse through the infliction of physical injuries. which required medical treatment for a period of three to five days. Sec. demeaning and degrading words to the minor. Et al.k. Respondent filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged because there is no allegation in the information that petitioner resides in Makati or that the libelous article was first published in Makati. Issue: Whether or not the several crimes charged with the accusedappellant should be dismissed on the grounds of could not be considered a crime and could not even be complexed. the amendment of the information to vest jurisdiction upon a court is not permissible.a. Tranquil P. Respondent was favored by the trial court. the court has no jurisdiction to try the case. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition were raised before the CA but was denied. in which case the court shall order the prosecution to amend the information. That the above acts of the accused debases. Petitioner is not in jeopardy of being convicted of grave threats and child abuse in the first case and slight physical injuries and child abuse in the second. Amendment Case 11 Rafael Gonzales vs. December 5.R. In the first information. Upon petitioner‘s motion. to their damage and prejudice. Glen Dale. the trial court granted and directed the public prosecutor with 10 days within which to file amended information. What controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited therein. Moreover. this recourse was filed before the highest court. In this case. hence. an information is not duplicitous if it charges several related acts. the information can no longer be amended. Rene Martel arising from the latter‘s column ―Bizz ‗N‘ Fizz‖ in Today newspaper. petitioner charged with child abuse uttering debasing. 2006 Facts: 11 Rafael Gonzales filed a complaint of libel against Glen Dale a. he is charged with child abuse by inflicting physical injuries. degrades and demeans the dignity of the complaint and impairs their normal growth and development. Holding: Not all defects in an information can be cured by amendment. G. Hon. The Motion to Quash was granted. the same was denied. 4 of Rule 117 applies if the trial court finds that there is a defect in the information and the defect can be cured by amendment. and that once quashed. Petition for Review the prosecutor‘s resolution was raised before the DOJ but was denied. although the acts may in themselves be distinct offenses. In the second. It was opposed by respondent on the ground that defective information may only be amended before a motion to quash is granted. respondent was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the libel charges.
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.R. In this case. 2007 FACTS: On July 4. thus. Upon arraignment. after the entry of the plea. the amendment is allowed because it is settled that the same does not prejudice the rights of Ricarze.became final and executory. hence. In addition. must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash. the amendment made which does not change the nature of the crime alleged 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. PCIBank appeared as the complainant. forged the signatures on the dorsal portions of the stolen check and deposited it in that same bank account. petitioner. an Information for Homicide was filed in the RTC against Petitioner Jose M. Holding: The Supreme Court held that the amendment in the name of the complainant is of form. However. the PCIBank had been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private complainant. Inc. Ricarze averred that the information can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the original information. Issue: 12 Whether or not an information can be amended even after the accused had been arraigned and entered his plea. pleaded not guilty to the charge of Homicide. the petitioner failed to assert the propriety of amending the information within the reglementary period. February 9. PCIBank G. NO. As provided by the Rules of Court. Caltex appeared to be the offended party because the prosecutor was not informed that PCIBank credited certain amount to Caltex. After arraignment and plea. Ricarze vs. Case 13 PACOY VS. In the case at bar. the respondent judge issued another Order directing the trial prosecutor to correct and amend the Information to . then. No. a regular customer of Caltex. In the original information filed by the prosecutor. CA. only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. Furthermore. PCIBank contended that PCIBank had re-credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity. 157472 September 28. He opened a bank account in the name of Dante Gutierrez. there is nothing more to amend. 160451. the petition of Gonzales is denied. Case 12 Eduardo G.. duly assisted by counsel de parte. The trial court has the discretion to order the filing of another information and if warranted. Pacoy. On one hand. He was charged by the officers of Caltex with estafa through falsification of commercial documents. 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. 2002. Caltex Phils. and that doing so would place him in double jeopardy. In this case. CAJIGAL G. the order quashing the information became final and executory.R. on the same day and after the arraignment. and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in one form as in the other. it was held that in case of offenses against property. 2007 Facts: Eduardo Ricarze (employed as a collector-messenger of City Service Corporation) is assigned to collect checks payable to Caltex.
Rule 110 . there could not be any effect on the prosecution's theory of the case. with the crossing out of word ―Homicide‖ and its replacement by the word ―Murder. Under Section 14. neither would there be any possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner. it is necessary that the amendments do not prejudice the rights of the accused. HELD: The petition is not meritorious. Rule 110 also provides that in allowing formal amendments in cases in which the accused has already pleaded. After the plea and during the trial. respondent judge found that a close scrutiny of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code shows that ―disregard of rank‖ is merely a generic mitigating circumstance which should not elevate the classification of the crime of homicide to murder.Amendment or substitution. While the amended Information was for Murder. he alleged that the respondent judge exercised jurisdiction in an arbitrary. as the same was only a generic aggravating circumstance. In his Motion to Inhibit. In granting the Motion for Reconsideration. a reading of the Information shows that the only change made was in the caption of the case. we find that the amendment made in the caption and preamble from ―Homicide‖ to ―Murder‖ as purely formal. While the respondent judge erroneously thought that ―disrespect on account of rank‖ qualified the crime to murder. The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is whether a defense under the complaint or information. as it originally stood. Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended Information are identical with those of the original Information for Homicide. Thus. Petitioner filed a Motion to Inhibit with attached Motion for Reconsideration. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion and exceeds his jurisdiction in ordering the amendment of the information from homicide to murder. without leave of court. The change of the offense charged from Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution. would no longer be available after the amendment is made. and when any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information. the prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out the word ―Homicide‖ and instead wrote the word ―Murder‖ in the caption and in the opening paragraph of the Information. a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. in form or in 13 substance. and in the opening paragraph or preamble of the Information. at any time before the accused enters his plea. we do not find that he committed any grave abuse of discretion in ordering the amendment of the Information after petitioner had already pleaded .‖ There was no change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in the determination of the jurisdiction of the court. capricious and partial manner in mandating the amendment of the charge from Homicide to Murder in disregard of the provisions of the law and existing jurisprudence. — A complaint or information may be amended. The accusatory portion remained exactly the same as that of the original Information for Homicide. The respondent judge denied the Motion to Inhibit and granted the Motion for Reconsideration. Acting upon such Order. Section 14.Murder in view of the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank alleged in the Information which public respondent registered as having qualified the crime to Murder.
2007 FACTS: Rodrigo Padillo and Marietta Padillo. The Court of Appeals identified these facts to be: (1) Marissa‘s consistent practice of depositing checks with altered names of payees to the respective accounts of Wilson Chua and Renita Chua.R. Marissa would sign the check to signify to the bank that she personally knew the alternative payee. Respondents seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration and then the Court of Appeals reverses itself. served as the firm‘s manager. brother of Renita Chua. . 163797 April 24. Marissa is married to Wilson Chua. ISSUE: Whether or not Court of Appeals erred in compelling the Secretary of Justice to include in the Information Wilson and Renita. Marissa Padillo-Chua. As to Renita Chua. are the owners of Padillo Lending Investor engaged in the money lending business. Their niece. respondents interposed an appeal to the Secretary of Justice. there being no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Judge. the cash amounts received were turned over to Marissa or her husband Wilson for deposit in their personal accounts. a post-audit was conducted. The Court of Appeals found that it overlooked certain facts and circumstances which. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. It was found that Marissa was engaged in illegal activities. Sometime in September 1999. herein petitioners. PADILLO G. if considered. the petition is DISMISSED. 14 . Believing that a more serious offense should have been charged against petitioners. the City Prosecutor filed an Information for estafa against Marissa. They alleged that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion.not guilty to the charge of Homicide. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. Wilson. Some of the borrowers whose loan applications she recommended for approval were fictitious and their signatures on the checks were spurious. respondents. file several Informations against petitioners. WHEREFORE. (2) considering that Wilson and Marissa are husband and wife. This is supported by the affidavit of Ernesto Alcantara. To facilitate encashment. and Renita Chua. since the amendment made was only formal and did not adversely affect any substantial right of petitioner. The total amount embezzled reached P7 million. Prosecution of Offenses Case 14 CHUA VS. The Secretary of Justice found that the participation of Wilson Chua in the commission of the crime was not clearly established by the evidence. and (3) Wilson had full knowledge of the unlawful activities of Marissa. They prayed that the Court of Appeals order the Prosecutor to withdraw the Information and instead. holding that there was no conspiracy among the petitioners. the Secretary of Justice found no proof of conspiracy between her and Marissa. would establish probable cause against Wilson and Renita. but it was denied with finality by the Secretary of Justice. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the petition. Forthwith. it can be inferred that one knows the transactions of the other. Respondents filed complaints against petitioners with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
When petitioners did not comply with their undertaking under the trust . However. Rule 110 of the 200 Rules of Criminal Procedure. that the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages. with altered names of payees. the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest. (2) the fact that Wilson and Marissa are husband and wife makes it difficult to believe that one has no idea of the transactions entered into by the other. In the present case. Case 16 Tupaz IV Vs.. as held by the trial court and the CA. i. the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the civil action that the act or omission from where the civil liability may arise does not exist. the petition is denied and the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.HELD: The Court of Appeals did not err in directing the City Prosecutor to include Wilson and Renita Chua in the Information for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. in the respective accounts of Wilson and Renita Chua. Held: The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However." The rationale for this rule is that since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State. and (3) the affidavit of Ernesto Alcantara confirming that Wilson had knowledge of Marissa‘s illegal activities. The trail court had acquitted the respondents on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and held the respondents not liable for damages because of the absence of preponderant evidence.e. Andres 453 SCRA 511 Facts: 15 The son of the petitioner died by drowning as the former assented to the invitation of the respondents to go fishing inside a concrete culvert. partly provides that "All criminal actions either commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. we rule that. As found by the Court of Appeals. the Secretary of Justice either overlooked or patently ignored the following circumstances: (1) Marissa‘s practice of depositing checks. Section 5. as amended. that the public prosecutor‘s exercise of his discretionary powers is not absolute. Issue: Whether or not the extinction of respondent‘s criminal liability carries with it the extinction of their civil liability. One of the exceptions is that the Court of Appeals may review the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on a petition for certiorari on the ground that he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. it necessarily follows that a representative of the State shall direct and control the prosecution thereof. Court of Appeals 475 SCRA Facts: Petitioners signed trust receipts in favor of respondent BPI for the letters of credit issued by the latter to the former. Prosecution of Civil Action Arising from crimes Case 15 Quinto Vs. WHEREFORE. The NBI filed information for homicide and prosecution had presented its witnesses. The CA affirmed.
does the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and authority to resolve and rule on her civil liability. an employee of HSLB. On December 8. At about the same time. Branch 5. vs. Case 17 SAMSON CHING. in separate Decisions both dated May 10. The trial court acquitted the petitioners for the crime of estafa based on reasonable doubt.15 she testified that she worked as a checking 16 account bookkeeper/teller of the bank. where the court expressly declares that the liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature xxx and where the civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of which the accused was acquitted. The MCTC gave credence to petitioner Ching‘s testimony that respondent Nicdao borrowed money from him in the total amount of P20.00. COURT OF APPEALS. the latter charged the former with estafa under trust Receipt Law. the MCTC rendered judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. 1997 for being "DAIF" and her account was closed the following day.17 respondent Nicdao stated that she only dealt with Nuguid. Eleven (11) Informations were filed with the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Dinalupihan-Hermosa. Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court which. prior to its amendment III-Held by SC . On November 22. under Section 1.950. However. 9433-9443 convicting respondent Nicdao of eleven (11) counts of violation of BP 22. it found petitioners civilly liable under the trust receipt. The defense proffered the testimonies of respondent Nicdao. except as to the amounts and check numbers.receipts after the respondents several demands. Facts of the Case Clarita Nicdao was accused of BP22 by Samson Ching.000. III-Issue Repondent Nicdao‘s acquittal by the CA. On direct-examination. On direct-examination. 9433-9443 and 9458-9471. Province of Bataan. which.The Decision of the CA became final and executor. Melanie Tolentino and Jocelyn Nicdao. 1997. the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal. CLARITA NICDAO and HON. also for violation of BP 22. 1999. Issue: Whether or not the acquittal of the petitioners operates to extinguished their civil liability.000. were filed against respondent Nicdao by Emma Nuguid. 1999. 23055 acquitting respondent Nicdao of the eleven (11) counts of violation of BP 22 filed against her by petitioner Ching.00. stated anew that respondent Nicdao‘s checks bounced on October 7. on October 8. Held: The rule is that where the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Bataan. She vehemently denied the allegation that she had borrowed money from both petitioner Ching and Nuguid in the total amount of P22. fourteen (14) other criminal complaints. CR No. affirmed in toto the decisions of the MCTC convicting respondent Nicdao of eleven (11) and fourteen (14) counts of violation of BP 22 in Criminal Cases Nos.R. the CA (13th Division) rendered the assailed Decision in CA-G. Respondents I. The CA affirmed.950. Petitioner.where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is requires in civil cases. the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dinalupihan. respectively. 1998. On appeal. Another witness presented by the prosecution was Imelda Yandoc. said to be the common law spouse of petitioner Ching.
petitioner Ching miserably failed to prove by preponderant evidence the existence of these unpaid loan obligations.00 check that it was a stolen check necessarily absolved respondent Nicdao of any civil liability thereon as well.980. and presented it to the bank on October 7. Notwithstanding respondent Nicdao‘s acquittal. the CA did not adjudge her to be civilly liable to petitioner Ching. the second element for the crime under BP 22. Blg.000.000.000. 002524 and cannot assert any cause of action founded on said check. 1. indeed. it would appear that petitioner [respondent herein] had already made payments in the total amount of P6. however.43 On the other hand. the missing pre-signed and undated check no. i.000.35 Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court. adding the payments recorded at the back of the cigarette cartons by Emma Nuguid in her own handwriting totaling P5.000. 23054). As such. Second."41 and that respondent Nicdao "has no obligation to make good the stolen check and cannot. At the time of petitioner Ching‘s filing of the Informations against respondent Nicdao.P. – When a criminal action is instituted. the CA established that the loans secured by these checks had already been extinguished 17 after full payment had been made by respondent Nicdao. 22.00 in the case at bar and P1.00. Section 1. in cahoots with his paramour Emma Nuguid.780. it can be inferred from the following findings of the CA in its decision acquitting respondent Nicdao that the act or omission from which her civil liability may arise did not exist. petitioner Ching is entitled to appeal the civil aspect of the case within the reglementary period It is axiomatic that "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. provided in part: SEC.00 demand draft received by Emma Nuguid. while petitioner Ching attempts to show that respondent Nicdao‘s liability did not arise from or was not based upon the criminal act of which she was acquitted (ex delicto) but from her loan obligations to him (ex contractu).000. the CA found as follows: True. CR No. The CA computed the payments made by respondent Nicdao visà-vis her loan obligations in this manner: Clearly.00 (P950.000. In this connection.000. quoted earlier.000. or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. In particular. 002524 surfaced in the possession of complainant Ching who.100. therefore.00 and the P1. 1997.000. it is based on the finding that she did not commit the act penalized under BP 22." is not present. There is simply no basis to hold respondent Nicdao civilly liable to petitioner Ching. "that the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.000. for .000. A painstaking review of the case leads to the conclusion that respondent Nicdao‘s acquittal likewise carried with it the extinction of the action to enforce her civil liability.R. in acquitting respondent Nicdao. according to the CA. the civil action is generally impliedly instituted with the criminal action.00 check was a stolen check which was never issued nor delivered by respondent Nicdao to petitioner Ching. filled up the blank check with his name as payee and in the fantastic amount of P20. In fact.e."42 With respect to the ten (10) other checks. unless the offended party waives the civil action.00 in CA-G. its finding relative to the P20.00 for her loan obligation of only P2. the CA‘s acquittal of respondent Nicdao is not merely based on reasonable doubt. Rather. along with the other checks. First. Significantly.150. the CA explicitly stated that she had already fully paid her obligations.The petition is denied for lack of merit. dated it October 6. On the P20. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Third. petitioner Ching "did not acquire any right or interest over Check No.00 check. Institution of criminal and civil actions.000."34 Under the pertinent provision of the Revised Rules of Court.000. reserves his right to institute it separately.200. 1997. the CA found that the P20. be held liable for violation of B..
Mariano Cruz is the complaining witness. Case 18 CRUZ v. the possession of a thing that was stolen . the petitioner filed before the RTC. and hence. Therefore. PEDRO PASCUA and RONNIE TURLA. 2002 however.R. On May 9. Pasay City are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. the inference that the check was stolen is anchored on competent circumstantial evidence. violation o neutrality. The petitioner argues that nowhere does the law provide that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect. flight t an enemy country. nor prior institution of the civil aspect in Criminal Case No. such as espionage. Issue: Whether or not the crime of Grave Threats carries with it civil liability 18 Decision of the case: Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in instances when no actual damage results from the offense. a Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents. (Angeles City National Trade School). versus DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON. Therefore. Moreover. MINA G. where his father. such that when a criminal action is instituted. absent a credible reason. Ferdinand A. gives rise to the presumption that the person in possession of the stolen article is presumed to be guilty of taking the stolen article (People v. 2005 Jan 31 . waiver. Hence this petition. unless the offended party waves the civil action. in Criminal Case No. previous owner of the store. No. had access to said store. reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. The assailed resolution and order of the RTC. it follows that the civil aspect arising from grave Threats is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The basic rule applies in the instant case. and crimes against popular representation. branch 116. 237 SCRA 664). as in this case. 154207. The fact already established is that Emma Nuguid . Zafra. 27 April 2007 Case Summary: On September 25. Cruz. 00-1705. 00-1705 for Grave Threats. SO ORDERED. The petitioner is correct in stating that there being no reservation. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action. ACUÑA. On June 5. Preliminary Investigation Case 19 CELSA P. 2000. WHEREFORE the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner. CA decision is affirmed and petitioners appeal is deny for lack of merit. 2002. the private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect.payment. filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court a formal entry of Appearance as private prosecutor. the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioner‘s Motion for Reconsideration.
requested a dialogue with respondent Pascua on some unspecified matter. No. whom Yabut apparently invited. also attended the meeting. Hence. together with other school personnel. ISSUE: Whether public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint in OMB 1-99-2467 for lack of probable cause. Pampanga. dismissed the complaint. 144692 CARPIO The Case This is a petition for certiorari of the Resolution dated 4 April 2000 and the Order dated 19 June 2000 of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. petitioner charged private respondents with perjury (―OMB 1-99-2467‖) before the office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (―public respondent‖). Respondent Turla attended the meeting upon respondent Pascua‘s directive. Respondent Pedro Pascua (―respondent Pascua‖) was ACNTS‘ Officer-In-Charge while respondent Ronnie Turla (―respondent Turla‖) was a member of its faculty. On 13 July 1998. a certain Erlinda Yabut (―Yabut‖). FACTS: Petitioner Celsa P. The 19 June 2000 Order denied the motion for reconsideration. HELD: The Public Respondent did not Gravely Abuse His Discretion in Dismissing OMB 1-99-2467 for lack of probable cause It is the Court‘s policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman‘s exercise of his constitutionally mandated prosecutory powers. Acuña against respondents Pedro Pascua and Ronnie Turla. another ACNTS teacher. Public respondent found no evidence to indict respondents for perjury. was not ―the same‖ as her complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 and (2) it was Yabut and not respondent Pascua who called the 16 July 1998 meeting. petitioner filed the petition before the Supreme Court contending that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing her complaint for lack of probable cause. Private respondents denied the charge against them and sought the dismissal of the complaint. 19 Contending that private respondents perjured themselves in their sworn statements in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387. The 4 April 2000 Resolution dismissed for lack of probable cause the complaint for perjury of petitioner Celsa P. later endorsed to the DECS.R. hence.G. Acuña (―petitioner‖) is a former teacher of the Angeles City National Trade School (―ACNTS‖) in Angeles City. Respondent Pascua agreed to the request and the meeting took place on 16 July 1998. As an offshoot to an incident during the 16 July 1998 meeting. petitioner charged respondent Pascua with misconduct (―OMBADM-1-99-0387‖) and with violation of Article 131 (perjury) of the Revised Penal Code (―OMB 1-99-903‖) before the Office of the Ombudsman (―Ombudsman‖). Petitioner sought reconsideration but public respondent denied her motion in the 19 June 2000 Order. Petitioner alleged that private respondents were liable for perjury because: (1) the complaint she and Yabut filed against respondent Pascua before the Civil Service Commission. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and . Petitioner.
Petitioner. 44778. 1994. FACTS: The record shows that complainant [Lucero]. she entered into a memorandum of agreement with E. On August 8. including the condominium unit. The Court. Jr.655. versus ELEANOR R.00. to add insult to injury. she executed an affidavit of adverse claim and annotated it on the title on March 21. Catenza. delegated his authority to the respondent. Through the use of the aforementioned fictitious documents. Makati Cinema Square Tower located along Pasong Tamo. 1992 to make it appear that she transferred the ownership of the condominium unit. in the present case. condominium Certificate of Title No. 1989. as used in preliminary investigations.00 with the same bank (RCBC) using the same property as collateral even after the transport business he was managing for the complainant had .000. Jr. that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor. 143169 CARPIO The Case This petition for review assails the 29 October 1999 Decision and 25 April 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Graciano P. When she learned of the fraudulent transfer. as her attorney-in-fact on November 20. respondent. Makati for P2. Inc. Catenza. is a businesswoman and a native of Pangasinan.prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. is defined as the ―existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief. Probable cause. found no reason to deviate from this long-standing policy. for the purchase of Condominium Unit 1512. Respondents. immediately secured an additional loan in the amount of P700.R. As she is a resident of Guam. the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it. SP No. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. Guingona. Ganzon.000. 23578 was issued in the name of respondent by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City which title he used as a collateral to secure a loan in the amount of P2. in a reasonable mind.00 from the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). and THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF MAKATI CITY. LUCERO.‖ Case 20 JIMMY ANG. her title was cancelled and in lieu thereof. in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. Otherwise. 1990 to manage and administer all her businesses and properties in the Philippines. an American citizen. Respondent/complainant filed against petitioner a criminal complaint for estafa through failsification of public documents for falsifying a letter of authorization dated 6 July 1992 and to make it appear that she authorized petitioner to register the condominium unit in his name and the Deed of Assignment dated June 22. she appointed by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. however. No.R. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Jimmy Ang and affirmed the 20 Resolutions issued by former Secretary of Justice Teofisto T. The day after the thirty-day effectivity period of the adverse claim lapsed.417.000. 2005 Jan 21 G.
it was not Lucero‘s intention to transfer the Property to Ang. In a preliminary investigation. petitioner before the Supreme Court. In this case. A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties‘ evidence. It does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. Thereafter. Ang used the Deed of Assignment to transfer the ownership of the Property from Lucero to him. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and affirming the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice. though the signature in the Deed of Assignment appears to be her signature. 1512. Respondent failed to act on complainant‘s demands for accounting and for the reconveyance to her of Condominium Unit No.ceased operation already. ―probable cause‖ is concerned with probability. Ang moved for a reinvestigation. ISSUE: Whether or not the findings of the Secretary of Justice of probable cause for estafa valid? HELD: Ang‘s contentions are untenable. (1) for estafa under Article 315. There is also probable cause that Ang committed estafa by falsification of public document. The Deed of Assignment is a public document since it is notarized. not absolute or moral certainty. The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. paragraph 1 (c) of the Revised Penal Code and (2) for estafa through falsification of public document. Hence. Case 21. Ang calls on this Court to assume the function of a public prosecutor. Ang admitted typing the Deed of Assignment over Lucero‘s signature in blank.‖ A preliminary investigation was conducted finding probable cause against Ang.‖ However. TORRES VS AGUINALDO . In this case. Whether Lucero granted Ang the authority to sell and mortgage the Property is a question which requires an examination of the parties‘ evidence. whether Ang took advantage of Lucero‘s signature is a question that should be presented and resolved during the trial. Prosecutor Bautista recommended the filing of two (2) informations. However. the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed 21 and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. As implied by the words themselves. the NBI found the signature on the Authorization Letter a ―traced forgery. Lucero appealed the dismissal of the complaint to the Department of Justice and the resolution was reversed. Lucero claims that she was prejudiced by virtue of the Deed of Assignment. Prosecutor Wilfredo Ong of the CPO Makati reconsidered Prosecutor Bautista‘s resolution of 17 April 1995 and dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Ang‘s arguments are essentially evidentiary matters that must be presented and heard during the trial. and should be held for trial. Lucero claims that the Deed of Assignment was falsified because she was out of the country when it was executed. The NBI found the signature on the Deed of Assignment and Lucero‘s sample signatures to have been written by ―one and the same person. Moreover. Petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and TRO was filed.
Issue: Whether or not evidence of a respondent in a criminal case should be considered during the preliminary investigation in determining if probable cause exists to indict him for the crime charged. Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of an information against Torres. the Sandiganbayan denied on 22 . 1991. On October 21. Torres moved for reconsideration but was denied. It does not contemplate a judicial function. preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the prosecutor. Generally. as well as other supporting documents. Aguinaldo filed petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeal which was granted. Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure not only requires the submission of the complaint and the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses. Case 22 Romualdez vs Marcelo 470 SCRA 763 Facts : A warrant of arrest was issued on February 28. alleging that the preliminary investigation conducted by Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was invalid for lack of jurisdiction. and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Section 4 thereof also mandates the investigating prosecutor to certify under oath in the information that the accused was informed of the complaint and the evidence against him.Facts: Torres. It is not a trial on the merits and has no purpose except to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. and often. 1989.Due to his noncompliance with these terms. Information was withdrawn and petitioner has not been arraigned. he filed through counsel a Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest.T-87764-65 were transferred without their knowledge and consent in the name of Torres. They alleged that the title to their properties covered by TCT No. 'It does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy. but this was not served because of petitioner‘s exile from the country. It is essentially an inquisitorial proceeding. It is well to note that Section 3. the petitioner. the only means of ascertaining who may be reasonably charged with a crime. was charged for the falsification of public documents by forging the Deed of Absolute Sale of property of the Spouses Edgardo and Nelia Aguinaldo. Held: Preliminary investigation is executive in character. On appeal DOJ reversed the findings and ordered withdrawal of the information. T-93596. but also directs the respondent to submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense.
Lawi. Issue : . After the reinvestigation. However. He claims he is entitled to a preliminary investigation since he was not informed that he is being charged for the alleged dismissal of the complaining witnesses and that he was not given the opportunity to explain. but the alleged willful. 1992 petitioner‘s motion to recall the warrant of arrest. Esmael A.January 24. Muslimin Unga and Naimah Unte with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which the Sandiganbayan denied on April 24. Pursuant thereto. there is no need for a new complaint to be filed by PCGG because the Ombudsman. Hyria Mastura and Faizal I. Annabelle Zailon. this Court declared invalid the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG for lack of jurisdiction. petitioner alleged that the amended information charges an entirely new cause of action. unlawful and illegal dismissal from the service of the complaining witnesses.Petitioner argues that the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated 12 January 2004 and 03 November 2004 admitting the Amended Information charging a new offense without conducting a preliminary investigation were issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Matalam Thereafter. Case 23 Matalam vs Sandiganbayan 455 SCRA 737 Facts : An information 15 November 2004 was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Datu Guimid Matalam. Ansari M.In his Motion to Dismiss. 1992In a Decision dated May 16. Zailon. Issue: Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner‘s motion to dismiss the preliminary investigation? Ruling: No. the public prosecutor filed a ―Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information Deleting the Names of Other Accused Except Datu Guimid Matalam to which petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to the Motion to Admit the Alleged Amended Information Against the Accused Guimid P. Moreover. the public prosecutor filed his Reply to which petitioner filed a Rejoinder. on its own. The corpus delicti of the amended information is no longer his alleged refusal to pay the backwages ordered by the Civil Service Commission. Pendatun Mambatawan. as amended. Abdul E. The Supreme Court ruled. Ayunan. Habib 23 A. it held that the invalidity or absence of a preliminary investigation did not affect the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or impair the validity of the informations. He insists that the amended information charging a separate and entirely different offense cannot be admitted because there would be a serious violation of due process of law. 1995. may conduct a preliminary investigation of offenses committed by public officers. Ebrahim. for their alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims of Kasan I. the denial of his motion to dismiss was concomitant with Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman disallowing a motion to dismiss except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. that the Ombudsman is the proper authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of the alleged offenses committed by petitioner. Bajunaid. 3019. Hadil.
it is the illegal dismissal from the service of the private complainants. Other improper acts. Case 24 DR. The petition originated from a letter complaint from Beatriz L. petitioner.Thus. OSORIO. on 29 January 1998. while in the amended information.However. suspending the 24 petitioner from her position as principal of Dr. DESIERTO. before or after a plea. The recital of facts constituting the offense charged was definitely altered. a new preliminary investigation is not required. 4. 2002 which affirmed in toto the 12 January 2001 Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas in. the Office of the OmbudsmanManila.R. Failure to account for the rentals of the school facilities.R. from all students of Bohol National High School and non-remittance of all the contributions to BSP and GSP. Treatment of money from the school canteen as her personal money. Falsification of travel representation allowances. Cecilio Putong National High School (formerly Bohol National High School). if the amended information contains a charge related to or is included in the original information. Conspiracy with treasure hunters in digging under the main ground of the school building for Yamashita treasures. document to claim bigger Acting on the complaint. No. 3. the alleged illegal dismissal from the service of the private complainants. and 8. 2005 Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the 13 December 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. In the course of that investigation. Cecilio Putong National High School. Double mandatory collection supposedly for the Boy and Girl Scouts of the Philippines. Ready-made bidding with supplier of school-needed materials. requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation to verify the alleged anomalies at the Dr. ANIANO A. and arose from. 5. Versus HON. 156652 Promulgated October 13. However. In the original information. the NBI found: .whether or not petitioner was deprived of due process of law when the Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Information without conducting another or new preliminary investigation? Ruling : The amendment was indeed substantial. it cannot be denied that the alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay monetary claims is related to. the prohibited act allegedly committed by petitioner was the illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims of the private complainants. BENITA F. 67511 dated December 13. SP No. G. 2. Tenorio to the Ombudsman alleging that the petitioner committed the following acts: 1. a substantial amendment in an information entitles an accused to another preliminary investigation. as well as the order dated 17 July 2001 denying petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration. 7. Non-remittance to the school trust funds of money from the sale of old newspapers to the school and appropriation of the said amount to herself. 6.
the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas was convinced that allegations no. After evaluating the report of the COA auditors. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the other issues raised by the petitioner on certiorari are purely questions of evidence and not of law. On 17 February 1998. Nestor Robles under preventive suspension. the Office of the Ombudsman-Manila requested audit specialists from the COA to conduct a thorough investigation on the alleged anomalies at the Dr. the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas found probable cause against petitioner for five (5) counts of Malversation of Public Funds and five (5) counts of violations of Section 3(e) of Rep. the investigating auditors submitted a sworn affidavit. and should be held for trial. Decision: On the first issue raised by petitioner. the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas ordered petitioner and Mr. . The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas denied petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration in its order dated 17 July 2001. Petitioner believes that without a clarificatory hearing. as amended. Section 1 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a wellfounded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. and b) that she issued a memorandum through which students were charged more than the allowable fees for their membership with Boy and Girl Scouts of the Philippines. Nestor Robles to file their respective counter-affidavits to the complaint. In a resolution dated 12 January 2001. Cecilio Putong National High School. she bewails respondent court‘s ruling decreeing that a clarificatory hearing in the instant criminal case is optional on the part of the investigating prosecutor. Later. Subsection (e) of Section 3 and of the same rule provides: 25 On 17 December 1998. In an order dated 27 January 1999. The foregoing provision sets forth the purpose of preliminary investigation which is to determine whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. but did not remit the proceeds thereof to the school. On 05 February 1999. It found prima facie case of five (5) counts of Malversation of Public Funds against petitioner on the proceeds of the sale of the school‘s old newspapers on five occasions. it is impossible for the investigating prosecutor to resolve numerous irreconcilable issues and arrive at a lawful indictment. 4 were duly substantiated while the rest of the allegations were not. the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas issued an order placing petitioner and Mr. denying participation in the alleged irregularities. on 15 March 1999. 2. 1 to no. 3019. petitioner and corespondent Robles submitted their respective counter-affidavits. Act No. Issues: 1.a) that petitioner Osorio authorized the sale of newspapers. Whether the Court of Appeals is correct in ruling that the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it opted not to conduct a clarificatory hearing in the case of the petitioner.
Due to Ronald‘s continued vomiting. Lorendo‘s mom alleged . 2006 26 LAILA G. Petitioner. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. It is the call of the investigating prosecutor. . Case 25 G. banged his head against that of his classmate Lorendo Orayan ("Lorendo"). Magdalena inspected Ronald‘s head and saw a woundless contusion. The following morning. Subsequently. Magdalena brought him to a quack doctor (arbularyo) on 5 December 1999. however. 67511 dated 13 December 2002 affirming in toto the resolution dated 12 January 2001 and the order dated 17 July 2001 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas is AFFIRMED. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. Blood oozed out of Ronald‘s nose before he died on 9 December 1999.R. No. submit to the investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned. They may. There is no certainty. The Inquest Proceedings which will be the primary defence citation of the petitioner stated that: Evidence warrants the release of the respondent for further investigation of the charges against her. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. The case is not proper for inquest as the incident complained of. whether to conduct a clarificatory hearing or not. Quezon City on 10 December 1999 stating that on 4 December 1999. Lorendo also executed a sworn statement narrating how petitioner banged his head against Ronald‘s. The attending physician informed Magdalena that Ronald‘s head had a fracture. The instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. he may not hold a clarificatory hearing. vs. Further. When asked what happened. Ronald replied that petitioner. Dacarra ("Magdalena") executed before the Women‘s Desk of the CPD Police Station in Batasan Hills. . SP No. DACARRA. who was Ronald‘s teacher. During the said preliminary investigation. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. Magdalena brought Ronald to the East Avenue Medical Center where he underwent an x-ray. and ERLINDA P. If he believes that the evidence before him is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. 147932 January 25. her nine-year-old son Ronald complained of dizziness upon arriving home at about six in the evening and then vomited. Respondents. the evidence insufficient to support the charge for homicide against the respondent. the investigator need not hold a clarificatory hearing. The decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator and the investigator alone. ORAYAN. As held in Webb v. There is no concrete evidence to show proof that the alleged banging of the heads of the two minor victims could be the actual and proximate cause of the death of the minor. If the evidence on hand already yields a probable cause. the case was referred for preliminary investigation. The Facts The present case arose from a sworn statement of respondent Magdalena B. The consistent and general policy of the Court is not to interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman‘s exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers. De Leon: . that respondent‘s alleged wrongdoing contributed or caused the death of said victim. in the exercise of his sound discretion. MAGDALENA B. DE OCAMPO.R. therefore.
Rather than being mandatory. Whether petitioner was denied due process during the preliminary investigation. It is only in petitioner‘s mind that some "crucial points" still exist and need clarification. Whether there is probable cause against petitioner for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 10(a). A clarificatory hearing is not indispensable during preliminary investigation. Due process is merely an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner further asserted that the causes of death stated in Ronald‘s Death Certificate are hearsay and inadmissible in the preliminary investigation. She merely recommended petitioner‘s release for further investigation since the case was not proper for inquest and the evidence was then insufficient. during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. Article VI of RA 7610. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty . Article VI of RA 7610 and for violation of Section 10(a). Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent isprobably guilty of the crime. It is not a trial of the case on the merits. Petitioner was not deprived of due process since both parties were accorded equal rights in arguing their case and presenting their respective evidence during the preliminary investigation. The DOJ Secretary held that there was no bias in complainants‘ favor when the investigating prosecutor did not conduct a clarificatory hearing and unilaterally procured the autopsy report as nothing precluded her from doing so. he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses. and 2. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the DOJ. The DOJ Secretary rejected petitioner‘s claim that she is innocent as held by the inquest prosecutor. In any event.that she was bribed by the petitioner and presented said bribe money. The inquest prosecutor did not dismiss the case. There is probable cause for the offenses charged against petitioner. xxx15 (emphasis supplied) In this case. The DOJ Secretary denied the petition for review. the investigating prosecutor no longer conducted hearings after petitioner submitted her counter-affidavit. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties‘ evidence. 27 Ruling: Absence of a clarificatory hearing The Court rejects petitioner‘s contention that she was denied due process when the investigating prosecutor did not conduct a clarificatory hearing. a clarificatory hearing is optional on the part of the investigating officer as evidenced by the use of the term "may" in Section 3(e) of Rule 112: (e) If the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be clarified. Her counter argument contained: The findings of the inquest proceedings Petitioner assailed the omission in Magdalena‘s sworn statement about Ronald‘s head injury due to a vehicular accident in November 1997. This simply means that at that point the investigating prosecutor believed that there were no more matters for clarification. Also 2 other witnesses swore they saw petitioner banging the heads of the minors as well as physically abusing them. Issues: 1. Petitioner also alleged that the witnesses have immature perception. petitioner can raise these "important" matters during the trial proper. The investigating prosecutor issued a Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner for the offenses charged.
32 grams of shabu which was positively identified by a chemist from the PNP crime laboratory in camp Vicente Lim. Tanauan. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of P100.C. Case 27 People of the Phil. the buy bust team witnessed the sale of shabu and it was duly accorded the immediacy between the time of commission of the offense and the time of the arrest. the buy bust team has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant accepted payment for the contraband. the police team headed by Major Ablang secured an entrapment operation against the accused appellant through a buy-bust. In effect. Although said defendants filed appealed the judgement but the decision of the court was affirmed with modification. however. 1993 Cesar Givera together with Epifanio Geralde and Arturo Geralde were charged with the same offense at the RTC of Q. Issues: 1. Thus. Batangas for violation of PD 1866 and RA 6425. In due course. 1999 in Poblacion. the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of RA 6425. he was acquitted for the charge of violation of PD 1866 for lack of sufficient evidence. Whether or not appellant was framed up by the buy first team violation of Held In the case at bench.of the crime. petitioner admits the occurrence of the head-banging incident but denies committing it. there was no evidence that such an attempt to frame him up was made in this case. Prescinding to prove the fact and cause of death of Eusebio Gardon. the prosecution presented in evidence the testimony medico legal office P/ Maj Florante Baltazar wherein the . Branch 104 and were sentenced to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for the death of Eusebio Gardon. Further review of the record reveals that the second instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph (B) were met in this case in which the offense has just been committed and the person marking the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. 000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of the suit. under the name of Rodolfo Alonzo was able to purchase 206. Vs Cesar Givera On May 2. Whether or not appellant‘s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt 2. It was also proven that the VHS tape containing drugs were examined in PNP crime laboratory and positively tested for shabu. Petition is denied and the Resolutions affirmed. Concomitantly. More so. Arrest Case 26 People of the Philippines Vs German Agojo As alleged in the complaint. violation of RA 6425 was evidently proven by the prosecution through the testimony of Alonzo on the sale of illegal drugs and the identification of appellant as the seller is clear and 28 straightforward. A civilian informant. a decision was rendered and the three were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties prescribed by law. As regards to the issue of framed up. accused appellant German Luna was apprehended on August 24. In light of the foregoing decision of the RTC.
Suffice to say that the victim had very opportunity to escape from the attack because he had been forewarned by his daughter of the danger posed by the group of the accused appellant. the police officers were unable to secure the necessary warrants for fear of leaving the place of surveillance. recalled. Case 28 G. Issue: Whether or not the presence of reasonable doubt the court a quo has committed an error in convicting the accused appellant of the crime charged. The police officers were without warrants of arrest or search warrants at the time of the arrests and seizure of evidence. No. 117952-53 February 14. The law provides that a warrant of arrest remains enforceable until it is executed. The offenders were brought to the police station for questioning and detention. Issue: . 2001 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. accused-appellant. Facts: Appellant in this case was under surveillance for illegal possession of dangerous drugs by the police. Secondly. Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and Unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.testimony shows that the victim sustained one fatal stab wound possibly caused by a single bladed weapon. no reason to doubt their identification by the prosecution witness. and therefore. Accused-appellant contended that his arrest and the search conducted incidental to his arrest were illegal as the surrounding circumstances of the arrest were not within the purview of the allowable warrantless arrests under Rule 113. DANILO DE GUZMAN y PEREZ. Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court. As the operation was conducted largely during night-time.R. Milagroso Gardon and another witness Melinda Delfin testified against the accused and it is noteworthy that they knew accused appellant and the other assailants and that in fact some of them are related to witnesses. 29 Lastly the testimony of the medico legal officer was inadmissible for failure of the adverse party to cross examine the officer. Nonetheless evident premeditation and treachery cannot be appreciated in this case for the very reason that the victim is not totally oblivious of the impending attack by all the group of the accused appellant. 1993 with the assistance of his counsel de officio. detailed and arid consistent. Collorarily the daughter of the victim. He pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. vs. Markworthy to note that the accused – appellant are even related by affinity to the deceased and residing within the vicinity where the crime was committed . Accused-appellant assails his conviction and raised the issue that the trial court committed a patent reversible error in not finding that the evidence so far presented was obtained in an illegal search before the Supreme Court. plaintiff-appellee. Thirdly. or quashed. Accused-appellant was arraigned on February 22. The RTC of Cavite convicted Danilo de Guzman for violation of RA 6425. the evidence convincingly and unequivocally shows a coordinated action by the group in the execution of the crime. forthwith with the allegations of conspiracy. his arrest by virtue of a warrant of arrest was deemed waived because he failed to move for the question of the information before the trial court when he entered a plea of not guilty and participated in the trial. Held: The court finds the petition devoid of merit First and foremost: It is clearly apparent that the prosecution presented evidence and testimonies of witnesses were quoted as spontaneous. The policemen however did not arrest him immediately but waited for him to be caught in flagrante delicto for selling shabu and possessing unlicensed gun and a magazine.
1996. arrest a person: (a) When. Molina replied.Whether the arrest was illegal Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and found that the contention of the accused untenable. 1866. Thereafter. Section 5 (a) of the Rules of Court provides that: Sec. x x x In the case at bar. Ma-a. ISSUE: Whether or not the marijuana is in admissible evidence for having been seized in violation of appellants constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures? HELD: The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion. He called forassistance at the PNP proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where they would wait for the alleged pusher to pass by. As toaccused-appellant Molina. SPO1 Cuevas. as the pusher. Furthermore. 30 accused-appellant Mula. Rule 113. No. SPO1Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked accused-appellant Molina to open the bag. which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside.‖ SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag. without a warrant. the names and addressesof the accusedappellants came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were arrested. Instead. papers. The police officers then ordered the ―trisikad‖ to stop. SPO1Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the pushers.At that instance. when lawful. is actually committing. SPO1 Paguidopon received an information regarding the presence of an allegedmarijuana pusher in Davao City. 2. Davao City. His informer pointed to the motorcycle driver.A peace officer or a private person may. The Constitution provides: SEC. SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see him before the arrest. Clearly. Section 1. that he saw accused-appellant sniff "shabu". In the morning of August 8. houses. at the time of the arrest. if possible we will settle this. 5. Case 29 People of the Philippines versus Molina FACTS: Sometime in June 1996. a ―trisikad‖ carrying the accused-appellants passed by. Accused-appellants contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from them is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. ―Boss. Arrest without warrant. . and no search warrant orwarrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under . and effects againstunreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. the person to be arrested has committed. Any irregularity .D.1996. the police officers waited for the needed opening to validly arrest the accused.Moreover. Despite word from their fellow officer. A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the police officers' manner of conducting the accused-appellant's arrest was not tainted with any constitutional infirmity. or is attempting to commit an offense.was therefore cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. in his presence. accused-appellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the police officers. SPO1 Paguidopon received an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA. they resisted the first impulse to storm the rented cottage which could have caused them to seriously disregard constitutional safeguards. it was in violation of P.At around 9:30 in the morning of August 8. accused-appellant in this case is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest upon his failure to move for quashal of the information against him prior to his arraignment and entry of plea. accused-appellant was caught by the police officers in flagrante delicto while carrying a firearm without the necessary permit or license.
a peace officer or a private person may. The Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under the exceptions allowed by the rules. or has escaped while being transferred from oneconfinement to another (arrest of escaped prisoners). Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in thefollowing instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest.These circumstances could not have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a closer look at accused-appellant Mula.The Rules of Court. 1998 the accused Manuel Galvez together with unidentified companions attack. which injuries eventually caused the latter‘s death at a local fair inside the DM Compound in Heroes del 98. before the arrest.It is worthy to note that. (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonablesearches and seizures. investigator of the Station Investigation Division of the Caloocan City police told him that he was a suspect in the killing of Romen Castro and he pleaded not guilty. In the case at bar.Consequently. He was not shown a warrant when he was arrested nor was he interviewed by the policemen at the headquarters. an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. however. (2) search of a moving motor vehicle. Caloocan City where SPO2 Vivencio Gamboa. he was later forced by a barangay tanod Arturo Saligumba to board a taxi and go to the police headquarters in Sangandaan. It is doubtful if SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized accusedappellant Mula.In holding a bag on board atrisikad. accused-appellants could not be said to be committing. if possible we will settle this‖ is anequivocal statement which standing alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an inflagrante delicto arrest. the person to be arrested has committed. in his presence. and particularly describing the place to be searched andthe persons or things to be seized.oathor affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. SPO1 Paguidopon admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest. accused-appellants manifested no outward indicationthat would justify their arrest. (3) search in violation ofcustoms laws.Thus. he was able to see Mula in person only once. and stab with a bladed weapon Romen Castro.attempting to commit or have committed a crime. is actually committing.Withrespect to accused-appellant Molina. accused-appellants could not be the subject of any suspicion.Note thatwere it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did not participate in the arrest but merely pointed accused-appellants to thearresting officers). (4) seizure of evidence in plain view. arrest a person: (a)when. Several witnesses identified Manuel Galvez as the assailant. pinpointed to him by his informer whilethey were on the side of the road. thesearch conducted on their person was likewise illegal. The response of Molina that ―Boss.recognizes permissible warrantless arrests.WHERE FORE accused are ACQUITTED Case 30 People of the philippines versus Galvez FACTS: At around 11:30 in the evening of May 9. Although allegedly released. SPO1 31 Paguidopon onlylearned Mula‘s name and address after the arrest. without warrant.ii and (6) stop and frisk situations. SPO1 Alberto Lizarondo then went to Manuel Galvez invite him to the victim‘s house for clarification however the relatives denied Manuel Galvez as the assailant therefore the SPO1 Alberto Lizarondo release him. considering that the latter was then driving a motorcycle when SPO1 Paguidopon caught a glimpse of him.and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is servingfinal judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending. reasonable or otherwise. Caloocan City.Hence. the marijuana seized by the peace officers could not beadmitted as evidence. As a rule. or is attempting to commit an offense(arrest in flagrante delicto). (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based onpersonal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit). Later that same . assault.
Indeed. No. 121877 September 12. later identified as Isaac Lamera. In addition. and Ray Ban sunglasses would be transporting marijuana along the national highway. No. SPO1 Alberto Lizarondo said he saw Galvez in the police station and SPO1 Lizarondo asked why Galvez was there.560 kilograms. the prosecution presented the following object and documentary evidence: (1) ten bundles of dried marijuana leaves or fruiting tops. Iloilo received information that a woman with long hair. the defense presented appellant herself and Isaac Lamera. accused-appellant Galvez waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest. finding accused-appellant Manuel Galvez guilty of murder and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. J. The fact that the arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts point to the culpability of the accused. The prosecution presented two witnesses. his arrest without a warrant cannot be justified. According to the tipped information. 2001 32 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. wearing maong pants and jacket. . It is now settled that objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea.R.A. Arturo Saligumba admitted that he arrested Galvez on the basis solely of what Reynaldo Castro had told him and not because he saw accusedappellant commit the crime charged against him. plaintiff-appellee.day. vs. however. PO1 Reggie Pedroso and Angela Baldevieso. namely. They alighted from their car and asked her who owns the traveling bag. Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R. weighing 9. The woman denied ownership of the bag but trisikaddriver. the prosecution admitted that there was no warrant of arrest issued against accused-appellant when the latter was taken into custody. Case 31 G. (2) Physical Sciences Report No. the trisikad driver. the woman would bring a black traveling bag and would ride a trisikad. PNP forensic chemist and (3) black traveling bag. The decision of the RTC of Caloocan City was affirmed with modification. D-087-93 issued by Angela Baldevieso. QUISUMBING. A mobile patrol in the poblacion of Dueñas and along the national highway was conducted and they passed by a woman who fitted the informer‘s description. ERLINDA GONZALES Y EVANGELISTA. forensic chemist of the PNP. By entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial. She was standing along the national highway holding a black traveling bag in a trisikad. but the relatives of the victim and the other witnesses told him that the reason they said nothing when he asked them to identify Galvez was because of fear. the latter pointed to the woman as the owner of the said bag. Hence both were arrested.: Facts of the Case: Appellant Erlinda Gonzales y Evangelista was convicted violating Section 4. ISSUE: Whether or Not the arrest executed on Manuel Galvez was illegal arrest HELD: Accused-appellants arrest was illegal. accusedappellant. otherwise the objection is deemed waived. 6425) and sentenced her to life imprisonment. Considering that accused-appellant was not committing a crime at the time he was arrested nor did the arresting officer have any personal knowledge of facts indicating that accused-appellant committed a crime. On the other hand. PO1 Reggie Pedroso narrated that the Chief of Police of Dueñas.
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. Furthermore the testimony of Lamera. (5) customs search. Lamera. Art.A. 4. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. and convicted appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. the trisikad driver. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. II of R. . Issues of the Case: (1) WON the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible and sufficient to prove appellant‘s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A witness who makes two sworn statements which are contradictory to his testimony in court impeaches his own credibility. and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above. On the second issue.00) and the costs. the positive testimony of the apprehending policeman outweighs appellant‘s negative testimony. Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. houses. WHEREFORE. Nevertheless. Branch 39. with the MODIFICATION that appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20.000. 6425 as amended. disbelieved the defense. also testified that he had no involvement too. the trisikad driver on the witness stand materially contradicts his sworn statements . (4) consented warrantless search. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal transport of marijuana is AFFIRMED.basic is the rule that no arrest. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.000. The court found for the prosecution. or is attempting to commit an offense. as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a 33 lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances: (a) When. the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112. (2) WON appellant‘s warrantless arrest legal. Ruling of the Court: On the first issue. in his presence. Moreover. and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20. finding appellant ERLINDA GONZALES Y EVANGELISTA. (b) When an offense has just been committed. as pointed out by the Solicitor General. (2) seizure of evidence in plain view. and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. is actually committing. (6) stop and frisk. thereby making the bricks of marijuana leaves allegedly seized from her admissible in evidence. the person to be arrested has committed. (3) search of a moving vehicle.Appellant denied her involvement in the drug transport.00 and the costs.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.