This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
[CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGEST BY KEISHA L. ROJAS]
People vs Nitafan
FACTS: On January 9, 1992, three criminal informations for violation of Section 4 of Central Bank Circular No. 960, as amended, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 were filed against private respondent Imelda R. Marcos before Branch 158 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig. Said Informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 90384-92, 90385-92 and 90386-92 were amended prior to arraignment. After arraignment, where private respondent pleaded not guilty, the RTC of Pasig granted the motion for consolidation. Before the Manila RTC, the three (3) informations were re-raffled and re-assigned instead to Branch 52-Manila presided by public respondent Judge Nitafan wherein the three informations (CriminalCases Nos. 90384-92, 90385-92 and 90386-92) were re-numbered as Criminal Case Nos. 92-107942; 92-107943 and 92-107944. Thereafter, without private respondent yet taking any action of filing any motion to quash the informations, respondent judge issued an order requiring petitioners to show cause why criminal case number 92-107942 should not be dismissed on the ground that it violates private respondent's right against ex post facto law, and on the same day, respondent judge issued another order requiring the prosecution to show cause why the two other criminal informations (92-107943 and 92-107944) should not be dismissed on the ground that private respondent's right to double jeopardy was violated. It is respondent judge's posture that based on the Solicitor-General's allegations in its Motion for Consolidation filed on Branch 58-Pasig that the three cases form part of a series of transactions which are subject of the cases pending before Branch 26-Manila, all these cases constitute one continuous crime. Respondent judge further stated that to separately prosecute private respondent for a series of transaction would endow it with the "functional ability of a worm multiplication or amoeba reproduction". Thus, accused would be unduly vexed with multiple jeopardy. In the two orders, respondent judge likewise said that the dismissal of the three "seemingly unmeritorious" and "duplicitous" cases would help unclogged his docket in favor of more serious suits. The prosecution complied with the twin show cause orders accompanied by a motion to inhibit respondent judge. However respondent judge denied motion for consolidation embodied in the prosecution's compliance with the show cause orders for some reasons. Thereafter, respondent judge issued an 8-page order dismissing criminal case no. 92-107942 on the ground that the subject CB Circular is an ex post facto law. In a separate17-page order dated August 10, 1992, respondent judge also dismissed the two remaining criminal cases (92-107943 & 92-107944) ruling that the prosecution of private respondent was "part of a sustained political vendetta" by some people in the government aside from what he considered as a violation of private respondent's right against double jeopardy. From his disquisition regarding continuing, continuous and continued offenses and his discussion of mala prohibita, respondent judge further ratiocinated his dismissal order in that the pendency of the other cases before Branch 26-Manila had placed private respondent in double jeopardy because of the three cases before his sala. The prosecution filed two separate motions for reconsideration which respondent judge denied in a single order dated September 7, 1992 containing 19 pages. Hence this petition for certiorari filed by the prosecution. ISSUE: 1. whether a judge can motu proprio initiate the dismissal and subsequently dismissed a criminal information or complaint without any motion to that effect being filed by the accused based on the alleged violation of the latter's right against ex post facto
3 and 8 of Rule 117. That the initial act to quash an information is lodged with the accused is further supported by Sections 2. There is nothing in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu proprio initiate a motion to quash if no such motion was filed by the accused. As such. Such proscription on considerations of other grounds than those specially pleaded in the motion to quash is premised on the rationale that the rights to these defenses are waivable on the part of the accused. the sole exception is lack of jurisdiction over the offense . even if at the time of the filing thereof. Section 3 states that "the accused" may file a motion. It is therefore clear that the only grounds which the court may consider in resolving a motion to quash an information or complaint are (1) those grounds stated in the motion and (2) the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. (f) and (h) of section 3 of this Rule. Other than that. Otherwise. the grounds of no offense charged. ROJAS] law and double jeopardy. (emphasis supplied). she is deemed to have waived and abandoned her right to avail of any legal ground which she may have properly and timely invoke to challenge the complaint or information pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 1 17 which provides: Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefore — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information. — At any time before entering his plea. Thus. and that by claiming to wave said right. In the case at at bench. It is clear from the above rule that the accused may file a motion to quash an information at an information time before entering a plea or before arraignment. private respondent pleaded to the charges without filing any motion to quash. it may be properly invoked by the defendant. Thereafter. Neither the court nor the judge was mentioned. whether or not mentioned in the motion. either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in his motion. grounds which have not been sharply pleaded in the motion cannot be taken cognizance of by the court. Pursuant to the Rules. extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy. Section 2 further ordains that the court is proscribed from considering any ground other than those stated in the motion which should be "specify(ied) distinctly" therein. and. he is deemed to have desired these matters to be litigated upon in a fullblown trial. then he is not only pre-judging the case of the prosecution but also takes side with the accused. shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash. the filing of a motion to quash is a right that belong to the accused who may waived it by inaction and not an authority for the court to assume. if the judge initiates the motion to quash. Section 1. Sec. 2013 [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGEST BY KEISHA L. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. It is the latter who is in the best position to know on what ground/s he will based his objection to the information. This would violate the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. (emphasis supplied) It is also clear from Section 1 that the right to file a motion to quash belongs only to the accused. no motion to quash can be entertained by the court except under the circumstances mentioned in Section 8 of Rule 117 which adopts the omnibus motion to rule.September 17. Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: Time to move to quash. 2 requires that the motion must be signed by "accused" or "his counsel". Section 8 refers to the consequence if "the accused" do not file such motion. the accused may move to quash the complaint or information. A motion contemplates an initial action originating from the accused. as provided for in paragraphs (a). (b). except.
On ex post facto law. With respect to the ground of double jeopardy invoked by respondent judge. Sec. (4) when a valid plea has been entered. will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute or rule nor declare it void unless directly assailed in an appropriate action. and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted. or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction. . neither private respondent nor the Solicitor-General challenges it. much more the lower courts. However. the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged. 2013 [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGEST BY KEISHA L. suffice it to say that every laws carries with it the presumption of constitutionality until otherwise declared by this court. or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. To rule that the CB Circular is an ex post facto law is to say that it is unconstitutional. 7. or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof. Double jeopardy connotes the concurrence of three requisites. or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. ROJAS] charged which goes into the competence of the court to hear and pass judgment on the cause. upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge.September 17. (b) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated. the first jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment. or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. This Court. (3) after arraignment. Rule 117 provides: When an accused has been convicted or acquitted. the same is improper and has neither legal nor factual basis in this case. and (c) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information. xxx xxx xxx Under said Section. (2) before a competent court. In this case. which are: (a) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. it is manifestly clear that no first jeopardy has yet attached nor any such jeopardy terminated. Petition Granted.
September 17. Branch 96. AAA testified that one night in June 2002.Trial on the merits ensued. while she was alone in her home. 2013 [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGEST BY KEISHA L. appellant entered her house. The victim. He pressed a knife on . ROJAS] Garcia vs CA FACTS: ISSUES: HELD: People vs Tabio FACTS: Appellant Jimmy Tabio was charged with three (3) counts of rape in a single Information Appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler. Aurora.
Hence. undressed himself. that the CA properly resolved the error. ROJAS] AAA’s breast. The SC held. Appellant’s wife and his brother-inlaw. Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear and unequivocal that both qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged with specificity in the information. and mounted her as she was seated on a bed.000. Appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty reclusion perpetua. the case is now before the Supreme Court for final decision. Therefore. However. Jaime Bautista. HELD: In the case at bar. the Court acquitted the appellant in the second and third count of rape since it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and modified the civil liabilities. but in relation to Criminal procedure we will discuss only the first issue. AAA further testified that the appellant on two succeeding occasions again entered her home and repeated the same acts on her. and ordered to pay to the victim P50. Appellant testified in his own behalf. fondled her breast. The appellate court found appellant guilty of all three (3) counts for simple rape only and not qualified rape. with modifications.00 as moral damages and P25. ISSUES: 1.September 17. she nonetheless had the mental age of a six-year old child. the effect of failure to move to quash or allege any of the ground therefore is deemed a waiver and the accused can be convicted as many offenses as alleged in the information. . removed her clothing. the appellant presented three errors.00 as civil indemnity. The CA affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. AAA was able to recognize the appellant as her house was lighted with a gas lamp. the Appellant is found GUILTY of only ONE count of simple rape and ACQUITTED of the TWO other counts of qualified rape. tried to corroborate his alibi through their own testimony. A doctor who had trained with the National Center for Mental Health testified that he had examined AAA and concluded that while she was 23 years old at the time of the rape.000. AAA’s mother and grand aunt also testified on her mental retardation and the occurrences after she had reported the rape to them. which is a ground for a motion to quash. The RTC handed down a decision finding appellant guilty and imposing the penalty of death on three (3) counts of qualified rape. 2013 [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGEST BY KEISHA L.000. Whether the RTC erred in finding him guilty of qualified rape with the penalty of death in view of the prosecution’s failure to allege a qualifying circumstance in the information. denying that he had raped AAA and offering as alibi that he was up in the mountain at the time of the rape. Three (3) separate acts of rape were charged in one information only. Wherefore. P50. Other witnesses for the prosecution presented testimony concerning AAA’s mental condition.00 as exemplary damages. The Court also observes that there is duplicity of the offenses charged in the information. He inserted his penis in her vagina and ejaculated. But the failure of appellant to interpose an objection on this ground constitutes waiver.
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.