You are on page 1of 6

6. CRESPO VS MOGUL Assistant Fiscal Proceso K.

. de Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo When the case was set for arraigment the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. denied by Judge Mogul\ Arraignment was later scheduled P filed for Petition for review

7. PEREZ VS. HAGONOY RURAL BANK Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. owns a Money Shop which employed petitioner Cristina O. Perez as Officer-in-Charge, Cashier and Teller, Alberto S. Fabian as Bookkeeper, and Cristina Medina and Milagros Martin as Solicitors/Field Managers Discrepancies in bookkeeping were late noted private respondent filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa against the aforementioned employees "prosecutor" issued a resolution finding prima facie evidence that the petitioner and her coemployees had committed the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents, and recommending the filing of the corresponding information against them with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan Secretary of justice ordering the prosecutor to cause the dismissal of the information against herein petitioner on the ground of insufficient evidence. private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus was for resolve and dispatch

Issue

if the trial court refuses to grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice will there not be a vacuum in the prosecution?

Ratio once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.

Doctrine Whether to approve or disapprove the stand taken by the prosecution is not the exercise of discretion required in cases like this. The trial judge must himself be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conclusion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. As a general rule, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with this Court (SC). Our duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that criminal

prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final.

8. STA ROSA MINING CO VS ZABALA P filed complaint for attempted theft against PR with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal Fiscal made a resolution stating the information for attempted theft be filed against PR. Case was later set for trial but respondent Fiscal filed a Second Motion to Dismiss the case. This second motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. Whereupon, respondent fiscal manifested that he would not prosecute the case and disauthorized any private prosecutor to appear therein. Hence, this petition for mandamus by P.

TC: dismissed the information coz (1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and, (2) that the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.

Doctrine When an accused invokes in a motion to quash the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense (Rule 117, Sec. 2 [a] Rules of Court), the sufficiency of the Information hinges on the question of whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, meet the essential elements of the offense defined in the law Ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in Section 60 of P.D. No. 705. - Elements of PD 705 - 1) That the accused cut, gathered, collected or removed timber or other forest products; 2) that the timber or other forest products cut, gathered, collected or removed belongs to the government or to any private individual; and 3) that the cutting, gathering, collecting or removing was without authority under a license agreement, lease, license, or permit granted by the state. Thus, the failure of the information to allege the true owner of the forest products is not material; it was sufficient that it alleged that the taking was without any authority or license from the government.

Doctrine institution of a criminal action is addresses to the sound discretion of the investigating fiscal. and when he decides not to file the information, in the exercise of his discretion, he may not be compelled to do so after the complaint has been presented, and certainly after the trial has been commenced, the court and not the fiscal has full control of it. The complaint cannot be withdrawn by the fiscal without the consent of the court. It is discretionary on the court where the case is pending to grant the motion to dismiss or deny the same Notwithstanding his personal convictions or opinions, the fiscal must proceed with his duty of presenting evidence to the court to enable the court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to the culpability of the accused.

10. PEOPLE VS ASUNCION Rolando Abadina, a former colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was charged before the Relations regional Trial Court, filing NCJR Quezon City, with the offense of Violation of Pres. Decree No. 1866 [ Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition) in an Information Upon motion of the accused, the respondent judge in a Resolution, dismissed the Information

9. PEOPLE VS CFI QUEZON private respondents were charged with the crime of qualified theft of logs

on the ground that it did not allege sufficient facts to constitute an offense, since the possession of loose firearms and explosives is not illegal per se, in view of Executive Order No. 107 which gives holders or possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition a period of six (6) months from its effectivity, extended to 31 December 1987 by Executive Order No. 222, within which to surrender the same to the proper authorities, without incurring any criminal liability therefor, except if the unlicensed firearm or ammunition is carried outside of one's residence, not for the purpose of surrendering the same, or used in the commission of any other offense, and there is no allegation in said information that the firearms and ammunition enumerated therein were carried outside the accused's residence or used in the commission of some other crime. Ps contention: it was not necessary for the prosecution to allege in the information that the firearms and ammunition, subject matter of this case, were brought out of the residence of the accused or were used by him in the commission or another offense, since these circumstances are not essential ingredients of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.

11. ILO V. CA Valentin Ilo, et al were charge before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur with the crime of arson where, after trial, Valentin Ilo and Silvestre Buela were found guilty. CA: Held that the crime charged comes under Article 321, paragraph 1 (more serious, heavier penalty), of the Revised Penal Code and not under the same article, paragraph 5. Paragraph 5: allegation that the building burned is used as a dwelling and is located in an uninhabited place Paragraph 1: set fire to the house "knowing it to be occupied at the time by one or more persons. Ps contention: that the information does not contain any allegation that the building burned is used as a dwelling and is located in an uninhabited place to make it come under Article 321, Paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, nor does it alleged that the accused set fire to the house "knowing it to be occupied at the time by one or more persons

Doctrine Knowledge on the part of the accused that the building set fire to is occupied, is an essential element of the form of arson defines in Article 549 of the Penal Code, (now Article 321, paragraph 1) and the information must contain allegations to that effect that the accused had such knowledge at the time of the commission of the crime in order to sustain a conviction under the article. the guilt of appellant and their subsequent conviction cannot rest on a mere presumption, but upon clear proof, while a substantial defect in the information cannot be cured by evidence, for that would jeopardize their right to be informed of the true nature of the offense they are charged.

Doctrine Court also ruled that in order that an information charging illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, under Republic Act No. 482, may be deemed sufficient, it must allege that the accused was using the unlicensed firearm or carrying it in his person at the time he was apprehended by the authorities with said firearm - Republic Act No. 482 which exempts from liability persons found in possession of unlicensed unless the firearm is used or carried in his person by the possessor

12. PEOPLE VS REGALA Defendants Rudy Regala and Delfin Flores were charged with the crime of murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority in an information filed by the provincial fiscal of Masbate with the Court of First Instance of Masbate. victim (Sgt. Juan Desilos Jr.) while maintaining peace and order at the exit gate of the Plaza Magallanes where the crime took place, was in complete PC uniform at the time the accused attacked him by reason of the latter's act of pushing the accused and his co-accused so as to prevent them from entering the plaza through its exit gate.

qualifying circumstance, although proven, would only be appreciated as aggravating circumstance. hence: can therefore be convicted only of the crime of homicide, aggravated by the circumstance of "in contempt or with insult to the public authorities, or as an "insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank ..." 13. PEOPLE VS ELISTERIO Information was filed against Elisterio in the CFI-Pasay for VIOLATION OF GENERAL ORDER NO. 6 in rel. to PAR. 2, PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 9. The elements of the offense punished by General Order No. 6 in relation to Par. 2, Presidential Decree No. 9, as amended, are first, the carrying of a firearm outside one's residence, and second, the motive for such act, which is "in furtherance of or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos or public disorder." Found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment

Doctrine appellant cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in authority because the information filed against appellant did not allege the essential elements of assault that the accused then knew that, before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. Coz it was only somewhat like "appellant 'attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of his official duties, ..." That the crime of assault was established by the evidence of the prosecution without any objection on the part of the accused cannot likewise cure the aforestated defect in the information so as to validly convict the accused thereof; because to do so would be convicting the accused of a crime not properly alleged in the body of the information in violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Like a qualifying circumstance, such knowledge must be expressly and specifically averred in the information; otherwise, in the absence of such allegation, the required knowledge, like a

Doctrine A reading of the information filed against the accused will readily show that the second element of the imputed crime is not alleged at all. although his act is not punishable under the laws invoked by the prosecution, it is undeniable that it comes under the provision of Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 4, for illegal possession of firearms. the nature and cause of the accusation are determined not by the name given to the offense but by the description of the manner and circumstances in which it was committed. The designation of the offense or of the law violated is a conclusion of law made by the

prosecuting officer but this is not binding on the court. That conclusion must ultimately be made only by the court itself after the trial and following its own ascertainment of the facts needed to constitute the elements of the crime attributed to the accused. If an essential element is not alleged to prove a graver crime, no conviction therefore may be rendered. Conversely, if the elements proved constitute a less serious offense, conviction therefor is justified although it is the higher offense that is alleged. it is the recitals of the facts of the commission of the offense, and not the nomenclature of the offense, that should determine the crime being charged in the information.

14. MATILDE VS JABSON 3 informations for theft were filed against laborers who stole insecticides from their employer. The informations were later amended from qualified theft to simple theft. P was found guilty but sought for reconsideration saying that in the absence of any allegation in the body of the information alleging specifically all the elements of the offense defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 133, he cannot be convicted and penalized under the aforesaid decree. Presidential Decree No. 133 placing a strong deterrent on workers and laborers from sabotaging the productive efforts of the industry where they are employed, through the imposition of heavier penalties for the theft of "any material, spare part, product, or article that he is working on, using or producing."

Court requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in an ordinary and concise language so as (a) to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged; and (b) to enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. The rule states that the statement need not necessarily be in the language of the statute. What is important is that the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged. In other words, the crime is stated in such a way that a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law. 4 Inasmuch as "not only the liberty but even the life of the accused may be at stake, it is always wise and proper that the accused should be fully apprised of the true charges against them, and thus avoid all and any possible surprises which may be detrimental to their rights and interests." 5 The main purpose of this requirement is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. an accused person cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried.

Here

Doctrine the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 3 T o give substance to this Constitutional guarantee, Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Rules of

It is obvious that the averment of those facts in the body of the complaint or information is essential and necessary to qualify the offense and to justify the imposition of the heavier penalty prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 133. the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of

the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information