You are on page 1of 25

CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 1!

!
6.! suspension! of! criminal! action! by! reason! of! MARELLA!BOBIS!VS!BOBIS!
prejudicial!question! !
! FACTS:
RULE!111! October 21, 1985, first marriage with one
Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial Maria Dulce B. Javier. Not annulled, nullified or
question. A petition for suspension of the terminated
criminal action based upon the pendency of a January 25, 1996, second marriage with
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis
the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting Third marriage with a certain Julia Sally
the preliminary investigation. When the criminal Hernandez
action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to February 25, 1998, Imelda Bobis filed bigamy
suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a
any time before the prosecution rests. (6a) civil action for the judicial declaration of
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The absolute nullity of his first marriage on the
elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage
previously instituted civil action involves an issue license
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in Petitioner argues that respondent should have
the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the first obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of
resolution of such issue determines whether or not his first marriage before entering into the second
the criminal action may proceed. (5a)
marriage
*After petitioner sued for bigamy, its just when
DOJ-NPS MANUAL
the respondent filed a declaration of absolute
PART III SEC. 23. Concept of prejudicial nullity.
question.- A prejudicial question is one the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in a ISSUE:
case and the cognizance of which pertains to another Whether or not the subsequent filing of a civil
tribunal.1 It is based on a fact distinct and separate from action for declaration of nullity of a previous
the crime charged but so intimately connected with it marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a
that it determines the guilt or action, it must not only criminal case for bigamy
appear that said case involves facts intimately related to HELD:
those upon which the criminal prosecution would be A prejudicial question is one which arises in a
based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues case the resolution of which is a logical
raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the antecedent of the issue involved therein.3It is a
question based on a fact distinct and separate
accused would necessarily be determined.2
from the crime but so intimately connected with
SEC. 24. Elements of prejudicial question. - The
it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
essential elements of a prejudicial question are: accused. Its two essential elements are:7
! (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or
a) the civil action involves an issue similar intimately related to the issue raised in the
or intimately related to the issue raised criminal action; and
in the criminal action; (b) the resolution of such issue determines
b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
whether or not the criminal action may In Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent,
proceed ;3 and without first having obtained the judicial
c)! the! cognizance! of! the! said! issue! pertains! to! declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can
another! tribunal.innocence! of! the! accused.! To! not be said to have validly entered into the
suspend!the!criminal! second marriage. In the current jurisprudence, a
marriage though void still needs a judicial
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! declaration of such fact before any party can
! marry again; otherwise the second marriage will
also be void. The reason is that, without a
judicial declaration of its nullity, the first
marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the Travel$ supported$ by$ statements$ of$
case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents accounts$ is$ baseless$ and/or$ been$ paid,$
and purposes regarded as a married man at the which$ accused$ very$ well$ knew$ and$ ought$
time he contracted his second marriage with
petitioner. to$ know,$ by$ reason$ of$ accuseds$ position$
Any decision in the civil action for nullity would as$cashier,$was$false.$
not erase the fact that respondent entered into a In$a$resolution$dated$November$20,$1996,$the$City$
second marriage during the subsistence of a first Prosecutor$found$probable$cause$to$indict$private$
marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not respondents$ for$ violation$ of$ said$ law$ and$
essential to the determination of the criminal
charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question accordingly$ filed$ the$ respective$ Informations$
! against$each$of$them$before$the$Metropolitan$Trial$
! Court$(MTC).$
! In$ a$ resolution$ dated$ March$ 9,$ 1998,$ Chief$ State$
ARK!TRAVEL!EXPRESS!VS!ABROGAR! Prosecutor$ Jovencito$ Zuo$ reversed$ the$ City$
!
Prosecutors$ resolution.$ The$ prosecution$ office$ of$
RATIO&DECIDENDI&
Prejudicial+ question+ + When! the! civil! case! is! so! Makati$ then$ filed$ with$ the$ MTC$ a$ Motion$ to$
intimately! connected! with! the! subject! crime! that! it! is! Withdraw$Information.$
determinative! of! the! guilt! or! innocence! of! the! However,$ on$ May$ 15,$ 1998,$ Ark$ Travel$ filed$ an$
respondents!in!the!criminal!cases.! Urgent$ Petition$ for$ Automatic$ Review$ with$ the$
! DOJ.$ DOJ$ then$ directed$ the$ City$ Prosecutor$ to$
QUICK&FACTS& proceed$with$the$prosecution$of$the$criminal$cases$
RTC! and! MTC! grants! Motion! to! Withdraw! Information! in$ a$ resolution$ dated$ May$ 27,$ 1998.$ For$ this$
without! personally! determining! the! probable! cause! for! reason,$ the$ MTC$ issued$ an$ Order$ denying$ the$
the!crime!charged.!! Motion$ to$ Withdraw$ Information$ filed$ by$ the$
! prosecution.$
FACTS& Meanwhile,$ Baguio$ and$ Ira$ filed$ a$ Motion$ for$
Petitioner:!Ark!Travel!Express,!Inc.! Reconsideration$ of$ the$ May$ 27,$ 1998$ resolution.$
Respondents:!The!Presiding!Judge!of!the!Regional!Trial! DOJ$ Undersecretary$ Jesus$ Zozobrado$ granted$ the$
Court!of!Makati,!Branch!150,!Hon.!Zeus!Abrogar,!Violeta! Motion$ for$ Reconsideration$ dated$ June$ 26,$ 1998,$
Baguio!and!Lorelei!Ira! ordering$ the$ withdrawal$ of$ the$ informations$ for$
! false$testimony.$
Ark$ Travel$ Express,$ Inc.$ (Ark$ Travel$ for$ brevity)$
MTC$ however,$ denied$ the$ Motion$ to$ Withdraw$
filed$with$the$City$Prosecutor$of$Makati$a$criminal$
Information$ in$ an$ order$ dated$ July$ 21,$ 1998.$ It$
complaint$ for$ False$ Testimony$ in$ a$ Civil$ Case$
anchors$ its$ decision$ in$ the$ Crespo$ vs.$ Mogul$ case$
against$ private$ respondents$ Violeta$ Baguio$ and$
where$ the$ Supreme$ Court$ held$ that$ once$ an$
Lorelei$Ira.$
information$ is$ filed$ in$ court,$ such$ filing$ sets$ in$
Violeta$ Baguio$ and$ Lorelei$ Ira$ was$ accused$ as$ motion$ the$ criminal$ action$ against$ the$ accused$
having$ given$ false$ testimony$ upon$ a$ material$ fact$ before$ the$ court,$ and$ any$ motion$ to$ dismiss$ or$
in$a$civil$complaint$for$Collection$of$sum$of$money,$ withdraw$ information$ is$ always$ addressed$ to$ the$
torts$ and$ damages$ filed$ by$ Ark$ Travel$ Express$ discretion$of$the$court.$The$denial$or$grant$of$any$
against$New$Filipino$Maritime$Agencies$(NFMA)$in$ motion$ is$ done$ by$ the$ court$ not$ out$ of$
the$following$manner:$ subservience$ to$ the$ secretary$ of$ justice$ but$ in$
o During$ trial$ of$ the$ said$ civil$ case$ in$ which$ faithful$exercise$of$its$judicial$prerogative.$
one$of$the$principal$issues$was$whether$or$
Private$ respondents$ questioned$ the$ MTC$ Orders$
not$payment$of$the$claim$of$Ark$travel$has$
dated$ June$ 10,$ 1998$ and$ July$ 21,$ 1998$ with$ the$
been$ made$ by$ NFMA,$ the$ accused$
respondent$RTC$of$Makati.$
maliciously$testified$that$the$claims$of$Ark$
RTC$ of$ Makati$ held$ that$ MTC$ acted$ with$ grave$
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 3!
!
abuse$ of$ discretion$ when$ it$ denied$ the$ Motion$ to$ case! filed! by! Ark! Travel! is! still! pending! decision.! Ark!
Withdraw$based$solely$on$its$bare$and$ambiguous$ Travel! has! yet! to! prove! the! validity! of! its! monetary!
reliance$ on$ the$ Crespo$ doctrine,$ since$ an$ claims! and! damages! against! NFMA.! It! is! only! after! trial!
independent$ evaluation$ and$ assessment$ of$ the$ that! the! RTC! can! assess! the! veracity! or! falsity! of! the!
existence$ of$ a$ probable$ cause$ is$ necessary$ before$ testimony!and!correspondingly!render!a!decision.!Thus,!
such$ orders$ denying$ the$ said$ motions$ could$ be$ the!civil!case!is!so!intimately!connected!with!the!subject!
issued.$ crime! that! it! is! determinative! of! the! guilt! or! innocence!
! of!the!respondents!in!the!criminal!cases.!In!other!words,!
ISSUE& whether! or! not! the! testimonies! of! private! respondents!
WON! the! RTC! committed! a! grave! abuse! of! discretion! in!the!civil!cases!are!false!is!a!prejudicial!question.!It!is!
when! it! nullified! the! Orders! of! MTC! and! enjoined! the! clear! that! the! elements! of! a! prejudicial! question! are!
said!court!from!hearing!the!criminal!cases! present! as! provided! in! Section! 7,! Rule! 111! of! the!
! Revised!Rules!of!Criminal!Procedure,!to!wit:!
HELD& !
(Supreme!Court!discussed!several!points,!but!I!will!only! SEC.! 7!Elements+ of+ Prejudicial+ question.! The!
include! the! issue! relevant! to! the! topic! which! is! elements! of! a! prejudicial! question! are:! (a)! the!
Prejudicial!Question!)! previously! instituted! civil! action! involves! an! issue!
! ! similar! or! intimately! related! to! the! issue! raised! in! the!
! To! constitute! the! crime! of! False! Testimony! in! a! subsequent! criminal! action;! and! (b)! the! resolution! of!
Civil!Case!under!Article!182!of!the!Revised!Penal!Code,! such! issue! determines! whether! or! not! the! criminal!
the!following!requisites!must!concur:! action!may!proceed.!
1. The$testimony$must$be$given$in$a$civil$case;$ !
2. The$testimony$must$relate$to$the$issues$presented$ Section! 6,! Rule! 111! of! the! Revised! Rules! of!
Criminal!Procedures!provides:!
in$the$case;$
!
3. The$testimony$is$false;$
SEC.! 6.!Suspension+ by+ reason+ of+ prejudicial+
4. The$ testimony$ must$ be$ given$ by$ the$ defendant$
question.!A!petition!for!suspension!of!the!criminal!action!
knowing$the$same$to$be$false;$and$
based!upon!the!pendency!of!a!prejudicial!question!in!a!
5. Such$ testimony$ must$ be$ malicious$ and$ given$ with$
civil!action!may!be!filed!in!the!office!of!the!prosecutor!or!
and$ intent$ to$ affect$ the$ issues$ presented$ in$ the$
the! court! conducting! the! preliminary!
case.$
investigation.!When& the& criminal& action& has& been&
! filed& in& court& for& trial,& the& petition& to& suspend& shall&
There! is! no! doubt! that! the! first! two! requisites! be& filed& in& the& same& criminal& action& at& any& time&
are! extant! in! this! case.! The! records! show! that! Ark! before&the&prosecution&rests.!(Emphasis+supplied)!
Travel!filed!a!complaint!for!collection!of!sum!of!money,! !
torts! and! damages! against! NFMA! and! Angelina! T.! ! Hence,! pending! determination! of! the! falsity! of!
Rivera.! In! said! civil! case,! private! respondents! were! the! subject! testimonies! of! private! respondents! in! the!
presented! by! NFMA! as! witnesses.! They! executed! their! civil! case,! the! criminal! action! for! false! testimony! must!
respective! sworn! statements! and! testified! before! the! perforce! be! suspended.! As! such,! under! the! attendant!
trial! court! that! NFMA! has! no! outstanding! obligation! circumstances,! although! there! is! no! motion! to! suspend!
with!Ark!Travel!as!the!same!had!been!paid!in!full.! proceedings! on! the! part! of! the! private! respondents,!
! orderly! administration! of! justice! dictates! that! the!
The!existence!of!the!last!three!requisites!is!quite! criminal!cases!should!be!suspended.!
dubious.!The!falsity!of!the!subject!testimonies!of!private! !
respondents! is! yet! to! be! established.! It! is! noted! that! at! !
the!time!of!the!filing!of!the!criminal!complaints,!the!civil! !
PEOPLE!V!CONSING! enjoin the arraignment and trial of the estafa through
! falsification case.[11] The Court of Appeals granted
FACTS! respondents prayer for the issuance of a temporary
! restraining order in a resolution dated March 19, 2001.[12]
Sometime in February 1997, respondent Rafael Jose On May 31, 2001, a decision was rendered setting aside the
Consing, Jr. and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz,[4] January 27, 2000 order of the trial court and permanently
represented to Plus Builders, Inc. (PBI) that they are the enjoining it from proceeding with the arraignment and trial
true and lawful owners of a 42,443 square meter lot of the criminal case until the civil cases for Injunctive
situated in Imus, Cavite and covered by Transfer Certificate Relief and for Damages and Attachment shall have been
of Title No. 687599 in the name of Cecilia de la Cruz. They finally decided.
further represented that they acquired said lot, which was Hence, the People of the Philippines, represented by the
previously covered by TCT No. 191408 from Juanito Tan Solicitor General, filed the instant petition seeking the
Teng and Po Willie Yu. Relying on the representations of reversal of the May 31, 2001 decision of the Court of
respondent and his mother, PBI purchased the questioned Appeals.
lot.
In April 1999, PBI discovered that respondent and his ISSUE:
mother did not have a valid title over the subject lot. PBI whether or not the pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759
came to know that Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu and 99-95381, for Injunctive Relief and for Damages and
never sold said lot to respondent and his mother and that Attachment, is a prejudicial question
TCT No. 191408 upon which TCT No. 687599 was based
is not on file with the Register of Deeds. HELD
In August 1999, PBI was ousted from the possession of the NO.
disputed lot by Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu. Despite A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a
written and verbal demands, respondent and his mother case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
refused to return the amount of P13,369,641.79 alleged to issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
have been initially paid by PBI. pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must
On July 22, 1999, respondent filed with the Regional Trial be determinative of the case before the court but the
Court of Pasig City, Branch 68, an action for Injunctive jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged
Relief docketed as Civil Case No. SCA 1759, against PBI, in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact
Unicapital Inc, Unicapital Realty Inc., Jaime Martires, distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately
Mariano D. Martinez, Cecilia de la Cruz and 20 other John connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence
Does.[5] Respondent sought a declaration that he was of the accused. For a civil action to be considered
merely an agent of his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, and prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of
therefore was not under any obligation to PBI and to the the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the
other defendants on the various transactions involving TCT civil action, the following requisites must be present: (1)
No. 687599. the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon
On October 13, 1999, PBI filed against respondent and his which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the
mother a complaint for Damages and Attachment, docketed resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action,
as Civil Case No. 99-95381, with Branch 12 of the the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be
Regional Trial Court of Manila.[6] Respondent filed a determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be
motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping and lodged in another tribunal.[13]
pendency of Civil Case No. SCA 1759.[7] If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the
On January 21, 2000, a criminal case for estafa through issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the
falsification of public document was filed against other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist,
respondent Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother with the provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It
RTC of Imus, Cavite.[8] must appear not only that
On April 7, 2000, respondent filed a motion to defer the civil case involves the same facts upon which the
arraignment on the ground of prejudicial question, i.e., the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the
pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759 and 99-95381.[9] resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be
On January 27, 2000, the trial court denied respondents necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
motion. accused. If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will
A motion for reconsideration thereof was likewise denied not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in
on February 27, 2001.[10] the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the necessity that the civil case be determined first before
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of taking up the criminal case, therefore, the civil case does
preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals seeking to not involve a prejudicial question.
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 5!
!
case an information is amended, a new preliminary
In the case at bar, we find no prejudicial question that investigation shall be conducted if the amended charge is
would justify the suspension of the proceedings in the not related to the crime originally charged; if there is a
criminal case. The issue in Civil Case No. SCA 1759 for change in the nature of the crime charged; or if the
Injunctive Relief is whether or not respondent merely acted
information on its face is null and void for lack of
as an agent of his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz; while in Civil
Case No. 99-95381, for Damages and Attachment, the authority to file the same.
question is whether respondent and his mother are liable to !
pay damages and to return the amount paid by PBI for the !
purchase of the disputed lot. Even if respondent is declared TEEHANKEE!V!MADAYAG!
merely an agent of his mother in the transaction involving !
the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free Facts:
from criminal liability. An agent or any person may be held On July 19, 1991 an information for the crime of
liable for conspiring to falsify public documents.Hence, the frustrated murder was filed against Claudio Teehankee Jr.
determination of the issue involved in Civil Case No. SCA allegedly committed to Maureen Navarro Hultman.
1759 for Injunctive Relief is irrelevant to the guilt or
innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for estafa After the prosecution had rested its case, the petitioner
through falsification of public! moved for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, but before
! the motion was filed, the victim died. So, the private
7. REMEDIES$AVAILABLE$ prosecutor filed an omnibus motion for leave of court to
file the amended information. The amended information
filed on October 31, 1991 charges Teehankee of murder.
A.!amendment/substation!of!information!
! The trial court admitted the amended information. During
RULE!110! the arraignment, the petitioner refused to be arraigned on
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A the amended information contending the lack of a
complaint or information may be amended, in form preliminary investigation thereon. The judge, then,
or in substance, without leave of court, at any time ordered the plea of "not guilty" be entered for petitioner.
before the accused enters his plea. After the plea The prosecution was ordered to present its evidence. The
and during the trial, a formal amendment may only petitioner's counsel manifested that he did not want to
be made with leave of court and when it can be take part in the proceedings because of the legal issue
done without causing prejudice to the rights of the raised. So, the trial court appointed a counsel de officio to
accused. represent the petitioner.
However, any amendment before plea, which
downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or The petitioner now seeks, among other things, for the SC
excludes any accused from the complaint or to nullify the respondent judge's admittance of the
information, can be made only upon motion by the amended information, and to compel the judge to order
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and preliminary investigation of the crime charged in the
with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons amended information.
in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall
be furnished all parties, especially the offended Issue: Whether or not an amended information involving
party. (n) a substantial amendment, without preliminary
If it appears at any time before judgment that a investigation, after the prosecution has rested on the
mistake has been made in charging the proper original information, may legally and validly be admitted.
offense, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a new Held: Yes. Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on
one charging the proper offense in accordance with Criminal Procedure provides:
section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall
not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may Sec. 14. Amendment. The information or complaint
require the witnesses to give bail for their may be amended, in substance or form, without leave of
appearance at the trial. (14a) court, at any time before the accused pleads; and
! thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by
SEC. 4. Effect of amendment of information. - In leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same
can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused. place, a complaint for Less Serious Physical Injuries
against Florencio Miguel. The case was docketed in
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake the said court as Criminal Case No. 63.
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court Tried after pleading not guilty upon arraignment,
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon accused Miguel was convicted as charged and
the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in thereafter accordingly sentenced in a decision
accordance with Rule 119, Section 11, provided the promulgated on November 14, 1973.
accused would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy From the aforesaid decision, Miguel appealed to the
and may also require the witnesses to give bail for their then Court of First Instance of Isabela, where his
appearance at the trial. appeal was docketed as Criminal Case No. V-351
and assigned to Branch V of the said court presided
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts by the Honorable respondent Judge. 'The record of
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the the said case was then transmitted and referred by
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of the Clerk of Court to the Office of the Provincial
form. 11 Thus, the following have been held to be merely Fiscal of Isabela
formal amendments, viz: (1) new allegations which relate Upon a review of the evidence made by the
only to the range of the penalty that the court might provincial fiscal's office, petitioners found that
impose in the event of conviction; 12 (2) an amendment accused-appellant Miguel should have been
which does not charge another offense different or charged with "Direct Assault Upon a Person in
distinct from that charged in the original one; 13 (3) Authority" it appearing that Benjamin Antonio, the
additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's offended party, is a person in authority then
theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused engaged in the performance of his official duties
and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; and when assaulted. In view thereof, petitioners' office,
(4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any then conducted a new preliminary investigation and
substantial right of the accused, such as his right to upon a prima facie showing that direct assault was
invoke prescription. actually the, crime committed by accused- appellant
Miguel, petitioners filed with the respondent court t a
Going now to the case at bar, it is evident that frustrated Motion to Dismiss the appealed Less Serious
murder is but a stage in the execution of the crime of Physical Injury case. Simultaneously, a new
murder, hence the former is necessarily included in the information for Direct Assault was filed against
latter. It is indispensable that the essential element of Miguel which was docketed as Criminal Case No. V-
intent to kill, as well as qualifying circumstances such as 419 Upon receipt of the records of this assault case,
treachery or evident premeditation, be alleged in both an respondent Judge, in an order dated December 17,
information for frustrated murder and for murder, thereby 1975, directed that it be returned to the Fiscal's
meaning and proving that the same material allegations Office on the ground that it was prematurely filed
are essential to the sufficiency of the informations filed considering that at that time, the prosecution's
for both. This is because, except for the death of the motion to dismiss the appeal was still pending
victim, the essential elements of consummated murder resolution.
likewise constitute the essential ingredients to convict Undaunted by such a disposition, petitioners then
herein petitioner for the offense of frustrated murder. filed a new information which they caused to be
docketed also as Criminal Case No. V-351 similar to
In the present case, therefore, there is an identity of that of the appealed less serious physical injury
offenses charged in both the original and the amended case, and thereafter again moved for the dismissal
information. What is involved here is not a variance in the of the appealed case. Petitioners' motion was
nature of different offenses charged, but only a change in denied and so with their motion for reconsideration
the stage of execution of the same offense from frustrated of the order of denial.
to consummated murder. This is being the case, we hold Hence, the instant petition wherein it is prayed that
that an amendment of the original information will suffice the aforementioned orders of respondent Judge
and, consequent thereto, the filing of the amended dated April 13, 1976 and May 28, 1976 be declared
information for murder is proper.! null and void; that respondent Judge be ordered to
! dismiss the appealed less serious physical injury
! case; and that a writ of preliminary injunction
Draculan!vs!donato! enjoining respondent from proceeding with the trial
! of the appealed less serious physical injury case be
On June 25, 1973, the Chief of Police of San Isidro, issued which should be made permanent after
Isabela filed with the Municipal Court of the said hearing on the merits.
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 7!
!
The petition is devoid of merit. Consequently, its the proper offense, the court may dismiss the
dismissal is in order. original complaint or information and order the filing
Criminal Case No. V-351 is an appeal, not an of a new one charging the proper offense, provided
original case. It is before the Court of First Instance the defendant would not be placed in double
(now Regional Trial Court) of Isabela pursuant to the jeopardy.
appeal interposed by accused Florencio Miguel from The amendment 6 or the filing of a new case where
the decision of the Municipal Court of San Isidro there had been a mistake in charging the proper
convicting him of Less Serious Physical Injuries. The offense after the dismissal of an existing one, 7
Court of First Instance then took cognizance of such spoken of and therein provided for apply, only to an
case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. And original case where no judgment has as yet been
since the appeal was subsequent to the passage of rendered. Much less does the said section apply to
Republic Act No. 6031, 3 which took effect on an appealed case such as the instant proceeding. 8
August 4, 1969, the appeal must now be disposed of The reason is obvious and that is because the right
on the basis of the evidence presented and admitted to amend or to file a new complaint or information
in the municipal court. No trial de novo is necessary charging the proper offense after the dismissal of the
but the parties may merely submit and/or be original complaint or information, is subject to the
required to file their respective briefs or memoranda. rule on double jeopardy, which petitioners in the
4
instant case miserably missed,
But since the proceeding before the San Isidro In the case at bar, the original charges was that of
Municipal Court was not duly recorded because of less serious physical injuries. Whether the new
the absence of a qualified stenographer, the court of charge for direct assault with less serious physical
First Instance of Isabela must now conduct a trial de injuries is by way of amendment or through a new
novo of the case on appeal. information is immaterial since in both instances
The question therefore posed before us ismay the accused's former conviction would be a bar to a
prosecution amend the information and/or file a new subsequent prosecution for the second offense. This
information charging an offense different from that was the dictum laid down in the case of People vs.
with which accused-appellant was tried and Bonotan 9 and which doctrine was reiterated in the
convicted in the court below? recent case of Tacas vs. Cariaso 10 Thus:
Petitioners' answer to this query is in the affirmative, The charge of direct assault upon a person in
relying on Section 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules of authority with physical injuries contained in the
Court, 5 which provides: fiscal's information is not included in the charge
Section 13. Amendment. The information or contained in the complaint of the chief of police,
complaint may be amended, in substance or form, which is merely that of less serious physical injuries
without leave of court, at any time before the unqualified by any allegation that those injuries were
defendant pleads; and thereafter and during the trial inflicted upon the offended municipal councilor,
as to all matters of form, by leave and at the admittedly a person in authority, while he was in the
discretion of the court, when the same can be done performance of his official duties or on the occasion
without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. thereof, a qualification essential to the offense
If it appears at any time before judgment that a charged in the information. The converse is no less
mistake has been made in charging the proper obvious, that is, that the charge, of direct assault
offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint upon a person in authority with physical injuries as
or information and order the filing of a new one set out in the information necessarily includes the
charging the proper offense, provided the defendant offense of less serious physical injuries charged on
would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and the complaint, specially because in both the
may also require the witnesses to give bail for their information and the complaint, the physical injuries
appearance at the trial. inflicted are alleged to have required medical
The above section contains two parts: one assistance of a period of 14 days and incapacitated
authorizes the amendment of an information or the offended party from labor for the same period of
complaint, in substance or form, without leave of time. As proof that the offense charged in the
court, at any time before the defendant pleads, and information includes the offense charged in the
thereafter, only as to matters of form. The other complaint, conviction of the defendants of this latter
provides that, if it appears at any time before offense may, without question, be had under the
judgment that a mistake has been made in charging information if the other ingredients of the crime
charged in said information are not proved. Hence, the assistant fiscal took hold of the original information
the defense of double jeopardy was wen taken. The and, then and there, entered his amendment by annotating
order of dismissal was thus affirmed precisely or. the the same on the back of the document. Almeda forthwith
very same constitutional ground relied upon in this moved for the dismissal of the charge on the ground of
petition. 11 double jeopardy, but this motion and a motion for
We find the said pronouncement "on all fours" to the reconsideration were denied in open court. Almeda filed
instant case. Petitioners' submittal not being in the present special civil action for certiorari with
accord therewith may not be sustained. preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court.
But the more serious repercussion of which the
petitioners appeared unmindful of, is the fact that Issue: Whether the insistence of a cash bond, over any
with the withdrawal of the appeal, the old judgment other surety, renders the recomended bail excessive.
of conviction is revived and the accused loses his
right to a review of the evidence on appeal by way of Held: Bail is "the security required and given for the
questioning the validity of his conviction. What is release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that
sought to be dismissed is not the main case, 12 but he will appear before any court in which his appearance
merely the appeal which was docketed as Criminal may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or
Case No. V-351 recognizance." The purpose of requiring bail is to relieve
WHEREFORE, finding the instant petition to be an accused from imprisonment until his conviction and
without merit, the same is DISMISSED. The yet secure his appearance at the trial. The accused, as of
appropriate Regional Trial Court of Isabela to which right, is entitled to bail prior to conviction except when he
Criminal Case No. V-351 was reassigned is, is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt
therefore, hereby directed to proceed immediately is strong. This right is guaranteed by the Constitution, and
with the trial of the said case until its final may not be denied even where the accused has previously
termination. escaped detention, or by reason of his prior absconding.
No pronouncement as to costs.! In order to safeguard the right of an accused to bail, the
ALMEDA!VS!VILLALUZ! Constitution further provides that "excessive bail shall not
! be required." This is logical because the imposition of an
unreasonable bail may negate the very right itself. "Where
Facts: Leonardo Almeda (alias Nardong Paa) was conditions imposed upon a defendant seeking bail would
charged, together with five others, with the crime of amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the
qualified theft of a motor vehicle (criminal case 285- constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate to exercise
Pasay) in the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, our supervisory powers to provide the required remedy."
presided by Judge Onofre Villaluz. The amount of the Herein, the amount fixed for bail, while reasonable if
bond recommended for the provisional release of Almeda considered in terms of surety or property bonds, may be
was P15,000, and this was approved by the judge with a excessive if demanded in the form of cash. A surety or
direction that it be posted entirely in cash. At the hearing property bond does not require an actual financial outlay
of 18 February 1970, Almeda asked the trial court to on the part of the bondsman or the property owner, and in
allow him to post a surety bond in lieu of the cash bond the case of the bondsman the bond may be obtained by
required of him. This request was denied, and so was an the accused upon the payment of a relatively small
oral motion for reconsideration, on the ground that the premium. Only the reputation or credit standing of the
amended information imputed habitual delinquency and bondsman or the expectancy of the price at which the
recidivism on the part of Almeda. At the same hearing, property can be sold, is placed in the hands of the court to
the city fiscal of Pasay City (Fiscal Gregorio Pineda), thru guarantee the production of the body of the accused at the
his assistant, reiterated his oral motion made at a previous various proceedings leading to his conviction or acquittal.
hearing for amendment of the information so as to include Upon the other hand, the posting of a cash bond would
allegations of recidivism and habitual delinquency in the entail a transfer of assets into the possession of the court,
particular case of Almeda. The latter vigorously objected, and its procurement could work untold hardship on the
arguing that (a) such an amendment was premature since part of the accused as to have the effect of altogether
no copies of prior conviction could yet be presented in denying him his constitutional right to bail. Aside from
court, (b) the motion to amend should have been made in the foregoing, the condition that the accused may have
writing in order to enable him to object formally, and (c) provisional liberty only upon his posting of a cash bond is
the proposed amendment would place him in double abhorrent to the nature of bail and transgresses our law on
jeopardy considering that he had already pleaded not the matter. The sole purpose of bail is to insure the
guilty to the information. The trial court nevertheless attendance of the accused when required by the court, and
granted the fiscal's motion in open court. An oral motion there should be no suggestion of penalty on the part of the
for reconsideration was denied. Immediately thereafter, accused nor revenue on the part of the government. The
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 9!
!
allowance of a cash bond in lieu of sureties is authorized PEOPLE!VS!CA!
in this jurisdiction only because our rules expressly !
provide for it. Were this not the case, the posting of bail In our resolution of February 25, 1976, the petition for
by depositing cash with the court cannot be countenanced review filed by petitioners was treated as a Special Civil
because, strictly speaking, the very nature of bail Action. It seeks (1) to annul and set aside the decision and
presupposes the attendance of sureties to whom the body resolution, dated December 18, 1974 and July 11, 1975,
of the prisoner can be delivered. And even where cash respectively, of the Court of Appeals: and, (2) to sustain
bail is allowed, the option to deposit cash in lieu of a in toto the orders, dated January 25, 1974 and June 15,
surety bond primarily belongs to the accused. Thus, the 1974, of the trial Judge which allowed the retention of the
trial court may not reject otherwise acceptable sureties allegation of conspiracy in reference to Criminal Cases
and insist that the accused obtain his provisional liberty Nos. 4747 and 4748 in the informations filed in Criminal
only thru a cash bond. The court is not without devices Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674; or, in the alternative, to direct
with which to meet the situation, considering that the trial judge to allow the amendment of the
Almeda's past record that is the range of his career in informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 so as
crime weighs heavily against letting him off easily on a to include Luiz Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco as co-
middling amount of bail. First, it could increase the accused of Sixto Ruiz and to dismiss the informations in
amount of the bail bond to an appropriate level. Second, Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.
as part of the power of the court over the person of the As a result of a shooting incident at Sta. Lucia Street,
accused and for the purpose of discouraging likely Mandaluyong, Rizal, on June 5, 1971, two informations
commission of other crimes by a notorious defendant for frustrated homicide were filed against Sixto Ruiz in
while on provisional liberty, the latter could be required, the Court of First Instance of Rizal on February 21, 1972.
as one of the conditions of his bail bond, to report in In Criminal Case No. 4747, Ernesto Bello was named as
person periodically to the court and make an accounting the victim, while in Criminal Case No. 4748, Rogelio
of his movements. And third, the accused might be Bello was the complainant.
warned, though this warning is not essential to the Upon arraignment, Sixto Ruiz pleaded "not guilty" to the
requirements of due process, that under the 1973 two informations in said Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and
Constitution "Trial may proceed notwithstanding his 4748. However, a reinvestigation of these two cases was
absence provided that he has been duly notified and his made in the then Department of Justice, following which
failure to appear is unjustified." With respect to the State Prosecutor Lilia C. Lopez filed a motion for leave of
amount of the bail bond, the trial court is well advised to court to amend the informations on the ground that the
consider, inter alia, the following factors, where evidence disclosed a prima facie case against Luis Padilla
applicable: (1) the ability of the accused to give bail: (2) and Magsikap Ongchenco who acted in conspiracy with
the nature of the offense; (3) the penalty for the offense Sixto Ruiz.
charged; (4) the character and reputation of the accused; Sixto Ruiz filed his opposition to the motion, while Luis
(5) the health of the accused; (6) the character and Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco submitted their
strength of the evidence; (7) the probability of the comment.
accused's appearance or non-appearance at the trial; (8) The trial Judge denied the motion to amend the
forfeiture of previous bonds; (9) whether the accused was information saying that allowance of the amendment
a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (10) whether alleging conspiracy would be amending the manner of
the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other committing the crime and thereby would constitute a
cases. It is not amiss, at this point, to remind all courts to substantial amendment.
exercise extreme care and caution in the screening of As a consequence, State Prosecutor Lilia C. Lopez filed
bondsmen and sureties in regard to their reputation, two new informations for frustrated homicide against
solvency and promptitude. Aside from the other Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco (Criminal Cases
precautions hitherto considered useful, courts should see Nos. 9673 and 9674) alleging that the two conspired with
to it that all surety bonds are accompanied by Sixto Ruiz who was referred to as the accused in Criminal
corresponding clearances from the Office of the Insurance Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748.
Commissioner. Bondsmen who cannot make good their Padilla and Ongchenco moved to quash the two new
undertakings render inutile all efforts at making the bail informations. The motion was denied by the lower court
system work in this jurisdiction. in its order of January 25, 1974, saying:
! [T]he informations in the above-entitled cases state the
! names of the accused Luis Padilla and Magsikap
! Ongchenco; the offense of frustrated homicide is clearly
designated in each information; the acts or omissions Court of Appeals was denied "for lack of merit" in its
constituting the offense charged are stated in ordinary and resolution, dated July 11, 1975.
concise language without repetition sufficient to enable a There is merit in this special civil action. The trial Judge
person of common understanding to know what offense is should have allowed the amendment in Criminal Cases
charged and for the Court to pronounce proper judgment; Nos. 4747 and 4748 considering that the amendments
the names and surnames of the persons, Ernesto Bello and sought were only formal. As aptly stated by the Solicitor
Rogelio Bello, against whom the offenses were General in his memorandum, "there was no change in the
committed are stated in the informations; and that both prosecution's theory that respondent Ruiz wilfully,
offenses were committed on or about the 5th day of June, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and shot
1971, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Province of with a gun Ernesto and Rogelio Bello ... . The
Rizal, Philippines. amendments would not have been prejudicial to him
ACCORDINGLY, the motion to quash is hereby denied because his participation as principal in the crime charged
for lack of merit. with respondent Ruiz in the original informations, could
Likewise, Sixto Ruiz filed in said Criminal Cases Nos. not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments."
9673 and 9674 a motion to permit to quash and/or strike In a case (Regala vs. CFI, 77 Phil. 684), the defendant
out the allegation of conspiracy in the two informations. was charged with murder. After plea, the fiscal presented
The trial Judge, on June 15, 1974, ordered the striking out an amended information wherein two other persons were
from the records the aforesaid motion and clarified that included as co-accused. There was further allegation that
"the allegation of conspiracy in those cases does not alter the accused and his co-defendants had conspired and
the theory of the case, nor does it introduce innovation confederated together and mutually aided one another to
nor does it present alternative imputation nor is it commit the offense charged. The amended information
inconsistent with the original allegations. " was admitted, following which the fiscal sought the
From these orders of the lower court, Sixto Ruiz, Luis discharge of the two other co-defendants in order to
Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco went to the Court of utilize them as prosecution witnesses. The court granted
Appeals on a petition for certiorari with preliminary the discharge. His appeal having been denied as well as
injunction (CA G.R. No. 03146-SP) alleging that the trial his motion for reconsideration of the denial of the appeal,
Judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his judicial defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. It was
discretion in issuing the orders, dated January 25, 1974 alleged that the admission of the amendment was an
and June 15, 1974, in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and abuse of discretion. This Court held:
9674. La inclusion de dos acusados y la adicion de las palabras:
The Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the 'by conspiring, confederating and helping one another' en
dispositive portion of which reads as follows: la querella enmendada es una enmienda de forma. En la
WHEREFORE, we hold that the -respondent Judge primera querella se acusa al recurrente de autor y en la
exceeded his jurisdiction and/or abused his discretion in enmendada de coautor pero su responsabilidad es la
denying the motion of petitioner Sixto Ruiz for misma en ambas. El cambio solo se refiere a la forma de
permission to file a motion to strike out the allegation of ejecucion del delito; pero no a la sustancia del delito
conspiracy in the informations filed in Criminal Cases mismo. La forma de ejecucion es mas bien materia de
Nos. 9673 and 9674 (CA Rollo, p. 89), in striking out pruebas y no de algaciones, y los detalles alegados en la
from the records the motion of petitioner Sixto Ruiz to querella enmendada pudieron haberse probado bajo la
strike out the allegation of conspiracy inserted in the querella original.
informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 Otherwise stated, the amendments of Criminal Cases Nos.
(Ibid., p. 93), and in denying the motion for 4747 and 4748 would not have prejudiced Ruiz whose
reconsideration filed by the petitioners, Luis Padilla and participation as principal in the crimes charged did not
Magsikap Ongchenco (Ibid., p. 81). change. When the incident was investigated by the fiscal's
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted office, the respondents were Ruiz, Padilla and
and the questioned orders of the respondent court dated Ongchenco. The fiscal did not include Padilla and
January 25, 1974 and June 15, 1974 (Annexes K and Q, Ongchenco in the two informations because of
CA Rollo, pp. 76, 107) are partially annulled and set aside "insufficiency of evidence." It was only later when
insofar as the petitioner Sixto Ruiz is concerned. The Francisco Pagcalinawan testified at the reinvestigation
allegation of conspiracy implicating Sixto Ruiz and the that the participation of Padilla and Ongchenco surfaced
reference to Criminal Cases Nos. 4748 and 4747 in the and, as a consequence, there was the need for the
informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, amendment of the informations or the filing of new ones
respectively, are hereby ordered deleted and stricken out against the two.
of the said informations and records of the said cases. The fact that the trial court denied the motion of the
The motion for reconsideration filed by herein petitioners prosecution to amend the informations in Criminal Cases
to the foregoing decision, dated December 18, 1974 of the Nos. 4747 and 4748 was no bar to the filing of the new
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 11!
!
informations. The allegation in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 over the person of the accused;
and 9674 filed against Luis Padilla and Magsikap (d) That the officer who filed the information had no
Ongchenco that the two conspired and confederated with authority to do so;
Sixto Ruiz merely describe the fact that the latter was (e) That it does not conform substantially to the
already charged with the same offense. It is only a prescribed form;
reference to the two cases already filed against Ruiz (f) That more than one offense is charged except
wherein he alone stands as the defendant. It does not when a single punishment for various offenses is
make Ruiz a co-defendant of Padilla and Ongchenco in prescribed by law;
the two new informations. It is incorrect to say that the (g) That the criminal action or liability has been
allegation of conspiracy in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and extinguished;
9674 include Ruiz as a defendant in the said cases. In (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would
fact, and as aptly observed by the petitioners, the lower constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
court did not order the arrest of Sixto Ruiz in Criminal (i) That the accused has been previously convicted
Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674. Padilla and Ongchenco were or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
the only ones against whom warrants were issued; nor against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
was he arraigned in said cases. Padilla and Ongchenco without his express consent. (3a)
were the only ones arraigned and they pleaded not guilty. Section 4. Amendment of the complaint or
Thus, inasmuch as Ruiz is not a defendant in Criminal information. If the motion to quash is based on
Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, he can not file a motion to an alleged defect of the complaint or information
quash the same. He has no personality or standing in said which can be cured by amendment, the court shall
cases and, therefore, it was improper for him to have filed order that an amendment be made. (4a)
the motion to quash. ACCORDINGLY, the decision and If it is based on the ground that the facts charged
resolution, dated December 18, 1974 and July 11, 1975, do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall
respectively, of the Court of Appeals are hereby SET be given by the court an opportunity to correct the
ASIDE. Furthermore, the orders of the lower court, dated defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted
January 25, 1974 and June 15, 1974, allowing the if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or
retention of the allegation of conspiracy and the reference the complaint or information still suffers from the
to Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 in the informations same defect despite the amendment. (n)
filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, are Section 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash.
SUSTAINED. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court
SO ORDERED.! may order that another complaint or information be
! filed except as provided in section 6 of this rule. If
B.!MOTION!TO!QUASH! the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall
! not be discharged unless admitted to bail. If no
RULE!117! order is made or if having been made, no new
Section 1. Time to move to quash. At any time information is filed within the time specified in the
before entering his plea, the accused may move to order or within such further time as the court may
quash the complaint or information. (1) allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody,
Section 2. Form and contents. The motion to shall be discharged unless he is also in custody for
quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or another charge. (5a)
his counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual Section 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash
and legal grounds. The court shall consider no not a bar to another prosecution; exception. An
ground other than those stated in the motion, order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to
except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. another prosecution for the same offense unless
(2a) the motion was based on the grounds specified in
Section 3. Grounds. The accused may move to section 3 (g) and (i) of this Rule. (6a)
quash the complaint or information on any of the Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double
following grounds: jeopardy. When an accused has been convicted
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or
offense; otherwise terminated without his express consent
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid
over the offense charged; complaint or information or other formal charge
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the offense charged or any other offense necessarily
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or included therein, the accused shall not be
the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another discharged if there appears good cause to detain
prosecution for the offense charged, or for any him. In such case, the court shall commit the
attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, accused to answer for the proper offense and
or for any offense which necessarily includes or is dismiss the original case upon the filing of the
necessarily included in the offense charged in the proper information. (11a)
former complaint or information.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be !
a bar to another prosecution for an offense which CRUZ!V!CA!
necessarily includes the offense charged in the !
former complaint or information under any of the Petitioner Teodoro D. Cruz, Jr. raises procedural issues
following instances: in this petition to review the decision of the respondent
(a) the graver offense developed due to Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 11771 dated
supervening facts arising from the same act or April 29, 1988, and its resolution of June 6, 1988,
omission constituting the former charge; denying his motion for reconsideration.
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became The petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial
known or were discovered only after a plea was Court of Makati, along with several others, in four
entered in the former complaint or information; or separate informations for estafa thru falsification of
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made public documents.
without the consent of the prosecutor and of the It was alleged that the petitioner, together with Melania
offended party except as provided in section 1 (f) of Guerrero, who produced a special power of attorney
Rule 116. claimed establish have been executed by the late
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused Clemente Guerrero, had conspired with their co-accused
satisfies or serves in whole or in part the judgment, in selling some properties of the decedent to the widow's
he shall be credited with the same in the event of sister, Luz Andico, through fictitious deeds of sale
conviction for the graver offense. (7a) notarized by the petitioner sometime in November and
Section 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall December of 1980.
not be provisionally dismissed except with the Upon arraignment on June 1, 1984, the petitioner and
express consent of the accused and with notice to his co-accused entered a plea of not guilty.
the offended party. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by the ground that the four informations "(did) not charge
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine an offense." At the hearing on this motion, the petitioner
of any amount, or both, shall become permanent submitted testimonial and documentary evidence which
one (1) year after issuance of the order without the was not refuted by the prosecution. For its part, the
case having been revived. With respect to offenses prosecution submitted no evidence at an but later moved
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) to deny the motion.
years, their provisional dismissal shall become The motion to dismiss-to was eventually denied by the
permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order trial court, 1 as so was the subsequent motion for
without the case having been revived. (n) reconsideration. 2 The petitioner questioned the denial
Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege of the motions before this Court, which referred the case
any ground therefor. The failure of the accused to the Court of Appeals. On April 29, 1988, the
to assert any ground of a motion to quash before respondent courts 3 dismissed the petition, holding inter
he pleads to the complaint or information, either alia as follows:
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed Petitioner unabashedly admits that the motion to dismiss
to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed in the instant criminal cases was filed after the
a waiver of any objections based on the grounds arraignment so that the cases could not be refiled again
provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of considering the principle of double jeopardy. But this
section 3 of this Rule. (8) precisely begs the issue. The respondent Court, then
! presided over by Judge Madayag, cited as ground of the
RULE!119! denial of the motion to dismiss to avoid technicalities
Section 19. When mistake has been made in that may arise later. This is interrelated to the first
charging the proper offense. When it becomes ground in the denial interest of substantial justice that
manifest at any time before judgment that a the prosecution could adduce evidence during the trial.
mistake has been made in charging the proper Thus, to hold otherwise is to sanction a shrewd
offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the maneuver by petitioner wherein he files a motion to
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 13!
!
quasi/dismiss after arraignment, presents his evidence proper therefore to resolve the charges at the very
supporting his ground therefor, and without the State outset, in a preliminary hearing only and without the
being able to present its evidence in chief. Under the benefit of a full-blown trial. The issues require a fuller
circumstances, what is needed is a full-blown hearing. examination. Given the circumstances of this case, we
xxxxxxxxx feel it would be unfair to shut off the prosecution at this
Moreover, assuming that the procedure pursued by the stage of the proceedings and to dismiss the informations
petitioner in outright presenting his evidence in support of the basis only of the petitioner's evidence, such as it
of his motion to dismiss, although the prosecution has is.
not as yet presented its evidence in chief is sanctioned It is clear that the trial judge did not commit grave abuse
by the Rules, still the respondent Court, under the of discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss on
circumstances, did not abuse its discretion in denying the grounds that "(a) interest of substantial justice that
the motion to dismiss and subsequently, the motion for the prosecution could adduce evidence during the trial;
reconsideration. Respondent Court must have been not and (b) to avoid technicalities that may arise later." 5 On
convinced of the evidence presented, hence, its judicial the contrary, his action was authorized under U.S. v.
prerogative to deny the dismissal of the charges. Barredo, 6 where this Court said:
What is essential and important is for the petitioner to Upon a motion of the provincial fiscal to dismiss a
show by his own evidence that the documents, subject complaint upon which an accused person has been
of the charges, were prepared and notarized by him remanded for trial by a justice of the peace, it rests in
clearly prior to the death of Clemente Guerrero on June the sound discretion of the judge whether to accede to
24, 1980 and not simply prior to the months of such motion or not. Ordinarily, of course, he will
November and December, 1980 when the offense was dismiss the action in accordance with the suggestion of
committed, as alleged in the Information because each an experienced fiscal who has personally investigated
Information may be amended as regards the date of the the facts. But if has personally investigated the facts.
commission of the offense without impairing the rights But if he is not satisfied with the reason assigned by the
of the petitioner (People v. Gerardo Rivera, et al., 33 fiscal, or if it appears to him from the record of the
SCRA 746). The amendment will only be a matter of proceedings in the court of the justice of the peace, or as
form and will not "affect the nature and essence of the a result of information furnished by the private
crime as only charged." prosecutor, or otherwise, that the case should not be
The petitioner is now before us on certiorari and faults dismissed, he may deny the motion.
the above-quoted decision on the following grounds: Indeed, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, this
(1) The court proceedings on petitioner's motion to denial was proper because the petitioner failed to
dismiss are clearly sanctioned by law and jurisprudence. controvert in his motion to dismiss the following
(2) The prosecution is in estoppel to question said substantial circumstances alleged in the affidavit
proceedings. complaint:
(3) The informations do not charge an offense. (1) That the vendee, Luz Andico (sister of the accused
(4) There exists a variance between the allegations in Melania Guerrero), has no visible means to purchase
the information and the evidence presented in the said properties;
motion to dismiss. (2) That the capital gains taxes for the alleged sales
(5) The documents were notarized on their stated dates. were paid only in December 1980, when it should have
(6) Substantial justice demands the dismissal of the been paid within 30 days from the date of the sale
informations filed against herein petitioner. (National Internal Revenue Code);
The petition must fail. (3) That the Deeds of Sale were presented for
It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must registration to the registries concerned only in
state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense November and December, 1980;
charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss/quash on the (4) That the antedating of the documents was made
ground that it charges no offense may be properly possible by the fact that notary public Teodoro B. Cruz,
sustained. The fundamental test in considering a motion Jr. (herein petitioner) as late as March, 1981 had not
to quash on this ground is whether the facts alleged, if submitted his notarial report together with the copies of
hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential the documents he notarized for 1980.
elements of the offense as defined in the law. 4 The petitioner's contention that the questioned
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, a reading of the transactions were already in existence before the months
informations will disclose that the essential elements of of November and December 1980, when they were
the offense charged are sufficiently alleged. It is not supposedly falsified, is a matter of defense best
examined during the trial rather than in the preliminary order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of
hearing on his motion to dismiss. The prosecution law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The
should be given ample opportunity to prove the petitioner should have proceeded with the trial of the
allegations in the informations at the appropriate time, case in the court below, without prejudice to his right, if
and that is the trial itself. The proper time to offer it, final judgment is rendered against him, to raise the same
following the normal procedure prescribed in Rule 119, question before the proper appellate court.
Section 3 of the Rules of Court, is after the prosecution The procedure was well defined in Acharon v. Purisima,
shall have presented its pay evidence during the trial. 10 thus:
This is in accord ,with People v.Cadabis, 7 . . . Moreover, when the motion to quash filed by
where this Court held: Acharon to nullify the criminal cases filed against him
Save where the Rules expressly permit the investigation was denied by the Municipal Court of General Santos
of facts alleged in a motion to quash, the general his remedy was not to file a petition for certiorari but to
principle is that in the hearing of such motion only such go to trial without prejudice on his part to reiterate the
facts as are alleged in the information, and those special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if,
admitted by the fiscal, should be taken into account in after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered,
the resolution thereof. Matters of defense can not be to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.
produced during the hearing of such motions, except This is the procedure that he should have followed as
where the rules expressly permit, such as extinction of authorized by law and precedents. Instead, he took the
criminal liability, prescription and former jeopardy. usual step of filing a writ of certiorari before the Court
(Emphasis supplied). of First Instance which in our opinion is unwarranted it
But we do not agree with the ruling of the respondent being contrary to the usual course of law.
court that the motion to quash should have been filed Where it is clear that the information does not really
before the petitioner and his co-accused were arraigned, charge an offense, the case against the accused must be
conformably to Section 1 of Rule 117 of the Rules of dropped immediately instead of subjecting him to the
Court, which provides: anxiety and inconvenience of a useless trial. The
Sec. 1. Time to move to quash. At any time before accused is entitled to such consideration.1wphi1 And
entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the indeed, even the prosecution will benefit from such a
complaint or information. dismissal because it can then file a corrected
It is true that a person who does not move to quash a information provided the accused had not yet pleaded
complaint or information until after he has pleaded is and jeopardy has not yet attached. There is no point in
deemed to have waived all objections then available proceeding under a defective information that can never
which are grounds of a motion to quash. 8 However, be the basis of a valid conviction.1wphi1
this is subject to exception. By express provision of Sec. But such is not the situation in the case at bar. As
8 of the same rule, failure to assert certain grounds in a already observed, the challenged informations are not
motion to quash filed prior to the plea does not operate insufficient on their face and neither did the evidence
as a waiver of the right to invoke them later. Even after presented at the preliminary hearing justify their
arraignment, a motion to dismiss the information may dismissal even before the trial had commenced. If
be filed if it is based on the ground that: (a) the "substantial justice" is to be accorded by this Court, as
information charges no penalty or the offense has been the petitioner insists, then the step it must take is to
extinguished; and (d) that double jeopardy has attached. sustain the denial of the motion to dismiss and allow the
The petitioner contends that the prosecution is now criminal cases to follow their normal course. That is
estopped from questioning the motion to dismiss, what we rule now.
having participated without objection in the hearing WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Criminal Cases
thereof and not having controverted the evidence Nos. 7332, 7333, 7334 and 7335 are remanded to the
adduced by the movant at that time. This is untenable. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, for further
Estoppel does not he against the government because of proceedings. Costs against the petitioner.
the supposedly mistaken acts or omissions of its agents. SO ORDERED.!
As we declared in People v. Castaeda, 9 "there is the !
long familiar rule that erroneous application and C.!Bill!of!Particulars!
enforcement of the law by public officers do not block !
subsequent correct application of the statute and that the RULE! 116! Section 9. Bill of particulars. The
government is never estopped by mistake or error on the accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of
part of its agents." particulars to enable him properly to plead and to
It remains to observe that an order denying a motion to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the
quash is interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor alleged defects of the complaint or information and
can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such the details desired. (10a)
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 15!
!
property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or
D. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES converted, when the property, or any part thereof,
has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to
RULE 127 prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or
Section 1. Availability of provisional remedies. an authorized person;
The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty
they are applicable, may be availed of in of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the
connection with the civil action deemed instituted obligation upon which the action is brought, or in
with the criminal action. (1a) the performance thereof;
Section 2. Attachment. When the civil action is (e) In an action against a party who has removed or
properly instituted in the criminal action as provided disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with
in Rule 111, the offended party may have the intent to defraud his creditors; or
property of the accused attached as security for the (f) In an action against a party who does not reside
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom
from the accused in the following cases: summons may be served by publication. (1a)
(a) When the accused is about to abscond from the Section 2. Issuance and contents of order. An
Philippines; order of attachment may be issued either ex parte
(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for or upon motion with notice and hearing by the court
money or property embezzled or fraudulently in which the action is pending, or by the Court of
misapplied or converted to the use of the accused Appeals or the Supreme Court, and must require
who is a public officer, officer of a corporation, the sheriff of the court to attach so much of the
attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the property in the Philippines of the party against
course of his employment as such, or by any other whom it is issued, not exempt from execution, as
person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand,
violation of duty; unless such party makes deposit or gives a bond
(c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or as hereinafter provided in an amount equal to that
disposed of his property, or is about to do so; and fixed in the order, which may be the amount
a) When the accused resides outside the sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand or the
Philippines. (2a) value of the property to be attached as stated by
the applicant, exclusive of costs. Several writs may
RULE 57 be issued at the same time to the sheriffs of the
Preliminary Attachment courts of different judicial regions. (2a)
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may Section 3. Affidavit and bond required. An order
issue. At the commencement of the action or at of attachment shall be granted only when it appears
any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any by the affidavit of the applicant, or of some other
proper party may have the property of the adverse person who personally knows the facts, that a
party attached as security for the satisfaction of any sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is
judgment that may be recovered in the following one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof, that
cases: there is no other sufficient security for the claim
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified sought to be enforced by the action, and that the
amount of money or damages, other than moral amount due to the applicant, or the value of the
and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from property the possession of which he is entitled to
law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict recover, is as much as the sum for which the order
against a party who is about to depart from the is granted above all legal counterclaims. The
Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors; affidavit, and the bond required by the next
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or succeeding section, must be duly filed with the
fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use court before the order issues. (3a)
by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or Section 4. Condition of applicant's bond. The
an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the party applying for the order must thereafter give a
course of his employment as such, or by any other bond executed to the adverse party in the amount
person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance
violation of duty; of the writ, conditioned that the latter will pay all the
(c) In an action to recover the possession of costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party
and all damages which he may sustain by reason or that such real property and any interest therein
of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge held by or standing in the name of such other
that the applicant was not entitled thereto. (4a) person are attached, and by leaving a copy of such
Section 5. Manner of attaching property. The order, description, and notice with the occupant of
sheriff enforcing the writ shall without delay and the property, if any, or with such other person or his
with all reasonable diligence attach, to await agent if found within the province. Where the
judgment and execution in the action, only so much property has been brought under the operation of
of the property in the Philippines of the party either the Land Registration Act or the Property
against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from Registration Decree, the notice shall contain a
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the reference to the number of the certificate of title, the
applicant's demand, unless the former makes a volume and page in the registration book where the
deposit with the court from which the writ is issued, certificate is registered, and the registered owner or
or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, owners thereof.
in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in The registrar of deeds must index attachments filed
the order of attachment or to the value of the under this section in the names of the applicant, the
property to be attached, exclusive of costs. No levy adverse party, or the person by whom the property
on attachment pursuant to the writ issued under is held or in whose name it stands in the records. If
section 2 hereof shall be enforced unless it is the attachment is not claimed on the entire area of
preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by the land covered by the certificate of title, a
service of summons, together with a copy of the description sufficiently accurate for the identification
complaint, the application for attachment the of the land or interest to be affected shall be
applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order and included in the registration of such attachment;
writ of attachment, on the defendant within the (b) Personal property capable of manual delivery,
Philippines. by taking and safely keeping it in his custody, after
The requirement of prior or contemporaneous issuing the corresponding receipt therefor.
service of summons shall not apply where the (c) Stocks or shares, or an interest in stocks or
summons could not be served personally or by shares, of any corporation or company, by leaving
substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the with the president or managing agent thereof, a
defendant is a resident of the Philippines copy of the writ, and a notice stating that the stock
temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a or interest of the party against whom the
non-resident of the Philippines, or the action is one attachment is issued is attached in pursuance of
in rem or quasi in rem. (5a) such writ;
Section 6. Sheriff's return. After enforcing the (d) Debts and credits, including bank deposits,
writ, the sheriff must likewise without delay make a financial interest, royalties, commissions and other
return thereon to the court from which the writ personal property not capable of manual delivery,
issued, with a full statement of his proceedings by leaving with the person owing such debts, or
under the writ and a complete inventory of the having in his possession or under his control, such
property attached, together with any counter-bond credits or other personal property, or with his agent,
given by the party against whom attachment is a copy of the writ, and notice that the debts owing
issued, and serve copies thereof on the applicant. by him to the party against whom attachment is
(6a) issued, and the credits and other personal property
Section 7. Attachment of real and personal in his possession, or under his control, belonging to
property; recording thereof. Real and personal said party, are attached in pursuance of such writ;
property shall be attached by the sheriff executing (e) The interest of the party against whom
the writ in the following manner: attachment is issued in property belonging to the
(a) Real property, or growing crops thereon, or any estate of the decedent, whether as heir, legatee, or
interest therein, standing upon the record of the devisee, by serving the executor or administrator or
registry of deeds of the province in the name of the other personal representative of the decedent with
party against whom attachment is issued, or not a copy of the writ and notice that said interest is
appearing at all upon such records, or belonging to attached. A copy of said writ of attachment and of
the party against whom attachment is issued and said notice shall also be filed in the office of the
held by any other person, or standing on the clerk of the court in which said estate is being
records of the registry of deeds in the name of any settled and served upon the heir, legatee or
other person, by filing with the registry of deeds a devisee concerned.
copy of the order, together with a description of the If the property sought to be attached is in custodia
property attached, and a notice that it is attached, legis, a copy of the writ of attachment shall be filed
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 17!
!
with the proper court or quasi-judicial agency, and such terms as may be just, having reference to any
notice of the attachment served upon the custodian lien thereon or claim against the same, to await the
of such property. (7a) judgment in the action. (10a)
Section 8. Effect of attachment of debts, credits Section 11. When attached property may be sold
and all other similar personal property. All after levy on attachment and before entry of
persons having in their possession or under their judgment. Whenever it shall be made to appear
control any credits or other similar personal to the court in which the action is pending, upon
property belonging to the party against whom hearing with notice to both parties, that the property
attachment is issued, or owing any debts to him, at attached is perishable, or that the interests of all the
the time of service upon them of the copy of the writ parties to the action will be subserved by the sale
of attachment and notice as provided in the last thereof, the court may order such property to be
preceding section, shall be liable to the applicant sold at public auction in such manner as it may
for the amount of such credits, debts or other direct, and the proceeds of such sale to be
similar personal property, until the attachment is deposited in court to abide the judgment in the
discharged, or any judgment recovered by him is action. (11a)
satisfied, unless such property is delivered or Section 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving
transferred, or such debts are paid, to the clerk, counter-bond. After a writ of attachment has
sheriff, or other proper officer of the court issuing been enforced, the party whose property has been
the attachment. (8a) attached, or the person appearing on his behalf,
Section 9. Effect of attachment of interests in may move for the discharge of the attachment
property belonging to the estate of a decedent. wholly or in part on the security given. The court
The attachment of the interest of an heir, legatee, shall, after due notice and hearing, order the
or devisee in the property belonging to the estate of discharge of the attachment if the movant makes a
a decedent shall not impair the powers of the cash deposit, or files a counter-bond executed to
executor, administrator, or other personal the attaching party with the clerk of the court where
representative of the decedent over such property the application is made, in an amount equal to that
for the purpose of administration. Such personal fixed by the court in the order of attachment,
representative, however, shall report the exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought
attachment to the court when any petition for to be discharged with respect to a particular
distribution is filed, and in the order made upon property, the counter-bond shall be equal to the
such petition, distribution may be awarded to such value of that property as determined by the court. In
heir, legatee or devisee, but the property attached either case, the cash deposit or the counter-bond
shall be ordered delivered to the sheriff making the shall secure the payment of any judgment that the
levy, subject to the claim of such heir, legatee, or attaching party may recover in the action. A notice
devisee, or any person claiming under him. (9a) of the deposit shall forthwith be served on the
Section 10. Examination of party whose property is attaching party. Upon the discharge of an
attached and persons indebted to him or controlling attachment in accordance with the provisions of this
his property; delivery of property to sheriff. Any section, the property attached, or the proceeds of
person owing debts to the party whose property is any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party
attached or having in his possession or under his making the deposit or giving the counter-bond, or to
control any credit or other personal property the person appearing on his behalf, the deposit or
belonging to such party, may be required to attend counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the
before the court in which the action is pending, or property so released. Should such counter-bond for
before a commissioner appointed by the court, and any reason be found to be or become insufficient,
be examined on oath respecting the same. The and the party furnishing the same fail to file an
party whose property is attached may also be additional counter-bond, the attaching party may
required to attend for the purpose of giving apply for a new order of attachment. (12a)
information respecting his property, and may be Section 13. Discharge of attachment on other
examined on oath. The court may, after such grounds. The party whose property has been
examination, order personal property capable of ordered attached may file a motion with the court in
manual delivery belonging to him, in the possession which he action is pending, before or after levy or
of the person so required to attend before the court, even after the release of the attached property, for
to be delivered to the clerk of the court or sheriff on an order to set aside or discharge the attachment
on the ground that the same was improperly or property attached, return of sheriff. If judgment
irregularly issued or enforced, or that the bond is be recovered by the attaching party and execution
insufficient. If the attachment is excessive, the issue thereon, the sheriff may cause the judgment
discharge shall be limited to the excess. If the to be satisfied out of the property attached, if it be
motion be made on affidavits on the part of the sufficient for that purpose in the following manner:
movant but not otherwise, the attaching party may (a) By paying to the judgment obligee the proceeds
oppose the motion by counter-affidavits or other of all sales of perishable or other property sold in
evidence in addition to that on which the pursuance of the order of the court, or so much as
attachment was made. After due notice and shall be necessary to satisfy the judgment;
hearing, the court shall order the setting aside or (b) If any balance remains due, by selling so much
the corresponding discharge of the attachment if it of the property, real or personal, as may be
appears that it was improperly or irregularly issued necessary to satisfy the balance, if enough for that
or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient, or that purpose remain in the sheriff's hands, or in those
the attachment is excessive, and the defect is not the clerk of the court;
cured forthwith. (13a) (c) By collecting from all persons having in their
Section 14. Proceedings where property claimed possession credits belonging to the judgment
by third person. If the property attached is obligor, or owing debts to the latter at the time of
claimed by any person other than the party against the attachment of such credits or debts, the amount
whom attachment had been issued or his agent, of such credits and debts as determined by the
and such person makes an affidavit of his title court in the action, and stated in the judgment, and
thereto, or right to the possession thereof, stating paying the proceeds of such collection over to the
the grounds of such right or title, and serves such judgment obligee.
affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has The sheriff shall forthwith make a return in writing to
possession of the attached property, and a copy the court of his proceedings under this section and
thereof upon the attaching party, the sheriff shall furnish the parties with copies thereof. (15a)
not be bound to keep the property under Section 16. Balance due collected upon an
attachment, unless the attaching party or his agent, execution; excess delivered to judgment obligor.
on demand of the sheriff, shall file a bond approved If after realizing upon all the property attached,
by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in including the proceeds of any debts or credits
a sum not less than the value of the property levied collected, and applying the proceeds to the
upon. In case of disagreement as to such value, the satisfaction of the judgment less the expenses of
same shall be decided by the court issuing the writ proceedings upon the judgment any balance shall
of attachment. No claim for damages for the taking remain due, the sheriff must proceed to collect such
or keeping of the property may be enforced against balance as upon ordinary execution. Whenever the
the bond unless the action therefor is filed within judgment shall have been paid, the sheriff, upon
one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the reasonable demand, must return to the judgment
filing of the bond. obligor the attached property remaining in his
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the hands, and any proceeds of the sale of the property
taking or keeping of such property to any such attached not applied to the judgment. (16a)
third-party claimant, if such bond shall be filed. Section 17. Recovery upon the counter-bond.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent such When the judgment has become executory, the
claimant or any third person from vindicating his surety or sureties on any counter-bond given
claim to the property, or prevent the attaching party pursuant to the provisions of this Rule to secure the
from claiming damages against a third-party payment of the judgment shall become charged on
claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious such counter-bond and bound to pay the judgment
claim, in the same or a separate action. obligee upon demand the amount due under the
When the writ of attachment is issued in favor of judgment, which amount may be recovered from
the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly such surety or sureties after notice and summary
representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be hearing in the same action. (17a)
required, and in case the sheriff is sued for Section 18. Disposition of money deposited.
damages as a result of the attachment, he shall be Where the party against whom attachment had
represented by the Solicitor General, and if held been issued has deposited money instead of giving
liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the counter-bond, it shall be applied under the direction
court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of of the court to the satisfaction of any judgment
the funds to be appropriated for the purpose. (14a) rendered in favor of the attaching party, and after
Section 15. Satisfaction of judgment out of satisfying the judgment the balance shall be
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 19!
!
refunded to the depositor or his assignee. If the known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. (1a)
judgment is in favor of the party against whom Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction.
attachment was issued, the whole sum deposited A preliminary injunction may be granted by the
must be refunded to him or his assignee. (18a) court where the action or proceeding is pending. If
Section 19. Disposition of attached property where the action or proceeding is pending in the Court of
judgment is for party against whom attachment was Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued
issued. If judgment be rendered against the by said court or any member thereof. (2a)
attaching party, all the proceeds of sales and Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary
money collected or received by the sheriff, under injunction. A preliminary injunction may be
the order of attachment, and all property attached granted when it is established:
remaining in any such officer's hands, shall be (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief
delivered to the party against whom attachment demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
was issued, and the order of attachment consists in restraining the commission or
discharged. (19a) continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in
Section 20. Claim for damages on account of requiring the performance of an act or acts either
improper, irregular or excessive attachment. An for a limited period or perpetually;
application for damages on account of improper, (b) That the commission, continuance or non-
irregular or excessive attachment must be filed performance of the act or acts complained of during
before the trial or before appeal is perfected or the litigation would probably work injustice to the
before the judgment becomes executory, with due applicant; or
notice to the attaching party and his surety or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
sureties setting forth the facts showing his right to threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring
damages and the amount thereof. Such damages or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in
may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the
be included in the judgment on the main case. subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to
If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable render the judgment ineffectual. (3a)
to the party against whom the attachment was Section 4. Verified application and bond for
issued he must claim damages sustained during preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
the pendency of the appeal by filing an application order. A preliminary injunction or temporary
in the appellate court, with notice to the party in restraining order may be granted only when:
whose favor the attachment was issued or his (a) The application in the action or proceeding is
surety or sureties, before the judgment of the verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to
appellate court becomes executory. The appellate the relief demanded; and
court may allow the application to be heard and (b) Unless exempted by the court the applicant files
decided by the trial court. with the court where the action or proceeding is
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party pending, a bond executed to the party or person
against whom the attachment was issued from enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to
recovering in the same action the damages the effect that the applicant will pay to such party or
awarded to him from any property of the attaching person all damages which he may sustain by
party not exempt from execution should the bond or reason of the injunction or temporary restraining
deposit given by the latter be insufficient or fail to order if the court should finally decide that the
fully satisfy the award. (20a) applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of
the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction
shall be issued. (4a)
RULE 58 (c) When an application for a writ of preliminary
Preliminary Injunction injunction or a temporary restraining order is
Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading,
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be
any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the raffled only after notice to and in the presence of
judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In
agency or a person to refrain from a particular act any event, such notice shall be preceded, or
or acts. It may also require the performance of a contemporaneously accompanied, by service of
particular act or acts, in which case it shall be summons, together with a copy of the complaint or
initiatory pleading and the applicant's affidavit and In the event that the application for preliminary
bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines. injunction is denied or not resolved within the said
However, where the summons could not be served period, the temporary restraining order is deemed,
personally or by substituted service despite diligent automatically vacated. The effectivity of a
efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the temporary restraining order is not extendible
Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a without need of any judicial declaration to that
nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or effect and no court shall have authority to extend or
contemporaneous service of summons shall not renew the same on the same ground for which it
apply. was issued.
(d) The application for a temporary restraining order However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a
shall thereafter be acted upon only after all parties member thereof, the temporary restraining order
are heard in a summary hearing which shall be shall be effective for sixty (60) days from service on
conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the the party or person sought to be enjoined. A
sheriff's return of service and/or the records are restraining, order issued by the Supreme Court or a
received by the branch selected by raffle and to member thereof shall be effective until further
which the records shall be transmitted immediately. orders. (5a)
Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted Section 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion
without notice; exception. No preliminary of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order.
injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior The application for injunction or restraining order
notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency.
If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or The injunction or restraining order may also be
by the verified application that great or irreparable denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other
injury would result to the applicant before the grounds upon affidavits of the party or person
matter can be heard on notice, the court to which enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant
the application for preliminary injunction was made, also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or if
may issue a temporary restraining order to be granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after
effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the
service on the party or person sought to be injunction or restraining order, the issuance or
enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the said continuance thereof, as the case may be, would
twenty-day period, the court must order said party cause irreparable damage to the party or person
or person to show cause, at a specified time and enjoined while the applicant can be fully
place, why the injunction should not be granted, compensated for such damages as he may suffer,
determine within the same period whether or not and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by
the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and the court conditioned that he will pay all damages
accordingly issue the corresponding order. (Bar which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the
Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998) dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If it
However, and subject to the provisions of the appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction
preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme or restraining order granted is too great, it may be
urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice modified. (6a)
and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a Section 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of
multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single disapproval of same. The party filing a bond in
sala court may issue ex parte a temporary accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall
restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other
hours from issuance but he shall immediately party, who may except to the sufficiency of the
comply with the provisions of the next preceding bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If the
section as to service of summons and the applicant's bond is found to be insufficient in
documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to
within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with
judge before whom the case is pending shall sufficient sureties approved after justification is not
conduct a summary hearing to determine whether filed forthwith the injunction shall be dissolved. If
the temporary restraining order shall be extended the bond of the adverse party is found to be
until the application for preliminary injunction can insufficient in amount, or the surety or sureties
be heard. In no case shall the total period of thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount
effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed with sufficient sureties approved after justification is
twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be granted or
hours provided herein. restored, as the case may be. (8a)
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 21!
!
Section 8. Judgment to include damages against Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil
party and sureties. At the trial, the amount of actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing
damages to be awarded to either party, upon the fees based on the amount of the check involved,
bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed, which shall be considered as the actual damages
ascertained, and awarded under the same claimed. Where the complaint or information also
procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57. (9a) seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal,
Section 9. When final injunction granted. If after temperate or exemplary damages, the offended
the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is party shall pay additional filing fees based on the
entitled to have the act or acts complained of amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so
permanently enjoined the court shall grant a final alleged but any of these damages are subsequently
injunction perpetually restraining the party or awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
person enjoined from the commission or amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
continuance of the act or acts of confirming the judgment.
preliminary mandatory injunction. (10a) Where the civil action has been filed separately and
trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
B. CIVIL ASPECT consolidated with the criminal action upon
1. GENERALLY application with the court trying the latter case. If
the application is granted, the trial of both actions
RULE 111 shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. Rule governing consolidation of the civil and
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil criminal actions. (cir. 57-97)
action for the recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with RJCL Section 12. Prosecution of Civil Action.
the criminal action unless the offended party waives When a criminal action is instituted against a
the civil action, reserves the right to institute it juvenile in conflict with the law, the action for
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
criminal action. charged shall be governed by Rule 111 of the
The reservation of the right to institute separately Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
the civil action shall be made before the !
prosecution starts presenting its evidence and 2.!SUSPENSION!OF!SEPARATE!CIVIL!ACTION!
under circumstances affording the offended party a Section 2. When separate civil action is
reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. suspended. After the criminal action has been
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil commenced, the separate civil action arising
liability against the accused by way of moral, therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without has been entered in the criminal action.
specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or If the criminal action is filed after the said civil
information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a action has already been instituted, the latter shall
first lien on the judgment awarding such damages. be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, before judgment on the merits. The suspension
is specified in the complaint or information, the shall last until final judgment is rendered in the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on
offended party upon the filing thereof in court. the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no may, upon motion of the offended party, be
filing fees shall be required for actual damages. consolidated with the criminal action in the court
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation,
complaint may be filed by the accused in the the evidence already adduced in the civil action
criminal case, but any cause of action which could shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the
have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a criminal action without prejudice to the right of the
separate civil action. (1a) prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas presented by the offended party in the criminal
Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the case and of the parties to present additional
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil
such civil action separately shall be allowed. actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the The court shall forthwith order said legal
running of the period of prescription of the civil representative or representatives to appear and be
action which cannot be instituted separately or substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
whose proceeding has been suspended shall be notice.
tolled. (n) A final judgment entered in favor of the offended
The extinction of the penal action does not carry party shall be enforced in the manner especially
with it extinction of the civil action. However, the provided in these rules for prosecuting claims
civil action based on delict shall be deemed against the estate of the deceased.
extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment If the accused dies before arraignment, the case
in the criminal action that the act or omission from shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil
which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (2a) action the offended party may file against the estate
Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial of the deceased. (n)
question. A petition for suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a 6. EFFECT OF JUDGMENT IN CIVIL ACTION
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in
the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting ON CRIMINAL ACTION
the preliminary investigation. When the criminal
action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at RULE 111 Section 5. Judgment in civil action
any time before the prosecution rests. (6a) not a bar. A final judgment rendered in a civil
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The action absolving the defendant from civil liability
elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the is not a bar to a criminal action against the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue defendant for the same act or omission subject
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in of the civil action. (4a)
the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the
resolution of such issue determines whether or not RPC
the criminal action may proceed. (5a) Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
3. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of
RULE 111 felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony
Section 3. When civil action may proceeded is also civilly liable.
independently. In the cases provided for in Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the cases. - The exemption from criminal liability
Philippines, the independent civil action may be established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this
independently of the criminal action and shall Code does not include exemption from civil liability,
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no which shall be enforced subject to the following
case, however, may the offended party recover rules:
damages twice for the same act or omission First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article
charged in the criminal action. (3a) 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under
4. EFFECT OF DEATH ON CIVIL ACTION nine years of age, or by one over nine but under
Section 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The fifteen years of age, who has acted without
death of the accused after arraignment and during discernment, shall devolve upon those having such
the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish person under their legal authority or control, unless
the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the it appears that there was no fault or negligence on
independent civil action instituted under section 3 of their part.
this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce Should there be no person having such insane,
liability arising from other sources of obligation may imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
be continued against the estate or legal guardianship or control, or if such person be
representative of the accused after proper insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall
substitution or against said estate, as the case may respond with their own property, excepting property
be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil
the deceased without requiring the appointment of law.
an executor or administrator and the court may Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of
appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm
has been prevented shall be civilly liable in
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 23!
!
proportion to the benefit which they may have 1. Restitution;
received. 2. Reparation of the damage caused;
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the 3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
proportionate amount for which each one shall be Article 105. Restitution; How made. - The
liable. restitution of the thing itself must be made
When the respective shares cannot be equitably whenever possible, with allowance for any
determined, even approximately, or when the deterioration, or diminution of value as determined
liability also attaches to the Government, or to the by the court.
majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be
events, whenever the damages have been caused found in the possession of a third person who has
with the consent of the authorities or their agents, acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his
indemnification shall be made in the manner action against the proper person, who may be liable
prescribed by special laws or regulations. to him.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of This provision is not applicable in cases in which
Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the thing has been acquired by the third person in
the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, the manner and under the requirements which, by
or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act law, bar an action for its recovery.
shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part Article 106. Reparation; How made. - The court
of their property exempt from execution. shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, consideration the price of the thing, whenever
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. - possible, and its special sentimental value to the
In default of the persons criminally liable, injured party, and reparation shall be made
innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons accordingly.
or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes Article 107. Indemnification; What is included. -
committed in their establishments, in all cases Indemnification for consequential damages shall
where a violation of municipal ordinances or some include not only those caused the injured party, but
general or special police regulation shall have been also those suffered by his family or by a third
committed by them or their employees. person by reason of the crime.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the Article 108. Obligation to make restoration,
restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within reparation for damages, or indemnification for
their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the consequential damages and actions to demand the
payment of the value thereof, provided that such same; Upon whom it devolves. - The obligation to
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper make restoration or reparation for damages and
himself, or the person representing him, of the indemnification for consequential damages
deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.
furthermore have followed the directions which The action to demand restoration, reparation, and
such innkeeper or his representative may have indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of
given them with respect to the care and vigilance the person injured.
over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If
robbery with violence against or intimidation of there are two or more persons civilly liable for a
persons unless committed by the innkeeper's felony, the courts shall determine the amount for
employees. which each must respond.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other Article 110. Several and subsidiary liability of
persons. - The subsidiary liability established in the principals, accomplices and accessories of a
next preceding article shall also apply to employers, felony; Preference in payment. - Notwithstanding
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in the provisions of the next preceding article, the
any kind of industry for felonies committed by their principals, accomplices, and accessories, each
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or within their respective class, shall be liable
employees in the discharge of their duties. severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
Chapter Two WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other
Article 104. What is included in civil liability. - The persons liable.
civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first
and 103 of this Code includes: against the property of the principals; next, against
that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
the accessories. (5) Freedom of suffrage;
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary (6) The right against deprivation of property without
liability has been enforced, the person by whom due process of law;
payment has been made shall have a right of action (7) The right to a just compensation when private
against the others for the amount of their respective property is taken for public use;
shares. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
Article 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house,
cases. - Any person who has participated papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be and seizures;
bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the
to the extent of such participation. same;
Chapter Three EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF (11) The privacy of communication and
CIVIL LIABILITY correspondence;
Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. - Civil liability (12) The right to become a member of associations
established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
this Code shall be extinguished in the same (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly
manner as obligations, in accordance with the to petition the Government for redress of
provisions of the Civil Law. grievances;
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - (14) The right to be a free from involuntary
Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as servitude in any form;
provided in the next preceding article the offender (15) The right of the accused against excessive
shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil bail;
liability resulting from the crime committed by him, (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself
notwithstanding the fact that he has served his and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other cause of the accusation against him, to have a
rights, or has not been required to serve the same speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
sentence or any other reason. the attendance of witness in his behalf;
! (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness
CIVIL!CODE! against one's self, or from being forced to confess
!Article 29. When the accused in a criminal guilt, or from being induced by a promise of
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt immunity or reward to make such confession,
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a except when the person confessing becomes a
civil action for damages for the same act or State witness;
omission may be instituted. Such action requires (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed
the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has
file a bond to answer for damages in case the not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
complaint should be found to be malicious. (19) Freedom of access to the courts.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is In any of the cases referred to in this article,
based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so whether or not the defendant's act or omission
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party
effect, it may be inferred from the text of the has a right to commence an entirely separate and
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief.
ground. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any
Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and
private individual, who directly or indirectly may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner The indemnity shall include moral damages.
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
liberties of another person shall be liable to the The responsibility herein set forth is not
latter for damages: demandable from a judge unless his act or
(1) Freedom of religion; omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
(2) Freedom of speech; or other penal statute.
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and
periodical publication; physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
CADC$MIDTERMS$CRIMPRO$ 25!
!
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may
be brought by the injured party. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable
for damages, and the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action
herein recognized shall be independent of any
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)!