You are on page 1of 44

Jurisdiction

CRISTINA B. CASTILLO, Petitioner, vs. PHILLIP R. SALVADOR, Respondent G.R. No. 191240 | July
30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION
FACTS:  Phillip Salvador and his brother Ramon Salvador were charged with estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code in an Information.  Upon their arraignment, Phillip and Ramon
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.  The RTC rendered a
Decision finding Phillip guilty beyond reasonable doubt and ordered him to pay Castillo, US$100,000.00 or its
equivalent in Philippine currency.  Ramon was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.  Phillip appealed
his conviction to the CA, which overturned the RTC decision.  Castillo filed a petition for review on
certiorari on the civil aspect of the case, arguing that the Court should have at least retained the amount of
damages to her.
ISSUE: Whether the acquitted accused remains liable for damages.
RULING: Yes. His acquittal was only based on failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIO:  [I]n Manantan v. CA, we discussed the consequences of an acquittal on the civil liability of the
accused as follows:
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused.
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the actor omission complained of.
This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of
any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act oromission. There being no delict, civil
liability ex delictois out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based
on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of
Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this
case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in
Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for damages is "for the same act or omission." x xx. 
A reading of the CA decision would show that Phillip was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [S]ince the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, [Phillip] is not exempt
from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. In Encinas v. National Bookstore,
Inc., we explained the concept of preponderance of evidence as follows: o
x xx Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or"greater
weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means
probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
In discrediting [Castillo's] allegation that she gave [Phillip] US$100,000.00 in May 2002, the CA found that:
(1) [Castillo] failed to show how she was able to raise the money in such a short period of time and even
gave conflicting versions on the source of the same; (2) [Castillo]failed to require respondent to sign a
receipt so she could have a record of the transaction and offered no plausible reason why the money was
allegedly hand-carried toHong Kong; (3) [Castillo's] claim of trust as reason for not requiring [Phillip] to sign
a receipt was inconsistent with the way she conducted her previous transactions with him; and (4)
[Castillo's] behavior after the alleged fraud perpetrated against her was inconsistent with the actuation of
someone who had been swindled.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO y CASTILIANO and EMILIO
LA'O y GONZALES, Respondents. G.R. No. 168918
March 2, 2009 THIRD DIVISION
FACTS:  Herein respondents Dumlao and La’o, Aber P. Canlas, Jacobo C. Clave, Roman A. Cruz, Jr. and
Fabian C. Ver were charged with violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019  Dumlao  filed an MD

1

on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.7 o He stated that the prosecution’s main
thrust against him was the alleged approval by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Board of
Trustees -- of which he was a member -- of the Lease-Purchase Agreement entered into by and among the
GSIS, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and respondent La’o. He argued that the
allegedly approved Board Resolution was not in fact approved by the GSIS Board of Trustees, contrary to the
allegations in the information. Since the signatures of Fabian Ver, Roman Cruz, Aber Canlas and Jacobo Clave
did not appear in the minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 1982, he said it was safe to conclude that
these people did not participate in the alleged approval of the Lease-Purchase Agreement. This being the
case, he maintained that there was no quorum of the board to approve the supposed resolution authorizing
the sale of the GSIS property. There being no approval by the majority of the Board of Trustees, there can be
no resolution approving the Lease-Purchase Agreement. The unapproved resolution, he added, proved his
innocence. He further contended that the person to be charged should be Atty. Luis Javellana, who sold the
subject property to respondent La’o without the proper authority. He likewise wondered why he alone was
charged without including the other two signatories in the minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 1982. 
SB  granted the MD  People  filed a Rule 45 before the SC o Petitioner argues it was denied its right to
due process when the court a quo dismissed the case against respondent Dumlao after pre-trial and before it
could present its witnesses and formally offer its exhibits. The court a quo deprived it of the opportunity to
prove its case – that the Resolution dated 23 April 1982 was passed by the GSIS Board of Trustees and that
the Lease-Purchase Agreement was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
ISSUE: Whether SB correctly dismissed the case.
HELD: NO.
Respondent Dumlao was charged, he being one of the members of the GSIS Board of Trustees who allegedly
approved the lease-purchase of the subject GSIS properties consisting of three parcels of land with an area
of 821 square meters, together with a five-storey building, in favor of respondent La’o, which lease-purchase
agreement was deemed by the Office of the Ombudsman to be grossly disadvantageous to the government.
 A review of the Motion to Dismiss/Quash filed by respondent Dumlao reveals that the ground he invoked
was that "the facts charged do not constitute an offense." He contends that the alleged approved Board
Resolution was not approved by the GSIS Board of Trustees, contrary to the allegation in the information.
Since the signatures of four out of the seven members of the board did not appear in the minutes of the
meeting held on 23 April 1982, there was no quorum present or no majority that approved the supposed
resolution. This being the case, he asserts that there was no resolution adopted by the GSIS Board of
Trustees approving the sale of the subject properties to respondent La’o.  The Sandiganbayan, basing its
resolution on the Pre-trial Stipulation entered into by the prosecution and respondent Dumlao, dismissed the
case against the latter, since it found that the GSIS Board of Trustees failed to approve or validly pass the
Lease-Purchase Agreement, because only three out of the seven members of the Board signed the minutes
of the meeting held on 23 April 1982. It explained that, "no amount of evidence can change the fact that the
Resolution dated April 23, 1982 was not validly passed by the Board of Trustees of GSIS since it was only
signed by three members of the Board. Thus, it never had the force and effect of a valid resolution and did
not in effect approve the Lease and Purchase Agreement subject matter hereof. Therefore, the prosecution
has no cause of action against herein movant-accused Hermenegildo C. Dumlao."
The ground raised by respondent Dumlao in his Motion to Quash/Dismiss is that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments of an
information is whether the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the
essentials elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde, or matters extrinsic of the Information,
are not be considered.11  The elements of the crime under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 are as
follows: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of
the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.12  After examining the information, we find that the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically
admitted, will prove all the elements of Section 3(g) as against respondent Dumlao.
It can be gathered from the resolution of the Sandiganbayan that it did consider the ground invoked by
Dumlao (that the facts charged do not constitute an offense); otherwise, it could have denied respondent

2

Dumlao’s motion. From the reasoning given by the Sandiganbayan, it is clear that it dismissed the case
because of insufficiency of evidence.
Quash. The grounds, as enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, are as
follows:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is
prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification;
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Insufficiency of evidence is a ground for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests its case.
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. – After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
In the case under consideration, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case against respondent for insufficiency
of evidence, even without giving the prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence. In so doing, it
violated the prosecution’s right to due process. It deprived the prosecution of its opportunity to prosecute its
case and to prove the accused’s culpability.  It was therefore erroneous for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss
the case under the premises. Not only did it not consider the ground invoked by respondent Dumlao; it even
dismissed the case on a ground not raised by him, and not at the appropriate time. The dismissal was thus
without basis and untimely.
DAVID TIU, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EDGARDO POSTANES, Respondents. G.R. No.
162370
April 21, 2009 FIRST DIVISION
FACTS:  The instant controversy stemmed from a criminal charge for slight physical injuries filed by
respondent Edgardo Postanes (Postanes) against Remigio Pasion (Pasion).  On the other hand, petitioner
David Tiu (Tiu) filed a criminal charge for grave threats against Postanes.  Consequently, an Information
for Slight Physical Injuries, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-412, and an Information for Grave Threats,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-413, were filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City. 
Upon motion of Pasion, Criminal Case Nos. 96-412 and 96-413 were consolidated and jointly heard before
the MeTC of Pasay City, Branch 44.  MeTC dismissed both charges; denied Tiu’s ensuing MR  Tiu 
filed a Rule 65 before RTC o RTC  granted  This case is remanded to the Court of origin for
reconsideration of its Decision  RTC  then declared void the MeTC’s judgment  Postanes  filed an MR
before RTC o RTC  denied  Postanes filed a Rule 65 before the CA  Court of Appeals directed
respondents (Tiu and Judge Francisco G. Mendiola of RTC Pasay, Branch 115) to file their Comment on the
petition. The Court of Appeals found no reason to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

3

Meanwhile, Tiu, through his counsel, filed with the MeTC a Motion for Compliance asking the MeTC to
enforce the RTC decision. He also filed a motion to inhibit MeTC Presiding Judge Estrellita M. Paas. Postanes,
on the other hand, filed a motion to suspend the proceedings and an Opposition to the motion for
compliance o MeTC granted Postanes’ motion to suspend the proceedings. o Presiding Judge Estrellita M.
Paas also inhibited herself from further hearing the case.  Tiu  filed with CA an MD the petition on the
ground of forum shopping. o CA issued a Reso stated that "action on the Motion to Dismiss Petition filed
by the private respondents, together with the petitioner’s Opposition thereto, and private respondents’
Reply to Opposition shall be included in the preparation of the decision in the present petition.  CA  then
reversed RTC; denied Tiu’s ensuing MR o n annulling the RTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that the RTC
"has granted upon the State, through the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the right to appeal the decision
of acquittal which right the government does not have." o The Court of Appeals stated that the prosecution
had not been denied by the MeTC of its right to due process. Hence, it was wrong for the RTC to declare the
findings of the MeTC as having been arrived at with grave abuse of discretion, thereby denying Postanes of
his Constitutional right against double jeopardy. o The Court of Appeals opined that the MeTC evaluated and
passed upon the evidence presented both by the prosecution and the defense. The MeTC, however, believed
that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence of Postanes, thus acquitted him based on reasonable doubt.  Tiu  filed a Rule 45 before the SC
ISSUE: Whether there was double jeopardy when Tiu filed a petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of
Postanes by the MeTC
HELD: NO.  At the outset, the Court finds that the petition is defective since it was not filed by the Solicitor
General. Instead, it was filed by Tiu, the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 96-413, through his
counsel. Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before this Court and
the Court of Appeals.20 Tiu, the offended party in Criminal Case No. 96-413 is without legal personality to
appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals before this Court. Nothing shows that the Office of the Solicitor
General represents the People in this appeal before this Court. On this ground alone, the petition must fail.
 However, the Court opts to resolve the question of double jeopardy to finally put an end to this
controversy.  The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form
and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and
had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express
consent.21  These elements are present here: (1) the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 96-413 against
Postanes was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the MeTC had jurisdiction over
Criminal Case No. 96-413; (3) Postanes was arraigned and entered a non-guilty plea;22 and (4) the MeTC
dismissed Criminal Case No. 96-413 on the ground of insufficiency of evidence amounting to an acquittal
from which no appeal can be had.23 Clearly, for this Court to grant the petition and order the MeTC to
reconsider its decision, just what the RTC ordered the MeTC to do, is to transgress the Constitutional
proscription not to put any person "twice x xx in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense."24 Further,
as found by the Court of Appeals, there is no showing that the prosecution or the State was denied of due
process resulting in loss or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the MeTC, which would have allowed an appeal
by the prosecution from the order of dismissal of the criminal case.25  Tiu also contends that since the
defense in Criminal Case No. 96-413 failed to submit a formal of evidence, the defense in effect had no
evidence to dispute the charge against Postanes. Tiu insists that though Criminal Case Nos. 96-412 and 96413 were consolidated, the MeTC should not have considered the evidence offered in Criminal Case No. 96412 to dismiss Criminal Case No. 96-413. In doing so, the MeTC allegedly committed grave abuse of
discretion rendering its dismissal of Criminal Case No. 96-413 (grave threats case) void.  Tiu’s arguments
fail to convince us. There is nothing in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure prohibiting the MeTC from
appreciating the evidence presented and formally offered in Criminal Case No. 96-412 in resolving Criminal
Case No. 96-413, inasmuch as these two criminal cases were properly consolidated and jointly tried. In fact,
the MeTC’s act of assessing the evidence in Criminal Case No. 96-412 in deciding Criminal Case No. 96-413
is consistent with the avowed objective of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure "to achieve an
expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases" covered by these Rules. Besides, the testimonies of
Postanes, Aynaga,26 and Samson27 were properly offered at the time when these witnesses were called to
testify.28 Hence, while the affidavits as documentary evidence were not formally offered, there were

4

for trial. the president of Unlad Shipping & Management Corporation. The case was later re-raffled to Branch 214. Petitioner.. Antzoulatos and Gaza filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and for deferred enforcement of the warrants of arrest. et al. Subsequently. T Judge Capco-Umali voluntarily inhibited herself from the case and did not resolve Alamil’s motion for reconsideration and the Jimenez's motion to expunge. which was denied. there is nothing capricious or whimsical in the act of the MeTC of considering the evidence formally offered in Criminal Case No. Jimenez. the RTC ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against Antzoulatos. Inc. 96-413. and treated the motion for judicial determination as a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause. which was denied. the MeTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. T The RTC ordered the motion expunged from the records since the 5 . stressing the existence of probable cause to prosecute the respondents and that respondent Alamil had no standing to seek any relief from the RTC. T Jimenez moved for reconsideration. which was denied for being moot and academic. (TMSI). for being biased or partial. Therefore. vs. 96-412 in resolving the consolidated Criminal Case No. 96-413. in his capacity as President and representative of UNLAD SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. Respondents 687 SCRA 151 | G. T Sorongon. Rule 110 DANTE LA. MARCELl GAZA and MARKOS AVGOUSTIS. 178607 | December 5. the Court finds no need to discuss the forum shopping issue. for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment.  In view of the foregoing. T Alamil filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause with a request to defer enforcement of the warrants of arrest. et al. 96-413 for insufficient evidence. JIMENEZ. CARMEN ALAMIL. EDWIN SORONGON (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 214 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City). et al. Alamil moved for reconsideration and for the inhibition of Judge Capco-Umali. falsely represented their stockholdings in TMSI’s articles of incorporation to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). HON.R. listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services. SOCRATES ANTZOULATOS. presided by Judge Edwin D.  Contrary to the RTC’s finding. No. 2012 SECOND DIVISION FACTS: T In 2003.testimonial evidences supporting Postanes’ defense in Criminal Case No. the City Prosecutor reconsidered resolution and filed a motion with the RTC to withdraw the information. T An Information was then filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Mandaluyong. alleging that Antzoulatos. T The RTC granted Alamil’s motion for reconsideration. T Thus. T The RTC denied the motion to withdraw information as it found the existence of probable cause to hold Antzoulatos.. et al. filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City against Antzoulatos.

" In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before this Court. Chapter 12. T Jimenez filed a notice of appeal. T T ISSUE:Whether Jimenez. the RTC ordered the notice of appeal expunged from the records. PEOPLE Rule 111 – Prejudicial Question 6 . Thus. RATIO:  It is well-settled that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest[. T The RTC denied the Jimenez's notice of appeal since Jimenez filed it without the conformity of the Solicitor General. the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People. When the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest. who is mandated to represent the People of the Philippines in criminal actions appealed to the CA. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration that followed. Title III. contingent. as distinguished from a mere expectancy.]" "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. has legal personality in assailing the RTC Orders. or a future. pursuant to Section 35(1). By real interest is meant a present substantial interest. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. the suit is dismissible. the private complainant. T T T T RULING: No. T T Jimenez elevated his case to the CA via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. Alamil moved to expunge the Jimenez' notice of appeal since the public prosecutor did not authorize the appeal and the petitioner had no civil interest in the case." Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. which was dismissed outright by the CA for Jimenez’s lack of legal personality to file the petition on behalf of the People of the Philippines. T While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf (as when there is a denial of due process). subordinate or consequential interest.motion did not have the public prosecutor’s conformity. T The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit. this exceptional circumstance does not apply in the present case Rule 111 MAGESTRADO v. T Procedural law basically mandates that "[a]ll criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. This ruling has been repeatedly stressed in several cases and continues to be the controlling doctrine.

the Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for perjury against petitioner. petitioner comes before us via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Thus. Note that the affidavit of loss was executed in support of the petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT. Librojo filed a criminal complaint for perjury against petitioner with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. we shall first discuss the allegations of petitioner in his complaint in Civil Cases. petitioner filed petition for certiorari under rule 65 with a prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Quezon City. HELD: NO Petitioner harps on the need for the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case for perjury pending before MeTC based on a prejudicial question still to be resolved in Civil Case (for cancellation of mortgage) and Civil Case (for collection of a sum of money) which are pending before other trial courts. CA: dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioners remedy should have been an appeal from the dismissal by RTC-Branch 83 of his Petition for Certiorari. 173163. a real estate broker. N-173163.Private respondent Elena M. pending before the RTC of Quezon City must be resolved first before Criminal Case (for perjury) may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in the criminal action. MR was likewise denied. Petitioner alleges that he purchased a parcel of land covered by TCT thru private respondent. petitioner was pressured to sign a Deed of Sale prepared by private respondent. Whether or not he committed perjury is the issue in the criminal case which may be resolved independently of the civil cases. Apalit committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion to suspend theproceedings in Criminal Case. whereas the criminal case is for perjury which imputes upon petitioner the wrongful execution of an affidavit of loss to support his petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. Upon signing the Deed of Sale. on the ground that MeTC Judge Billy J. Estrada of the Regional Trial Court Quezon City. That there is no prejudicial question involved as to warrant the suspension of the criminal action to await the outcome of the civil cases. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Estrella T. After the filing of petitioners counter-affidavit and the appended pleadings. MR likewise denied. In the process of negotiation. Fernandez filed an information for perjury against petitioner with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. Aggrieved. MeTC: denied motion for suspension of proceedings. had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of her jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Certiorari and petitioners subsequent motion for reconsideration on the ground of a prejudicial question pursuant to the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the prevailing jurisprudence. Delivery of Title and Damages filed by petitioner against private respondent with RTC. FACTS: Petitioner filed a motion for suspension of proceedings based on a prejudicial question. For clarity. Assistant City Prosecutor Josephine Z. Petitioner alleged that the case for recovery of a sum of money pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City and case for Cancellation of Mortgage. RTC: dismissed the petition. FOR complaint for Cancellation of Mortgage. he noticed that the Deed was already signed by a certain Cristina Gonzales as attorney-in-fact of vendor Spouses Guillermo and Amparo 7 . petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court arguing that the RTC judge gravely abused its discretion. Hence. The civil cases are principally for determination whether or not a loan was obtained by petitioner and whether or not he executed the deed of real estate mortgage involving the property covered by TCT No. Dissatisfied. Delivery of Title and Damages. The motion lacks merit as it appears that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil actions is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

A prejudial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. Rationale of Prejudicial Question. petitioner was even charged with perjury before the Office of the City Prosecutor. For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend criminal action. A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. for P100.However. Private respondent alleges that petitioner obtained a loan from her in the amount of P758. Jr. On the other hand. Petitioner averred that private respondent refused to deliver the certificate of title of the land despite execution and signing of the Deed of Sale and payment of the consideration. Sec. As to whether it is proper to suspend Criminal Case for perjury pending final outcome of Civil Cases we take into consideration Sections 6 and 7. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial. but the latter failed to present one. Petitioner demanded from private respondent a special power of attorney and authority to sell. the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.000. Private respondent further alleges that she also discovered that petitioner filed a petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT with the RTC of Quezon City.42 with a promise to pay on or before 30 August 1997.. Petitioner pleaded for additional time to pay the said obligation. for the complaint for a sum of money with a motion for issuance of a writ of attachment filed by private respondent against petitioner before RTC. all because of Mr. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. In fact. Private respondent demanded that petitioner pay his obligation. which read: Sec. Petitioner further alleged that he discovered the existence of a spurious Real Estate Mortgage which he allegedly signed in favor of private respondent.Galvez.000. did nothing upon receipt of the amount of P100. Elements of prejudicial question. and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.s wrongdoing. (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action.00 from petitioner. Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court. Requisites of PQ. 6. it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case. and succeeded in annotating said affidavit on the original copy of TCT on file with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. Jr. Jr.00 to facilitate the filing of cases against private respondent. Prejudicial question. 7. the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. to deliver to petitioner the certificate of title of the land. Gazmin. Gazmin.The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. the guilt or 8 . and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. defined. and/or to cancel the certificate of title in possession of private respondent. But private respondent discovered sometime in February 1998 that petitioner executed an affidavit of loss alleging that he lost the owners duplicate copy of TCT. The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action. When to apply. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. to which respondent agreed. but the latter refused to do so. Petitioner categorically denied signing the mortgage document and it was private respondent who falsified the same in order to justify her unlawful withholding of TCT from petitioner. As security for payment of the loan. Mr. Petitioner was thus compelled to engage the services of one Modesto Gazmin. who agreed. petitioner executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage covering a parcel of land registered under TCT.(1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based.134.

000. did not err in ruling that the pendency of Civil Cases before RTC. private complainant Luz Gercayo. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. a judicial order issued pursuant to the courts discretionary authority is not subject to reversal on review unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. petitioner. It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independently of each other. and for litigants. for counsel. it will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for perjury. involves the determination of whether petitioner committed perjury in executing an affidavit of loss to support his request for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT. especially where the parties and the issues are the same. DR. therefore. not subject to reversal on review. and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal. Solidum. likewise. hear or move. He could no longer see. MeTC.R. Dr. SOLIDUM. the second action should be stayed. During the operation Gerald experienced bradycardia. respondent. 192123. Luz Gercayo (Luz) lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries with the City Prosecutor’s Office of Manila against the attending physicians. hold the action in abeyance to abide by the outcome of another case pending in another court. and went into a coma. FACTS: Gerald.The court in which an action is pending may. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence.00 as moral damages and P100. Issue of order.000. His coma lasted for two weeks. Criminal Case before MeTC. Ma. but he regained consciousness only after a month. Issue : Whether or not Dr. Marichu Abella. for there is power inherent in every court to control the disposition of cases on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs. and upon proper application for a stay of that action. On the other hand. as a rule. 2014. Dr. was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pullthrough operation. Determination of PQ is an exercise of discretion by the court. then three years old. No. 9 . The RTC rendered its judgment finding Dr. A perusal of the allegations in the complaints show that Civil Cases are principally for the determination of whether a loan was obtained by petitioner from private respondent and whether petitioner executed a real estate mortgage involving the property covered by TCT. March 10. jointly and severally with the Ospital ng Maynila. in the exercise of sound discretion. Indeed. did not err in ruling that MeTCdid not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners motion for suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case. Where the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled. Leandro Resurreccion headed the surgical team and was assisted by anesthesiologists including Dr. IN THIS CASE. vs. Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries and to indemnify. FERNANDO P. G. RTC. Regardless of the outcome of the two civil cases. the amount of P500. do not pose a prejudicial question in the determination of whether petitioner is guilty of perjury in Criminal. Fernando Solidum. The CA affirmed the conviction of Dr. Anita So and Dr. The purchase by petitioner of the land or his execution of a real estate mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss of TCT.innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

e. Solidum. as affirmed by the CA. Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Ospital ng Maynila must be shown to be a corporation 10 . which could or could not necessarily be attributed to the administration of the anesthesia. Indeed. Dr. Such a rule would enforce the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.. taken together. That meant that the manner of administration of the anesthesia by Dr. that “although the anesthesiologist followed the normal routine and precautionary procedures. Solidum was not necessarily the cause of the hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerard.The Prosecution did not prove the elements of reckless imprudence beyond reasonable doubt because the circumstances cited by the CA were insufficient to establish that Dr. we have to address the unusual decree of the RTC. Solidum for the damages despite the obvious fact that Ospital ng Maynila. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to that arising from the offense charged. therefore. still hypoxia and its corresponding side effects did occur. Hence. Consequently. The decree was flawed in logic and in law.” However. The conditions for subsidiary liability to attach to Ospital ng Maynila should first be complied with. pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. being an artificial entity. Verily. Dr. had caused the hypoxia and had then led Gerald to experience bradycardia. Solidum civilly liable would be to speculate on the cause of the hypoxia. It is puzzling. had not been charged along with Dr. Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in administering the anesthetic agent to Gerald. for civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence. 2) Although the result now reached has resolved the issue of civil liability. But we cannot now find and declare him civilly liable because the circumstances that have been established here do not present the factual and legal bases for validly doing so. We are not allowed to do so. did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. There was really no firm and competent showing how the injury to Gerard had been caused. namely: (a) the duty owed by the physician to the patient. i. In criminal prosecutions. Solidum would not immediately exempt him from civil liability. civil or administrative — calls for the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence each of the following four elements. Vertido’s findings did not preclude the probability that other factors related to Gerald’s major operation. His acquittal did not derive only from reasonable doubt. The RTC and the CA should have been alert to this fundamental defect. We have to clarify that the acquittal of Dr. of expressly holding Ospital ng Maynila civilly liable jointly and severally with Dr. instead. Solidum’s guilt. Solidum was criminally charged for “failing to monitor and regulate properly the levels of anesthesia administered to said Gerald Albert Gercayo and using 100% halothane and other anesthetic medications. its fundamental right to be heard was not respected from the outset. no person can be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a party. For one. The lower courts thereby acted capriciously and whimsically. Solidum. as created by the physicianpatient relationship. to adjudge Dr. Solidum had been guilty of inexcusable lack of precaution in monitoring the administration of the anesthetic agent to Gerald. how the RTC and the CA could have adjudged Ospital ng Maynila jointly and severally liable with Dr. Firstly. there must be a reasonably close and causal connection between the negligent act or omission and the resulting injury; and (4) the damages suffered by the patient Dr. An action upon medical negligence — whether criminal. to act in accordance with the specific norms or standards established by his profession; (b) the breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act in accordance with the applicable standard of care; (3) the causation.” The existence of the probability about other factors causing the hypoxia has engendered in the mind of the Court a reasonable doubt as to Dr. and moves us to acquit him of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. which rendered their judgment against Ospital ng Maynila void as the product of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. the foregoing circumstances. Vertido revealingly concluded in his report.

the proper remedy should have been an appeal. 2010; ACQUITS Dr. Rules of Court FACTS: As a result of a vehicular accident between two vehicles. 145391 August 26. They contend that an action on quasi-delict is different from an action resulting from the crime of recklessimprudence. Solidum must be shown to be an employee of Ospital ng Maynila acting in the discharge of his duties during the operation on Gerald. and an accused in a criminal case can be an aggrieved party in a civil case arising from the same incident. 2002 Topic: Criminal Procedure: Rule 111. And. Casupanan and Capitulo’s contention: that if the accused in a criminal case has a counterclaim against the private complainant. especially one that employs labor and capital. Laroya’s contention: that the petition is fatally defective as it does not state the real antecedents. On Motion for Reconsideration. CASUPANAN VS LAROYA CASE DIGEST G. assuming that civil liability was adjudged against Dr. They maintain that under Articles 31 and 2176 of the Civil Code. Finally. and is engaged in industry. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. he definitely was not such employee but a consultant of the hospital. Solidum as an employee (which did not happen here). a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case. AFFIRMATIVE RATIO DICIDENDI: The Court held that the MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the ground of forum-shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. unless the order of dismissal expressly states that it is 11 .“engaged in any kind of industry. Solidum of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries; and MAKES no pronouncement on costs of suit. the order of dismissal is without prejudice to refiling the complaint. Secondly. ISSUE/HELD: WON an accused in a pending criminal case for recklessimprudence can validly file. Yet. No. who was not a party in the criminal case. Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceedindependently of the criminal case. SC REVERSES AND SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on January 20. he may file the counterclaim in a separate civil action at the proper time. However. they point out that Casupanan was not the only one who filed the independent civil action based on quasi-delict but also Capitulo. The MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with prejudice. Casupanan and Capitulo then filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Capas. But the RTC ruled that the order of dismissal issued by the MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case and therefore. Dr. This case was on its preliminary investigation stage when Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict. thirdly. However. the owner-operator of the vehicle. Casupanan and Capitulo filed this petition. Laroya further alleges that Casupanan and Capitulo forfeited their right to question the order of dismissal when they failed to avail of the proper remedy of appeal. Ospital ng Maynila. Under the Administrative Circular.” The term industry means any department or branch of art. the MCTC dismissed the civil case. occupation or business. the execution against him was unsatisfied due to his being insolvent.R. the civil case can proceed independently of the criminal action. Tarlac. Hence. upon motion of Laroya on the ground of forum-shopping. two cases were filed before the MCTC of Capas. Laroya argues that there is no question of law to be resolved as the order of dismissal is already final and a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal. assuming that Ospital ng Maynila was engaged in industry for profit. being a public hospital. Fernando P. one driven by Mario LlavoreLaroya and the other owned by Roberto Capitulo and driven by AvelinoCasupanan. Tarlac. simultaneously and independently. 04-94. was not engaged in industry conducted for profit but purely in charitable and humanitarian work.

Clearly. there can be no forum-shopping if the accused files such separate civil action. The commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. Clearly. however. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. is a dismissal without prejudice. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. Thus. the offended party is deemed to make such reservation if he files a separate civil action before filing the criminal action. 33. Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the criminal action. Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. And par 6. Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused "may be litigated in a separate civil action." This is only fair for two reasons. Rule 111 of the present Rules did not change the rule that the separate civil action. Similarly. the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case. and the other a civil case for quasi-delict — without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. filed to recover damages ex-delicto. the offended party is still given the option to file a separate civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence. not to the accused. If the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial has not yet commenced. the MCTC's dismissal. like its counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules." There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. of a separate civil action to recover damages ex-delicto. the Capas RTC's order dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal. Under the present Rule 111. 33. is erroneous. Section 3 of the present Rule 111. Also. In some instances. expressly allows the "offended party" to bring an independent civil action under Articles 32. the offended party will have no reason to file a second civil action since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. they have different causes of action. sec 1 of Rule 111. In no case. The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted. necessitating the filing of another case against his employer or guardians. The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised Penal Code while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. the civil action may be consolidated with the criminal action. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against 12 . The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. Section 2 of the present Rule 111 also prohibits the filing. after commencement of the criminal action. Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action. this civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Thus. As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111. the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The consolidation under this Rule does not apply to separate civil actions arising from the same act or omission filed under Articles 32. Although these two actions arose from the same act or omission. being silent on the matter. Section 2. In most cases. the accused may be insolvent. Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. is suspended upon the filing of the criminal action. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6.with prejudice. the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. Section 3 of the present Rule 111 expressly states that the "offended party" may bring such an action but the "offended party" may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. First. may the "offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action under Rule 65.

Romero was the president and general manager of SAIDECOR. while Rodriguez was the operations manager.Thus. but the amount in figures was for P1. when he interviewed Romero and Rodriguez regarding the corporation's investment operations in Butuan City and Agusan del Norte. 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. RODRIGUEZ FACTS: The case before the court is an appeal of accused Martin L. On September 14. The corporation guaranteed an 800% return on investment within fifteen (15) or twenty one (21) days. Romero and Ernesto C. Ruiz did not notice the discrepancy.the offended party. is to deny him due process of law. In relation to P. Romero and Rodriguez could not be located and demand for payment was made only sometime in November 1989 during the preliminary investigation of this case. it engaged in soliciting funds and investments from the public.Thanks G. Second.00 as the amount in words. the accused. vs. Rodriguez from the joint judgment of the regional trial court butuan city. The check indicated P1. After handing over the amount of P150k to Rodriguez. 112985 April 21. the prescriptive period may set in since the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed. No.200. Yung main case kasi hind nag focus sa rule 111 sec 4. No. Romero and Rodriguez responded that they had no money. as evidenced by the check return slip issued by the bank.D. 1989. To disallow the accused from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict. RULE 111. Later. in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent of the criminal action. Ruiz the amount of (150. 4 Effect of death on civil actions DOCTRINE: The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict Please pay attention to second (issue2). access to the courts. When the check was presented to the bank for payment on October 5. 1989. and equal protection of the law.000. 13 . the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper. Ruiz went to SAIDECOR office in Butuan City to make an investment. Investors were given coupons containing the capital and the return on the capital collectible on the date agreed upon. ROMERO and ERNESTO C. has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code. Ruiz received a postdated check instead of the usual redeemable coupon. 1989.000) Ruiz was a radio commentator in Butuan City.000.00. SEC. it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. He learned about the business of Surigao San Andres Industrial Development Corporation (SAIDECOR). as the return on the investment. who is presumed innocent. while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case. SAIDECOR started its operation as a marketing business. 1689 and sentencing each of them to jointly and severally pay Ernesto A. Convicting each of them of estafa under article 315 of the rpc.200. MARTIN L. If the accused does not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict.R. It stopped operations in September.

00 would become P1. There is no merit in this appeal. this rule of interpretation finds no application in the case. the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate.200. Even if the trial court admitted the stipulation of facts. They claimed that they had sufficient funds in the bank.760. However. the investment of P150. and P1.307. while the amount in figures was P1.000. If the accused dies before arraignment. In the case at bar Ernesto Rodriguez died during the appeal on November 12 1997. The amount in words was P1. Lily Lim v Kou Co Ping Principle: A single act or omission that cause damage to an offended party may gave rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender – (1) civil liability ex delicto.000.00. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.200. but it was dishonored because what was recognized was the amount in figures (P1.00. However. However during the pendency of the appeal on November 12 1997. – The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict.000. The rule in the Negotiable Instruments Law is that when there is ambiguity in the amount in words and the amount in figures.144.00.200. We sustain accused-appellant's conviction. ISSUE 1:W/N the court erred in convicting Romero and Rodriguez on the basis of the dishonored check HELD 1: No.000. it would not be favorable to accused-appellant. Effect of death on civil actions. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. ISSUE 2: Whether or not Ernesto Rodriguez’s criminal liability and civil liability should be extinguish? HELD 2: YES. it would be the amount in words that would prevail.00). and as a consequence of his death before final judgement. The agreement was perfectly clear that at the end of twenty one (21) days. It is admitted that the corporation had in the bank P1. 1989. The check was presented for payment on October 5. 1990.200. his criminal and civil liability ex delicto. that is. civil liability arising from the 14 .14 on April 2.Romero and Rodriguez were both convicted for the crime of estafa. were extinguished as provided for under rule 111 sec 4 of the rules of court. Accused-appellant relies on the fact that there was a discrepancy between the amount in words and the amount in figures in the check that was dishonored.124.000.00 on September 28.200. As provided in rule 111 section 4 of the rules of court it state that: Sec. 1989.000. accused Ernesto Rudriguez died. as the case may be. 4. A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.00) instead of the amount in words (P1.

Lim filed case of Estafa through Misappropriation or Conversion against Co. that is civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as felony”. Upon appeal by the public prosecutor. filed a Motion to Dismiss the case based on Absence of Probable Cause. it having been instituted together with criminal action. whereas the appeal in the estafa case involves only the civil obligations of Co arising from the offense charged. 15 . FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining bags covered by the withdrawal authorities. Corazon E. Jr. and Lauro H. Sometime in April 1999. Facts: FR Cement Corporation issued several withdrawal authorities for the account of cement dealers and traders. is a civil action arising from contractual obligation and fortortious conduct. It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but. nevertheless.criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and (2) independent civil liability. Each withdrawal authority contained provision that it is valid for six months from its date of issuance. 2004. It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but. On April 23. litis pendentiaor res judicata. Hernandez. VERGARA.) against Rosa Fenequito. The criminal cases of estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual. 2005 Lim filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the RTC. jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively. Rodriguez. et al. Lim clarified the matter with Co and administrative manager of Fil-Cement. civil liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and (2) independent civil liability. After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal case the court also found Co not civilly liable. Fenequito. JR July 18. Using the withdrawal authorities Lim withdrew cement bags from FRCC on a staggered basis. the RTC set aside the MeTC's order and directed the latter to proceed to trial. 2012 677 SCRA 113 FACTS: On February 11. the second action. filed an appeal before the CA. however. et al. 2005 Lim filed her notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case. that is. Lim sought a reconsideration which the regional trial Court denied. Fil-Cement and Tigerbilt. On February Co then sold these withdrawal authorities to Lim. Fenequito. treated independently from the criminal action by specific provision of the Article 33 of the Civil Code. Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities. who explained that the plant implemented a price increase and would only release the goods once Lim pays the price difference or agrees to receive lesser quantity of cement. The independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as felony”. treated independently from the criminal action by specific provision of the Article 33 of the Civil Code. The Regional Trial Court acquitted Co. without offending the rules on forum shopping. an Information for falsification of public documents was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila by the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila (representing Bernardo Vergara. Issue: Whether or not there is no forum shopping for a private complainant to pursue a civil complaint for specific performance and damages while appealing the judgment on the civil aspect of a criminal case for estafa? Ruling: A single act or omission that cause damage to an offended party may gave rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender – (1) civil liability ex delicto. 2004. On March 14. nevertheless. that is civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. judging by the allegations contained in the complaint. On the other hand. The MeTC issued an order granting the said motion. unless revoked by FRCC Marketing Department. The Civil Case involves only the obligation arising from contract and from tort. The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto. On April 19. Filcement and Tigerbilt sold their withdrawal authorities to Co. Rule 112 FENEQUITO v.

and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. Yes. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. it is merely a statutory privilege. erroneously assumed that the RTC Decision is final and appealable. It is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. 2. But even if the Court bends its Rules to allow the present petition. Pearlbank Securities. an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. This is because Fenequito et al. 2003. the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. One of the grounds for the CA's outright dismissal of Fenequito et al. a crime has been committed by the suspects. Granted. The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. An order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely. It is clear from a perusal of the cited PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report No. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that." The Court agrees with the prosecutor's pronouncement in its Resolution dated September 22. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Inc. leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. as required under Section 2. a final order is one that which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action. but leaves something more to be done upon its merits. this Court held: Probable cause. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. In Reyes v. Hence.'s petition for review was because of the latter's failure to submit copies of pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the petition filed. has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. when in fact it is interlocutory. An appeal being a purely statutory right. but left something more to be done on its merits. ISSUE: WON decision was interlocutory WON there is probable cause HELD: 1. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. In determining probable cause. He relies on 16 . more likely than not." the fact that an expert witness already found that the questioned signatures were not written by one and the same person already creates probable cause to indict petitioners for the crime of falsification of public document. for the purpose of filing a criminal information. the Court still finds no cogent reason to depart from the assailed ruling of the CA. that although the findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory were qualified by the statement contained in the Report that "no definite conclusion can be rendered due to the fact that questioned signatures are photocopies wherein minute details are not clearly manifested. the assailed Decision of the RTC set aside the Order of the MeTC and directed the court a quo to proceed to trial by allowing the prosecution to present its evidence. it is clear that the RTC Decision is interlocutory as it did not dispose of the case completely. Hence. 04803 that the document examiner found that the signatures appearing in the questioned Deed of Sale as compared to the standard signatures "reveal divergences in the manner of execution and stroke structure [which is] an indication that they WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON. In contrast. the instant petition for review.which subsequently ruled that the RTC's assailed decision was interlocutory in nature and was therefore not appealable. not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 42 of the Rules of Court..

Reyes filed a Petition for Review in the DOJ Secretary that reversed the recoomendation of the Assistant Prosecutor. Reyes denied the allegation. A review of the records would show that the investigating prosecutor was correct in finding the existence of all the elements of the crime of estafa. petitioner allegedly authorized Reyes to institute.common sense. Reyes did not dispute that she received in trust the amount of P23. However. To reiterate. Reyes converted and misappropriated the money for her personal use and benefit. 181021 December 10.423. It must be remembered that the finding of probable cause was made after conducting a preliminary investigation. 2000. Laguna. well founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the 17 . A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence. or may be. 2012 FACTS: Josefa Reyes offered her services to Burgundy Realty to be the latter’s real estate agent in buyaing parcels of land in Calamba. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case. that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. which are to be developed into a golf course. acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor. the failure of Reyes to deliver the titles or to return the entrusted money. and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. constituted prima facie evidence of misappropriation. proceed. probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind.423. BURGUNDY REALTY VS. the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed.50 from petitioner as proven by the checks and vouchers to be used in purchasing the parcels of land. Hence. Precisely. It does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. REYES GR.327. the Assistant Prosecutor of Makati recommended that Reye be indicted for Estafa. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. After the Preliminary Investigation. pursue and continue with whatever criminal or civil action against Mateo Elejorde. 22 Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is. Burgundy Realty released the amount of P23. She alleged that it was her sub-broker Mateo Elojorde who was depositing the money entrusted to him to his personal account. HELD: NO. The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. ISSUE: WON the Secretary of Justice was correct in reversing the recommendation of the Assistant Prosecutor.327. through a board resolution.50 for buying certain parcels of land. Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed. Hence the petition. This Court need not overemphasize that in a preliminary investigation. and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. despite demand and the duty to do so. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed. Petitioner wrote a demand letter for Reyes to return the same amount but was not heeded. there is a trial to allow the reception of evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective claims. On March 28. and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

without a warrant. Eric Ibon. even as they peeked through its partially opened door. in his presence.. when they saw two unidentified men rush out of house number 107-C and immediately boarded a jeep. PO1 Cabutihan saw a wooden jewelry box atop a table. PO1 Gregorio Recio. The police officers confiscated all these and brought Antiquera and Cruz to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Philippine National Police in Pasay City for further investigation and testing RTC rendered a Decision. Cruz. 18 . the natural thing for them to do was to give chase to the jeep that the two fleeing men boarded. and seven unused strips of aluminum foil. 2. is actually committing. This prompted the police officers to enter the house. who was holding an aluminum foil and an improvised burner. no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned rule. Pasay City. a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. PO1 Recio and PO1 Cabutihan saw accused Antiquera holding an improvised tooter and a pink lighter." This is an arrest in flagrante delicto. Section 5(a). wok. While inspecting the immediate surroundings. improvised scoop. Pasay City.m. Clearly. the police officers did not notice anything amiss going on in the house from the street where they stood. introduce themselves. Suspecting that a crime had been committed. and arrest Antiquera and Cruz. or entertain an honest or strong suspicion. Since they suspected that a crime had been committed. arrest a person when. ISSUE: Whether CA erred in finding accused Antiquera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia based on the evidence of the police officers that they saw him and Cruz in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia HELD: YES. Beside him was his live-in partner. the police officers approached the house from where the men came and peeked through the partially opened door. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. PO1 Laurence Cabutihan. of February 11. Considering that his arrest was illegal. and two civilian operatives on board a patrol car and a tricycle were conducting a police visibility patrol on David Street. Running after the fleeing suspects was the more urgent task but the officers instead gave priority to the house even when they heard no cry for help from it. PO1 Rodelio Rania. 1. They sat facing each other at the living room. P/Insp. they saw no activity that warranted their entering it.prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe. given that the officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. 2004. Indeed. It contained an improvised burner. 10 small transparent plastic sachets with traces of white crystalline substance. But the circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto. that a thing is so. or is attempting to commit an offense. RTC found accused Antiquera and Cruz guilty of the crime charged. On appeal. Admittedly. The police officers claim that they were alerted when they saw two unidentified men suddenly rush out of 107 David Street. the person to be arrested has committed. Rule 113 ANTIQUERA vs PEOPLE 12/11/2013 FACTS: Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City charged the accused George Codes Antiquera and Corazon Olivenza Cruz with illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. The prosecution evidence shows that at around 4:45 a. Thus. the CA affirmed. Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a "peace officer or a private person may.The term does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. scissors. The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other. On the other hand. entered a plea of "Not guilty" to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Arraigned on 2 July 2003. petitioner. the expectations of the motorist and the officer. Naga City. 4136. by virtue of the nature of the questioning. It may also be noted that in this case. the United States (U. vs. Custodial Interrogation; The roadside questioning of a motorist does not fall under custodial interrogation. these constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.—Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. that while he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance. FACTS: PO2 Emmanuel L. if any.It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. the various drug paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible. the two (2) of which were empty while the other two (2) contained suspected shabu. and that any statement they might make could be used against them.A. petitioner testified for himself and raised the defense of planting of evidence and extortion. that this prompted him to flag down the accused for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet (sic) while driving said motor vehicle. that upon seeing the said container.the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal. or physical restraint. The Court held that. one (1) pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife. he told the accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it.—Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. nor a formal declaration of arrest. who was coming from the direction of Panganiban Drive and going to Diversion Road. the accused spilled out the contents of the container on the table which turned out to be four (4) plastic sachets. McCarty. RODEL LUZ y ONG.) Supreme Court discussed at length whether the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop should be considered custodial interrogation. and that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit. manual touching of the body. and the length of time the procedure is conducted. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest. substantially testified that on March 10. he noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it. During trial. is required. that the accused obliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal container about two (2) to three (3) inches in size. that he was alerted and so. he noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket. respondent. or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. but the confiscation of the driver’s license of the latter. he asked the accused to open it. Neither the application of actual force. he saw the accused.S. that after the accused opened the container. assisted by counsel. under the belief and impression that submission is necessary. 2003 at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning. Consequently. 19 . Police Officer 3 (PO3) Emmanuel Alteza and a forensic chemist testified for the prosecution. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. At the time a person is arrested. such questioning does not fall under custodial interrogation. including two (2) cellphones. Alteza. that he invited the accused to come inside their sub-station since the place where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of the said sub-station.—In Berkemer v. nor can it be considered a formal arrest. who was then assigned at the Sub-Station 1 of the Naga City Police Station as a traffic enforcer. having proceeded from an invalid search and seizure The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his conviction. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. nor can it be considered a formal arrest. driving a motorcycle without a helmet. and that upon his instruction. Under R. petitioner.

Thus. arrested. The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible. In fact. Batac." (iii) search of a moving vehicle. Upon arraignment. he was not." There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him. (v) customs search. then Presiding Judge. The prosecution then filed a motion for reconsideration. In his complaint.RTC convicted petitioner.000. there was no valid arrest of petitioner. Prior to the issuance of the ticket.00. the evidence was not immediately apparent. it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting there. Consequently. Branch 18. Second. Ong was acquitted. Ilocos Norte against five police officers. Batac. ISSUE: whether the search and seizure of the alleged shabu was invalid? HELD: YES. are applicable to this case. (ii) search of evidence in "plain view. PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to the police sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged down "almost in front" of that place. Ilocos Norte. On November 5. It found the prosecution evidence sufficient to show that he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected to a valid search. except for accused Evelyn Manuel whose bail was fixed at P20. (iv) consented warrantless search. 2002.None of the above-mentioned instances. Hence. At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket. It must be noted that the evidence seized. First. Clearly. the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal. was not in "plain view. deprive him of his liberty. assisted by their counsel de parte. pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. gross ignorance of the law and partiality. Branch 18. fixing the bail for each at P70. respondent judge motu propio issued an Order] granting bail to the accused. especially a search incident to a lawful arrest.000. their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused. or take him into custody. The charges are knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. 20 . When he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation.The drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. respondent judge issued an order inhibiting himself from further proceeding with the case. the accused filed a motion to dismiss invoking as ground the right of the accused to a speedy trial. petitioner could not be said to have been "under arrest. the period during which petitioner was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting time. Complainant thus prays that respondent judge be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and be disbarred from the practice of law. CA affirmed.00 in cash or property bond at P120. Rule 114 ZUNO VS CABEBE FACTS: Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Regional Trial Court. The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.000. Instead of acting thereon. realizing that what he did was patently irregular. There was no intention to take petitioner into custody. all the accused. (vi) a "stop and frisk" search. ipso facto and solely for this reason. as found by the trial court. although alleged to be inadvertently discovered. against filed a complaint against Judge Alejandrino C. Respondent judge issued the Order without the accused’s application or motion for bail. there being no valid arrest. which led to the discovery on his person of two plastic sachets later found to contain shabu. Zuno of the Department of Justice. and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.00 in cash. Cabebe. Zuno alleged that in a criminal case for illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs filed with the Regional Trial Court." It was actually concealed inside a metal container inside petitioner’s pocket.

It must be stressed that the grant or the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of discretion. 8. he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong.In his comment. Under the present Rules. the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his recommendation. respondent judge retired from service. notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18. whether summary or otherwise. While admitting that he issued the Order dated November 5. he prays that the administrative complaint be dismissed. Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. reclusion perpetua. hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. resulting in the cancellation of the hearings. In the application for bail under section 8 of this Rule. a hearing should still be held. 21 . or life imprisonment. especially in cases involving offenses punishable by death. Notice of application to prosecutor. or otherwise unable to testify. Bugtas. In Docena-Caspe vs. upon motion of either party. There was delay in the proceedings due to complainants frequent absences and failure of the witnesses for the prosecution to appear in court. ISSUE: Whether or not the bail was granted properly HELD: NO. In fact. (18a) In Cortes vs. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion. a hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion. 2002 granting bail to the accused without any hearing. even in cases where there is no petition for bail. In order for the latter to properly exercise his discretion. the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the latter is dead.). Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). Catral. He added that the administrative complaint filed against him is purely harassment. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial but. The prosecution did not object to the grant of bail to the accused. Perez found respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of the law and recommended that a fine of P20. One year later. we held that jurisprudence is replete with decisions on the procedural necessity of a hearing. conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion (Section 7 and 8. Burden of proof in bail application. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.00 be imposed upon him. At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death. id. Accordingly. reclusion perpetua. relative to the grant of bail. Sec. where bail is a matter of discretion. 2. the same was premised on the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial. Where bail is a matter of discretion. 18.000. There is no question that respondent judge granted bail to the accused without conducting a hearing. and considering his forty (40) years of government service. in violation of Sections 8 and 18. Judge Arnulfo O. respondent denied the charges. outside the Philippines. or life imprisonment. It is not the appropriate remedy to question his alleged erroneous Order. we laid down the following rules outlining the duties of the judge in case an application for bail is filed: 1. and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge. quoted as follows: Sec.

Respondent judge did not follow the above Rules and procedure enumerated in Cortes. admission to bail is expressly declared to be discretionary. Pending appeal. Based on the above-cited procedure. GR No. 4. he filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal. or life imprisonment. THE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Facts: Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas. these are considered aspects of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense. Irrespective of his opinion on the strength or weakness of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. he should have conducted a hearing and thereafter made a summary of the evidence of the prosecution. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Section 19. id. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution. its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. it ruled that bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility. after the hearing. One. He did not conduct a hearing before he granted bail to the accused. 189122 March 17.3. Issue: In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment for more than six years. pending appeal of a conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death. petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.). the discretion to allow or disallow bail pending appeal in a case such as this where the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable is exclusively lodged by the rules with the appellate court. reclusion perpetua. Rule 115 22 . The Court of Appeals denied petitioners application for bail. Two. The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of evidence cannot be downplayed. that the discretion to extend bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. Thus. thus depriving the prosecution of an opportunity to interpose objections to the grant of bail. If the guilt of the accused is not strong. the court's order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence of the prosecution and based thereon. the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear and resolve petitioners urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal. citing his advanced age and health condition. the judge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. It invoked the bedrock principle in the matter of bail pending appeal. Citing well-established jurisprudence. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court? Held: It cannot be said that the Court of Appeals issued the assailed resolution without or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2010 JOSE ANTONIO LEVISTE v. does the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. otherwise the petition should be denied. and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part.

the trial court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over his person. 171020 EN BANC March 14. On the first assigned error. Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. AAA Pangilinan was arrested and detained with no bail recommended He then filed a petition for bailThe petition for bail was heard and prosecution presented evidence RTC denied petitionDefense then presented its evidenceRTC (having discovered that Pangilinan was not yet arraigned) scheduled his arraignmentPangilinan pleaded not guiltyRTC convicted him. appellant assails his conviction because he was not properly arraigned. The question is: Were appellant’s rights and interests prejudiced by the fact that he was arraigned only at this stage of the proceedings? 23 . said irregularity. or at the very least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against him. sentenced him to death ISSUE: Whether the belated arraignment was valid HELD: YES. even of his life.Rule 116 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the trial court had already acquired jurisdiction over his person. vs. thus. appellant was arraigned after the case was submitted for decision.R. His arrest. conferred on the trial court jurisdiction over his person. ALFREDO PANGILINAN y TRINIDAD.21 Admittedly. Accused-Appellant. he argues.20 The purpose of arraignment is.19 In the case at bar. to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom. Plaintiff-Appellee. G. not his arraignment. Appellant is mistaken. depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the appellant when he was arrested on 19 March 1997. When the hearings for his petition for bail were conducted. No. is a procedural error which is prejudicial to the appellant and is tantamount to denial of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. He claims that his subsequent arraignment did not cure the defect in the trial proceedings because at the time the petition for bail was heard. Since he was arraigned only after the case was submitted for decision. 2007 FACTS: Pangilinanwas charged with 2 informations for the rape of his daughter.

prejudicial and has been fully cured. DAAN. In the falsification cases. Cabale22 and People v.860. Petitioner. In fact. and P13. we held that while the arraignment of appellant was conducted after the cases had been submitted for decision.00. Thus.00. Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his plea bargaining offer on the following grounds: first. his counsel would have objected and informed the court of this blunder. ISSUE: Whether the offer of plea bargain of the petitioner is meritorious HELD:Yes.293. provided. Appellant’s belated arraignment did not prejudice him. in the malversation cases. Since appellant’s rights and interests were not prejudiced by this lapse in procedure. Rule 118 of the Rules of Court. the accused offered to substitute their plea of "not guilty" thereto with a plea of "guilty". vs. and that the amount involved is only P18.Ordinarily. which they purportedly tried to conceal by falsifying the time book and payrolls for given period making it appear that some laborers worked on the construction of the new municipal hall building of Bato. G. respectively. This Court will not allow it. 2008 JOSELITO RANIERO J.R. after being convicted and sentenced to two death sentences. that appellant cries that his constitutional right has been violated.00. his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. Hence this petition. require plea bargaining to be considered by the trial court at the pre-trial 24 . however. P1." negating any criminal intent. said accused proposed instead to substitute their plea of "not guilty" to the crime of falsification of public document by a public officer or employee with a plea of "guilty". The Sandiganbayan. the accused offered to withdraw their plea of "not guilty" and substitute the same with a plea of "guilty". Daan vs. Sections 1 and 2. but to the lesser crime of falsification of a public document by a private individual. in truth and in fact. This procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial without raising any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned.528. THE HON. On the other hand.00. SANDIGANBAYAN Respondent. denied the said Motion for Plea Bargain on the main ground that no cogent reason was presented to justify its approval. 163972-77 March 28. they did not. it only follows that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was not violated. Nos. but to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts.We do not think so. the accused were also indicted before this Court for three counts of falsification of public document by a public officer or employee. in addition to the charge for malversation. It is already too late to raise this procedural defect. plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. Moreover. the mitigating circumstances of confession or plea of guilt and voluntary surrender will be appreciated in their favor. the error is non. MR was likewise denied. FACTS: Petitioner was one of the accused charged for three counts of malversation of public funds involving the sums of P3. His counsel’s active participation in the hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the charges against him. petitioner is not an accountable officer and he merely affixed his signature on the payrolls on a "routinary basis. It is only now. In People v. Atienza23 where the same issue was raised under similar circumstances. Sandiganbayan. Leyte and collected their respective salaries thereon when. otherwise. if such proposal is not acceptable.869. The prosecution accepted the said offer of the petitioner. In the alternative. no protest was made when appellant was subsequently arraigned. which he already restituted. The parties did not question the procedure undertaken by the trial court.

Leyte. in the charge for Falsification of Public Documents.000. In the same vein. he is not an accountable officer in that the nature of his duty as foreman/timekeeper does not permit or require possession or custody of local government funds. 25 . the Court has held that it is immaterial that plea bargaining was not made during the pre-trial stage or that it was made only after the prosecution already presented several witnesses. In this case. petitioner may plead guilty to the lesser offense of Falsification by Private Individuals inasmuch as it does not appear that petitioner took advantage of his official position in allegedly falsifying the timebook and payroll of the Municipality of Bato. the Court will not hesitate to intervene in order to equalize the imbalance. 10 and that the plea of guilt should be to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.e. as propounded by petitioner. this case tremendously pales in comparison.. Section 2. where gross inequity will result in a discriminatory dispensation of justice. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case. theoretically. 30 and a whopping P25. However.860.29 not to mention that petitioner has already restituted the amount of P18. The rules however use word may in the second sentence of Section 2. while the Informations contain allegations which make out a case for Malversation against petitioner. Given.00 involved in this case. Thus. as in the present case.000. indeed. But it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished presenting its evidence and rested its case. In the present case. Finally. the Sandiganbayan has proffered valid reasons in rejecting petitioner's plea offer. The Sandiganbayan believes that approving the proposal would "only serve to trivialize the seriousness of the charges against them and send the wrong signal to potential grafters in public office that the penalties they are likely to face would be lighter than what their criminal acts would have merited or that the economic benefits they are likely to derive from their criminal activities far outweigh the risks they face in committing them. The present case calls for the judicious exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction. Rule 116 of the Rules of Court presents the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining may be made.conference. with regard to the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. Thus. nevertheless. As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage. i. petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer if it is shown that the failure to render account was in violation of a law or regulation that requires him to render such an accounting within the prescribed period. denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea.00 taken from the public coffers. that it should be with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor. absent the element of conversion. subsequent events and higher interests of justice and fair play dictate that petitioner's plea offer should be accepted. the trial court's exercise of its discretion should neither be arbitrary nor should it amount to a capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion. then petitioner may plead guilty to such lesser offenses. the Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner's plea offer on the ground that petitioner and the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the proposal would redound to the benefit of the public. thus. the allegations in the Informations filed against petitioner are sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser offenses. Unlike Estradawhich involves a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. that some of the essential elements of offenses charged in this case likewise constitute the lesser offenses. 11 Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused."171avvphi1 Apparently. therefore. setting to naught the deterrent value of the laws intended to curb graft and corruption in government.

3326 was passed on 4 December 1926. as the law contemplates judicial. either for insufficiency of funds or by closure of the account. Cawili FACTS: Cawili borrowed money from petitioner." and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for preliminary investigation. Since B. In justifying its resolution. Rule 117 Panaguiton v. 2.P. "institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. After reinvestigation. Petitioner filed a complaint for violation of BP 22. Ultimately. HELD: Act No.P. preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was conducted by justices of the peace. To rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control (citing People v.P. The checks were dishonored. the DOJ held that the action on the crime has prescribed. Blg. and not administrative proceedings. Thus. n this case. thus. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. ISSUE: Is the running of the prescriptive period tolled upon the filing of the information in court or upon the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor for preliminary investigation. or on 20 January 1993 and 18 March 1993. Olarte). And vice versa. 3326 is the law applicable to offenses under special laws which do not provide their own prescriptive periods.” It must be pointed out that when Act No. and not Art.*An offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former as alleged in the complaint or information constitute the latter. the prescription of the offense is halted. 3326 applies to violations of special acts that do not provide for a prescriptive period for the offenses thereunder. Blg. “the term ‘proceedings’ should now be understood either executive or judicial in character” (citing SEC v. the four (4)-year period started on the date the checks were dishonored. The Chief State Prosecutor directed the city prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation and to refer the falsified document to the NBI. 3326 applies to it. 90 of the Revised Penal Code which governs the prescription of offenses penalized thereunder. it was held that the case with respect to Tongson had already prescribed pursuant to Act No. In the city prosecutor’s resolution. The filing of the complaint before the Quezon City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995 did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. an offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. Act No. Petitioner then filed a partial appeal before the DOJ even while the case against Cawili was already filed in court. 22 shall prescribe after four (4) years. the DOJ explained that Act No. The prosecutor found probable cause only with respect to Cawili as Tongson’s defense that his signatures on the checks had been falsified. 22. more than four (4) years had already elapsed and no information had as yet been filed against Tongson. Blg. DOJ. as a special act. the alleged violation of B. still only probable cause with respect to Cawili was sustained. the phraseology in the law. 22 imputed to him had already prescribed. 26 . Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law. As payment for the loan. Cawili and Tongson jointly issued three checks in favor of petitioner. and if the same be not known at the time. Act 3326 provides: “Sec. 3326 which provides that violations penalized by B. from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Tongson. and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. considering that from 1993 to 1998. does not provide for the prescription of the offense it defines and punishes. Interport Resources).

while on vacation in Manila. Issue: Whether or not the RTC judge necessarily has to make an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case. the trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. Held: Yes. Being vested with such power. The said Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due process. the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the DOJ Secretary is persuasive. any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution of the DOJ Secretary. and this assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. 2000. Relying on the recommendation o f the prosecutor. which limited her freedom of mobility. Finding probable cause. However. since Concepcion was already of advanced age. the RTC granted the same and reinstated the case after the DOJ Secretary reversed the resolution of the prosecutor. the Prosecutor filed the corresponding Information against them.The counsel of Concepcion filed a motion to take the latter’s deposition. Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the court. GR 185230. They were void. and was advised to stay in Manila for further treatment. he can reconsider his own resolution if he finds that there is reasonable ground to do so. upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. affixed her signature to the document. had no legal standing. but reversed its earlier finding and recommended the withdrawal of the Information. June 1. 27 . was unexpectedly confined at the Makati Medical Center due to upper gastro-intestinal bleeding. and produced no effect whatsoever Rule 118 Rule 119 MANGUERRA v RISOS Facts: Respondents were charged with EstafaThrough Falsification of Public Document before the RTC of Cebu City. He explained the need to perpetuate Concepcion’s testimony due to her weak physical condition and old age. Concepcion’s deposition was finally taken at her residence. In thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information. RTC granted the motion and directed that Concepcion’s deposition be taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City. The respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on November 3. it is not binding on courts. the RTC ordered the criminal case dismissed on the ground that it is a settled rule that the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the Public Prosecutor who is vested with quasi-judicial discretion in the discharge of this function.Cerezo vs People. the owner of the mortgaged property known as the Gorordo property. It is the court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion. The court ratiocinated that procedural technicalities should be brushed aside because of the urgency of the situation. Earlier. Concepcion. The case arose from the falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage allegedly committed by respondents where they made it appear that Concepcion. who was a resident of Cebu City. 2011 Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for libel against respondents.

28 . declaring that the examination of prosecution witnesses. as in the present case. On 7 February 2005. her motion would have been denied. The very reason offered by the petitioners to exempt Concepcion from the coverage of Rule 119 is at once the ground which places her squarely within the coverage of the same provision. Rule 119 specifically states that a witness may be conditionally examined: 1) if the witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial. On 11 February 2005. or 2) if the witness has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning. It is thus required that the conditional examination be made before the court where the case is pending. this rule enables the judge to observe the witnesses demeanor. RTC ruled that this is a prejudicial question. petitioner received summons to appear before the RTC Antipolo for the pre-trial and trial for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.the CA resolved the matter on its merit. This is especially true in criminal cases in order that the accused may be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pursuant to his constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face. Thus. Pimentel v Pimentel Facts: On 25 October 2004. is governed by Section 15. It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in the presence of the judge. Petitioners contend that Concepcion’s advanced age and health condition exempt her from the application of Section 15. and thus. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. had she not been too sick at that time. she would have been compelled to appear before the court for examination during the trial proper. Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Held: No. the procedure set forth in Rule 119 applies to the case at bar. Undoubtedly. when Concepcion moved that her deposition be taken. calls for the application of Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Pimentel in RTC Quezon City. the outcome of Civil Case would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City. It also gives the parties and their counsel the chance to propound such questions as they deem material and necessary to support their position or to test the credibility of said witnesses.Petitioner asserted that since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide. Instead of conditionally examining her outside the trial court. Issue: WON Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the deposition of Concepcion. Maria Pimentel (private respondent) filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R. CA also dismissed the petition Issue: Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner.Respondents assailed the RTC orders in a special civil action for certiorari. petitioner filed motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. CA rendered a Decisionfavorable to the respondents. Lastly.

Inc. as the statutory receiver of OCBC. PDIC. Inc. Elements of Prejudicial Question. Asia Textile Mills. and Asia Textile Mills. the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide.Held: No. The PDIC conducted an investigation and allegedly came out with a finding that the loans purportedly in the names of Timmy’s. PDIC began collecting on OCBC’s past due loans receivable by sending demand letters to its borrowers for the immediate settlement of their outstanding loans. Inc. Inc. he was still married to respondent. After finding probable cause. After the presentation of all of the prosecution’s evidence. the Office of the City Prosecutor of the City of Manila filed Informations against the private respondents in the RTC in Manila. denied having applied a loan by OCBC.. 1998. Inc. Thereafter. Go with OCBC and. effectively took charge of OCBC’s assets and liabilities. PDIC filed a complaint4 for 2 counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents in the Office of the City Prosecutor of the City of Manila against the private respondents in relation to the purported loans of Timmy’s. In this case. The presiding judge granted the private respondents’ Motion for Voluntary Inhibition and ordered the case to be re-raffled to another branch. Both denied being granted any loan by OCBC. Timmy’s. and Asia Textile Mills. were automatically transferred to his current account in order to fund personal checks issued by him earlier. Inc.There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending. thereafter. A pretrial was conducted. were released in the form of manager’s checks allegedly deposited to the savings account of the private respondent Jose C. The private respondents pleaded not guilty to the criminal cases filed against them. While all the aforementioned events were transpiring. The case was subsequently re-raffled to the branch of the respondent RTC judge. Allegedly among these borrowers of OCBC are Timmy’s. which appeared to have obtained a loan of [P]10 Million each. Inc. 29 .The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Further. clearly. insisted that the signatures on the loan documents were falsified. The issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide. PEOPLE vs JOSE GO 08/06/2014 FACTS: On October 14. Even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled. Section 7. the relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure [6] provides: Section 7. the private respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence and a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition. . Hence. and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued Resolution ordering the closure of the Orient Commercial Banking Corporation (OCBC) and placing such bank under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). and Asia Textile Mills. Inc. trial of the cases ensued and the prosecution presented its evidence.

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. an order granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal. Thus. this Court ruled that when there is a finding that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence. we deem its consequent order of acquittal void Grave abuse of discretion is defined as "that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated. thus causing substantial injury to the banking industry and public interest. hence this petition. And WON THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY WHEN IT WAS NOT CHALLENGED IN A TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE MANNER (NO) HELD: As a general rule. ISSUE: WON GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT RTC JUDGE IN GRANTING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (YES). Private prosecutor in Criminal Case Nos. In the instant case. as this Court ruled in People v.’ The party questioning the acquittal of an accused should be able to clearly establish that the trial court blatantly abused its discretion such that it was deprived of its authority to dispense justice. RTC judge found the private respondent’s Demurrer to Evidence to be meritorious dismissed the Criminal Cases and acquitted all of the accused. does not result in jeopardy.’ So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice. There are certain exceptions. 2006. On January 17. This may be done via the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. 2007. the trial court effectively failed and/or refused to weigh the prosecution’s evidence against the respondents. it is settled that the appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence. In evaluating the evidence. Salvanera v. the respondent RTC judge granted the private respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. or to act at all in contemplation of law. People 30 . considering that the case involved hundreds of millions of pesos of OCBC depositors’ money – not to mention that the banking industry is impressed with public interest. being considered void judgment. the Court declares that the CA grossly erred in affirming the trial court’s July 2. which Order was patently null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and manifest irregularity. as when the grant thereof would not violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.: By this time. Laguio. OSG moved for reconsideration but was denied. and that respondents appear to be the perpetrators thereof. For instance. when the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari.In an Order dated December 19. as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. the trial court should have conducted itself with circumspection and engaged in intelligent reflection in resolving the issues. its judgment is considered void. Jr. the private respondents filed their Demurrer to Evidence7 praying for the dismissal of the criminal cases instituted against them due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt." 47 Guided by the foregoing pronouncements. having affirmed the CA finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court when it granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence." In the exercise of the Court’s "superintending control over inferior courts. 2007 Order granting the respondent’s demurrer. which it was duty-bound to do as a trier of facts. The Court finds that the prosecution has presented competent evidence to sustain the indictment for the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. however. we are to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case ‘as the ends of justice may require. 00-187318 and 00-187319 moved for reconsideration but was denied. Such dismissal order. ‘The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

namely: (1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an offense. The prosecution moved for reconsideration but the same was likewise denied. the following conditions must be present. As per theory of the prosecution. (2) The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case. Edgardo Lungcay and Domingo Tampelix.In the discharge of an accused in order that he may be a state witness. to serve as state witnesses. except the testimony of said accused. petitioner Salvanera. while Tampelix delivered the blood money to the latter. It alleged that the testimonies of the two accused are absolutely necessary to establish that petitioner masterminded the murder of Ruben Parane. petitioner was the alleged mastermind. Requirements/conditions to be considered in allowing one to be a state witness. and (5) The trial court is satisfied that: a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested. is charged with the murder of Ruben Parane. the driver of the motorcycle which carried Lungcay to the place of the commission of the crime.State witness FACTS: In an information. 31 . The prosecution then appealed to the Court of Appeals. No! A. CA:The Court of Appeals sustained the prosecution. Lungcay. All the accused have been arrested and detained. together with Feliciano Abutin. c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points. Abutin. The prosecution moved for the discharge of accused Feliciano Abutin and Domingo Tampelix. It contended that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to discharge accused Abutin and Tampelix to be state witnesses. It discharged accused Feliciano Abutin and Domingo Tampelix from the Information to become state witnesses ISSUE: WON the CA erred in reversing the Trial Court’s decision in discharging the accused Abutin and Tampelix as State witness. except Edgardo Lungcay who remained at-large. Trial Court: denied the prosecution’s motion for the discharge of accused Abutin and Tampelix. (4) The accused gives his consent to be a state witness. Held. the hired hitman. (3) The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge. b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed.

It is a deliberate renunciation of the right of the State to prosecute all who appear to be guilty of having committed a crime. Its justification lies in the particular need of the State to obtain the conviction of the more guilty criminals who. but by other prosecution witnesses who are not the accused in the same criminal case. C. they could not testify to corroborate the statement of Abutin and Tampelix that petitioner is the mastermind or the principal by induction." It is enough that the testimony of a co-conspirator is corroborated by some other witness or evidence. The testimonies of the accused and proposed state witnesses Abutin and Tampelix can directly link petitioner to the commission of the crime. e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. Petitioner argues that prosecution witnesses Parane and Salazar. then we have convincing proof of veracity. we are satisfied from a reading of the records that the testimonies of Abutin and Tampelix are corroborated on important points by each other’s testimonies and the circumstances disclosed through the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. as. CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR JOVENCITO ZUO. 32 . and "to such extent that their trustworthiness becomes manifest. 2ND ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR CONRADO M. If it is shown that the statements of the conspirator are corroborated by other evidence.Even if the confirmatory testimony only applies to some particulars.The other prosecution witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the crime. He contends that it is a notorious fact in human nature that a culprit. To require the two witnesses Parane and Salazar to corroborate the testimony of Abutin and Tampelix on the exact same points is to render nugatory the other requisite that "there must be no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed. We have ruled that "a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fellow criminal than by any other method. do not have personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged conspiracy. STATE PROSECUTORS PETER L. In the case at bar. People vs Lacson PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Rationale for declaring an accused as a State Witness. in the instant case. he will be freed from any criminal responsibility. Court’s explanation. We agree with the Court of Appeals in dismissing this reasoning as specious. otherwise. not by a co-accused likewise sought to be discharged.d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. and. will probably elude the long arm of the law. petitioner supposes that both Abutin and Tampelix will naturally seize the opportunity to be absolved of any liability by putting the blame on one of their co-accused. The decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a constituent part of the prosecution process. ONG and RUBEN A. who are not accused. Where a crime is contrived in secret. B. Abutin and Tampelix can testify on the criminal plan of the conspirators. Salvanera’s Argument: (accused/petitioner)According to petitioner. No one except the conspirators knew and witnessed the murder. Petitioner justifies this theory on the general principles of justice and sound logic. ZACARIAS. if by doing so. confessing a crime. the testimony of an accused sought to be discharged to become a state witness must be substantially corroborated. Thus." As part of the conspiracy. except the testimony of the state witness. is likely to put the blame on others. It is essentially a tactical decision to forego prosecution of a person for government to achieve a higher objective. there is none. D. in fact. we can properly infer that the witness has told the truth in other respects. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE." The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have to consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state witnesses. Thus. the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential because only they have knowledge of the crime.

PANFILO M. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. petitioner. The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended when Sally left for Canada. After Azucena left for the United States of America. During the period of their cohabitation. The prosecution. the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General. Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with Sally who was a customer in the business owned by Benjamin’s family. FACTS: In 1973. Bernice and Bentley. LACSON. JR. 8. vs. in turn. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases. BANGAYAN. Conditions for the applicability of Section 8. In criminal cases. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case BENJAMIN B. The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case 3. Provisional Dismissal Sec. vs. respondent. they acquired several real properties. filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage before the trial court on the ground that his marriage to Sally was bigamous and that it lacked the formal requisites to a valid marriage. SALLY GO BANGAYAN. respondent. in order to appease her father. or both the prosecution or accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case 2. shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount. using their simulated marriage contract as evidence. Provisional dismissal. Benjamin. Benjamin and Sally lived together as husband and wife. with the express conformity of the accused or the latter’s counsel moves for a provisional dismissal of the case. or both. assured him that the marriage contract would not be registered. acting on behalf of the State. Benjamin married Azucena with whom he had three children. – A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. Sally. The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. acting on behalf of the State. knowing Benjamin’s marital status.JAMOLIN and CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY CLARO ARELLANO. Rule 117: 1. Benjamin and Sally’s cohabitation produced two children. In 1979. Sally’s father was against the relationship hence. Sally brought Benjamin to an office in Santolan. She then filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public documents against Benjamin. their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. 33 . Pasig City where they signed a purported marriage contract. petitioners. The court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally 4. the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General.—This Court leans toward Resally’s contention that Sally Go had no personality to file the petition for certiorari before the CA.. bringing Bernice and Bentley with her.

particularly. VS BAY 34 . Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. Because bigamy is a criminal offense. the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. Hence. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. Thus. only the OSG is authorized to prosecute the case on appeal. the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. acting on behalf of the State. she prayed for the reversal of the trial court’s order granting petitioners’ demurrer to evidence and the conduct of a full blown trial of the criminal case. as regards his marriage to Sally Go and Azucena. In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1. The CA held that the following pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution were sufficient to deny the demurrer to evidence: (1) the existence of three marriages of Benjamin. ISSUE: Whether the Double Jeopardy has set in? HELD: YES. was mistaken in claiming that he could not be guilty of bigamy because his marriage to Sally Go was null and void in light of the fact that he was already married to Azucena. It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State. (2) the letters and love notes from Resally to Benjamin.The CA further stated that Benjamin. Sally Go did not have the requisite legal standing to appeal the acquittal of the petitioners. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal.’s admission that he and Resally were in some kind of a relationship. the lack of a marriage license. to Azucena. Jr. However. (3) the admission of Benjamin. the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General. Jr. 1) the marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office because it could not be registered due to Benjamin’s subsisting marriage with Azucena. Jr. Thus. Jr. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant. and 3) that the second marriage was void not because of the existence of the first marriage but because of other causes. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. 2) that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not bigamous. in the prosecution of the offense. the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. This Court leans toward Resally’s contention that Sally Go had no personality to file the petition for certiorari before the CA. A judicial declaration of nullity was required in order for him to be able to use the nullity of his marriage as a defense in a bigamy charge.The trial court ruled in favor of Benjamin. [Emphases Supplied] A perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by Sally Go before the CA discloses that she sought reconsideration of the criminal aspect of the case. Sally Go and Resally. the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused. and (4) Benjamin. bigamy was not committed in this case. Jr. It is apparent that her only desire was to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioners. Specifically. Nowhere in her petition did she even briefly discuss the civil liability of petitioners. an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. In such case. In so doing.. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases. Rule 120 HIPOS SR.

de Vera. the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty. when refused. Judge Bay granted the Motion and ordered a reinvestigation of the cases. On 3 March 2006. holding that there was lack of probable cause.FACTS: On 15 December 2003. In the case at bar. presided by respondent Judge Bay. and there is no other plain.” Without moving for a reconsideration of the above assailed Order. On 23 February 2004. petitioners filed their Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Case[s] before the City Prosecutor. to do the act required to be done. On 10 August 2004. The Petition for Mandamus is directed not against the prosecution. On the same date. Said order states: “WHEREFORE. As an extraordinary writ. to grant or deny such Motion. Arthur Villaruel and two others before the RTC of Quezon City. the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution on the reinvestigation affirming the Informations filed against petitioners and their co-accused. the motion to withdraw informations is DENIED. mandamus is not available anymore. Jaycee Corsiño. acting as a Family Court. the City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations before Judge Bay. for such writ may be issued to compel action in those matters. However. On 19 May 2004. Judge Bay did not refuse to act on the Motion to Withdraw Informations. board. 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Lamberto C. two informations for the crime of rape and one Information for the crime of acts of lasciviousness were filed against petitioners Darryl Hipos. reversed the Resolution dated 10 August 2004. but against the trial court. petitioners filed the present Petition for Mandamus. seeking to compel the trial court to grant the Motion to Withdraw Informations by the City Prosecutor’s Office. or when the respondent excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the latter is entitled. The 35 . Arellano.e. immediately or at some other specified time. corporation. to compel the trial court to accept the Prosecutor’s Motion to Withdraw information. not a discretionary one. finding no probable cause against the herein accused for the crimes of rapes and acts of lasciviousness. Judge Bay denied the Motion to Withdraw Informations in an Order of even date. The Resolution was signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Raniel S. On 2 October 2006. officer or person.. because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. trust. They claimed that there was no probable cause to hold them liable for the crimes charged. when the respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. i. mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion by a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required to act. Supreme Court can compel Judge Bay to dismiss the case through a writ of mandamus by virtue of the resolution of the office of the city prosecutor of QC finding no probable cause against the accused and subsequently filing a motion to withdraw information HELD: NO. or station. ISSUE: WON the Hon. Cruz and approved by City Prosecutor Claro A. While a judge refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw Informations can be compelled by mandamus to act on the same. There is indeed an exception to the rule that matters involving judgment and discretion are beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus. he cannot be compelled to act in a certain way. private complainants AAA and BBB filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking Judge Bay to order the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to study if the proper Information had been filed against petitioners and their co-accused. mandamus is never available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either. Accordingly. he had already acted on it by denying the same. treating the Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Case as an appeal of the 10 August 2004 Resolution. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal.

Abordo was charged with two (2) counts of attempted murder and one (1) count of frustrated murder before the RTC of Biliran Province Branch 16. In Crespo v. not certiorari or prohibition. Hon. Not in conformity. Calvez without the conformity of the Provincial Prosecutor. Recently. Montes escaped unhurt. Calvez later sought withdrawal of his motion for reconsideration while Calvez’ motion to withdraw was granted. An altercation ensued between them. All three complainants moved for reconsideration regarding the civil aspect. Abordo shot Majait in the leg while Calvez hit in the lower left side of his abdomen. The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed or modified by the Secretary of Justice or in special cases by the President of the Philippines. When the trial court grants a motion of the public prosecutor to dismiss the case. Orda. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People or the private complainant to due process of law. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the public prosecutor should be addressed to the court who has the option to grant or deny the same. 437 SCRA 504 (2004). filed a notice of appeal for both the civil and the criminal aspects. The appreciation of the evidence involves the use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor. the OSG filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65. that once a criminal complaint or an information is filed in court. competence. Mogul. the rule applies to a motion to withdraw the Information or to dismiss the case even before or after arraignment of the accused. the trial court also dismissed Calvez’ appeal for not bearing the conformity of the Provincial Prosecutor. respondents Facts: In 2002. Jaime Abordo was riding his motorcycle on his way home. Tabuldan-Gravino. or to deny the said motion. The trial court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. 36 . They filed a supplemental motion to include moral damages. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner. and JAIME ABORDO. the Court held that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court. the OSG comes to this court via this petition for review under Rule 45. The courts try and absolve or convict the accused but as a rule have no part in the initial decision to prosecute him. With respect to the complaint of Montes. On said date. Jr. Thus.prosecution has already filed a case against petitioners. and discretion of the trial court. JoenilCalvez and Jose Montes. The CA dismissed the petition outright. petitioner. 151 SCRA 462 (1987). The trial court found no treachery and evident premeditation. or to withdraw the Information in compliance with the directive of the Secretary of Justice. or to quash the Information. Zuno’sIndorsement of the letter of Assistant City Prosecutor Nida C. Mogul. in his capacity as presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Biliran Province. ENRIQUE C. and discretion of the trial court. vs. 2002 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the RTC held Abordo liable only for Serious Physical Injuries for shooting Calvez and Less Serious Physical Injuries with regard to Majait. we reiterated the doctrine we established in the leading case of Crespo v. and we do not find in the case at bar a clear showing by the petitioner of a grave abuse of such discretion. But even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. in Santos v. competence. The possible exception is where there is an unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion that will justify a judicial intrusion into the precincts of the executive. 173089 August 25. any disposition or dismissal of the case or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the jurisdiction. For said reason. any disposition of the case or dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction. in its decision. ASIS. It also appreciated four (4) generic mitigating circumstances in favor of Abordo. GR No. Branch 16. a relative of Calvez. Acting on Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Abordo was acquitted. it does so not out of subservience to or defiance of the directive of the Secretary of Justice but in sound exercise of its judicial prerogative.. He was met by Kennard Majait. But in such a case the proper remedy to call for such exception is a petition for mandamus.

This is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case.R. vs. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. that is. Both parties adopted their respective appellant’s and appellee’s briefs. In our jurisdiction. Appellant616 SCRA 223 | G. In the Supreme Court Resolution. and not appeal. Whether the case need be remanded to the CA for appropriate proceedings. a language known and understood by him. In 2004. in line with the finality-of-acquittal doctrine. for review. the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. however. criminal cases. RATIO: Yes. if they so desire. The CA affirmed the Decision of the trial court in toto. the trial court rendered a Decision finding Morales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Morales. ROLDAN MORALES y MIDARASA. as a remand will only prolong the proceedings. Since appeal could not be taken without violating Abordo’s constitutional guaranteed right against double jeopardy. The rule. Upon arraignment. the Court has entertained petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the accused in. including facts. 2010 FACTS: Roldan Morales y Midarasa was charged in two separate Informations before the RTC with possession and sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). 2. instead of filing supplemental briefs. is not without exception. not appeal. RULING: At the outset. assisted by counsel. 2. 172873 | March 19. is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal. pleaded not guilty to both charges read in Filipino. within 30 days from notice. the Court resolved to accept the case and required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs simultaneously. The rule is that “while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal.Issues: 1. Appellee. ISSUE:Whether the appeal opens the whole case. we draw attention to the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case: the appeal throws the 37 . Ruling: 1. Yes. we adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine.” Rule 121 Rule 122 to Rule 125 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. the OSG was correct in pursuing its cause via a petition for certiorari under Rule 6 before the appellate court. On motion of the City Prosecutor. or the dismissal of. In several cases. the cases were consolidated for joint trial. No. No. is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. RATIO: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65. a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. Appellant elevated the case to this Court via Notice of Appeal.

(4) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. In the Manifestation. On the issue of whether the denial of respondents Motion to Amend was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. her guilt not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt. MERCEDITA T. The trial court issued an Order[9] dated June 16. the Order dated June 16. 2000.00 in cash in exchange for her Insular Savings Bank Check xxx On the date of maturity and upon presentment.000. and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby FACTS: On November 10. as a general rule. respondent filed a Manifestation[10] with attached Motion to Amend Order dated June 16. the Court of Appeals ruled in the affirmative. respondent Arnaldo dela Cruz (respondent) filed a Complaint-Affidavit[4] against petitioner Mercedita T. After petitioner entered her plea of not guilty and after the prosecution rested its case. hence. petitioner filed a Motion With Leave To Admit Demurrer to Evidence. 2001.whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct. the check was dishonored for the reason that the account against which it was drawn was already closed. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration[14] but the same was denied by the trial court On the issue of whether the issuance of the Order dated June 16. petitioner was acquitted. However. cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. On several occasions. respondents counsel justified his failure to file the motion within the reglementary period of 15 days because all postal offices in Metro Manila were allegedly ordered closed in the afternoon due to the rally staged on Ayala Avenue. 2002. [24] Certain elements are considered for the appeal to be given due course. (2) the merits of the case. misapprehended or misapplied. 38 . Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly hold that the trial court’s findings of fact. especially when affirmed by the CA. such as: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances. the Court of Appeals ruled in the negative as it found that the trial court did not anchor the acquittal of petitioner on evidence other than that presented by the prosecution as contended by petitioner. 2005 granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the case. evidence presented and relevant law and jurisprudence. are. The trial court denied respondents Motion to Amend xxx finding that counsel for respondent was inexcusably negligent. GUASCH vs ARNALDO DELA CRUZ DOCTRINE: However. we hold that this case falls under the exception. Respondent alleged that petitioner was his neighbor and kumadre. (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. The trial court found that respondents assertion of misrepresentation by petitioner that her check will be fully funded on the maturity date was not supported by the evidence on record. petitioner transacted business with him by exchanging cash for checks of small amount without interest xxx petitioner returned the next day and was able to convince him to give her P3. 2005[11] (Motion to Amend) to include a finding of civil liability of petitioner. On March 2. in exceptional cases. however. the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an Information for estafa against petitioner. 2005 has become final and executory. entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. After due consideration of the records of this case. the City Prosecutor of Manila issued a Resolution recommending that an information for estafa be filed against petitioner. substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the giving of due course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and mandatory rules of procedure. we find the present appeal meritorious. 2005 granting the demurrer to evidence was made with grave abuse of discretion. this rule admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked. Guasch (petitioner) with the City Prosecutor of Manila. Accordingly. On the basis of such review. On February 7.300.

(2a) Second. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals. the statutory requirement that when no motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period. In either case. Hence. First. Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides: SECTION 2. Respondent did not waive. reserve. we find that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondents Motion to Amend. and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby. to put an end to judicial controversies. 170289 April 8.[25] Several of these elements obtain in the case at bar.000. since the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action. The purposes for such statutory requirement are twofold: first. However. the trial court was dutybound to determine the civil liability of petitioner pursuant to paragraph 2. Section 2. and. at the risk of occasional errors. HELD: Yes. it cannot be said that petitioner will be unduly prejudiced if respondents Motion to Amend for the sole purpose of including the civil liability of petitioner in the order of acquittal shall be allowed. that is. (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. In her Kontra-Salaysay. ROSIE QUIDET vs. (4) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. The records show that petitioner admits her civil obligation to respondent. Respondent concededly has an available remedy even if his Motion to Amend was denied. such as: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances. No. the decision attains finality and becomes executory in due course must be strictly enforced as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. to require him to pursue this remedy at this stage will only prolong the litigation between the parties which negates the avowed purpose of the strict enforcement of reglementary periods to appeal. in turn.R.ISSUE: The lone issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondents Motion to Amend. which is to institute a separate civil action to recover petitioners civil liability. Not only will that course of action be a waste of time. to make orderly the discharge of judicial business. As a general rule.[24] Certain elements are considered for the appeal to be given due course. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. nor institute a civil action for the recovery of civil liability. xxx In case the judgment is of acquittal. substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the giving of due course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and mandatory rules of procedure. petitioner admits her civil obligation to respondent. to put an end to judicial controversies. second. which are precisely why courts exist. it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[26] petitioner alleged that she owed respondent a total of P3.G.[23] However. 2010 39 . but also a waste of the resources of both parties and the court as well. to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus. in exceptional cases. Contents of the judgment.00 as a result of their joint lending business whereby petitioner borrows money from respondent with interest and petitioner. procedurally. lends the money to her clients. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Foremost. the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. there is ostensible merit to respondents cause. respondents actual and active participation in the criminal proceedings through a private prosecutor leaves no doubt with respect to his intentions to press a claim for the unpaid obligation of petitioner in the same action. (2) the merits of the case.300.

Tubo and Taban) guilty of frustrated homicide. and Aurelio Tubo (Tubo) were charged with homicide for the death of Jimmy Tagarda (Jimmy). His participation was not necessary to the completion of the criminal acts because by the time he boxed Andrew and Jimmy. in homicide. Feliciano Taban. all the accused entered a plea of not guilty in frustrated homicide. arising from the same incident. the balance tips in favor of the milder form of criminal liability as what is at stake is the accused’s liberty. Upon arraignment. Jr. thereafter. lowering the frustrated homicide to attempted homicide only. RTC rendered a judgment finding petitioner and Tubo guilty of homicide and all three accused (petitioner. joint trial ensued. the trial court rendered a partial judgmentsentencing Taban to imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. Andrew Tagarda (Andrew). According to the CA. ISSUE: 40 . From this judgment. Furthermore. The CA the RTC with some modifications. is merely attempted homicide. On even date. Petitioner insists that it cannot be said that he had the same criminal purpose and design as Taban and Tubo. The trial court found that the stabbing of Jimmy and Andrew was previously planned by the accused. The crime committed. The CA also deleted the award of civil indemnity to the heirs of Andrew because the same was not fully substantiated.000. Also.00 as civil indemnity. Meanwhile. the aforesaid accused were also charged with frustrated homicide for the stab wounds sustained by Jimmy’s cousin. therefore. the stabbing had already taken place. (Taban). Taban entered a voluntary plea of guilt while petitioner and Tubo maintained their innocence. the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses cannot be offset by the defense of plain denial. The active participation of all three accused proved conspiracy in the commission of the crimes. The evidence further established that the stabbing incident was purely accidental and that the accused had no grudge against the victims. Andrew suffered only minor injuries which could have healed within five to seven days even without medical treatment. as maximum. only petitioner appealed to the CA. the accused failed to inflict mortal wounds on Andrew because the latter successfully deflected the attack. to twelve (12) years.Doctrine:Conspiracy must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself for it is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. Accordingly. petitioner was unarmed negating his intent to kill. Thereafter. FACTS: Petitioner Rosie Quidet. In case of reasonable doubt as to its existence. as minimum. and ordering him to pay the heirs of Jimmy P50. two (2) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.

the liability of the defendants is separate and individual. The existence of conspiracy was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the Decision of the CA finding petitioner to have acted in conspiracy with the other accused (Taban and Tubo) in the commission of the offenses charged is in accordance with law and/or jurisprudence. thus. according to the settled rule. however. be awarded for failure to prove the same. Thus. in Criminal Case No. Considering that it was duly established that petitioner boxed Jimmy and Andrew and absent proof of the extent of the injuries sustained by the latter from these acts.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Jimmy and another P5. HELD: 1. Whether the CA erred in deleting the award of civil indemnity to the heirs of Andrew on the ground that the same was not fully substantiated. While the evidence shows that the appellant boxed the deceased. Whether the CA correctly modified the crime from frustrated to attempted homicide. Actual damages arising from said acts cannot. the CA correctly modified the same. We reach the same conclusion here. 2. In addition. Although Taban and Tubo did not appeal their conviction. the evidence of the prosecution does not meet the test of moral certainty in order to establish that petitioner conspired with Taban and Tubo to commit the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide. he should pay P5. The crime committed was attempted homicide and not frustrated homicide because the stab wounds that Andrew sustained were not life-threatening. The rule is that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Yes. it is. 92-080 (frustrated homicide). petitioner’s liability is separate and individual. and the consequences thereof. petitioner is criminally liable only for his individual acts. the evidence for the prosecution failed to show the existence of conspiracy which. the appellant should be held liable only for slight physical injuries. must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. Vistido and the ruling there applies with equal force here. In the absence of conspiracy. 3. Yes. they are entitled to a reduction of their prison terms.Taken together. 2.000. each is liable for his own acts.00 as moral damages to Andrew. however. in which case. We agree with petitioner that this case is similar to People v.000. the damage caused thereby.Anent the penalty imposed on Taban and Tubo. 41 . this part of the appellate court’s judgment is favorable to them. petitioner should only be made liable for two counts of slight physical injuries. For failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.1. By and large. silent as to the extent of the injuries.

000. In compliance. accused. 00-5-03-SC . No.00 for the pain. Villanueva. the same cannot be awarded due to lack of proof other than the self-serving testimony of Jimmy’s mother. In Criminal Case No. the PAO lawyer asked the Court of Appeals to direct the Warden of the Provincial Jail in Balanga. However. In People v.R.In addition. The Court of Appeals directed accused-appellants counsel to furnish it with the present and complete address of his client within five days from notice.00. We explained that it was anomalous and unfair thatthe heirs of the victim who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages amounting to less than P25. PEOPLE V TARUC G. the trial court should have awarded moral damages in the sum of P50. through the PAO. 92-080. Yes.000.M.00 temperate damages. duly assisted by a lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). ISSUE: Whether he has lost his right to appeal 42 . Accordingly.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount. the PAO lawyer concerned informed the Court of Appeals that accused-appellant escaped from prison on 23 August 2002. in Criminal Case No. 185202 FACTS:Accused-appellant Francisco Taruc was charged with the crime of murder in connection with the death of Emelito Sualog. After trial on the merits. the CA correctly ruled that Andrew is not entitled to an award of actual damages for failure to substantiate the same.000. to file a certification as to the accused-appellants escape. pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages is proper under the premises.000. the prosecution was able to prove burial-related expenses with supporting receipt only to the extent of P5. the award of temperate damages for P25.000. It may be noted that the afore-discussed higher indemnities are not favorable to Taban and Tubo who did not appeal. On 13 January 2006. Civil indemnity is automatically granted to the heirs of the deceased victim without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime.00 in consonance with current jurisprudence.000. trauma and suffering arising from the stabbing incident. we held that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25. an award of P25.3. As to loss of earning capacity.Said PAO lawyer claimed that he had no means of knowing the current whereabouts of the accused-appellant. Bataan.00 would be in a worse situation than those who might have presented no receipts at all but would be entitled to P25.000. The case was brought to the Court of Appeals for automatic review pursuant to A. As to actual damages. Upon arraignment on 25 April 2005. No. 92-079.000. but in line with our ruling in People v. accused-appellant. the RTC on 29 June 2005 rendered a Decision convicting the accused. filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellants Brief. he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P30.00.000. the trial court properly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P50.Anent the award of damages for which Taban and Tubo should be made solidarily liable. they shall be held solidarily liable therefor since these amounts are not in the form of a penalty.00 to the heirs of Jimmy. Pacaña. Thereupon.

the Court. No. the procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals. except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio. it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125. SC By escaping prison. Rule 126 Rule 127 43 . The Court of Appeals may. he loses his standing in court. Mapalao.Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law. it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125. He may avail of it or not. as he is deemed to have waived the appeal. In allowing the dismissal of the appeal of the accused-appellant under the circumstances identified by the foregoing rule. He may waive it either expressly or by implication.R. 1996). it is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases. the escape of the accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction. Court enunciated that: the There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the accused himself. in People v. By escaping prison. having escaped from prison or confinement.[16]explained that: Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country. upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case. August 20. and unless he surrenders or submits to its jurisdiction. Section 8. Esparas. accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal. Notwithstanding. paragraph 2 of the same Rules allows the Court of Appeals. but the right of appeal is not one of them. dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement. dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule. While at large. accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal In People v. Automatic review being mandatory. The Court of Appeals may also. considering that what was involved was capital punishment. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 8. he cannot seek relief from the court. G.HELD: Rule 124. he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court Although Rule 124. upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio. Uniform procedure. he will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him x x x. as he pleases. viz: SEC. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision. which reads: SECTION 1. The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against him. to dismiss the appeal of the accused-appellant who eludes the jurisdiction of the courts over his person. Section 8 particularly applies to the Court of Appeals. (People vs. Section 8 particularly applies to the Court of Appeals. Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although Rule 124. 120034. Thus. Ang Gioc. . jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio.

44 .