Criminal Procedure

Case Digest

1. Asistio vs. People of the Philippines, 756 SCRA 256 (2015)

JOCELYN ASISTIO y CONSINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MONICA NEALIGA

G.R. No. 200465 April 20, 2015
Facts:
Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. [RA]
6938).

The prosecution sought to prove that the accused had entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc., (Coca Cola) for the sale of softdrink products at the same school. The school principal then created an audit committee
to look into the financial reports of the Cooperative. Based on the documents obtained from Coca-Cola, including the records of actual
deliveries and sales, and the financial statements prepared by Asistio, the audit committee found that Asistio defrauded the Cooperative
and its members for three (3) years. Despite requests for her to return to the Cooperative the amounts she had allegedly misappropriated,
Asistio failed and refused to do so. Thus, the Cooperative issued a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of criminal charges against
her.

Trial ensued and after the presentation and offer of evidence by the prosecution, Asistio moved to dismiss the case by way of Demurrer
to Evidence with prior leave of court. She argued, among other matters, that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, does not have
jurisdiction over the case, as the crime charged (Violation of Section 46 of RA 6938) does not carry with it a sanction for which she can
be held criminally liable.
The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of the charge against the accused on demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal, hence, final and
unappealable.

Held:
No. The dismissal of the charge by RTC does not amount to an acquittal.

The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is “filed after the prosecution had rested its case,” and when the same
is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond
reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.” Such dismissal of a
criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy.
The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there.

In this case, however, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case not for insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged. Notably, the RTC did not decide the case on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of Asistio’s guilt
or innocence based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution. This being the case, the RTC Order of dismissal does not operate as an
acquittal, hence, may still be subject to ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

2. Anlud Metal Recycling Corp. vs Ang, 2015, 766 SCRA 633

Synopsis:
In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction
over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: (a) Subject to existing
laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. In cases of falsification of private
documents, the venue is the place where the document is actually falsified, to the prejudice of or with the
intent to prejudice a third person, regardless whether or not the falsified document is put to the improper or
illegal use for which it was intended.

3. Sumbilia vs. Matrix Finance Corp. 760 SCRA 532

Synopsis:
Petitioner acknowledged the procedural lapse of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court instead of an ordinary appeal before the CA. The effects of her erroneous filing of the Motion for
Reconsideration to challenge the MeTC Decision finding her guilty of six counts of violation of BP 22, knowing
that her conviction had already attained finality, petitioner seeks the relaxation of the rules of procedure so
that the alleged erroneous penalty imposed by the MeTC can be modified to make it in accord with existing
law and jurisprudence. The right to appeal being a mere statutory privilege can only be exercised in
 accordance with the rules, and the lost appeal cannot be resurrected through the present remedial recourse
of a petition for review on certiorari. The MeTC Decision dated January 14, 2009, which is already final and
executory, may still be modified.

4. Jadewell Parking Systems Inc. vs. Lidua, Oct.7, 2013

Synopsis:
As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information toll the
prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. The respondent judge was correct
when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992), the violation of a
municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also featured similar facts and issues with the present case. In that
case, the offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the
Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.

5. People vs. Pangilinan, June 13, 2012

Synopsis:
Pangilinan filed an “Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of
Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City. She alleged that her criminal liability has been extinguished by
reason of prescription. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not
more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefore prescribes in four (4) years in accordance with the
afore cited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of
proceedings against the guilty person.

6. Ampatuan Jr. vs. De Lima, April 3, 2013

Synopsis:
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the Government whose principal
power and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. In matters involving the exercise
of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the
particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken
in the exercise of judgment or discretion. As such, respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act
on the letter-request of petitioner, but may not be compelled to act in a certain way such as to grant or deny
such letter-request.

7. Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, Sept.11, 2013

Synopsis:
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged because the crim cases were filed within
the purview of SEC. 4(C) of RA 8242 and both complaints were initially filed by the PCGG pursuant to its
mandate. In resolving the issue of prescription, the ff. must be considered: 1) The period of prescription for the
offense; 2) The time when the period of prescriptions starts to run; and 3) The time when the prescriptive
period is interrupted. The statute of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right
which will support a cause of action. In other words, the court would decline to apply the statute of limitations
where the plaintiff does not know or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence of the cause of
action.

8. Metrobank vs. Reynaldo, Aug.9, 2010

Synopsis:
In a preliminary investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime has been committed and whether
there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. In this case, as analyzed by the prosecutor,
a prima facie case of estafa exists against respondents. As perused by her, the facts as presented in the Complaint-
Affidavit of the auditor are reasonable enough to excite her belief that respondents are guilty of the crime
complained of. A compromise or settlement entered into after the commission of the crime does not
extinguish criminal liability for estafa. The Secretary of Justice, however, may review or modify the resolution of the
prosecutor.

9. People vs. Bayabos, Feruary 18, 2015

Synopsis:
That the case against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial of
the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter; or even the latter’s acquittal, especially
when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. Failure to aver this crucial ingredient would
 prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as
accomplice, for the crime of hazing.

10. People vs. Cinco, Dec.4, 2009

Synopsis:
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over
the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived. Furthermore, even granting that indeed there has been an irregularity in the arrest of the appellant, it
is deemed cured by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court over his person. Thus, appellant
is deemed to have waived his constitutional protection against illegal arrest when he actively participated in
the arraignment and trial of this case. It is clear from the above provision that in offenses against property, the
materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party would depend on whether or not the subject
matter of the offense was sufficiently described and identified.

11. Senador vs. People, March 6, 2013

Synopsis:
Senador was charged with estafa, a crime against property that does not absolutely require as
indispensable the proper designation of the name of the offended party. Rather, what is absolutely necessary
is the correct identification of the criminal act charged in the information. In case of an error in the
designation of the offended party in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court mandates
the correction of the information, not its dismissal: SEC. 12(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the
offended party is unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the
offense charged. (b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true name to be inserted in the
complaint or information and the record.

12. Albert vs. Sandiganbayan, February 26, 2009,

Synopsis:
The rules mandate that after a plea is entered, only a formal amendment of the Information may be
made but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. The test as to when
the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense
under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment
is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or
information as amended. On the other hand, an amendment which merely states with additional precision
something which is already contained in the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential
for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime.

13. Union Bank of the Phils. vs. People of the Phils. February 28, 2012
Synopsis:
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making a
false narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. Tomas filed a Motion to Quash, citing that the venue
was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court, where the Certificate was submitted and used, and not the
MeTC-Makati City, where the Certificate was subscribed, that has jurisdiction over the perjury case. MeTC-
Makati City is the proper venue and the proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case against the
petitioners. Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place
where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the
case. In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has
jurisdiction over it, Section 10 and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the offense was
committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place.

14. People vs. Vidana, Oct.23, 2013

Synopsis:
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of both larceny and embezzlement based on the same course
of conduct. The Court of Appeal struck Defendant’s larceny conviction, holding that a defendant cannot be
convicted of both larceny and embezzlement for the same course of conduct because they not “different
offenses” within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code 954. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) larceny and
embezzlement are different statements of the same offense within the meaning of section 954; and (2)
section 954 does not permit multiple convictions for different statements of the same offense.

15. People vs. Abrencillo, November 28, 2012

 Synopsis:
The RTC as the trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanour and conduct of AAA when
she incriminated the accused by her recollection of the incident in court. The personal observation of AAA's
conduct and demeanour enabled the trial judge to discern whether she was telling the truth or inventing it.
The trial judge's evaluation, which the CA affirmed, now binds the Court, leaving to the accused the burden
to bring to the Court's attention facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or
misinterpreted by the lower courts but would materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly
considered.

16. Mendez vs. People, July 11, 2014

Synopsis:
Accused was found guilty of raping his 16 year old step daughter. He assails the defective information.
The failure of the information to state that the accused raped the victim “through force or intimidation” is not
a fatal omission in this case because the complaint alleged the ultimate fact that the accused raped the
victim “by means of force”. So at the outset, the appellant could have readily ascertained that he was being
accused of rape committed through force, a charge that sufficiently complies with Art 335. However, since
the information alleges that the victim was his daughter, when in truth the actual relationship of the appellant
with the victim is that of stepfather and stepdaughter, the appellant can be held liable only for simple rape.

17. Ocampo vs. Abando, February 11, 2014

Synopsis:
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is conducted to protect the innocent from the
embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. While the right to have a preliminary investigation
before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a substantive right and a component of due process in
the administration of criminal justice. "The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and
submit evidence in support of one's defense." What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to be heard. Thus, one
who has been afforded a chance to present one’s own side of the story cannot claim denial of due process.