[G.R. No. 131652.
March 9, 1998] to Yumi Veranga y Hervera to the effect that he could
BAYANI M. ALONTE, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMO A.
SAVELLANO JR., NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
[G.R. No. 131728. March 9, 1998]
BUENAVENTURA CONCEPCION, petitioner, vs. JUDGE
MAXIMO SAVELLANO, JR., THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, and JUVIELYN Y. PUNONGBAYAN,
respondents.
Facts:
VITUG, J.:
Pending before this Court are two separate petitions,
one filed by petitioner Bayani M. Alonte, docketed G.R. No.
131652, and the other by petitioner Buenaventura
Concepcion, docketed G.R. No. 131728, that assail the
decision of respondent Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., of
the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Branch 53, of Manila
finding both petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape. The two petitions were consolidated.
On 05 December 1996, an information for rape was filed
against petitioners Bayani M. Alonte, an incumbent Mayor of
Bian, Laguna, and Buenaventura Concepcion predicated on
a complaint filed by Juvie-lyn Punongbayan.
Issue:
WON Alonte has been denied criminal due process
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that Savellano should inhibit
himself from further deciding on the case due to animosity
between him and the parties. There is no showing that
Alonte waived his right. The standard of waiver requires that
it “not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing,
intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences.”
G.R. No. 157331 April 12, 2006
ARNOLD ALVA, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
Facts:
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The present petition stemmed from an Information charging
petitioner with having committed the crime of estafa. It was
alleged therein that Arnold Alva, by means of false
manifestation and fraudulent representation which he made
process the latter’s application for U.S. Visa provided she
would give the amount of P120,000.00. He succeeded in
inducing her to give and deliver the amount of P120,000.00
on the strength of said manifestation and representation, well
knowing that the same were false and untrue for the reason
that the U.S. Visa is not genuine and were made solely to
obtain the amount of P120,000.00.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in
dismissing the appeal in view of petitioner’s alleged failure to
post a valid bail bond to secure his provisional liberty on
appeal
Whether or not petitioner failed to submit himself to the
jurisdiction of the court or to the custody of the law despite
the posting of the subject bail bond
Held:
NO.The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in
dismissing petitioner’s appeal. Within the meaning of the
principles governing the prevailing criminal procedure,
petitioner impliedly withdrew his appeal by jumping bail and
thereby made the judgment of the RTC final and
executory.Petitioner’s alleged failure to post a bail bond on
appeal is unimportant because under the circumstances, he
is disallowed by law to be admitted to bail on appeal. At the
time petitioner filed his notice of appeal and during the
pendency of his appeal – even until now – he remains at
large, placing himself beyond the pale, and protection of the
law.
“Custody of the law” is accomplished either by arrest or
voluntary surrender; while “jurisdiction over the person of the
accused” is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but
not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person,
such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a
motion before arraignment to quash the warrant.
G.R. No. 133289 December 23, 1999
LICERIO A. ANTIPORDA, JR., ELITERIO RUBIACO,
VICTOR GASCON and CAESAR TALIA petitioners,
vs.
HON. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, HON. EDILBERTO
G. SANDOVAL, HON. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, JR. in
their capacity as Presiding Justice and Associate
Justices of the Sandiganbayan, respondents.
Facts:
BUENA, J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to
restrain the respondent Justices of the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with Crim. Case No.
24339 and from enforcing the warrants for the arrest of the
accused named therein (herein petitioners) or to maintain
the status quo until further orders from this Court. Accused
Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and
Caesar Talla were charged with the crime of kidnapping one
Elmer Ramos in an Information dated September 18, 1997. It
was filed with the First Division of the Sandiganbayan
comprised of the Honorable Francis E. Garchitorena,
Edilberto E. Sandoval, and Catalino Castañeda, Jr.
Issue:
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
Held:
YES. They are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. The original Information filed with
the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense
committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after
the same was filed that the prosecution belatedly
remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein.
G.R. No. 180010
CENITA M. CARIAGA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Facts:
By Resolutions of May 28, 2007 and September 27,
2007, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No.
29514, People of the Philippines v. Cenita
Cariaga, dismissed the appeal of Cenita Cariaga (petitioner)
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Petitioner, as the municipal treasurer of Cabatuan,
Isabela with a Salary Grade of 24, was charged before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City in Isabela with
three counts of malversation of public funds, defined under
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue:
WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the cas
Held:
YES. That appellate jurisdiction in this case pertains
to the Sandiganbayan is clear. Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 1606,as amended by Republic Act No. 8249.
Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility
of a person being deprived of liberty due to a procedural
lapse militates against the Courts dispensation of justice, the
Court grants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the Rules.
For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate
the attainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict
application thereof which results in technicalities tending to
frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided.
[G.R. No. 134307. December 21, 1998]
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
QUISUMBING, J.:
Facts:
This petition for prohibition under Section 2 of Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court seeks to dismiss Criminal Case No. 22018
entitled People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco,
Jr., et al., now pending before respondent Sandiganbayan
(First Division), and to prohibit said court from further
proceeding with the case. Petitioner invokes his
constitutional right to due process, a speedy trial, and a
speedy determination of his cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative bodies.
Issue:
WON the warrant of arrest issued by respondent
Sandiganbayan is null and void, or should now be lifted if
initially valid? YES
WON the Sandiganbayan still acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner? YES
Held:
The Sandiganbayan failed to abide by the constitutional
mandate of personally determining the existence of probable
cause before issuing awarrant of arrest. The 2 cited
document above were the product of somebody else’s
determination, insufficient to support a finding of probable
cause by the Sandiganbayan.
With regards to jurisdiction, the rule is well-settled that the
giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount to
submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. By
posting bail, herein petitioner cannot claim exemption effect
of being subject to the jurisdiction of respondent court.
[G.R. No. 123340. August 29, 2002]
LUTGARDA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HEIRS
OF ESTANISLAWA C. REYES, represented by MIGUEL
C. REYES, respondents.
CARPIO, J.:
Facts:
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner with the
crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document before
the Manila Regional Trial Court. Petitioner executed before a
Notary Public in the City of Manila an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication of a parcel of land stating that she was the sole
surviving heir of the registered owner when in fact she knew
there were other surviving heirs. Since the offended party did
not reserve the right to file a separate civil action arising from
the criminal offense, the civil action was deemed instituted in
the criminal case.
Issue:
WON RTC of Manila had jurisdiction
Held:
Yes. The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction to render judgment
on the civil aspect of the Criminal Case. There are three
important requisites which must be present before a court
can acquire criminal jurisdiction. First, the court must have
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the court must
have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was
committed. Third, the court must have jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.
G.R. No. 199113
RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner,
vs.
EDITHA A. AGBAY and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Facts:
Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public
document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of the filing
of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian
citizen.
Issue:
Did the MTC properly deny David’s motion for re-
determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused?
Held:
The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner accused as ground for denying petitioner’s motion
for redetermination of probable cause, as the motion was
filed prior to his arrest. However, custody of the law is not
required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an
application for bail.
G.R. No. 158763 March 31, 2006
JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and
ROMEO B. OCON, Petitioners,
vs.
VIRGILIO M. TULIAO, Respondent.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Facts:
On March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in
Ramon, Isabela which were later identified as the bodies of
Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private
respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness
protection program.
Issue:
Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does
not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of arrest
requires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Held:
No, one who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court. Adjudication of a
motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of
law over the body of the accused.
G.R. No. 90625 May 23, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BENEDICTO DAPITAN y MARTIN, @ "Benny" and FRED
DE GUZMAN, accused. BENEDICTO DAPITAN y MARTIN
@ "Benny", accused-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Facts:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Rizal (Branch 75, San Mateo) 4th Judicial Region,
finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide and sentencing him to:
. . . suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA,
and to pay the heirs of the victim Rolando Amil in the
amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.1
Only the accused-appellant was tried. His co-accused, Fred
de Guzman, remained at large and the court ordered the
archival of the case as against him, to be revived upon his
arrest.
Issue:
Whether or not due process was denied?
Held:
No. Due process is satisfied if the following conditions are
present: (1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2)
jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired by it over the person of
thedefendant or over the property which is the subject of the
proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity
to be heard;and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful
hearing.
G.R. No. 168539 March 25, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
HENRY T. GO, Respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
Facts:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing
the Resolution1 of the Third Division2 of the Sandiganbayan
(SB) dated June 2, 2005 which quashed the Information filed
against herein respondent for alleged violation of Section 3
(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. 3019), otherwise known
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Issue:
Whether or not herein respondent, a private person, may be
indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019
even if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to have
conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information.
Held:
YES. The settled rule that private persons, when acting in
conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found
guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3
of R.A. 3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the
anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices
act or which may lead thereto.
G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
MAYOR PABLO SOLA, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN
MEMBER FRANCISCO (ECOT) GARCIA, RICARDO
(CADOY) GARCIA, JOSE BETHOVEN (ATSONG)
CABRAL, CAPTAIN FLORENDO BALISCAO, JOHN,
PETER, OSCAR, OMAR, JACK, RICHARD, JAMES,
DONALD, WILLIAM, ROBERT, HOMER, JESSIE, ANDY,
PAUL, all surnamed DOES respondents.
FERNANDO, C.J.:
Facts:
CFI Negros Occidental issued a search warrant for the
search and seizure of thedeceased bodies of 7 persons
believed in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his
hacienda at Sta. Isabel, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.
Issue:
1. Whether or not change of venue is proper
2. Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled
for failure to abide by the basic requirement that the
prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is
charged with a capital offense, prior to bail being granted.
Held:
Change of venue has become moot and academic with the
transfer of the case toBacolod City. The bail bonds must be
cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive
Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing. Whether the motion
for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense
be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a
regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may
desire to introduce before the court should resolve the
motion for bail.
G.R. No.180993
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY
THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, Petitioner,
vs.
RAYMUNDO VIAJE, ET AL., Respondents.
REYES, J.:
Facts:
The action mainly sought the nullity of the transfer certificate
of title (TCT) individually issued in the name of the
defendants therein, for having been issued in violation of law
and for having dubious origins. The titles were allegedly
derived from TCT No. T-39046 issued on October 1, 1969.
TCT No. T-39046, in turn, was derived from Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 114 issued on March 9, 1910
covering 342,842 square meters. The Republic alleged,
among others, that OCT No. 114 and the documents of
transfer of TCT No. T-39046 do not exist in the records of the
Registers of Deeds of Cavite and Trece Martires City.
Issue:
WON the appellate court erred in not holding that respondent
judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
complaint despite the justified failure of the deputized
counsel to attend the pre-trial.
Held:
The power of the OSG to deputize legal officers of
government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to
assist it in representing the government is well settled. It is
likewise settled that the OSG’s deputized counsel is "no
more than the ‘surrogate’ of the Solicitor General in any
particular proceeding" and the latter remains the
principal counsel entitled to be furnished copies of all
court orders, notices, and decisions. In this case, records
show that it was the OSG that first entered an appearance in
behalf of the Republic; hence, it remains the principal
counsel of record.
G.R. No. 182497 June 29, 2010
NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE VIRGILIO V. MACARAIG, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 37, DIRECTOR GENERAL
AVELINO RAZON, JR., DIRECTOR GEARY BARIAS,
PSSUPT. CO YEE M. CO, JR. and POLICE CHIEF
INSPECTOR AGAPITO QUIMSON, Respondents.
PEREZ, J.:
Facts:
Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 651 of
the Rules of Court assailing the Order dated 25 April 2008 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 37, in
Special Proceeding No. 08-119132 which denied the petition
for Habeas Corpus filed by herein Petitioner Nurhida Juhuri
Ampatuan in behalf of her husband Police Officer 1 Basser
B. Ampatuan
Issue:
WON the respondent court gravely abused its discretion
when it failed to consider that the arrest and detention of po1
basser b. Ampatuan was made without any warrant and
therefore, illegal.
Held:
In sum, petitioner is unable to discharge the burden of
showing that she is entitled to the issuance of the writ prayed
for in behalf of her husband, PO1 Ampatuan. The petition
fails to show on its face that the latter is unlawfully deprived
of his liberty guaranteed and enshrined in the Constitution.
[ GR No. 197597, Apr 08, 2015 ]
IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO v. WARDEN
LEONEN, J.:
Facts:
Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao
massacre, had a pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial
court in People vs Ampatuan Jr. et. al. When Datukan
Malang Salibo learned that the police officers of Datu Hofer
Police Station in Maguindanao suspected him to be Butukan
S. Malang, he presented himself to clear his name. Salibo
presented to the police pertinent portions of his passport,
boarding passes and other documents tending to prove that
a certain Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when
the massacre happened.
Issue:
Issue 1: W/N Salibo properly availed the remedy of a petition
for writ of habeas corpus
Issue 2: W/N a motion to quash information and/or warrant of
arrest is the proper remedy in cases where a person with a
mistaken identity is detained
Held:
1. Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived
of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person
is not under any lawful process and is continuously being
illegally detained. The police officers have deprived him of
his liberty without due process of law. Therefore, Salibo
correctly availed himself of a Petition for Habeas Corpus.
2. No, the CA’s contention is not correct. Salibo’s proper
remedy is not a Motion to Quash Information and/or Warrant
of Arrest. None of the grounds for filing a Motion to Quash
Information apply to him. Even if petitioner Salibo filed a
Motion to Quash, the defect he alleged could not have been
cured by mere amendment of the Information and/or Warrant
of Arrest.

G.R. No. 160739 July 17, 2013

ANITA MANGILA, Petitioner,

vs.
JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN, ASST. CITY
PROSECUTOR II LUCIA JUDY SOLINAP, and NATIONAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (DIRECTOR REYNALDO
WYCOCO), Respondents.

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts:

Anita Mangila, petitioner, was charged with seven of

syndicated estafa. The complaint against her arose from
recruiting and promising employment to private complainants
as overseas contract workers in Toronto, Canada without
lawful authority from POEA.

Issue:

WON the CA err in ruling that habeas corpus was not the
proper remedy to obtain the release of Mangila from
detention?

Held:

No. Habeas corpus is a speedy and effective remedy

devised to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.
Petitioner’s restraint in this case in NOT unlawful. She had
been arrested and detained by virtue of the valid warrant
issued for her arrest.