TOLENTINO VS PAQUEO
Judge Gayapa
FACTS:Petitioner, State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an information
charging private respondent, Benedict Tecklo for violation of Sec 22 (a) in relation to
Sec 28 (e) of R.A. No. 8282, for failing to remit SSS premiums due to his employee
despite demand.
Accused, private respondent through his counsel filed a motion to quash the
information of the ground that Petitioner, Prosecutor Tolentino has no legal
personality and authority to commence such prosecution without the approval of the
City Prosecutor of Naga City, the situs of the crime.
Petitioner contends that he was given authority and designated as Special Prosecutor
for SSS cases by the Regional State Prosecutor to comply with the request for SSS
which authority was confirmed by the Chief Sate prosecutor. He claims, approval of
the City Prosecutor in filing the information is no longer necessary by virtue of the
Regional order which designated him as Special Prosecutor.
Respondent, Judge Paque granted the motion to quash based on the lack of legal
personality of State Prosecutor Tolentino, not legally clothed with the authority to
commence prosecution in violation of Sec 4 (3) of Rule 112 which requires the
approva of the City Prosecutor prior to filing an information and Sec 3 (c) of Rule 117
which provides the grounds for granting a motion to quash. He then denied the
objection and motion of the petitioner.
A petition for certiorari and mandamus was then filed by the petitioner alleging that
respondent Jugde Paqueo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing orders granting the motion to quash of private
respondent in the case People vs Tecklo.
ISSUE:Whether or nor petioner State Prosecutor Tolentino is duly authorized to file
the subject Information without the approval of the City Prosecutor?
HELD:No. The Court ruled that the decision of the respondent Judge to grant the
motion to quash is proper.
Petitioner alleged that he was designated as a Special Prosecutor by the Regional
State Prosecutor in relation with the regional order, however Regional State
Prosecutor is not included among the law officers authorized to approve the filing or
dismissal of the Information in compliance with Sec 4, Rule 112. In the case ar bar,
Petitioner, did not comply with such requirement. Conseuqently, the non-compliance
was a ground to quash the information under Sec 3 (2) of Rule 117. Therefore, the
Court finds that Respondent, Judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in dismissing
the information for failure to the petitioner, State prosecutor to comply with Sec 4 (3)
of Rule 112, as such failure tantamounts to an invalid information filed for the officer
who filed it had no authority to do so.
PEOPLE V. TIRA
FACTS: SPO3 Manibog formed a team to conduct the surveillance at the residence of
Tira due to reported rampant drug activities. The group observed that more than 20
persons had gone in and out of the Tira residence. They confronted one of them and
the person revealed that Amadeo sold shabu, and that he was a regular customer. The
group reported this to P/Supt Victorio, who instructed them to make an affidavit of
surveillance preliminary to an application for a search warrant.
subsequently issued a search warrant. A team then implemented the search warrant.
They proceeded to the Tira residence, where they found Ernesto Tira, father of Amadeo
at the porch. They introduced themselves and told him that they had a warrant
authorizing them to search the premises. Ernesto led them inside. The policemen found
the newly awakened Amadeo inside the first room of the house. With Brgy Kagawad
and Amadeo Tira, they proceeded to search the first room to the right and found the
items (shabu, paraphernalia, etc). The Tiras contend that the search conducted by the
policemen was made in their absence, thus, in violation of Sec 7, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure. They argue that the articles are inadmissible in evidence, being
the fruits of a poisonous tree.
ISSUE: Was the search in compliance to Sec 7 Rule 126? YES
HELD: SEC. 7. Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two
witnesses. – No search of house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in
the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality. Contrary to their claim, Amadeo Tira was present when
the policemen searched the inner room of the house. The articles and substances were
found under the bed on which Amadeo slept. The policemen did not find the articles in
any other room in the house. Also, Amadeo was not the only witness to the search;
Kagawad Conwi and Ernesto were also present. Ernesto even led the policemen inside
the house. The Tiras also contend that the inner room searched by the policemen was
occupied by other people: Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. This was rejected by the court.
We are in full accord with the trial court. It bears stressing that the trial court conducted
an ocular inspection of the house of the appellants, and thus, had first hand knowledge
of the layout of the house.
REMEDIES AVAILABLE IF THE ACCUSED FAILED TO APPEAR DURING FINAL
JUDGMENT
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ACCUSED FAILS TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT DESPITE NOTICE?
1. In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of
judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the
judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last
known address thru his counsel.
2. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules
against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15)
days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender
and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state
the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves
that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES THAT ACCUSED CANNOT AVAIL WHEN JUDGMENT
IS PROMULGATED IN ABSENTIA?
1. Appeal
2. Probation
3. Parole
4. Motion for new trial or reconsideration
5. Suspension of Sentence
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
DOUBLE JEOPARDY EXCEPTIONS
 There are two exceptions to the foregoing rule, and double jeopardy may
attach even if the dismissal of the case was with the consent of the accused_
1. If there is insufficiency of evidence to support the charge against him, and
2. Where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in
violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial
CEREZO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts: Petitioner Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for libel against respondents Juliet
Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia (respondents), as well as Oscar
Mapalo (Mapalo). Finding probable cause to indict respondents, the Quezon City
Prosecutors Office (OP-QC) filed the corresponding Information against them before
the RTC. Respondents thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to
Re-evaluate Prosecutions Evidence before the OP-QC. In its resolution, the OP-QC
reversed its earlier finding and recommended the withdrawal of the Information.
Consequently, a Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information was filed before the
RTC on December 3, 2003. During the intervening period, specifically on November
24, 2003, respondents were arraigned. All of them entered a not guilty plea. In
deference to the prosecutor’s last resolution, the RTC ordered the criminal case
dismissed in its Order.
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the said Order, arguing that the
OP-QC resolution has not yet attained finality, considering that the same was the
subject of a Petition for Review filed before the Department of Justice (DOJ). The
RTC deferred action on the said motion to await the resolution of the DOJ. The
Secretary of Justice promulgated his resolution reversing and setting aside the OP-
QCs resolution, and directing the latter to refile the earlier Information for libel. The
RTC issued its first assailed Order granting petitioners motion for reconsideration,
conformably with the resolution of the DOJ Secretary and setting aside its last Order
granting the dismissal of the case against the respondents and order the
reinstatement of the case. Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the motion
was denied in the RTC. The respondents elevated their predicament to the CA
arguing that the RTC Orders violated their constitutional right against double
jeopardy. The CA found the RTC to have gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
reinstatement of the case. The CA annulled the impugned RTC Orders, ruling that all
the elements of double jeopardy exist. There was a valid Information sufficient in form
and substance filed before a court of competent jurisdiction to which respondents had
pleaded, and that the termination of the case was not expressly consented to by
respondents; hence, the same could not be revived or refiled without transgressing
respondents right against double jeopardy. The CA further found that the DOJ
Secretary improperly took cognizance of the Petition for Review because DOJ
Department Order No. 223 mandates that no appeal shall be entertained if the
accused has already been arraigned or, if the arraignment took place during the
pendency of the appeal, the same shall be dismissed.
Petitioner interposed the instant appeal when his motion for reconsideration of the CA
Decision was denied.
Issue: Whether there was a valid termination of the case so as to usher in the
impregnable wall of double jeopardy.
Ruling:
The Court held that in resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an
Information, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the
public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is the courts bounden duty to assess
independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be embodied in a
written order disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or
the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.
The Court noticed that it is obvious from the Order of the RTC, dismissing the criminal
case, that the RTC judge failed to make his own determination of whether or not there
was a prima facie case to hold respondents for trial. He failed to make an
independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case. The RTC judge
blindly relied on the manifestation and recommendation of the prosecutor when he
should have been more circumspect and judicious in resolving the Motion to Dismiss
and Withdraw Information especially so when the prosecution appeared to be
uncertain, undecided, and irresolute on whether to indict respondents. The same
holds true with respect to the Order, which reinstated the case. The RTC judge failed
to make a separate evaluation and merely awaited the resolution of the DOJ
Secretary.
By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution of
the DOJ Secretary, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a
positive duty enjoined by law. The said Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of
discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due process. They were void, had no
legal standing, and produced no effect whatsoever.
The Court remanded the case to the RTC, so that the latter can rule on the merits of
the case to determine if a prima facie case exists and consequently resolve
the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information anew.
The Court also held that double jeopardy did not set in. Double jeopardy exists when
the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
(2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the
same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment;
(b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been
entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Since the Court have held Order granting the motion to dismiss was committed with
grave abuse of discretion, then respondents were not acquitted nor was there a valid
and legal dismissal or termination of the case. The fifth requisite which requires the
conviction and acquittal of the accused, or the dismissal of the case without the
approval of the accused, was not met. Thus, double jeopardy has not set in. The
petition was granted and the Supreme Court remanded the case to QC-RTC for
evaluation on whether probable cause exists to hold respondents for trial.
PLEA BARGAIN
SEC.2- Plea of guilty to a lesser offense- At arraignment, the accused, with the
consent of the offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court
to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense
charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to
plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No
amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.
 When the penalty imposable for the offense is at least 6 years and 1 day or a
fine exceeding P12,00, the prosecutor must first submit his recommendation
to the City or Provincial or the Chief State Prosecutor for approval. If the
recommendation is approved, the trial prosecutor may then consent to the
plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. – When the
accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his
guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present
evidence in his behalf.
Sec. 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence,
discretionary. – When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense,
the court may receive evidence from the parties to
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
Plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
CRIME CHARGE IN INFORMATION IS CONTROLLING
X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER. CAN HE BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE?
Yes. It is the recital of the facts and not the designation of the offense, which is
controlling. Murder is constituted of homicide with additional qualifying aggravating
circumstances. It may be the case that the qualifying aggravating circumstances were
not proven, to convict the accused
STATE WITNESS
Sec. 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. – When two or more persons
are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the
prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the
accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for
the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the
sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its
material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving
moral turpitude. Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall
automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge
of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
WHAT IS A STATE WITNESS?
A state witness is one of two or more persons jointly charged with the commission of
a crime but who is discharged with his consent as such accused so that he may be a
witness for the State.
AMPATUAN VS DE LIMA
FACTS:
In the joint resolution issued on February 5, 2010, the Panel of Prosecutors charged
196 individuals with multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre. One
Kenny Dalandag, was admitted into the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ and
was later on listed as one of the prosecution witness. On October 14, 2010, petitioner,
through counsel request the inclusion of Dalandag in the information for murder
considering that Dalandag had already confessed his participation in the massacre
through his two sworn declarations. Petitioner reiterated the request twice more on
October 22, 201019 and November 2, 2010. But Secretary De Lima denied petitioner’s
request.
Accordingly, on December 7, 2010, petitioner brought a petition for mandamus in the
RTC in Manila seeking to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another
accused in the various murder cases undergoing trial in the QC RTC. The RTC in
Manila set a pre-trial conference and issued a pre-trial order. The respondents
questioned the propriety of the conduct of a trial in a proceeding for mandamus.
Petitioner opposed.
On June 27, 2011,33 the RTC of Manila issued the assailed order in Civil Case No.
10-124777 dismissing the petition for mandamus. Hence, this appeal by petition for
review on certiorari.
 should be balanced, however, with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in
accordance with Art. III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
ISSUES:
Whether respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as
an accused for multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite his
admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ.

HELD:
No. 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. A necessary component of the power to execute our laws is the
right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the public prosecutors
with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of what and whom to charge, the
exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors that are best appreciated by
the public prosecutors.
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,48or to compel the retraction or reversal of an action
already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. 49
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.

REMEDIES FROM UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Q: Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for
him to approach. As soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him
but the latter found no contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside
the police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked the police officer,
“Sir, may problema po ba?” instead of replying, the police officer locked up
Hercules inside the police station jail.

a. If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for warrantless

search, as counsel for the police officer, what defense will you raise for
the dismissal of the complaint?

A: A counsel of policeman, I will raise the defense of presumption of regularity in the

performance of duty. A stop-and-frisk situation must precede a warrantless arrest, be
limited to the person’s outer clothing, and should be grounded upon a genuine
reason, in the light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.

The ‘stop-and-frisk’ search should be used “when dealing with rapidly unfolding and
potentially criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably there is no time to
secure a search warrant.”

“Stop-and-frisk” searches are necessary for law enforcement, that is, law enforcers
should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of the offenses. This