Jurisdiction over the subject matter

Emilio Reyes vs. Apolonio Diaz

Facts:

 Jurisdiction of trial court is in issue

Issue: W/N the trial court has an authority to pass upon the validity of the ballots adjudicated to the protestant

Held:
YES. Jurisdiction as used in constitutions and in statutes means jurisdiction as to the subject-matter only, unless
an exception arises by reason of its employment in broader sense. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the
power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers. In this case, there is no
question of jurisdiction. Both parties agree that if the due filing of protestant’s COC is proven, trial court has no
jurisdiction TO BE CONTINUED SABAW

People of the Philippines vs. Libertad Lagon and Hon. Judge Isidro Barrios
Facts:

 July 7 1976: Lagon was charged with crime of estafa

o Issued check amounting to 4k as payment for goods purchased knowing that she did not have
sufficient funds
 Dec 2 1976: City court dismissed info on ground that penalty prescribed by law was beyond court’s
authority to impose
o Judge: jurisdiction of court to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time
of the institution of the action, and not by the law in force at the time of commission of crime
 Commission of crime: April 1975
o Jurisdiction over the offense was vested by law in the city court
o At the time info was filed, par 2 of art 315 of RPC had been amended and penalty imposable
increased, which was beyond city court’s authority to impose.
 People:
o City court has jurisdiction and erred in issuing dismissal of case
Issue: W/N City Court of Roxas committed an error in dismissing the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

Held:
NO. The subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly measured by the law in effect
AT THE TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION rather than by the law in effect at the time
of the commission of offense charged. In this case, under sec 87 of Juridical Act of 1948, municipal judges in
the capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and judges of city courts shall have jurisdiction as CFI to try parties
charged with an offense within their respective jurisdictions in which the penalty provided by law DOES NOT
EXCEED PRISION CORECCIONAL or imprisonment for not more than 6 years or fine not exceeding 6k or
both. In 1975, the penalty in Art 315 was ARRESTO MAYOR IN ITS MAXIMUM TO PRISION
CORECCIONAL IN ITS MIN. 1976, penalty was increased to PRISION MAYOR IN MED
Re: retroactivity: subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the authority of court to impose
penalty imposable under applicable statute. In criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction of court is not determined by
what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by result of evidence but by the extent of the penalty
which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime, violation. It is possible that penalty is less than max
imposable penalty. Lesser penalty may be imposed even if the reduced penalty falls within exclusive
jurisdiction of inferior courts.

Rodolfo Dela Cruz vs. Hon. Felix Moya, and People of the Philippines
Facts:

 Feb 23 1979: Dela Cruz, member of AFP, received a mission order to proceed to Barangay Pangi for the
purpose of verifying and apprehending persons who were allegedly engaged in illegal cockfighting.
o Dela Cruz and company caught in flagrante the operators of said illegal cockfighting, operator
resisted arrest.
o Fighting ensued, Dela Cruz shot Cabilto
 Aug 2 1979: Dela Cruz was charged with homicide in CFI Davao
 While pending trial, PD 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated where courts-martials were vested
jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of AFP or PH constabulary in performance of their
duties.
 Dela Cru filed a motion to transfer case to military authorities. Motion was denied.
Issue: W/N the civil court have jurisdiction over the case of Dela Cruz, a member of AFP

Held:
NO. Gen. Order No. 59 was published in the Official Gazette on June 24 1977 which provides that military
tribunals exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military personnel of AFP while in the
performance of their official duty provided that for the purpose of determining whether an offense was
committed while in the performance of duty or whether it arose out of an act or omission done in the
performance of a duty, a certificate issued by Sec. of National Defense shall be conclusive. In this case, the info
was filed on Aug 2 1979 as there was no amendatory law published before Aug 2, Gen. Order 59 remained in
force on said date.

The proviso regarding the certificate to be issued by sec of national defense is not a condition precedent for the
exercise by either civilian courts or military tribunals of their jurisdiction over offenses committed by members
of AFP. In this case, even if there is no certificate issued by sec, the record contains a copy of Mission Order
NO. 7 where Dela Cruz and others were directed to verify and apprehend persons engaged in illegal
cockfighting. Cabilto was shot while Dela Cruz was executing the mission order, hence these facts compel the
Court to declare that CFI of Davao is w/o jurisdiction to try the case against Dela Cruz.

Jejomar Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, DILG; Mario Magsaysay, Francisco Castillo, Cristina Mabiog ,
Regino Malapit, Erlinda Masangcay, Vicente Dela Rosa vs. Sandiganbayan
Facts:

 Sept 4 1994: Office of the Ombudsman filed before Sandiganbayan 3 separate info against Binay
o Violation of Art 220 of RPC
o Violation of sec 3 of RA 3019
 Alleged that acts were committed in 1987 during petitioner’s incumbency as Mayor of Makati
  Binay moved to quash info. Six-year delay from time charges were filed on July 27 1988 to the time info
were filed in Sandiganbayan n Sept 7 1994 constituted a violation of his right to due process
 March 29 1995: sandigan issued resolution denying motion to quash. Binay moved for reconsideration
but it was denied.
 March 31 1995: motion to suspend pendente lite was filed by prosecution and was granted by Sandigan
on April 25
 June 6: Sandigan reiterated denial of his motion, reiterated suspending Binay pendente lite
 May 16 1995: RA 7975 redefining jurisdiction of Sanidgan took effect
 June 13: filed before Sandigan a motion to refer his cases to the proper court alleging that when the 2
resolutions, June 6, were issued by Anti-Graft court, it had already lost jurisdiction over the subject
cases
 July 4: Sandigan denied motion
o Municipal Mayors are classified as Grade 27 under Compensation & Position Classification Act
of 1989. Since at the time of commission of offenses, Binay was mayor Sandigan has original
jurisdiction over the cases filed against him.
o 1986: when offenses were committed, Compensation & Position Classification Act was not yet
in existence but it the grade classification of public officer, whether at the time of commission of
offense or after, is determined by the act
 July 7: filed petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus questioning jurisdiction of Sandigan
Magsaysay

 Magsaysay is the Mayor of San Pascual Batangas

 June 14: Graft Investigation Officer Lourdes Alarilla recommended filing of info with Sandigan for
violation of RA 3019
 Aug 11: info for violation of RA was filed against petitioners not with Sandigan but with RTC. Signed
by Alarilla
 Feb 9 1996: another info for violation of RA 3019 was filed against petitioners for overpricing of
landscaping project but this time with Sandigan
 June 1 1996: accused filed with Sandigan a motion to quash info
o Sandigan has no jurisdiction
o Accused was charged with same offense in 2 info
o Proceedings in Sandigan would expose petitioners to double jeopardy
 June 21: Sandigan denied
 June 7: Prosecutor Eric Mallonga filed a motion before RTC to refer the case pending to Sandigan,
arguing that under RA 7975 the sandigan not RTC has jurisdiction
 Petitioners:
o At the alleged time of the commission of the crimes charged, petitioner municipal mayors were
not classified as Grade 27
o Municipal mayors are not included in the enumeration in Sec 4a(1) of PD 1606, as amended by
RA 7975
o Congressional records reveal that the law did not intend municipal mayors to come under
exclusive original jurisdiction of Sandigan
Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case of municipal mayor
Held:
YES. Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to
proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such
proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or is
construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where a statute
changing jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to
the enactment of statute. Here, RA 7975 belongs to the exception. The provision is transitory in nature and
expresses the legislature’s intention to apply its provisions on jurisdiction to “criminal cases in which trial has
not begun in the Sandiganbayan”. To this extent, RA 7975 is retroactive. In this case, the trial of the cases
involving Binay had not yet begun as of the date of approval of RA 7975 hence, Sandiganbayan retains
jurisdiction over said cases.

(Proper court means “courts of competent jurisdiction”. Proper courts is not restricted to regular courts but it
also includes Sandigan, a special court.)

Panfilo Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, Sandiganbayan, Office of Special Prosecutor, DOJ, Myrna
Abalora, Nenita Alap-ap, Imelda Montero, People of the PH
Facts:

 May 18 1995: 11 persons believed to be members of Kuratong Baleleng gang were slain along
Commonwealth ave by Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group
 SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes: what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out
between Kuratong Baleleng gang members and ABRITG.
o Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators headed by Deputy Ombudsman for
Military Affairs Bienvenido Blancaflor
o Absolved from any criminal liability all the PNP officers with a finding that said incident was a
legitimate police operation.
 A review board of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa modified the findings of Blancaflor and
recommended indictment for multiple murder against 26 respondents
 Nov 2: Lacson was among those charged as principal before Sandiganbayan (became accessory)
 March 1 1996: Ombudsman filed amended info petitioner was only accessory
 March 5-6 1996: accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of Sandigan asserting that
under the amended info, cases fall within the jurisdiction of RTC
o Contention: law limited jurisdiction of Sandigan to cases where one or more of the principal
accused are government officials with salary grade 27 or higher or PNP officials with rank of
chief superintendent. Here, highest ranking principal accused has rank only of a Chief Inspector,
and not has the equivalent of at least grade 27
 May 8: Sandiganbayan admitted the amended information and ordered cases transferred to RTC which
has original and exclusive jurisdiction under RA 7975
 May 17: OSP moved for reconsideration insisting that cases remain with Sandigan
SIMULTAEOUSLY (even before issue of jurisdiction pala)

 HB 2299 and SB 1094 and SN 844 were introduced in Congress defining expanding the jurisdiction of
Sandigan
 o Bills sought to amend jurisdiction of Sandigan by deleting word principal from phrase principal
accused.
 Approved into law as RA 8249 on Feb 5, 1997
 March 5 1997: Sandigan promulgated a resolution denying motion of SP
o SAME DAY ADDEMDUM:
 Granted SP motion as before Justice De Leon rendered his concurring and dissenting
opinion legislature enacted RA 8249
 Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Sec 4 of RA 8249 including sec 7
o Provisions were introduced in bad faith as it was made to suit the peculiar circumstances in
which petitioner’s case were under

Jose Luciano and Florentino Rolls vs. Hon. Herminio Mariano, Hon. B. Jose Castillo, Hon, Benjamin
Aquino
Facts:

 The Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and City Councilors of Makati were found guilty of violation of RA 3019.
They were suspended from office so Councilor Jose Luciano entered into the office as Acting Mayor of
Makati
 May 30 1969: prior to assumption of mayorship, Luciano together with Rolls was charged with violation
of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law before CFI of Rizal.
o To forestall suspension, Luciano filed with SC a petition for prohibition to restrain the Provincial
Fiscal from filing info and CFI from accepting and giving course to the info.
o Based on allegations that:
 The info even though dated May 29 1969, it was actually transmitted to CFI of Rizal only
on May 30 1969, very day when fiscal took his oath of office as judge of Rizal CFI
 Info was filed w/o having conducted preliminary investigation and w/o giving him
opportunity to be heard
o SC dismissed petition w/o prejudice to filing appropriate motion for conducting of preliminary
investigation
 Luciano filed with lower court motion to allow holding preliminary investigation
o Motion was denied. CFI pointed out that info carried a verified certification by provincial fiscal
that he had conducted the required preliminary investigation.
 CFI said there was nothing wrong in conducting reinvestigation
 Given 30 days to signify in writing w/n he deemed it necessary to conduct a
reinvestigation
 Castillo said there can be no reinvestigation w/o petition from accused to Luciano filed a
request (bc of this arraignment was postponed several times)
 Sept 15: Luciano was arraigned; plea of not guilty
 Dec 15: Fiscal informed court that he conducted preliminary investigation and he believes that there is
sufficient evidence to establish prima facie the guilty
o Same day, court issued an order suspending Luciano
o Immediately, he filed for urgent motion for reconsideration
 Luciano contention:
 o Denied his day in court when judge reached the conclusion that the info is valid w/o affording
him opportunity to be heard
o Info does not charge an indictable offense under RA 3019
o No preliminary investigation was conducted in accordance with law
 RTC was ordered to hold a hearing on the validity of the info for violation of Anti-graft
Luz Zaldivia vs. Hon. Andres Reyes and People of the Philippines
Facts:

 Zaldivia was charged for quarrying w/o mayor’s permit in violation of Ordinance no. 2 of Municipality
of Rodriguez
 May 11 1990: Offense was committed
 May 30 1990: referral complaint of police was received by Office of Provincial Prosecutor
 Oct 2 1990: information was filed with MTC of Rodriguez
 Zaldivia moved to quash info on ground that crime prescribed
o Denied
 RTC: sustained denial
 Zaldivia filed for petition for certiorari
o Argues that her charge is governed by rules on summary procedure
 Violations of municipal or city ordinance
 All other cases where penalty prescribed for the offense does not exceed 6 months
imprisonment or fine of 1k or both
 Prosecution shall either be by complaint or by information
o Invokes RA 3326 “An act to establish periods of prescription for violations penalized by special
acts and municipal ordinances and to provide when prescription shall begin to run”
 Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after 2 months
 Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law,
and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of
judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. 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.
o Info was filed beyond the 2-month statutory period from date of alleged commission of offense
 Prosecution:
o prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of the complaint against her with the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor
o invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
o filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor comes under the phrase "such
institution" and that the phrase "in all cases" applies to all cases, without distinction, including
those falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Issue: W/N the prescription of the case was interrupted upon the filing of complaint

Held:
NO. A case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the prosecution decides to
conduct a preliminary investigation. This means that the running of prescriptive period shall be halted on the
date the case is actually filed in court. In this case, the prescriptive period was not interrupted by the filing of
complaint with Office of Provincial Prosecutor as it was not a judicial proceeding. The judicial proceeding that
could have interrupted the period was the filing of information with MTC, but it was done only on oct 2, after
the crim prescribed.

If there be a conflict between rules on summary procedure and sec 1 of Rule 110 of Rules of criminal
procedure, the rules on summary procedure should prevail as the special law. If there be a conflict between Act
no. 3326 and Rule 110 of rules on criminal procedure, the latter must yield because the supreme court, in the
exercise of rule making power, is not allowed to “diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights”. Prescription
in criminal cases is a substantive right.

Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation vs. Hon. Judge Nelson Lidua Sr., Benedicto Balajadia, John Does
and Peter Does
Facts:

 Jadewell is a private parking operator duly authorized to operate and manage the parking spaces in
Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000
o Also authorized under sec. 13 to render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a
clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked
 Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia, and John Doe dismantled, took, and carried away the clamp attached
to the left front wheel of Mistubishi Adventure owned by Edwin Ang
o The car was illegally parked and left unattended at a Loading and Unloading Zone
o Value of clamp belonging to Jadewell: 26k
o Fines for illegal parking and declamping fee: 500
 Again, Balajadia, Walan and 2 john does forcibly removed the clamp on the wheel of Nissan Cefiro car
belonging to Walan which was then considered illegally parked
 The cars were rendered immobile using the clamp
 Jadewell 2 cases:
o Robbery
o Affidavit-complaint with Office of City Prosecutor
 May 28 2003: preliminary investigation took place
 Balajadia filed a case charging Jadewell with Usurpation of Authority/ Grave Coercion
 Balajadia:
o Denied that the car was parked illegally
o Admitted removal of clamp since he alleged that placing of a clamp on the wheel of the vehicle
was an illegal act
o Removed clamp not to steal but to remove the vehicle from its clamp so he and his family could
continue using the car
 Prosecutor Banez issued resolution (July 25 2003): found probable cause to file a case of Usurpation of
Authority while there is no probable cause for robbery
 Oct 2 2003: 2 criminal infos were filed with MTC of Baguio City dated July 25 2003
 Balajadia and other accused filed a motion to quash and/or manifestation on the grounds:
o Extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to prescription
o Failure of information to state facts that charged an offense
o Imposition of charges on respondents with more than one offense
o Yung naka enumerate na arguments sa case:
 Accused are charged with violation of Baguio City Ordinance
 Art 89 of RPC provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by prescription of
crime
 Act 3326 provides “violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after 2
months
  Offense was committed on May 7 2003; info was filed on Oct 2, 5 months after the
alleged commission of the offense
 Feb 10: Judge Lidua granted Motion to Quash and dismissed the cases
 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
o Offenses have not prescribed
o Period of prescription shall be interrupted by filing of complaint or info
o Even though info were filed on Oct 2, they filed criminal complaint on May 23 which was within
the prescribed period
 Apr 16: Judge upheld the order
o Offenses were covered by rules on summary procedure bc they are violations of City Ordinance
o Under ROSP running of prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is filed in Court
and not n any date before that
o ROSP as special law prevails over ROCP
 Jadewell filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 with RTC
o Committed grave abuse of discretion because sec 1 of ROCP provides that institution of criminal
action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription
o Filing of complaint with office of city prosecutor and not filing of complaint before the court is
the reckoning point in determining whether or not the case had prescribed
o Offense charged are covered by revised rules on summary procedure and not the old rule
 Considering that the offenses charged are for violation of city ordinance, criminal cases
can only be commenced by information
o Ruling in Zaldivia vs Reyes does not apply
 In Zaldivia, violation was of municipal ordinance
 In this case, violation of city ordinance and shall be commenced only by info
 Respondents:
o Proceedings mentioned in sec 2 of RA 3326 refer to judicial proceedings
o Filing of complaint with office of provincial prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding
 RTC: dismissed petition for certiorari
o Since cases of city ordinance violations may only be commenced by filing of information, 2
month prescriptive period may only be interrupted by filing of information against respondents
in court
Issue: W/N filing of complaint on May 23 tolled the prescription period of the commission of offense

Held:
NO. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. In this case, the procedural rules that
govern the case are the Revised ROSP. As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that among
the offenses it covers are violations of municipal or city ordinances, it should follow that the charge against the
petitioner, which is for violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is governed by that rule and not
Section 1 of Rule 110. There is no distinction between the filing of the Information contemplated in the Rules of
Criminal Procedure and in the Rules of Summary Procedure. When the representatives of the petitioner filed the
Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to run
until the filing of the Information. They had two months to file the Information and institute the judicial
proceedings by filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. For violation of a special law or
ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of the commission of the violation,
and if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or
information in court and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
double jeopardy.
In prescription, the ff must be considered:

1. Period of prescription for the offense charged

2. Time the period of prescription starts to run
3. Time prescriptive period was interrupted

Eduardo Ricarze vs. CA, People of the Philippines, Caltex PH, PH Commercial and Industrial Bank
(PCIBank)
Facts:

 Ricarze was employed as collector-messenger by City Service Corp

o Assigned to main office of Caltex
o Primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier
o Also delivered invoices to Caltex customers
 Nov 6 1997: Caltex filed a criminal complaint against Ricarze before Office of Prosecutor of Makati for
estafa through falsification of commercial documents
o Oct 16: while Romano’s department was conducting a daily electronic report from PCIB they
discovered that a company check dated Oct 13 amounting to 5k payable to Dante Gutierrez had
been cleared
o 2 other checks were also missing
o His signature in one check was forged
o Another check was issued on sept amounting to 1k
o Upon investigation, it was found that the checks were deposited at BDO account under the name
of Dante Gutierrez, regular customer of Caltex
 Gutierrez disowned the account and signatures
o Denied having withdrawn any amount
o Saving account were actually opened by Ricarze
o Forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him under Gutierrez’s name
 March 29 1998: PCIB credited 581k to Caltex
o City prosecutor of Makati was not informed of this development
 June 29, 1998: After preliminary investigation, City Prosecutor filed 2 info for estafa through
falsification of commercial documents before RTC
 Aug 18: Arraigned; pleaded not guilty; pre-trial ensued
o Siguion Reyna, Montecillio and Ongsiangko law offices filed a formal offer of evidence
o Petitioner opposed contending that respondent was represented by ACCRA and Balgos and
Perez law office during trial; it was only after prosecution rested its case that SRMO entered its
appearance
o ACCRA and Balgos had not withdrawn, SRMO has no personality
 Contends:
 o unless the Informations were amended to change the private complainant to PCIB, his right as
accused would be prejudiced
o Informations can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the original
Informations
o insisted that the amendments of the Informations to substitute PCIB as the offended party for
Caltex would place him in double jeopardy.
 PCIB:
o PCIB re-credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of indemnity hence, PCIB had been
subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex
o They are entitled to receive any civil indemnity
o Re-credited amount was brought out on cross-examination by Ramon Romano
 Ricarze:
o Filed a motion to expunge the opposition of SRMO
 Substitution of PCIB as private complainant cannot be made by mere oral motion
 Info must be amended to allege that complainant was PCIB and not Caltex after
preliminary investigation of appropriate complaint
 PCIB response:
o Sec 2 of rule 110 states that erroneous designation of the name of offended party is a mere
formal defect which can be cured by inserting the name of offended party in the information
 RTC: issued an order granting motion of prosecutor for the substitution of PCIB as complainant
 Ricarze filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 of ROC with Urgent Application for TRO with CA.

Ledesma case:

 RTC must have an independent assessment in determining why the petition is dismissed. Otherwise if it
relies solely on Crespo vs mogul the order would stand..?? in something grounds

Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya

Facts:

 2 vehicles got in an accident

o 1: driven by Laroya
o 2: owned by Capitulo and driven by Casupanan
 2 cases were filed in MCTC of Capas, Tarlac
o Laroya: criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting to damage in
property
o Casupanan and Capitulo: civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict
 When civil case was filed, criminal case was at its preliminary investigation
o Laroya filed a motion to dismiss civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the
pendency of criminal case
o MCTC granted and dismissed civil case
o Motion for reconsideration: contending that civil case is a separate civil action which can
proceed independently of criminal case
o MCTC denied MFR
  Casupanan and Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari
o RTC: dismissed for lack of merit
 Casupanan and Capitulo
o An action for quasi-delict is different from an action resulting from the crime of reckless
imprudence and accused in criminal case can be an aggrieved party in a civil case arising from
the same incident
o Under art. 31 and 2176 of CC, civil case can proceed independently of criminal action
o Casupanan was not the only one who filed the civil action but also Capitulo the owner of the
vehicle who is not a party in the criminal case

Issue: W/N while there is a pending criminal case, a separate civil action for quasi-delict can be filed
simultaneously and independently

Held:
YES. Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended
party even without reservation. The commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of
the independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present
Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before the
commencement of the criminal action. Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or
omission. The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed
instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict - without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two
cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. The only limitation is that the offended
party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. Furthermore, accused can
file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case. expressly
allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused
"may be litigated in a separate civil action.". IN THIS CASE, THEN, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed
separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper.
2 reasons:

1. accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the
criminal case.
2. accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same
way that the offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent of the criminal action

Dreamwork Construction vs. Cleofe Janiola and Hon. Arthur Famini

Facts:

 Dreamwork filed a complaint affidavit against Janiola for violation of BP 22 with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Las Pinas City
 Afterwards, Dreamwork filed a criminal information for violation of BP 22 against Janiola with the
MTC
 Janiola with her husband instituted a civil complaint against Dreamwork for the rescission of an alleged
construction agreement between them as well as for damages
o Filed with RTC of Las Pinas
 o NOTE: Checks which were subject of criminal cases before MTC were issued in consideration
of construction agreement
 Janiola filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case
o Civil and criminal case involved facts and issues similar or intimately related such that in the
resolution of issues in civil case, guilt and innocence of accused would be necessarily determined
o IN SHORT: she claims that civil case posed a prejudicial question against the criminal case
 Dreamwork opposed suspension on the grounds that
o There is no prejudicial question in this case because rescission of contract is a separate and
distinct issue from issue if she violated BP 22
o Sec 7 of Rule 111 states that one of the elements of a prejudicial question is
 Previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in subsequent criminal action
 This element is missing in this case because criminal case preceded the civil case
 MTC issued an Order granting Motion to Suspend Proceedings
o Belated filing of civil case did not detract from the correctness of her cause since a motion for
suspension of criminal action may be filed at any time before the prosecution rests (sec 6)
 Petitioner appealed to RTC
o RTC denied
 Requirement of a previously filed civil case is intended merely to obviate delays in the
conduct of criminal proceedings
 No clear intention to delay from Janiola
 Criminal proceedings are still in their initial stages
 Fact that civil action was filed after criminal does not render issues in civil action less
prejudicial
 Dreamwork contention
o Sec 7 means before there is prejudicial question it must first be established that the civil case was
filed previous to the filing of criminal case
o This is to guard against situation where a party would belatedly file a civil action in order to
delay criminal proceedings
 Janiola
o Art 36: Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be
instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code
o Phrase before criminal action be instituted means that a prejudicial question exists when a civil
action is filed either before institution of criminal action or during pendency of criminal action
Issue: W/N RTC erred in suspending the proceedings on basis of prejudicial question

Held:
YES. A civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action. It bears pointing out that the
circumstances present in the instant case indicate that the filing of the civil action and the subsequent move to
suspend the criminal proceedings by reason of the presence of a prejudicial question were a mere afterthought
and instituted to delay the criminal proceedings. In this case, the circumstances surrounding the filing of the
cases involved here show that the filing of the civil action was a mere afterthought on the part of private
respondent and interposed for delay.
STAT CON:

Basic precept of stat con that change in phraseology by amendment indicated legislative intent to change
meaning of provision from its previous meaning. In this case, “previously instituted” was inserted to qualify the
nature of civil action involved in prejudicial question in relation to criminal action. There’s also the insertion of
“subsequent” directly before criminal action. Hence, this means that the intention was to qualify the relationship
of civil and criminal action and that the civil action must precede the criminal action
Elements of prejudicial question:

1. Previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in
subsequent criminal action
2. Resolution of such issue determines w/n criminal action may proceed
NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION: 2nd element is missing, BP 22 is mala prohibitum

Rafael Consing vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:

 Consing negotiated with and obtained for himself and Cecilia de la Cruz (mother) various loans totaling
18M from Unicapital Inc.
o Loans were secured by REM constituted on a parcel of land registered under the name of de la
cruz
 Unicapital agreed to purchase ½ of property for 21M
o Payment was effected by off-setting of the amounts due to Unicapital under the PNs of dela cruz
and Consing and paying additional 3M
 Other half of property was purchased by Plus Builders