Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: RULING:
Lutgarda Cruzexecuted before a 1. Petitioner asserts that both
Notary Public the City of Manila an copies of the motion for
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of a reconsideration were sent to the
parcel of land stating that she was trial court and the City Prosecutor
the sole surviving heir of the by registered mail on Feb. 10,
registered owner when in fact she 1994.
knew there were other surviving
heirs. After trial on the merits, the SC agrees to the ruling of the CA.
trial court rendered its decision An MR filed, thru a registered
acquitting petitioner on the ground mail, without proof of service is
of reasonable doubt. However, on considered a mere scrap of paper.
the same decision, the trial court Hence the period continued to run
rendering decision on the civil and lapsed making the trial court’s
aspect of the case, ordered the decision final and executory. Proof
return to the surviving heirs of the of service is mandatory.
parcel of land located in Bulacan.
A Petitioner filed a Motion for 2. Being a civil liability arising
Reconsideration but was denied from the offense charged, the
for lack of merit. A second move governing law is the Rules of
for a reconsideration was likewise Criminal Procedure, not the civil
denied by the trial court. Petitioner procedure rules that pertain to
asserts that both copies of the civil action arising from the
motion for reconsideration were initiatory pleading that gives rise
sent to the trial court and the City to the suit. There are 3 important
Prosecutor by registered mail on requisites which must be present
February 10, 1994. CA held that if in order that a court acquires
service is made by the registered jurisdiction: first, jurisdiction over
mail, proof shall be made by such the subject matter; second, over
RULE 110
RULING:
1. Intent and discernment are two
different concepts. While they are PEOPLE v. MARIANO
products of mental processes 71 SCRA 600
within a person, intent refers to
the desire of one’s act while MUNOZ PALMA, J.:
RULE 110
over the offense under the Rules of Tayug in the Province of Tarlac,"
Court (People vs. Mission, 48 O.G., and it is for the purpose of
1331; Rule 110, section 9). It is condemning lands for the
well-established that once vested, construction of such line that this
the jurisdiction is not tolled by action is brought. The complaint
subsequent amendment or which states that before beginning the
in this case amounted to no more action the plaintiff had caused to
than an avowal by the prosecution be made a thorough search in the
that it could not establish the other office of the registry of property
elements of the offense. and of the tax where the lands
Furthermore, the court actually sought to be condemned were
rejected the defense motion to located and to whom they
dismiss, and directed that the cue belonged. As a result of such
be tried on the original charge of investigations the plaintiff alleged
repledging property already that the lands in question were
encumbered. The accused obeyed located in the Province of Tarlac.
that directive, and by so doing it On the 4th day of October the
renounced the claim that the plaintiff gave notice to the
information had been so amended defendants that on the 9th day of
as to discard that particular October a motion would be made
averment. to the court to dismiss the action
Even if the Court of First Instance upon the ground that the court had
of Manila had jurisdiction over the no jurisdiction of the subject
case, the accused cannot be found matter, it having just been
guilty on the evidence on record of ascertained by the plaintiff that the
the crime for which he stands land sought to be condemned was
indicted. FOR THE FOREGOING situated in the Province of Nueva
REASON, the appealed decision is Ecija, instead of the Province of
hereby reversed, and another one Tarlac, as alleged in the complaint.
entered acquitting the accused This motion was heard and, after
Jose L. Chupeco. due consideration, the trial court
dismissed the action upon the
MANILA RAILROAD CO. vs ground presented by the plaintiff.
ATTY.GENERAL, 20 Phil 523 This appeal is taken from said
TOPIC: JURISDICTION judgment of dismissal.
Facts: In the month of December, Issue:
1907, the plaintiff began an action 1. The question for our
in the Court of First Instance of consideration and decision is the
the Province of Tarlac for the power and authority of a Court of
condemnation of certain real First Instance of Tarlac to take
estate, stated by the plaintiff in his cognizance of an action by a
complaint to be located in the railroad company for the
Province of Tarlac. It is alleged in condemnation of real estate
the complaint that the plaintiff is located in another province.
authorized by law to construct a 2. Whether or not Sec. 377[1] of
railroad line "from Paniqui to the Code of Civil Procedure and
RULE 110
Act. No. 1258 are applicable and the judgment may thereby be
therefore the CFI has no rendered defective for lack of
jurisdiction. something essential to sustain it.
Held: There is, of course, an important
1. Yes, CFI Tarlac has power and distinction between person and
authority to take cognizance of subject matter are both conferred
condemnation of real estate by law. As to the subject matter,
located in another province. nothing can change the
Sections 55 and 56[1] of Act No. jurisdiction of the court over
136 of the Philippine Commission diminish it or dictate when it shall
confer perfect and complete attach or when it shall be removed.
jurisdiction upon the CFI of these That is a matter of legislative
Islands with respect to real estate enactment which none but the
in the Philippine Islands. Such legislature may change. On the
jurisdiction is not made to depend other hand, the jurisdiction of the
upon locality. There is no court over the person is, in some
suggestion of limitation. The instances, made to defend on the
jurisdiction is universal. It is consent or objection, on the acts or
nowhere suggested, much less omissions of the parties or any of
provided, that a CFI of one them. Jurisdiction over the person,
province, regularly sitting in said however, may be conferred by
province, may not under certain consent, expressly or impliedly
conditions take cognizance of an given, or it may, by an objection,
action arising in another province be prevented from attaching or
or of an action relating to real removed after it has attached.
estate located outside of the 2. No. Sec. 377 contains no
boundaries of the province to express inhibition against the
which it may at the time be court. The prohibition provided
assigned. therein is clearly directed against
Furthermore, in terms of the one who begins the action and
jurisdiction over person of the lays the venue. The court, before
plaintiff, the procedure does not the action is commenced, has
alter or change that power or nothing to do with it either. The
authority; it simply directs the prohibition is not a limitation on
manner in which it shall be fully the power of the court but on the
and justly exercised. To be sure, in rights of the plaintiff. It establishes
certain cases, if that power is not a relation not between the court
exercised in conformity with the and the subject, but between the
provisions of the procedural law, plaintiff and the defendant. It
purely, the court attempting to relates not to jurisdiction but to
exercise it loses the power to trial. It simply gives to defendant
exercise it legally. This does not the unqualified right, if he desires
mean that it loses jurisdiction of it, to have the trial take place
the subject matter. It means simply where his land lies and where,
that he may thereby lose probably, all of his witnesses live.
jurisdiction of the person or that
RULE 110
his own personal use and benefit It is not disputed that Fukuzumes
the said amount and despite house is located in Paraaque.
repeated demands failed and
refused and still fails and refuses
to account for, to the damage and
prejudice of Javier Yu y Ng in the
aforementioned amount More importantly, we find
of P424,000.00. nothing in the direct or cross-
examination of Yu to establish that
Upon being arraigned on he gave any money to Fukuzume
February 28, 1995, Fukuzume
or transacted business with him
pleaded not guilty.[27] Trial ensued.
In its Decision dated October 21, with respect to the subject
1996, the trial court found aluminum scrap wires inside or
Fukuzume guilty as charged. On within the premises of the
March 13, 2000, the CA Intercontinental Hotel in Makati,
promulgated its decision affirming
or anywhere in Makati for that
the findings and conclusions of the
trial court but modifying the matter. Venue in criminal cases is
penalty imposed. an essential element of
jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC of
Makati have jurisdiction over the Citing Uy vs. Court of Appeals we
case of Fukuzume.
held in the fairly recent case
Held: No. With respect to the of Macasaet vs. People that:
sworn statement of Yu, which was
presented in evidence by the
prosecution, it is clear that he It is a fundamental rule that for
alleged therein that on July 12, jurisdiction to be acquired by
1991, he gave Fukuzume the courts in criminal cases the offense
amount of P50,000.00 at the should have been committed or
Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. any one of its essential ingredients
However, we agree with took place within the territorial
Fukuzumes contention that Yu jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
testified during his direct jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
examination that on July 12, 1991 territory where the court has
he gave the amount of P50,000.00 jurisdiction to take cognizance or
to Fukuzume in the latters house. to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused.
RULE 110
witness is in accordance with law; Locil's account for they relate ---
and not to the crime itself but to events
THEREAFTER.
(2) Whether the guilt of appellants
has been proven beyond An exhaustive review of the
reasonable doubt transcript of stenographic notes of
Locil's testimony reveals, however,
(3) Is Sunga's sworn statement that the manner by which she
admissible as evidence? related it was punctuated with
marks of tentativeness, uncertainty
HELD: and indecisiveness which the trial
court unfortunately failed to take
The accused were acquitted. note of in its decision on review.
a. As for the rest of the But -- Who can trust one who, in
prosecution evidence, it fails to her early teens, gets pregnant,
corroborate Locil's testimony. The flees home and stays in a boarding
declarations of other witnesses can house albeit she has no visible
in no way enhance the veracity of means of income to pay therefor,
the essential, material aspects of and carries an alias name to evade
RULE 110
HELD:
No.
Due to this order of the court, the performance of the alleged legal
action for mandamus was filed by duty by the provincial fiscal
Jesus Guiao to compel the fiscal to Every person accused of a
include Porfirio Dizon and crime has a positive interest in the
Emiliano Manalo as accused in his inclusion of all his co-conspirators
information. because they are jointly and
ISSUE: severally liable with them for
Whether or not a fiscal may indemnities that may be imposed
be compelled by mandamus to upon them for the offense they
include in an information persons may have committed together.
who appear to be responsible for
the crime charged therein, but
whom the fiscal believes to be LINO BROCKA ET AL. vs. JUAN
indispensable witnesses for the PONCE ENRILE ET AL.
State. G.R. No. 69863-65, 10
HELD: December 1990, EN BANC
No. The rules of Court make (MEDIALDEA, J.)
it a mandatory duty for the fiscal to
file charges against whomsoever Topic: Criminal actions, when
the evidence may show to be enjoined; Preliminary/Final
responsible for an offense. Injunction
When it becomes necessary
Petitioners were arrested by
to exclude from prosecution
the Northern Police District
persons who appear responsible
following the forcible and violent
for a crime in order that they may
dispersal of a demonstration held
be used as State witnesses, the
in sympathy with the jeepney
exclusion is lodged in the sound
strike called by the Alliance of
discretion of the competent court,
Concerned Transport Organization
not in that of the prosecuting
(ACTO). Thereafter, they were
officer.
charged with Illegal Assembly.
When the fiscal chose to
ignore his legal duty to include the Except for Brocka, et al. who
said Porfirio Dizon and Emiliano were charged as leaders of the
Manalo as accused in the criminal offense of Illegal Assembly and for
case, and to follow the procedure whom no bail was recommended,
outlined in the rules by which said the other petitioners were released
persons may be discharged in on bail of P3,000.00 each. Brocka,
order that they may be utilized as et al.'s provisional release was
witnesses for the prosecution, it ordered only upon an urgent
became proper and necessary for petition for bail for which daily
the competent court to require him hearings were held.
to comply therewith. However, despite service of
Petitioner-appellee Jesus the order of release, Brocka, et al.
Guiao has no right to institute the remained in detention,
action of mandamus, because he respondents having invoked a
has no clear right to the
RULE 110
show that the criminal proceedings evidence against him was not
had become a case of persecution, strong.
having been undertaken by state
officials in bad faith. The Court of Appeals ruled,
however, that there was no basis
Thus, the tenacious
for such finding, since no hearing
invocation of a spurious and
had been conducted on the
inoperational PDA and the sham
application for bail -- summary or
and hasty preliminary investigation
otherwise. The appellate court
were clear signals that the
found that only ten minutes had
prosecutors intended to keep
elapsed between the filing of the
Brocka, et al. in detention until the
Motion by the accused and the
second offense of "Inciting to
Order granting bail, a lapse of time
Sedition" could be facilitated and
that could not be deemed sufficient
justified without need of issuing a
warrant of arrest anew. As a for the trial court to receive and
evaluate any evidence.
matter of fact the corresponding
informations for this second
ISSUES:
offense were hastily filed on
February 11, 1985, or two days
1. Whether or not the respondent
after Brocka, et al.'s release from
Court of Appeals has erroneously
detention was ordered by the trial
reversed and set aside the order of
judge on February 9, 1985.
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City which granted the petitioner
JOSELITO V. NARCISO vs. FLOR his constitutional right to bail,
MARIE STA. ROMANA-CRUZ considering the absence of strong
G.R. No. 134504, 17 March evidence or proof of his guilt, and
2000, THIRD DIVISION more especially when the public
(PANGANIBAN, J.) prosecutors, who have direct
control of the proceedings and
Topic: Control of Prosecution after assessment of the evidence,
Petitioner was charged with have themselves recommended the
parricide which is punishable grant of bail.
with reclusion perpetua. Judge
Pedro T. Santiago of the Regional 2. Whether or not the private
Trial court (RTC) granted his respondent has the legal
Motion to Post Bail. However, personality to intervene in the
Court of Appeals (CA) ruled present criminal case
otherwise. He argued before the
CA that he was entitled to bail HELD:
because the evidence of his guilt
was not strong. He contended that 1. No. Jurisprudence is replete
the prosecutor's conformity to his with decisions compelling
Motion for Bail was tantamount to judges to conduct the required
a finding that the prosecution hearings in bail applications, in
which the accused stands
RULE 110
the same lifted and the case itself 3. Whether or not the
dismissed. prosecutions in question are
politically motivated,
Thereafter, the Supreme initiated by his rivals, he
Court issued a Temporary being, as we said, a
Restraining Order (TRO) ordering candidate for reelection as
the respondents to desist from Governor of Zamboanga del
further proceedings. Anti- Sur.
GraftLeague moved to have
it lifted and the case itself
HELD:
dismissed. On the other hand, the
1. No. Executive Order No.
petitioner submits that the
264 (October 6, 1970) has
prosecutions in question are
exclusive application to
politically motivated as he being a
administrative, not criminal
candidate for reelection as
complaints. The very title
Governor of Zamboanga del Sur
speaks of "COMMISSION OF
and citing provisions of EO 264
IRREGULARITIES." There is
"OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE
no mention, not even by
BY WHICH COMPLAINANTS
implication, of criminal
CHARGING GOVERNMENT
"offenses," that is to say,
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
"crimes." While "crimes"
WITH COMMISSION OF
amount to "irregularities,"
IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE
the Executive Order could
GUIDED."
have very well referred to
the more specific term had it
ISSUE:
intended to make itself
1. Whether or not respondents
applicable thereto.
City Fiscal and the Anti-Graft
League failed to comply with
2. Yes. The Anti-Graft League of
the provisions of Executive
the Philippines is not an
Order No. 264, "OUTLINING
"offended party" within the
THE PROCEDURE BY
meaning of Sec. 2, Rule 110,
WHICH COMPLAINANTS
of the Rules of Court (now
CHARGING GOVERNMENT
Section 3 of the 1985 Rules
OFFICIALS AND
on Criminal Procedure).
EMPLOYEES WITH
However, A complaint for
COMMISSION OF
purposes of preliminary
IRREGULARITIES SHOULD
investigation by the fiscal
BE GUIDED”.
need not be filed by the
"offended party." The rule
2. Whether or not the Anti-
has been that, unless the
Graft League has the
offense subject thereof is one
standing to commence the
that cannot be prosecuted de
series of prosecutions below
oficio, the same may be filed,
(G.R. No. 33628).
for preliminary investigation
RULE 110
include the State and the private the Philippines. The action may be
offended party or complainant. prosecuted in name of said
It is well-settled that in complainant.
criminal cases where the offended
party is the State, the interest of
the private complainant or the Bautista v. Fiscal
private offended party is limited to GR No. 59830, July 31, 1984
the civil liability. Thus, in the
prosecution of the offense, the Facts:
complainant's role is limited to Juan Bautista and Nenita
that of a witness for the Marquez filed with the office of the
prosecution. If a criminal case is City Fiscal a complaint against
dismissed by the trial court or if Estrada, Banigued, and F. Bautista
there is an acquittal, an appeal for estafa thru falsification of
therefrom on the criminal aspect public document. The assistant
may be undertaken only by the Fiscal dismissed the case for lack
State through the Solicitor of prima facie evidence. Bautista
General. Only the Solicitor General did not move for the
may represent the People of the reconsideration of the fiscal's
Philippines on appeal. The private resolution; neither did he appeal to
offended party or complainant may the Ministry of Justice. Instead, Mr.
not take such appeal. However, the Bautista filed a new complaint with
said offended party or complainant the City Court of Dagupan against
may appeal the civil aspect despite the same respondents, charging
the acquittal of the accused. them with the same offense. The
In a special civil action for City Court found that an offense
certiorari filed under Section 1, has been committed and the
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court respondents therein are probably
wherein it is alleged that the trial guilty thereof. Accordingly, a
court committed a grave abuse of warrant for their arrest was issued
discretion amounting to lack of and an order directing respondent
jurisdiction or on other city fiscal to file the corresponding
jurisdictional grounds, the rules information. However, the
state that the petition may be filed respondent city fiscal, through
by the person aggrieved. In such Assistant Fiscal Manaois, filed a
case, the aggrieved parties are the manifestation with the city court
State and the private offended that he will reinvestigate the case
party or complainant. The in view of his prior resolution.
complainant has an interest in the After reinvestigation, the city
civil aspect of the case so he may Fiscal, filed a motion to dismiss the
file such special civil action case but was denied by the City
questioning the decision or action Court. Thereafter, the city court
of the respondent court on again forwarded the records of the
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, case to respondent city fiscal for
complainant should not bring the the filing of the information. In
action in the name of the People of turn, respondent city fiscal filed a
RULE 110
Issue:
Whether or not the court
erred in convicting the accused of Manangan Jaeniz
the offense charged despite the
fact that what was proven was a Buhat vs. CA 265 scra 701
different crime.
Topic: Amendment of the
Information
RULE 110
After the prosecution had rested Petitioner avers that the additional
its case, petitioner was allowed to allegation in the amended
file a motion for leave to file a information constitutes a
demurrer to evidence. However, substantial amendment since it
before the said motion could be involves a change in the nature of
filed, Maureen Navarro Hultman the offense charged, that is, from
died. frustrated to consummated
murder.
Consequently, private prosecutor
Rogelio A. Vinluan filed an Petitioner then postulates that
omnibus motion for leave of court since the amended information for
to file an amended information and murder charges an entirely
to admit said amended different offense, it is essential
information. The amended that another preliminary
information, filed on October 31, investigation on the new charge be
1991, reads: conducted before the new
information can be admitted.
That on or about the 13th
day of July, 1991, in the At the scheduled arraignment on
Municipality of Makati, November 26, 1991, petitioner
Metro Manila, Philippines refused to be arraigned on the
and within the jurisdiction amended information for lack of a
of this Honorable Court, the preliminary investigation thereon.
said Claudio Teehankee, Jr. By reason of such refusal,
y. Javier, armed with a respondent judge ordered that a
handgun, with intent to kill plea of "not guilty" be entered for
and evident premeditation petitioner.
and by means of treachery,
did then and there willfully, Issue: Whether or not an amended
unlawfully and feloniously information involving a substantial
attack, assault and shoot amendment, without preliminary
with the said handgun investigation, after the prosecution
Maureen Navarro Hultman has rested on the original
who was hit in the head, information, may legally and
thereby inflicting mortal validly be admitted
wounds which directly
caused the death of said Held: In the present case, there is
Maureen Hultman. an identity of offenses charged in
both the original and the amended
RULE 110
Although the fiscal retains the G.R. No. L-44723, August 31,
direction and control of the 1987, Bidin, J., En Banc
prosecution of criminal cases even
while the case is already in Court,
he cannot impose his opinion on TOPICS: Prosecution of Offenses;
the trial court. The Court is the Criminal Actions, how instituted,
best and sole judge on what to do Control of Prosecution
with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within
its exclusive jurisdiction and FACTS:
competence. A motion to dismiss
the case filed by the fiscal should On March 21, 1974, petitioner filed
be addressed to the Court who has a complaint for attempted theft of
the option to grant or deny the materials (scrap iron) forming part
same. It does not matter if this is of the installations on its mining
done before or after the property at Jose Panganiban,
arraignment of the accused or that Camarines Norte against private
the motion was filed after a respondents Romeo Garrido and
reinvestigation or upon Gil Alapan with the Office of the
instructions of the Secretary of Provincial Fiscal of Camarines
Justice who reviewed the records Norte, then headed by Provincial
of the investigation. Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre. The case
was assigned to third Assistant
Fiscal Esteban P. Panotes for
preliminary investigation who,
DOCTRINE: after conducting said investigation,
issued a resolution dated August
Once a complaint or information is 26, 1974 recommending that an
filed in Court, any disposition of information for Attempted Theft be
the case as its dismissal or the filed against private respondents
conviction or acquittal of the on a finding of prima facie case
accused rests in the sound which resolution was approved by
discretion of the Court. Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre.
Private respondents sought
reconsideration of the resolution
but the same was denied by Fiscal
Ilustre in a resolution.
October 22, 1974, the private court denied the motion on the
respondents requested the ground that there was a prima
Secretary of Justice for a review of facie evidence against private
the Resolutions of the Office of the respondents. Private respondents
Provincial Fiscal. On November 6, sought reconsideration of the
1974, the Chief State Prosecutor court's ruling but in an Order
ordered the Provincial Fiscal by dated February 13, 1976, the
telegram to "Please elevate entire motion filed for said purpose was
records PFO Case 577 against likewise denied. Thereafter, Fiscal
Garrido et al., review in five days Ilustre was appointed a judge in
and defer all proceedings pending the Court of First Instance of Albay
review." and respondent Fiscal Zabala
became officer-in-charge of the
Provincial Fiscal's Office of
Camarines Norte.
The letter-request for review was
opposed by petitioner in a letter to
the Secretary of Justice dated
November 23, 1974 alleging, On April 19, 1976, respondent
among other things, that an Fiscal filed a Second Motion to
information for Attempted Theft Dismiss the case. This second
had already been filed against motion to dismiss was denied by
private respondents for which the trial court. Whereupon,
reason the request for review has respondent fiscal manifested that
become a moot question as the he would not prosecute the case
Provincial Fiscal has lost and disauthorized any private
jurisdiction to dismiss the charge prosecutor to appear therein.
for attempted theft.
However, the matter of instituting The Court is the best and sole
an information should be judge on what to do with the case
distinguished from a motion by the before it. The determination of the
fiscal for the dismissal of a case case is within its exclusive
already filed in court. The judge jurisdiction and competence. A
may properly deny the motion motion to dismiss the case filed by
where, judging from the record of the fiscal should be addressed to
the preliminary investigation, the Court who has the option to
there appears to be sufficient grant or deny the same. It does not
evidence to sustain the matter if this is done before or
prosecution. This is, as it should after the arraignment of the
be, because the case is already in accused or that the motion was
court and, therefore, within its filed after a reinvestigation or
discretion and control. “The upon instructions of the Secretary
complaint cannot be withdrawn by of Justice who reviewed the
the fiscal without the consent of records of the investigation.
the court." It is discretionary on
the court where the case is
pending to grant the motion to
dismiss or deny the same. DOCTRINE:
Once a complaint or information is
filed in Court any disposition of the
case as its dismissal or the
In the case at bar, the court below conviction or acquittal of the
denied the fiscal's motion to accused rests in the sound
dismiss on the ground that there discretion of the Court. Although
was a prima facie case against the fiscal retains the direction and
private respondents. control of the prosecution of
RULE 110
therefrom is timely filed. The law Estrella testified that she was
grants an aggrieved party a period alone in their house in the morning
of fifteen (15) days from his of April 10, 1997, when suddenly
receipt of the court's decision or the accused strangled and
order disposing of the action or embraced her from behind pulling
proceeding to appeal or move to her from their sala to the room,
reconsider the same. After the where she was ravished. After the
lapse of the fifteen-day period, an incident, she was warned by the
order becomes final and executory accused not to tell anybody or else
and is beyond the power or she would be killed. The accused,
jurisdiction of the court which however, raised the defenses of
rendered it to further amend or denial and alibi. He testified that
revoke. during April 10, 1997, on that
Maxim interpretare et concordare morning he reported for work at a
legibus est optimus interpretandi. Rice Mill and went home already
(Every statute must be so in the evening. He insisted that the
construed and harmonized with rape case is motivated by the
other statutes as to form a uniform remorse of Nenita’s relatives
system of jurisprudence.) against him, since he squandered
the money of the latter. The alibi of
the accused was corroborated by
Magbalon – Reboroso his co-worker at the rice mill,
which testified that the accused
People of the Philippines vs. really reported for work that day.
Edgardo Barcena y Poca The accused further averred that
the age of Estrella was not duly
G.R No. 168737 February 16, established due to the fact that
2006 only a photocopy of the latter’s
birth certificate was presented.
Topic: AVERMENTS IN
COMPLAINT/ INFORMATION The lower court found the accused
guilty of the offense of qualified
Facts: rape through the use of force or
intimidation, having been
Edgardo Barcena, the accused, is committed with the attendant
the common law wife of Nenita circumstance of “the victim is
Barcena, which is the mother of under eighteen (18) years of age
victim, Estrella Cabida. Barcena and the offender is the common-
was charge with qualified rape as law spouse of the parent of the
defined and penalized under Art. victim”. When the case was
335 of the Revised Penal Code as elevated to the CA, it was affirmed.
amended by Republic Act No.
7659, due to the fact that the Issue: Whether or not the
victim is a minor (15yrs old) and averments in the
the accused was the common-law information/complaint was duly
husband of his mother. established.
RULE 110
claim of rape was false since he the nature and cause of the
reported for work at that time, accusation against him.
which the complainant’s mother
assented. The accused further In this case, the informations in
contends that he and the Criminal Case Nos. 4730-0 and
complainant engaged in an 4731-0 alleged that accused-
amorous relationship and had appellant, who is the stepfather of
several occasions of sexual complainant, succeeded in having
intercourse and all started when carnal knowledge of the latter who
the complainant was seventeen was then below eighteen (18)
(17) years old. years of age. However, the
evidence shows that accused-
The trial court found him guilty of appellant is not the complainant's
two (2) counts of rape and stepfather because he and
sentenced him to DEATH. By complainant's mother were not
virtue of R.A 7659, otherwise really married but only lived in a
known as the Death Penalty Law common-law relationship. To this
which provides that death penaly effect are the testimonies of the
shall be imposed in the if the crime complainant, her mother, and even
of rape is committed “when the accused-appellant himself. Thus,
victim is under eighteen (18) years although a common-law husband is
of age and the offender is a parent, subject to punishment by death in
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, case he commits rape against his
relative by consanguinity or wife's daughter, nevertheless the
affinity within the third civil death penalty cannot be imposed
degree, or the common-law spouse on accused-appellant because the
of the parent of the victim.” relationship alleged in the
information in Criminal Case No.
Issue: 4730-0 against him is different
from that actually proven.
Whether or not the imposition of Accordingly, accused-appellant
death as penalty is correct. must be sentenced to the lesser
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Held: No.
Doctrine: Qualifying circumstances
As this Court has held, the must be alleged in the information.
concurrence of the minority of the An incorrect imposition of a
victim and her relationship to the qualifying circumstance in the
offender being a special qualifying information will not be appreciated
circumstance, which increases the by the Court. This is anchored on
penalty as opposed to a generic the accused’s right to be informed
aggravating circumstance which of the nature and cause of the
only affects the period of the accusation against him.
penalty, should be alleged in the
information, because of the ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ vs. The
accused's right to be informed of Honorable HARRIET O.
RULE 110
stroke of the pen, as when the company with the Office of the City
approval was embodied in the Fiscal of Manila. After the
same document. procedural preliminary
investigation, the Office of the City
Likewise, the public prosecutors Fiscal filed seventy-five (75) cases
manifested at the hearing the of estafa against private
motion for a bill of particulars that respondent before the City Court
the Government suffered a single of Manila.
harm or injury. The Sandiganbayan
in its Order dated November 13, While the criminal suits in
1992 stated as follows: . . . Equally, particular were pending trial on
the prosecution has stated that the merits before the twelve
insofar as the damage and branches of the City Court of
prejudice to the government is Manila, private respondent
concerned, the same is commenced a petition for
represented not only by the very prohibition with preliminary
fact of the violation of the law injunction before the Court of First
itself but because of the adverse Instance of Manila (Branch XV)
effect on the stability and security against the petitioners herein and
of the country in granting the City Court Judges of Manila,
citizenship to those not qualified. claiming that the filing,
prosecution and trial of the
Doctrine: A continuing crime seventy-five (75) estafa cases
comprises of several acts but only against him is not only oppressive,
constitute of one offense, because whimsical and capricious, but also
the sole criminal motive of the without or in excess of jurisdiction
offender. of the respondents City Fiscal and
the City Court Judges of Manila.
Private respondent asserts that all
Jose Gamboa v. Court of the indictments narrated in the
Appeals seventy-five (75) informations were
and Benjamin Lu Hayco mere components of only one
68 SCRA 308; November 28, 1975 crime, since the same were only
impelled by a single criminal
Topic: Continuing Crimes resolution or intent.
case, including the motion to fix dismissed by this Court for failure
bail, be forwarded to the Regional to attach clearly legible duplicate
Trial Court ("RTC") of Guimba, originals or certified true copies of
Nueva Ecija. Defense counsel also the questioned orders. Appellant
requested that accused Hubilo be then filed with the trial court a
transferred and detained at motion for preliminary
Guimba. The MTC thereupon investigation. This motion was
issued an order granting the denied.
request. An information was filed Appellant Hubilo was finally
by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor arraigned and he pleaded not
Ubaldino A. Lacuron against guilty. The case proceeded to trial
appellant, with the RTC. Appellant on the merits. In due time, the RTC
Hubilo filed another motion to fix promulgated its judgment
bail, but this motion was detained convicting the accused.
by the trial court. Hubilo now contends that
On a motion for the trial court erred in denying the
reconsideration, however the trial accused of his constitutional rights
court reversed itself and held a of due process of law, when it
hearing on the application for bail. denied his 'Motion for Preliminary
Ultimately, the RTC denied the Investigation and/or Investigation'.
application for bail, holding that
the evidence of guilt of accused Issue:
Hubilo was strong. 1. Whether or not the accused
Appellant responded by filing is guilty of the crime of
a motion to disqualify or inhibit the multiple murder (triple) with
judge alleging that appellant frustrated murder.
would not be afforded a fair trial 2. Whether or not the appellant
because of the findings of the RTC. was denied of his
Judge Raymundo Z. Annang then constitutional rights of due
inhibited himself and ordered the process of law, when RTC
records of the case forwarded to denied his 'Motion for
the Executive Judge, but Executive Preliminary Investigation
Judge Pablo D. Atienza ordered the and/or Investigation'
return of the case to the sala of
Judge Annang. Judge Annang set Ruling:
the case for arraignment, pre-trial 1. The crime was correctly
and trial; but these settings did not characterized by the trial
materialize. court as murder, appellant
Appellant Hubilo filed a having employed treachery in
Petition for certiorari before this staging the ambuscade.
Court, questioning the denial of his Appellant selected a secluded
application for bail and the order and uninhabited area, where
of Executive Judge Atienza thick cogon grass grew on the
returning the case to Judge side of the road, and suddenly
Annang for continuation of fired as the tricycle with its
proceedings. This Petition was
RULE 110
Doctrine: Issues:
When a single act constitutes I Whether the penalty
two or more grave or less grave imposed on petitioner is
felonies or when an offense is a correct.
necessary means for committing II Whether the quasi offenses
the other, the penalty for the most of reckless imprudence
serious crime shall be imposed, the resulting in damage to
same to be applied in its maximum property in the amount
period. of P8,542.00 and reckless
imprudence resulting in
Reodica v. Court of Appeals slight physical injuries are
292 SCRA 87; July 8, 1998 light felonies.
III Whether the rule on
Topic: Complex Crimes complex crimes under
Article 48 of the Revised
Facts: Penal Code applies to
the quasi offenses in
Petitioner Isabelita Reodica was question.
driving a van along Dona Soledad IV Whether the duplicity of the
Avenue, Better Living Subdivision, information may be
Paranaque, Metro Manila. Due to
RULE 110
Ruling:
On cross-examination,
Marciano admitted to have drawn
1. Yes. The elements of B.P. 22 are
the subject check to pay private present in the case at bar.
respondents gasoline station and
that it was not covered by The law enumerates the
sufficient funds at the time of its elements of B.P. Blg. 22:
issuance due to uncollected
receivables. Upon query by the
RULE 110