Rule 112 Case Digest

PAGLINAWAN, Malaya Pilipina C.
Criminal Procedure – Atty. Ng

Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
G.R. No. 173081 December 15, 2010

ERNESTO MARCELO, JR. AND LAURO LLAMES vs. RAFAEL R. VILLORDON
PONENTE: CARPIO, J.
DOCTRINE: The function of determining whether there is sufficient ground for the filing
of the information is executive in nature and rests with the prosecutor. It is the
prosecutor alone who has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a
criminal case should be filed in court.
FACTS: Ernesto Marcelo, Jr. and Lauro Llames, together with two others, files with the
Office of the City Prosecutor a criminal complaint against their former employer Eduardo
R. Dee, Sr. the criminal complaint stemmed from Dee’s non-payment of their wages as
President and General Manager of New Sampaguita Builders Construction Inc.
Respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Villordon issued a subpoena against Dee

to appear at the preliminary investigation of the case. Dee failed to appear. The case
was again set for preliminary investigation on several dates but Dee failed to appear in
all of them.
Dee filed a motion to reopen the case and attached his counter-affidavit.
Assistant City Prosecutor Rogelio Velasco, Villordon’s Division Chief, approved the
motion. Villordon then called the parties to a hearing in which Dee failed to appear but
petitioners were present and signed the minutes of the hearing confirming that they
would appear and submit their Reply-Affidavit. Another hearing was also scheduled but
Dee failed to appear and petitioners did not submit their Reply-Affidavit. Meanwhile,
petitioners filed a petition for mandamus against Villordon with the Regional Trial Court.
The RTC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The RTC explained that petitioners
failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before resorting to the court. The
RTC stated that petitioners should have first referred the matter to the Chief City
Prosecutor, being Villordon's superior, to correct Villordon's error, if any. The RTC
added that petitioners filed an administrative charge against Villordon with the OMB for
neglect of duty without waiting for the final determination of the case.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners are entitled to the extraordinary writ of mandamus

Case Digests Finals
RULING: No. The Court held that mandamus will lie if (1) any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or unlawfully excludes another
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled; and (2)
there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than
the remedy of mandamus being invoked.
In the present case, petitioners insist that mandamus is proper since Villordon
committed grave abuse of discretion by unreasonably refusing to file an information
despite the fact that the evidence indicates otherwise. However, the Court cited the
case of Hipos v. Judge Bay, we held that the remedy of mandamus, as an extraordinary
writ, lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.
Mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion by a public officer where
the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner
in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not
that of the court.
Here, due to the non-appearance of Dee on several hearings and the non-
submission of the reply-affidavit by petitioners, Villordon cannot be faulted if he is still
not convinced that a criminal information should be filed against Dee. The assertion of
petitioners that the evidence against Dee is strong, amounting to grave abuse of
discretion on Villordon's part in not filing the criminal information, has not been clearly
established.
Moreover, petitioners were not able to sufficiently demonstrate that they had no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in order to be entitled to mandamus. A more
expeditious and effective recourse could have been simply to submit their reply-affidavit
in order for Villordon to make the proper determination whether there was sufficient
ground to hold Dee for trial. Instead, petitioners resorted to filing cases in different fora
like the OMB and the RTC to compel Villordon to file the criminal information against
Dee immediately.
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
G.R. No. 59241-44 July 5, 1989

PEDRO TANDOC, ROGELIO ERCELLA, RUDY DIAZ, JUAN ROSARIO, AND FRED
MENOR vs. THE HONORABLE RICARDO P. RESULTAN, ARNULFO PAYOPAY,
MANUEL CANCINO, and CONRADO PAYOPAY, SR.
PONENTE: PADILLA, J.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS: A criminal complaint docketed as I.S. No. 80- 198 was lodged with the Office of
the City Fiscal of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, with the charges of "Serious Physical
Injuries", "Slight Physical Injuries", and "Trespass to Dwelling", against respondents
Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay, Beda Acosta, Manuel Cancino, Nadong Fernandez and
Arturo Syloria. The investigating fiscal found reasonable ground to believe that
respondents Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay, Beda Acosta, Manuel Cancino, Nadong
Fernandez and Arturo Syloria committed the crimes charged in I.S. 80-198.
With respect to the criminal complaint docketed as I.S. No. 80-233 filed by
Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay and Manuel Cancino against petitioners for "Serious Oral
Defamation", "Grave Threats" and "Physical Injuries", the Office of the City Fiscal
recommended the dropping of said charges on the ground that they "were found to be in
a nature of a countercharge, the same having been filed after more than one month
from the date of the alleged incident of 19 October 1980." However, as to the charge of
"Trespass to Dwelling" filed by Conrado Payopay, Sr. against Pedro Tandoc, a prima
facie case was found by the investigating fiscal.
Respondents Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay, Conrado Payopay, Sr. and Manuel

Cancino, directly lodged with the City Court of San Carlos City the following criminal
complaints against herein petitioners, to wit: for Serious Physical Injuries, Trespass to
Dwelling, Less Serious Physical Injuries, Grave Threats to Kill.
The City Court of San Carlos City issued several Orders which are the subject of
the petition at bar, whereby the court a quo, after conducting a preliminary examination
of the four aforementioned cases, found reasonable ground to believe that the offenses
charged may have been committed by the accused (now petitioners) and that the latter
were probably guilty thereof. The issuance of warrants of arrest was ordered against
Case Digests Finals
herein petitioners, although said warrants were later suspended upon motion of the
petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether the city court has the power and authority to conduct anew a
preliminary examination of charges, which were previously the subject of a preliminary
investigation conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal and thereafter dismissed by the
latter.
RULING: A preliminary investigation is intended to protect the accused from the

inconvenience, expense and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless the
reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary
proceeding by a competent officer. It is also intended to protect the state from having to
conduct useless and expensive trials.
Under Section 10, Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, in cases
falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court, as well as in cases within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the city courts or municipal courts with Courts of First Instance,
the accused was not entitled to be heard in a preliminary investigation proper.
In the case at bar, the offenses charged against petitioners for "Trespass to Dwelling",
"Grave Threats" and "Physical Injuries" were all within the jurisdiction of the City Court
of San Carlos City. Under the circumstances, the complaints could be filed directly with
the City Court which is empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for purposes of
issuance of warrants of arrest, and thereafter to proceed with the trial of the cases on
the merits. The preliminary investigation proper conducted by the Office of the City
Fiscal could have been dispensed with. Neither did the earlier order of dismissal of the
complaints by the investigating fiscal bar the filing of said complaints with the city court
on the ground of double jeopardy.
As long as the offense charged has not prescribed, the city court has the power and
authority to conduct a preliminary examination and proceed with the trial of the case
properly within its jurisdiction. The prescriptive period of a crime depends upon the
penalty imposed by law. The penalty of arresto mayor is imposed by law for the crimes
of "Trespass to Dwelling", "Grave Threats", which is not subject to a condition and "Less
Serious Physical Injuries" which has incapacitated the offended party for ten (10) days
or shall require medical attendance for the same period; for "Serious Physical Injuries"
which has caused illness or incapacity for labor for more than thirty (30) days, the
penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period. The prescriptive period of offenses punishable by arresto mayor is five (5) years,
while crimes punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in ten (10) years. The
Case Digests Finals
incident at bar occurred on 19 October 1980, while the complaints were filed with the
City Court nine (9) months from said occurrence or on 28 July 1981, thus, the crimes
charged had not yet prescribed under the given facts.
From the order of the City Court finding reasonable ground to believe that a crime was
committed and the accused probably guilty thereof, petitioners cannot seek a re-
investigation by the Office of the City Fiscal. The re-investigation sought by petitioners
applies only to instances where a case is cognizable by the Court of First Instance but
filed with the City Court for purposes of preliminary investigation only and thereafter
dismissed by the latter on the ground that no prima facie case exists. However, for
cases cognizable by inferior courts and filed with the same not only for purposes of
preliminary investigation but for trial on the merits, the Office of the City Fiscal has no
authority to re- investigate.
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992

ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. BENJAMIN
V. PELAYO
PONENTE: FELICIANO, J.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS: Eldon Maguan was driving his driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan,
Metro Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Petitioner entered Wilson St., where it is
a one-way street and started travelling in the opposite or "wrong" direction. At the corner
of Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., petitioner's and Maguan's cars nearly bumped each
other. Petitioner alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car.
Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene. The following day, the police returned
to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from; they were
informed that petitioner had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting.
Having established that the assailant was probably the petitioner, the police launched a
manhunt for petitioner.
Petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news
reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was accompanied by two (2)
lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at
the police station at that time, positively identified petitioner as the gunman. That same
day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against petitioner. First
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio informed petitioner that he could
avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver
of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner refused to execute
any such waiver. while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before an
information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot
wound(s).
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
G.R. No. 165596 November 17, 2005

ESMAEL ORQUINAZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDELYN ARIDA
PONENTE: PUNO, J.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
G.R. No. 159747 April 13, 2004

GREGORIO B. HONASAN vs. THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CODG-PNP-P/DIRECTOR EDUARDO
MATILLANO and HON. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO
PONENTE: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
Case Digests Finals
ISSUE:
RULING:
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
Case Digests Finals
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
TICKLER:
Case Digests Finals
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
Case Digests Finals
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Case Digests Finals
TICKLER:
PONENTE:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:

Rule 112 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 112 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAGLINAWAN, Malaya Pilipina C.

Criminal Procedure – Atty. Ng

G.R. No. 173081 December 15, 2010

Respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Villordon issued a subpoena against Dee

ISSUE: Whether petitioners are entitled to the extraordinary writ of mandamus

G.R. No. 59241-44 July 5, 1989

Respondents Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay, Conrado Payopay, Sr. and Manuel

RULING: A preliminary investigation is intended to protect the accused from the

G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992

G.R. No. 165596 November 17, 2005

G.R. No. 159747 April 13, 2004

You might also like