Rem Digest Crimpro Part1andrule110

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III
Alcisso, Antonio, Arriola, Bernardo, Cajucom, Claudio, Dialino, Dizon, Escueta, Imperial, Martin, Martinez, Mendoza, Raso, Rosales, Sia, Venzuela
PART I going to a distant place where he can procure goods that he can sell
so that he can earn a living. It is not improbable or impossible them
A. VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES IS to have gone, not once, but twice in one day, to Cavite if that is the
JURISDICTIONAL number of times they received pieces of jewelry from complainant.
Also, the fact that the checks issued were drawn against accounts
1. ISIP v PEOPLE with banks in Manila or Makati doesn’t mean that the transactions
were not entered into in Cavite City.
FACTS
When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves
Petitioner Manuel Isip (and his wife Marietta) were convicted of great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with
Estafa before the RTC of Cavite City. Marites, however, died during arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight
the pendency of the appeal before the CA. The spouses were and influence.
engaged in the buying and selling of pledged and unredeemed
jewelry pawned by gambling habitués. However, in their dealings 2. LANDBANK of the PHILIPPINES v BELISATA
with Complainant Atty. Leonardo Jose, they failed to account for the
jewelries given to them to be sold on commission. Also, certain FACTS
checks they’ve issued in favor of Jose bounced. Procedurally,
petitioner contends that the RTC of Cavite has no jurisdiction over Belista is the owner of 8 parcels of land placed by the Dept. of
the case since the elements of the crime did not occur there. Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Instead, he argues that the case should have been filed in Manila Program (PD No. 27 & EO No. 228). He and DAR/LBP disagreed on
where their supposed transactions took place. the amount of just compensation he deserved, which caused him to
file a Petition for Valuation and Payment of Just Compensation
ISSUE: Whether the RTC of Cavite has jurisdiction over the case. before the DARAB-Regional Adjudicator for Region V (RARAD-V). The
RARAD-V decided in his favor. Aggrieved, LBP filed an original
RULING: YES. The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, Petition for Determination of Just Compensation at the same sala of
unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was the RTC sitting as SAC. It was dismissed on the ground of failure to
committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an exhaust administrative remedies.
essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense ISSUE
should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Whether it is necessary that in cases involving claims for just
court. compensation under RA No. 6657 that the decision of the
Adjudicator must first be appealed to the DARAB before a party can
The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by resort to the RTC sitting as SAC.
the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so
shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, RULING
if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was
Sections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide:
committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for
want of jurisdiction. Section 50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR. – The DAR is hereby
vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
Complainant had sufficiently shown that the transaction covered by
agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
the case took place in his ancestral home in Cavite City when he was
over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,
on approved leave of absence from the Bureau of Customs. Since it
except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
has been shown that venue was properly laid, it is now petitioner's
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment
task to prove otherwise, since he claims that the transaction was
and Natural Resources (DENR) x x x
entered into in Manila. He who alleges must prove his allegations
applies. Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. – The Special Agrarian Court shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
Here, petitioner failed to prove that the transaction happened in
determination of just compensation to landowners, and the
Manila. He argues that since he and his late wife actually resided in
prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. x x x
Manila, convenience suggests that the transaction was entered
there. The Court wasn’t persuaded. The fact that Cavite is a bit far
from Manila doesn’t necessarily mean that the transaction cannot or
did not happen there. Distance will not prevent any person from
1
Clearly, under Section 50, DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine

and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original HELD:
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian YES. The judge is administratively liable.
reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DA and the DENR. Further exception to the DAR's original and Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders
exclusive jurisdiction are all petitions for the determination of just to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level courts.
compensation to landowners and the prosecution of all criminal Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular specifically provides that “hold-
offenses under RA No. 6657, which are within the jurisdiction of the departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the
RTC sitting as a SAC. Thus, jurisdiction on just compensation cases exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.” Clearly then,
for the taking of lands under RA No. 6657 is vested in the courts. criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do
not fall within the ambit of the circular, and it was an error on the
Here, the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over Wycoco’s part of respondent judge to have issued one in the instant case.
complaint for determination of just compensation. It must be
stressed that although no summary administrative proceeding was
C. JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS
held before the DARAB, LBP was able to perform its legal mandate of OF THE COMPLAINT
initially determining the value of Wycoco's land pursuant to
Executive Order No. 405, Series of 1990. 1. FOZ v PEOPLE
In accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary
Facts:
jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in a preliminary
manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the Vicente Foz (columnist) and Danny Fajardo (editor-publisher) of
agrarian reform program, but such determination is subject to Panay News were charged with libel for writing and publishing an
challenge before the courts. The resolution of just compensation article against Dr. Edgar Portigo1. The RTC found them guilty as
cases for the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, charged which was affirmed by the CA hence this petition for review.
essentially a judicial function. Foz and Fajardo raised for the first time that the information
charging them with libel did not contain allegations sufficient to vest
B. JURISDICTION TO ISSUE HOLD DEPARTURE jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City.
ORDERS
Issue: W/N the RTC of Iloilo had jurisdiction over the offense
1. MONDEJAR v BUBAN
Held: NO
FACTS:
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. The
Mondejar seeks to hold Judge Buban of the Tacloban City MTCC
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential
administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, partiality,
elements took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
serious irregularity and grave misconduct, in relation to a BP 22 case
The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the
against Mondejar. Judge Buban allegedly issued a “hold departure
complaint or information.
order” against her, in violation of SC Circular No. 39-97, which says
that “hold departure orders” may only be issued in criminal cases
The rules on venue for written defamation are as follows:
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. She also claims that said
order was issued without giving her an opportunity to be heard. 1. When offended party is a public official or a private person
= filed in RTC of province or city where the libelous article
The judge responded, stating that he was only made aware of said is printed and first published
order when he instructed his staff to secure a copy from the 2. When offended party is a private individual = filed in RTC
of province where he actually resided at the time of
Executive Judge of the RTC of Tacloban. After which, he immediately
commission of offense
issued an order setting aside and lifting the “hold departure order”.
3. When offended party is a public officer whose office is in
As regards the supposed due process, he sent a notice of hearing to Manila = filed in RTC of Manila
her and her counsel, but neither appeared. 4. When offended party is a public officer holding office
outside Manila = filed in RTC of province or city where he
Court Administrator recommended a severe reprimand with a stern held office at the time of commission of the offense
warning that should it happen again, he would be dealt with more
severely. 1
That a certain Lita Payunan consulted with Dr. Portigo\ that she had rectum myoma
and had to undergo an operation. Even after surgery she still experienced difficulty in
ISSUE: urinating and defecating. On her 2 nd operation, she woke to find that her anus and
vagina were closed and a hole with a catheter punched on her right side.\ she found out
W/N the judge is administratively liable? she had cancer.\ they spent P150,000 for wrong diagnosis\
2
Dr. Portigo is a private individual at the time of the publication of the of P71,095.00.” The OSP filed an Information with the
libelous article, the venue may be the RTC of the province/city Sandiganbayan accusing Victoria Amante of violating Section 89 of
where the libelous article was printed and first published OR where P.D. No. 1445,
he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.
Amante countered by saying amongst others that Sandiganbayan
The Information [relevant to REM] states only that “x x x both the had no jurisdiction over the said criminal case because respondent
accused as columnists and editor-publisher, respectively of Panay Amante was then a local official who was occupying a position of
News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the City salary grade 26, whereas Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8249
of Iloilo and throughout the region x x x”. such did not establish that provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have original jurisdiction only
the said publication was printed and published in Iloilo City. As cited in cases where the accused holds a position otherwise classified as
in 2 other cases, the SC held that if it would be held that the Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
information sufficiently vests jurisdiction on the allegation that the Classification Act of 1989, R.A. No. 6758.
publication was in general circulation in [place where case is filed],
there would be no impediment to the filing of the libel action in ISSUE: Whether or not a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
other location where the publication is in general circulation. Such under Salary Grade 26 who was charged with violation of The
was not the intent of RA 4363. Auditing Code of the Philippines falls within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
On residence – the information failed to allege the residence of Dr.
Portigo. While the information alleges that “Dr. Portigo is a physician RULING:
and medical practitioner in Iloilo City”, it did not clearly and
The applicable law in this case is Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as
positively indicate that he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the
amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975 which took effect on May 16,
time of the commission of the offense. It was possible that he was
1995, which was again amended on February 5, 1997 by R.A. No.
actually residing in another place.
8249. The alleged commission of the offense, as shown in the
Residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or Information was on or about December 19, 1995 and the filing of
his actual residence or place of abode provided he resides therein the Information was on May 21, 2004. The jurisdiction of a court to
with continuity and consistency; no particular length of time is try a criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution
required. Residence must be more than temporary. of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. The
exception contained in R.A. 7975, as well as R.A. 8249, where it
expressly provides that to determine the jurisdiction of the
D. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as
amended, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
1. PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
Revised Penal Code is not applicable in the present case as the
offense involved herein is a violation of The Auditing Code of the
FACTS:
Philippines. The last clause of the opening sentence of paragraph (a)
Victoria Amante was a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of of the said two provisions states:
Toledo City, Province of Cebu at the time pertinent to this case. On
January 14, 1994, she was able to get hold of a cash advance in the Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
amount of P71,095.00 under a disbursement voucher in order to original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
defray seminar expenses of the Committee on Health and
Environmental Protection, which she headed. As of December 19, A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and
1995, or after almost two years since she obtained the said cash
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,
advance, no liquidation was made. Commission on Audit sent a
where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the
report to Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which then issued a following positions in the government, whether in a permanent,
resolution recommending the filing of an Information for violating acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
the Auditing Code of the Philippines against respondent Amante. offense
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), upon review of the OMB-
Visayas' Resolution, on April 6, 2001, prepared a memorandum The present case falls under Section 4(b) where other offenses and
finding probable cause to indict respondent Amante. felonies committed by public officials or employees in relation to
their office are involved. Under the said provision, no exception is
The OSP filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan accusing contained. Thus, the general rule that jurisdiction of a court to try a
Victoria Amante of violating Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445 alleging that criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution of the
“with deliberate intent and intent to gain, did then and there, action, not at the time of the commission of the offense applies in
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to liquidate said cash advances
3
this present case. Since the present case was instituted on May 21,
2004, the provisions of R.A. No. 8249 shall govern. Issue:
Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to try a government scholar
This Court had ruled that as long as the offense charged in the and a student regent, along with her brother (a private individual),
information is intimately connected with the office and is alleged of swindling government funds? YES
to have been perpetrated while the accused was in the
Ratio:
performance, though improper or irregular, of his official functions,
there being no personal motive to commit the crime and had the 1. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as
accused not have committed it had he not held the aforesaid amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
office, the accused is held to have been indicted for "an offense
committed in relation" to his office. Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
Note also that: A. xxx
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and
Those that are classified as Grade 26 and below may still fall within higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
positions thus enumerated by R.A. No. 3019. Particularly and xxx
exclusively enumerated are provincial governors, vice-governors, " (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department institutions or foundations.
heads; city mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang
panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers , and other city 2. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa.
department heads; officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position as consul and higher; Philippine army and air force colonels, Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads:
naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank; City and provincial other crimes committed by the public officials and employees
prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office.
Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; and presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a)
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions the offense is committed by public officials and employees and that
or foundations. In connection therewith, Section 4(b) of the same (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office. Plainly, estafa
law provides that other offenses or felonies committed by public is one of those other felonies.
officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to
their office also fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 3. Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer.
2. SERRANA v SANDIGANBAYAN Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27;
she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee-paying student. This is likewise
Facts: bereft of merit. It is not only the salary grade that determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has
Serana was a senior student and a government scholar of UP-Cebu. jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606.
She was appointed by then President Estrada as a student regent of
UP, to serve a one-year term. She discussed with President Estrada
the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman.
With her siblings and relatives, Serana registered with the SEC the While the first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary
Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One of the Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other
projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex. executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27
President Estrada gave P15M to the OSRFI as financial assistance for and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the
the proposed renovation. The source of the funds, according to the jurisdiction of the said court. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of
information, was the Office of the President. the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of
law.
However, the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize.
Hence, the succeeding student regent, filed a complaint for As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions
Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.
Ombudsman. And the Ombudsman, after due investigation, found Moreover, it is well established that compensation is not an
probable cause to indict Serana and her brother for estafa. essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to
the public office.
Serana moved to quash the information. She claimed that the
Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense 4. The offense charged was committed in relation to public office,
charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent. according to the Information.
4
It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the ISSUE: W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the cases
information. In the case at bench, the information alleged, in no against both Mayor Esquivel and Eboy Esquivel.
uncertain terms that petitioner, being then a student regent of U.P.,
HELD/RATIO: Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Esquivels are
"while in the performance of her official functions, committing the
wrong!
offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position,
with intent to gain…” Petitioners’ claim lacks merit. In Rodrigo, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan, Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, and Layus vs.
Sandiganbayan, we already held that municipal mayors fall under
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Nor
3. ESQUIVEL v SANDIGANBAYAN(borrowed from C)
can Barangay Captain Mark Anthony Esquivel claim that since he is
not a municipal mayor, he is outside the Sandiganbayan’s
FACTS:
jurisdiction. R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, provides that it
PO2 Eduardo and SPO1 Catacutan are assigned to the is only in cases where "none of the accused (underscoring supplied)
Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division of San Fernando are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or
Pampanga. They filed their complaint-affidavits with the CIDG higher" that "exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the
against petitioners Antonio Esquivel (the municipal mayor Jaen, proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial
Nueva Ecija) and his brother Eboy Esquivel. They crimes complained court, and municipal circuit court, as the case may be, pursuant to
of were illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, maltreatment, attempted their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg.
murder and grave threats. Several other police officers were accused 129, as amended." Note that under the 1991 Local Government
with the Esquivels. Code, Mayor Esquivel has a salary grade of
27. Since Barangay Captain Esquivel is the co-accused in Criminal
The initial investigation showed that on March 1998, Case No. 24777 of Mayor Esquivel, whose position falls under salary
Eduardo was in his parents’ house, about to eat lunch when Equivels grade 27, the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of
arrived with other police officers. They disarmed Eduardo and forced discretion in assuming jurisdiction over said criminal case, as well as
him to board their vehicle and brought him to the municipal hall. On over Criminal Case No. 24778, involving both of them. Hence, the
the way, Mayor Esquivel mauled him and threatened to kill him writ of certiorari cannot issue in petitioners’ favor.
while pointing a gun at Eduardo.
Upon arrival at the town hall, Mayor Esquivel ordered a E. JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN
certain SPO1 Espiritu to kill Eduardo but SPO1 Catacutan arrived to
verify what happened to Eduardo. The mayor threatened him as
1. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE v LIWAG
well. The mayor continued to harass, threaten and inflict physical
injuries upon Eduardo until he lost consciousness. When he woke
up, he was released but no before he signed a statement in a police FACTS:
blotter that he was in good physical condition. The alleged motive
for this was because the mayor believed Eduardo and Catacutan Alleging that she was a former undercover agent of the Presidential
were among the law enforcers who raided a jueteng den connected Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and the Philippine
to the mayor. National Police (PNP) Narcotics Group, Mary Ong filed a complaint-
affidavit on before the Ombudsman against PNP General Panfilo M.
After investigation, the CIDG forwarded the findings to the
Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray B. Aquino, other high-ranking
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, which conducted a preliminary
officials of the PNP, and several private individuals. Her complaint-
investigation and required the submission of counter-affidavits. In
affidavit gave rise to separate cases involving different offenses
their counter-affidavits, the Esquivels allege that Eduardo was
imputed to respondents Lacson and Aquino. The Ombudsman found
actually a fugitive with a warrant of arrest for malversation and they
the complaint-affidavit of Mary Ong sufficient in form and substance
just confiscated his gun for illegal possession.
and thus required the respondents therein to file their counter-
In June 1998, the Deputy Ombudsman issued a resolution affidavits on the charges. On February 28, 2001, said respondents
recommending that both Esquivels be indicted for less serious submitted their counter-affidavits and prayed that the charges
physical injuries and grave threats. As to the charges against other against them be dismissed.
petitioners, they were dismissed. Then Ombudsman Desierto
approved this. So, the separate informations were filed against the Subsequently, on March 9, 2001, Mary Ong and other witnesses
Esquivels in the Sandiganbayan. executed sworn statements before the NBI, alleging the same facts
Accused filed an MR but this was denied. Esquivels were and circumstances revealed by Mary Ong in her complaint-affidavit
arraigned, pleaded not guilty. With the denial of their MR, they before the Ombudsman. NBI Director Wycoco, in a letter dated May
elevate the matter to the SC alleging GADLEJ in the issuance of the 4, 2001 addressed to then Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez,
resolution of the deputy ombudsman. recommended the investigation of Lacson, Aquino, other PNP
officials, and private individuals for the following alleged crimes:
Petitioners theorize that the Sandiganbayan has no kidnapping for ransom and murder of several individuals. On May 7,
jurisdiction over their persons as they hold positions excluded in 2001, a panel of prosecutors from the DOJ sent a subpoena to
Republic Act No. 7975. As the positions of municipal mayors Lacson, et al named in the witnesses’ sworn statements directing
and barangay captains are not mentioned therein, they claim they them to submit their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence
are not covered by said law under the principle of expressio unius at the scheduled preliminary investigation on the complaint filed by
est exclusio alterius. the NBI. However, Lacson and Aquino manifested in a letter dated
5
May 18, 2001 that the DOJ panel of prosecutors should dismiss the Petitioners cannot seek sanctuary in the doctrine of concurrent
complaint filed therewith by Mary Ong since there are complaints jurisdiction. While the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means
pending before the Ombudsman alleging a similar set of facts equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter, the settled
against the same respondents, and claimed that the Ombudsman rule is that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the
has primary jurisdiction over criminal cases cognizable by the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, he Thus, assuming there is concurrent jurisdiction between the
may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Ombudsman and the DOJ in the conduct of preliminary
Government, the investigation of such cases involving public investigation, this concurrence is not to be taken as an unrestrained
officials, including police and military officials such as private freedom to file the same case before both bodies or be viewed as a
respondent. DOJ, which construed the letter as a motion to dismiss, contest between these bodies as to which will first complete the
denied the motion. investigation. In the present case, it is the Ombudsman before
whom the complaint was initially filed. Hence, it has the authority
Lacson, et al. filed before the RTC a petition for prohibition, which to proceed with the preliminary investigation to the exclusion of the
the RTC granted, saying that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over DOJ.
the case, and directing the DOJ to desist from conducting
preliminary investigation. Thus, the DOJ filed a Petition for certiorari The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction by the DOJ in the
and prohibition in the SC. conduct of preliminary investigation over the cases filed against the
respondents would not promote an orderly administration of
ISSUE/RULING: W/N the DOJ has jurisdiction to conduct a justice. Although a preliminary investigation is not a trial, it is not a
preliminary investigation despite the pendency before the casual affair either. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or
Ombudsman of a complaint involving the same accused, facts, and proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is
circumstances – NO sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial. To allow the same complaint to be filed
RATIO:
successively before two or more investigative bodies would
promote multiplicity of proceedings. It would also cause undue
The question is whether or not the Ombudsman has in effect taken difficulties to the respondent who would have to appear and
over the investigation of the case or cases in question to the defend his position before every agency or body where the same
exclusion of other investigatory agencies, including the DOJ. Since complaint was filed. This would leave hapless litigants at a loss as to
the Ombudsman has taken hold of the situation of the parties in the where to appear and plead their cause or defense. There is yet
exercise of its primary jurisdiction over the matter, respondents another undesirable consequence. There is the distinct possibility
cannot insist on conducting a preliminary investigation on the same that the two bodies exercising jurisdiction at the same time would
matter under the pretext of a shared and concurrent authority. In come up with conflicting resolutions regarding the guilt of the
the final analysis, the resolution on the matter by the Ombudsman is respondents.
final. In the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman
itself, the other investigative agencies of the Government have no
2. LAZATIN v DESIERTO(borrowed from C)
power and right to add an input into the Ombudsman’s
investigation. Only in matters where the other investigative
agencies are expressly allowed by the Ombudsman to make FACTS:
preliminary investigation may such agencies conduct the
The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of
investigation, subject to the final decision of the Ombudsman.
the Ombudsman filed a Complaint-affidavit, charging petitioners
Lazatin et al. with Illegal Use of Public Funds as defined and
The public respondents cannot find comfort in that provision of the
law that the Ombudsman may take over, at any stage, from any penalized under Article 220 of the RPC and violation of Section 3 (a)
investigative agency of the Government, the investigation of cases and (e) of RA 3019. The complaint alleged that there were
involving public officials, including police and military officials such irregularities in the use of Congressman Lazatin of his Countrywide
as the petitioners. That situation presupposes the conduct by other Development Fund (CDF) for 1996 (he was both proponent and
Government agencies of preliminary investigations involving public implementer of the projects funded from his CDF; he signed
officials in cases not theretofore being taken cognizance of by the
vouchers and supporting papers pertinent to the disbursement as
Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman, as in the case, has already taken
hold of the situation of the parties, it cannot take over, at any stage Disbursing Officer; and he received, as claimant, eighteen (18)
of the proceedings, the investigation being conducted by another checks amounting to P4,868,277.08). Thus, Lazatin, with the help of
agency. It has the case before it. Rudimentary common sense and Morales, Pelayo, David, was allegedly able to convert his CDF into
becoming respect for power and authority would thus require the cash.
respondents to desist from interfering with the case already handled
by the Ombudsman. Indeed, as conceded by the respondents, they A preliminary investigation was conducted and the
are deputized prosecutors by the Ombudsman. If that is so, and that Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) thereafter
is the truth, the exercise by the principal of the powers negates issued a resolution recommending the filing against petitioners of 14
absolutely the exercise by the agents of a particular power and counts each of Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section
authority. The hierarchy of powers must be remembered. 3(e) of RA 3019. This resolution was approved by Ombudsman
6
Desierto. Hence, 28 informations were filed against petitioners in ruling in Acop that the authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute
the Sandiganbayan. based on R.A. No. 6770 was authorized by the Constitution was also
made the foundation for the decision in Perez v. Sandiganbayan,
Petitioners Lazatin et al. filed their respective Motions for
where it was held that the power to prosecute carries with it the
reconsideration/reinvestigation which were granted. The Office of
power to authorize the filing of informations, which power had not
Special Prosecutors (OSP) recommended the dismissal of the cases
been delegated to the OSP. It is, therefore, beyond cavil that under
for lack or insufficiency of evidence. However, Desierto ordered the
the Constitution, Congress was not proscribed from legislating the
Office of the Legal Affiars (OLP) to review the OSP resolution. In a
grant of additional powers to the Ombudsman or placing the OSP
memorandum, the OLA recommended that the OSP resolution be
under the Office of the Ombudsman.
disapproved and the OSP be directed to proceed with the trial.
Desierto adopted the OLA memorandum. The cases were then
returned to the Sandiganbayan for continuation of criminal 3. PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE v
proceedings. DESIERTO
Hence, petitioners Lazatin et al. filed a petition for Facts:

certiorari under Rule 65. They contend that the Ombudsman had no
authority to overturn the OSP's Resolution because, under Section President Fidel Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating
13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman is clothed the Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans.
only with the power to watch, investigate and recommend the filing Orlando S. Salvador, in his capacity as PCGG consultant, executed
of proper cases against erring officials, but it was not granted the three separate Sworn Statements stating that among the loan
power to prosecute. They point out that under the Constitution, the accounts referred by the Assets Privatization Trust to the Committee
power to prosecute belongs to the OSP, which was intended by the for investigation, report and recommendation are those of the
framers to be a separate and distinct entity from the Office of the following corporations: P.R. Garcia and Sons Development and
Ombudsman. Petitioners conclude that, as provided by the Investment Corporation (PRGS), Golden River Mining Corporation
Constitution, the OSP being a separate and distinct entity, the (Golden River), and Filipinas Carbon and Mining Corporation
Ombudsman should have no power and authority over the (Filcarbon).
OSP. Thus, petitioners maintain that R.A. No. 6770 (The
Ombudsman Act of 1989), which made the OSP an organic On different occasions, these three companies obtained loans from
component of the Office of the Ombudsman, should be struck down the Development Bank of the Philippines (PRGS and Golden River),
for being unconstitutional. and the National Investment Development Corporation (Filcarbon),
amounting to tens of millions of pesos for various purposes in a
period spanning from 1967 to 1982. Filcarbon’s loan in particular
ISSUE: Whether Ombudsman Desierto acted with GADLEJ – NO. was favorably recommended by the President of the Philippine
National Bank. Salvador alleged that, based on the evidence
submitted to the Committee, these three corporations did not have
HELD: Petitioners' attack against the constitutionality of R.A. No. sufficient collaterals for the loans they obtained, except with respect
6770 is stale. It has long been settled that the provisions of R.A. No. to the loans obtained by Golden River in 1975 and 1977. Salvador
6770 granting the Office of the Ombudsman prosecutorial powers also alleged that the above-mentioned corporations did not have
and placing the OSP under said office have no constitutional adequate capital to ensure not only the viability of their operations
infirmity. but also their ability to repay all their loans. Accordingly, the
Committee found the loan accounts of the above-mentioned three
The Court cited the case of Acop v. Office of the
corporations as behest loans. The Committee submitted its report to
Ombudsman. In that case, the Court held that giving prosecutorial
President Ramos who instructed then PCGG Chairman Magtanggol
powers to the Ombudsman is in accordance with the Constitution as
Gunigundo, sitting as the Committee's ex-officio Chairman, to file the
paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI provides that the Ombudsman
necessary charges against the DBP Chairman and members of the
shall “exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided by
Board of Directors, the former PNB President and former NIDC
law.” The constitutionality of Section 3 of R.A. No. 6770, which
General Manager, together with the respective stockholders/officers
subsumed the OSP under the Office of the Ombudsman, was
of the three corporations. Salvador’s Sworn Statements were used
likewise upheld by the Court in Acop.
by the Committee as its bases in filing separate complaints with the
More recently, in Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera, the Office of the Ombudsman against herein private respondents for
Court declared that the OSP is “merely a component of the Office of alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and
control, and upon authority of the Ombudsman” and ruled that Complaints were filed against the aforementioned parties in the
under R.A. No. 6770, the power to preventively suspend is lodged Office of the Ombudsman but upon the recommendation of the
only with the Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman. The Court's Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau, complaints against
7
the respondents were dismissed. The Ombudsman ruled that, Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
except with respect to the two loan transactions entered into by Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be
Golden River in 1982, all the offenses alleged by the Committee as grievously hampered by innumerable petitions
having been committed by herein respondents had already assailing the dismissal of investigatory
prescribed under the provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019. As to proceedings conducted by the Office of the
the two 1982 transactions of Golden River, the Ombudsman found Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed
that, contrary to the claims of the Commission, the loan accounts before it, in much the same way that the courts
obtained by the said corporation have sufficient collaterals. The would be extremely swamped if they would be
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied. compelled to review the exercise of discretion
on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting
Issue: attorneys each time they decide to file an
information in court or dismiss a complaint by a
Whether or not the Ombudsman was empowered to dismiss the
private complainant.
complaint motu propio, without requiring the respondents to file
their counter-affidavit or conducting preliminary investigation? (REM It is quite clear under Section 2(a), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure
TOPIC) of the Office of the Ombudsman, that it may dismiss a complaint
outright for want of palpable merit. At that point, the Ombudsman
does not have to conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of
Ruling: a complaint. Should the investigating officer find the complaint
devoid of merit, then he may recommend its outright dismissal. The
Yes. The Court has consistently held that the Ombudsman has
Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a preliminary
discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its facts and
investigation is proper. It is only when the Ombudsman opts not to
circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may
dismiss the complaint outright for lack of palpable merit would the
dismiss the complaint forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in
Ombudsman be expected to require the respondents to file their
form and substance or, should he find it otherwise, to continue with
counter-affidavit and petitioner, its reply.
the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view,
the complaint is in due and proper form and substance. Quite
4. CASTRO v DELORIA(Borrowed from C)
relevant is the Court's ruling in Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman
and reiterated in the case of The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact- Finding
FACTS:
Committee on Behest Loans v. Hon. Desierto, to wit:
The prosecution of offenses committed by Castro was charged by the Ombudsman before the RTC with
Malversation of public funds. The information alleged that Castro
public officers is vested in the Office of the
was a revenue officer of the BIR who misappropriated 556K+ of
Ombudsman. To insulate the Office from collections. Castro pleaded NOT GUILTY on arraignment. On Aug 31,
outside pressure and improper influence, the 2001, Castro filed a Motion to Quash on the grounds of lack of
Constitution as well as R.A. 6770 has endowed it jurisdiction and lack of authority of the Ombudsman to conduct the
with a wide latitude of investigatory and preliminary investigation and file the Information since it failed t to
prosecutory powers virtually free from allege her salary grade -- a material fact upon which depends the
legislative, executive or judicial intervention. jurisdiction of the RTC. Citing Uy v. Sandiganbayan, petitioner
further argued that as she was a public employee with salary grade
This court consistently refrains from interfering
27, the case filed against her was cognizable by the RTC and may be
with the exercise of its powers, and respects the investigated and prosecuted only by the public prosecutor, and not
initiative and independence inherent in the by the Ombudsman whose prosecutorial power was limited to cases
Ombudsman who, ‘beholden to no one, acts as cognizable by theSandiganbayan.
the champion of the people and the preserver
of the integrity of the public service.’ The RTC denied & held that the (1) jurisdiction of the RTC over the
case did not depend on the salary grade, but on the penalty
As a rule, the Court shall not unduly interfere in the Ombudsman’s imposable upon the latter for the offense charged. It also (2)
exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers, as provided in sustained the prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman since in the
the Constitution, without good and compelling reasons to indicate cited case the court later overturned their decision in a clarificatory
resolution. Finally, it said that the (3) Motion to Quash was contrary
otherwise. The basis for this rule was provided in the case of
to Sec. 1, Rule 117, for it was filed after Castro pleaded not guilty
Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman where the Court held as follows: under the Information.
The rule is based not only upon respect for the

Castro contends that the prevailing jurisprudence from Aug 9, 1999
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted
til May 20, 2001 was that the Ombudsman had no prosecutorial
by the Constitution to the Office of the
8
powers over cases cognizable by the RT and since the investigation these types of cases. The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on
and prosecution against Castro was conducted by the Ombudsman all complaints against officers and employees of the government and
beginning April 26, 2000, then the August 9, 1999 Decision in Uy was to enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every
applicable, notwithstanding that the decision was set aside in the case where the evidence warrants. To carry out this duty, the law
March 20, 2001 Resolution. So, the Information that was filed allows him to utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate any
against petitioner was void for at that time the Ombudsman had no fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as
investigatory and prosecutorial powers over the case. special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and
prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist
Castro filed an MR which was denied so filed a petition for certiorari him work under his supervision and control. The law likewise allows
w/ CA also dismissed. Filed 65 with SC. him to direct the Special prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(4c) of RA
6770.
ISSUES:
In the case of Office of Ombudsman v. Hon. Breva, court held that

1. W/N the Ombudsman had the authority to file the information in
the March 20, 2001 Resolution, that the Ombudsman has
light of the ruling in the First "Uy vs. Sandiganbayan" case, which
prosecutorial powers in cases cognizable by the RTC, extends even
declared that the prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman is limited
to criminal information filed or pending at the time when its August
to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
9, 1999 Decision was the operative ruling on the issue.
2. W/N the clarificatory Resolution in the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case

F. REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE OMBUDSMAN
can be made applicable to the Castro, without violating the
constitutional provision on ex-post facto laws and denial of the
accused to due process. 1. ANTONINO v DESIERTO
RULING: YES to BOTH. FACTS
In the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Enoc, similar grounds Petitioner filed a verified complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman
were raised and the SC held that the Ombudsman has powers to against the respondents for violation of Paragraphs (e), (g) and (j),
prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the Section 3 of RA No. 3019 and for malversation of public funds or
Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular courts. It property through falsification of public documents. This concerns
held: the alleged conspiracy involving respondents to cheat and defraud
the city government of General Santos through the illegal disposition
of Lot X of the Magsaysay Park in violation of law and its charter.
The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the
Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or The Ombudsman issued a resolution dismissing the charges against
omission of any public officer or employee when such act or the respondents. Petitioner filed MR which was denied by the
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The Ombudsman. The Ombudsman held that since the criminal
law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Informations were already filed and the cases were already pending
Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been before the Sandiganbayan and the regular courts of General Santos
held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of any public official" City, the Ombudsman had lost jurisdiction over the said case.
is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer Petitioner filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
or employee.
ISSUE: w/n the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion,
The reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in the exercise of his
Sandiganbayan, particularly in Section 15(1) giving the Ombudsman prosecutor functions, by dismissing the charges against the
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, respondents.
and Section 11(4) granting the Special Prosecutor the power to
conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases HELD: NO
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, should not be
construed as confining the scope of the investigatory and 1. Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989)
prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to such cases. provides:
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should SEC. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. —
not be equated with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor (1) All provisionary orders of the Office of the
under Section 11 of RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is Ombudsman are immediately effective and
merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only executory.
act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the
Ombudsman. Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to A motion for reconsideration of any
prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the order, directive or decision of the Office of the
Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the lawmakers did not intend to confine Ombudsman must be filed within five (5) days
the investigatory and prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to after receipt of written notice and shall be
9
entertained only on any of the following 10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against
grounds: the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied.
(1) New evidence has been
discovered which materially affects the order, Grave abuse of discretion exists where a power is
directive or decision; exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner
(2) Errors of law or irregularities by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to
have been committed prejudicial to the interest amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a
of the movant. The motion for reconsideration duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law. The alleged grave
shall be resolved within three (3) days from abuse of discretion imputed to the Ombudsman is found wanting in
filing: Provided, That only one motion for this case. Thus, this Court finds no reason to deviate from the
reconsideration shall be entertained. general rule.
Petitioner failed to establish that her MR was indeed filed 3.

on time, and thus, failed to refute the assertion of the respondents Moreover, the elements of the offense, essential for the conviction
based on the aforementioned Certification that petitioner was of an accused under Section 3(e), R. A. No. 3019, are as follows:
personally served a copy of the assailed Resolution. There are a
number of instances when rules of procedure are relaxed in the (1) The accused is a public officer or a private
interest of justice. However, in this case, petitioner did not proffer person charged in conspiracy with the former;
any explanation at all for the late filing of the MR. We find no (2) The said public officer commits the prohibited
justification why the Ombudsman entertained the motion for acts during the performance of his or her official duties, or
reconsideration, when, at the time of the filing of the motion for in relation to his or her public functions;
reconsideration the assailed Resolution was already final. (3) That he or she causes undue injury to any party,
whether the government or a private party;
2. (relevant topic) (4) Such undue injury is caused by giving
Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, and unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such
pursuant to R.A. No. 6770, the Ombudsman has the power to parties; and
investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or (5) That the public officer has acted with manifest
employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable neglect.
improper or inefficient. Well-settled is the rule that this Court will
not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his As found by the Ombudsman and based on the records,
investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and there is no showing of evident bad faith and/or gross negligence in
compelling reasons that indicate otherwise. A contrary rule would the respective acts of the respondents. Finally, petitioner speaks of
encourage innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of investigatory conspiracy among the respondents and those indicted. However, as
proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman, which would found by the Ombudsman, such conspiracy alleged in the complaint
grievously hamper the functions of the office and the courts, in was not supported by ample evidence. Conspiracy must be proved
much the same way that courts would be swamped by a deluge of by direct evidence or by proof of the overt acts of the accused,
cases if they have to review the exercise of discretion on the part before, during and after the commission of the crime charged
of public prosecutors each time they decide to file an information indicative of a common design. This, the petitioner sadly failed to
or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. establish.
Of course, this rule is not absolute. The aggrieved party G. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN
may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
when the finding of the Ombudsman is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This Court laid 1. SESBRENO v AGLUGUB
down the following exceptions to the rule:
FACTS:
1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused; This case involves a complaint filed by Sesbreño (Complainant)
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice against MTC Judge Aglugub (Respondent) for Gross Ignorance of the
or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; Law, Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
3. When there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice;
the Service relative to a criminal case (entitled People v. Enrique
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority; Marcelino, et al.). In the said criminal case, Complainant filed three
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance (3) separate complaints against Marcelino, Nuñez, Tabazon, and
or regulation; Carunungan who are all from the Traffic Management Unit of San
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; Pedro, Laguna. The criminal complaint was for Falsification, Grave
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; Threats and Usurpation of Authority. The three (3) cases were
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; assigned to respondent judge’s branch and subsequently
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by
consolidated for disposition. In a Consolidated Resolution, only the
the lust for vengeance;
charge of Usurpation was set for arraignment, the rest of the
10
charges having been dismissed. Thereafter, Complainant made a included in the records of the case. Respondent judge
manifestation that the complaint also charged the defendants with should have ensured that at least one complete set of the
violation of RA No. 10 accompanied by a prayer for the issuance of records remained in her sala so that the prosecution for
Usurpation of Authority would not be held up. Injudicious
warrants of arrests against the defendants. Respondent judge found
though her actuation was, Respondent judge was not
no probable cause and dismissed the charge for violation of R.A. 10. motivated by an evil intent to delay the case.
She also denied complainant’s prayer for the issuance of warrants of 4. No. This issue is answered by Administrative Order No. 8
arrest against the accused and ordered the records forwarded to the entitled Clarifying and Modifying Certain Rules of
Provincial Prosecutor’s Office (PPO) for review. The PPO affirmed Procedure of the Ombudsman, which provides "that all
respondent’s order and remanded the case to the court for further prosecutors are now deputized Ombudsman prosecutors."
proceedings on the sole charge of Usurpation of Authority. During Moreover, "[R]esolutions in Ombudsman cases against
public officers and employees prepared by a deputized
the hearing of the case on February 14, 2004, Tabazon, Carunungan
assistant prosecutor shall be submitted to the Provincial or
and Nuñez did not appear. Atty. Sesbreño, however, did not move
City Prosecutor concerned who shall, in turn, forward the
for the issuance of warrants of arrest against them. Neither did he same to the Deputy Ombudsman of the area with his
object to the cancellation of the scheduled hearing. recommendation for the approval or disapproval thereof.”
ISSUES: Thus, Respondent did not err and was, in fact, merely
acting in accordance with law when she forwarded the
1. Did Respondent err in not conducting a preliminary case for violation of R.A. 10 to the PPO. The fact that the
investigation for the charge of Usurpation of Authority? PPO remanded the case to the court for further
2. Did Respondent err in not issuing warrants of arrest for proceedings instead of forwarding the same to the Deputy
failure of the accused to appear during trial? Ombudsman as required by Administrative Order No. 8 is
3. Did Respondent err in issuing her Order dismissing the quite another matter. In any event, respondent judge
complaint for violation of R.A. 10? should have taken the necessary steps to remedy the lapse
4. Did Respondent err in transmitting the records of the in order to preclude delay in the disposition of the case.
case to the PPO instead of the Office of the Ombudsman? Complaint dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent was
HELD: nonetheless admonished to be more circumspect in the
performance of her duties in the future.
1. No. A preliminary investigation is required before the filing
of a complaint or information for an offense where the
penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) H. POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE OVER
months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. Thus, a PROSECUTORS
preliminary investigation is not required nor was one
conducted for the charge of violation of Art. 177 of the 1.PUNZALAN v DELA PENA(Borrowed from C)
Revised Penal Code which is punishable by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or from FACTS:
six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2)
months. Punzalan and the Plata families were neighbors. On Aug.
2. No. There is nothing in the Rules of Criminal Procedure
13, 1997, Dela Peña, a house boarder of the Platas, was in front of a
which requires a judge to issue a warrant of arrest for the
non-appearance of the accused during the trial. Hence, its store near their house when the group of Rainier Punzalan, Randall
issuance rests on the sound discretion of the presiding Punzalan, Ricky Eugenio, Jose Gregorio, Alex “Toto” Ofrin, and
judge. More so in this case, the private prosecutor did not others arrived. Eugenio shouted at Dela Peña, “Hoy, kalbo, saan mo
move for the issuance of such warrant. binili ang sumbrero mo?” Dela Peña replied, “Kalbo nga ako, ay
3. No. Respondent concedes that due to oversight, she failed pinagtatawanan pa ninyo ako.” Irked by the response, Gregorio
to rule on the charge of violation of R.A. 10 in her initial slapped Dela Peña while Rainier punched him in the mouth. The
Resolution. Nonetheless, she asserts in her Comment With
group then ganged up on him. Somebody shouted, “Yariin na ‘yan!”
Motion To Dismiss Administrative Complaint that she
conducted a preliminary investigation for the charge of Thereafter, Ofrin kicked Dela Peña and tried to stab him with
violation of R.A. 10 and dismissed the charge after taking a balisong but missed.
into consideration the affidavits and evidence presented.
Complainant does not dispute the fact that indeed a While Dela Peña was fleeing, he met Robert Cagara, the
preliminary investigation was conducted for this Platas’ family driver, who was carrying a gun. He grabbed the gun
charge. Thus, when respondent judge dismissed the and pointed it to the group chasing him to scare them. Michael
complaint for violation of R.A. 10, she merely did so to Plata, who was nearby, intervened and tried to wrestle the gun away
correct an oversight. It was the dismissal of the charge for
from Dela Peña. The gun accidentally went off and hit Rainier
violation of R.A. 10 that was elevated to the PPO for
Punzalan on the thigh. The group ran after them and when they got
review. It was imprudent, however, for respondent judge
to transmit the entire records of the case to the PPO to the Platas’ house, shouted, “Lumabas kayo d’yan, putang ina
knowing that the charge for Usurpation of Authority was ninyo! Papatayin namin kayo!”
11
Rainier Punzalan filed a criminal complaint against Michael added that Dela Peña failed to prove that Rainier, Randall and his
Plata for Attempted Homicide and against Robert Cagara for Illegal companions intended to kill him.)
Possession of Firearm.
Respondents’ MR was denied. Hence, they filed a petition
In turn, Plata, Cagara and Dela Peña filed several counter- for certiorari with the CA, which reversed June 6, 2000 Resolution
charges for grave oral defamation, grave threats, robbery, malicious where Secretary of Justice directed the withdrawal of informations
mischief and slight physical injuries against the Punzalans, including for slight oral defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan and attempted
one for Attempted Murder filed by Dela Peña against Rainier and homicide against the respondents.
Randall Punzalan and fourteen others and one for Grave Threats
filed by Dela Peña against Ofrin. Petitioners’ MR was denied. Hence, the instant petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45.
In their counter-affidavit, the Punzalans argued that the
charges against them were fabricated in order to dissuade them ISSUE: WON the CA erred in setting aside the resolutions of the
from testifying in the Attempted Homicide and Illegal Possession of Secretary of Justice –YES
Firearm cases instituted by Rainier against Plata and Cagara,
HELD/RATIO:
respectively.
YES. The Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse
Cagara also filed a complaint for Grave Oral Defamation
of discretion to justify interference by the Courts.
against Rosalinda Punzalan, mother of Rainier, alleging that on
October 16, 1997 at the Office of the Prosecutor of Mandaluyong
A petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when any
City, Rosalinda approached him, and within hearing distance of
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
other people, told him, “Hoy Robert, magkanong ibinigay ng mga
functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with
Plata sa iyo sa pagtestigo? Dodoblehin ko at ipapasok pa kita ng
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
trabaho.” In her defense, Rosalinda denied having uttered the
and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
alleged defamatory statements.
at law.
On July 28, 1998, the Assistant City Prosecutor of
We now resolve whether the Secretary of Justice
Mandaluyong City dismissed the complaint for Grave Oral
committed grave abuse of discretion in his Resolutions dated June 6,
Defamation against Rosalinda Punzalan, holding that Cagara failed to
2000 and October 11, 2000. Under the Revised Administrative Code,
show that the alleged defamatory statements would cast dishonor,
the Secretary of Justice exercises the power of direct control and
discredit or contempt upon him. He also found that the statements
supervision over the decisions or resolutions of the prosecutors.
were uttered by Rosalinda in a state of distress and were not
“Supervision and control” includes the authority to act directly
actionable. The charge of Attempted Murder against Rainier, Randall
whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a
and 14 others was also dismissed because complainant Dela Peña’s
subordinate; to direct the performance of duty; and to approve,
claim that he accidentally shot Rainier forms part of the defense of
revise or modify acts and decision of subordinate officials or units.
Michael Plata in the Attempted Homicide case previously filed by
Rainier against the latter. In the case of People v. Peralta, we reiterated the rule that
the right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of
Dela Peña and Cagara separately appealed to the DOJ. On
discretion – the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge,
March 23, 2000, then Justice Secretary Artemio Tuquero issued a
the exercise of which depends on a variety of factors which are best
Resolution modifying the July 28, 1998 Joint Resolution of the
appreciated by prosecutors.
Assistant City Prosecutor.
In the case of Hegerty v. Court of Appeals, we declared
Petitioners, Rosalinda, Rainier and Randall Punzalan,
that: A public prosecutor, by the nature of his office, is under no
together with their co-respondents, filed separate MR. On June 6,
compulsion to file a criminal information where no clear legal
2000, the Secretary of Justice set aside the March 23, 2000
justification has been shown, and no sufficient evidence of guilt nor
Resolution and directed the withdrawal of the Informations
prima facie case has been presented by the petitioner.
against the movants, Punzalan et al. (Reason: Oral Defamation case
should be dismissed because the alleged defamatory statements We need only to stress that the determination of probable
were uttered without malice as Rosalinda was then in a state of cause during a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation is
shock and anger. Anent the Attempted Homicide case filed by Dela recognized as an executive function exclusively of the prosecutor.
Peña against Rainier, the Secretary held that the allegations in An investigating prosecutor is under no obligation to file a criminal
support thereof should first be threshed out in the trial of the action where he is not convinced that he has the quantum of
Attempted Homicide case filed by Rainier against Michael Plata. He evidence at hand to support the averments. Prosecuting officers
have equally the duty not to prosecute when after investigation or
12
reinvestigation they are convinced that the evidence adduced was I. ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Thus, the GENERAL IN CRIMINAL CASES
determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with
the prosecutor who is vested with discretion in the discharge of this 1. PEOPLE v DUCA
function.
FACTS
Thus, the question of whether or not to dismiss a
complaint is within the purview of the functions of the prosecutor It was in 1999 that Pedro Calanayan filed an action for ejectment
and, ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice. and damages against Cecilia F. Duca and several of her relatives.
The case was decided in favor of Calanayan. Decision became final
The reasons of the Secretary of Justice in directing the City and executory.
Prosecutor to withdraw the informations for slight oral defamation
against Rosalinda Punzalan and for attempted homicide against the Ultimately properties belonging to Cecilia hit the auction block to
other respondents other than Rosalinda Punzalan is determinative satisfy judgment and a certificate of sale was issued in favor of
of whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion. Jocelyn Barque, the highest bidder in the auction sale.
First, in the charge of slight oral defamation, the records Cecilia Duca went on fighting. She filed an action for the Declaration
show that the defamatory remarks were uttered within the Office of of Nullity of Execution and Damages with prayer for Writ of
the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City. The CA in its Decision Injunction and Temporary Restraining order. When the said
stated the settled rule that the assessment of the credibility of case was heard, Cecilia Duca testified to the effect that the house
witnesses is best left to the trial court in view of its opportunity to erected on the lot subject of the ejectment case is owned by her
observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses on the stand. son Aldrin Duca. This is the core of the controversy: Cecilia
The City Prosecutor, the proper officer at the time of the occurrence (Mother) and Arturo (Son) Duca feloniously prepared a Declaration
of the incident, is the best person to observe the demeanor and of Real Property over a bungalow type residential house by making it
conduct of the parties and their witnesses and determine probable appear that the signature appearing on the sworn statement of
cause whether the alleged defamatory utterances were made within owner is that of her other son Aldrin F. Duca. This was false of
the hearing distance of third parties. The investigating prosecutor course, as the latter was abroad at that time having arrived in the
found that no sufficient evidence existed. The Secretary of Justice in Philippines only long after the dastardly deed.
his Resolution affirmed the decision of the City Prosecutor.
Accused Arturo F. Duca who affixed his own signature thereon and
As to the charge of attempted homicide against the herein by doing so caused damage to private complainant Pedro Calanayan.
petitioners other than Rosalinda Punzalan, the Secretary of Justice Because of the isrepresentation, Cecilia and Arturo were able to
resolved to dismiss the complaint because it was in the nature of a mislead the RTC such that they were able to get a TRO against
countercharge. The DOJ in a Resolution had already directed that Sheriff Hortaleza and the policemen ordering them to stop from
Dela Peña be likewise investigated for the charge of attempted evicting the plaintiffs from the property in question.
homicide in connection with the shooting incident that occurred on
August 13, 1997 making him a party to the case filed by Rainier Both accused denied that they falsified the signature of Aldrin Duca.
Punzalan. This resulted in the resolution of the Secretary of Justice Cecilia testified that she had no participation in the execution as she
that the complaint of Dela Peña should be threshed out in the was in Manila at that time. Arturo insisted there was no falsification.
proceedings relevant to the shooting incident that resulted in the The MTC found him guilty. RTC affirmed. Duca filed petition for
serious injury of Rainier Punzalan. review at the CA.
The CA ruled that Arturo was empowered by Aldrin to issue that tax
In the case at bar, therefore, the Secretary of Justice did not
declaration, hence no crime had been committed. Aggrieved, the
commit grave abuse of discretion contrary to the finding of the
CA. It is well-settled in the recent case of Samson, et al. v. SolGen declared that the CA should have given the Republic a
Guingona that the Court will not interfere in the conduct of chance to be heard before ruling such.
preliminary investigations or reinvestigations and leave to the
investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the ISSUE: w/n the CA gravely abused its discretion and acted without
exercise of determination of what constitutes sufficient discretion by resolving the appeal without giving the SOLGEN a
evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of chance to be heard.
information against an offender. Moreover, his findings are not
subject to review unless shown to have been made with HELD: CA abused its discretion.
grave abuse.
Petitioner argues that the prosecution was denied due process when
the CA resolved the respondent’s appeal without notifying the
13
People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, of the with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the
pendency of the same and without requiring the Solicitor General to payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the
deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and
file his comment. the contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for
Petitioner also asserts that once the case is elevated to the CA or the dismissal thereof. (emphasis supplied)
this Court, it is only the Solicitor General who is authorized to bring
or defend actions on behalf of the People. Thus, the CA gravely
Respondent Duca appealed to the CA from the decision of the RTC
abused its discretion when it acted on respondent’s appeal without
via a petition for review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
affording the prosecution the opportunity to be heard.
The respondent was mandated under Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules
Consequently, the decision of the CA acquitting respondent should
of Court to serve copies of his petition for review upon the adverse
be considered void for being violative of due process.
party, in this case, the People of the Philippines through the OSG.
The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases
before the CA and the Supreme Court is solely vested in the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG). Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of
Respondent Duca failed to serve a copy of his petition on the OSG
Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides, viz.:
and instead served a copy upon the Assistant City Prosecutor of

Dagupan City. The service of a copy of the petition on the People of
SEC. 35. Powers and Functions. – The Office the Philippines, through the Prosecutor would be inefficacious for
of the Solicitor General shall represent the the reason that the Solicitor General is the sole representative of
Government of the Philippines, its agencies and the People of the Philippines in appeals before the CA and the
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any Supreme Court.
litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring
the services of lawyers. x x x It shall have the following
Certiorari was thereby granted and the SC remanded the case to
specific powers and functions:
the CA
(1) Represent the Government in the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all
criminal proceedings; represent the Government and
its officers in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals,
and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and
special proceedings in which the Government or any
officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
(emphasis supplied)
The CA also failed to follow Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 42 of the 1997

Rules of Court:

Sec. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. – A
party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional
Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with
the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the
clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other
lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for
costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the
adverse party with a copy of the petition. The
petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed
or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon
proper motion and the payment of the full amount of
the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for
costs before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of
fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition
for review. No further extension shall be granted
except for the most compelling reason and in no case
to extend fifteen (15) days.

Sec. 3. Effect of failure to comply with
requirements. – The failure of the petitioner to comply
14
00-5-03-SC, effective 15 October 2004), the case was CERTIFIED to

the Supreme Court for review.
PART II
ISSUE:
A. COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
W/N the complaint for attempted rape was sufficient?
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT or INFORMATION
RULING: NO.
1. PEOPLE v DIMAANO
RATIO:
FACTS:
We affirm the trial court's conviction for the crimes of rape.
Maricar Dimaano charged her father, Edgardo Dimaano, with 2 However, we acquit Edgardo for the crime of attempted rape for
counts of rape and 1 count of attempted rape in the complaints failure to allege in the complaint the specific acts constitutive of
which read as follows: attempted rape.
Criminal Case No. 96-125 For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name
of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
That sometime in the year 1993 in the Municipality of the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the
Paranaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was
accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part
knowledge of the undersigned Maricar Maricar Dimaano y thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law
Victoria, who is his own daughter, a minor 10 years of age, made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged
against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO LAW. and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions
complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable
Criminal Case No. 96-150 a person of common understanding to know what offense is
intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment.
That on or about the 29th day of December 1995, in the
Municipality of Paranaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately
named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and
carnal knowledge of the undersigned Maricar Maricar circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
Dimaano y Victoria, who is his own daughter, a minor 12 determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the
years of age, against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a
LAW. crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of
the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare
his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no
Criminal Case No. 96-151 independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
That on or about the 1st day of January 1996, in the The above-cited complaint upon which Edgardo was arraigned does
Municipality of Paranaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and not allege specific acts or omission constituting the elements of the
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- crime of rape. Neither does it constitute sufficient allegation of
named accused, try and attempt to rape one Maricar elements for crimes other than rape, i.e., Acts of Lasciviousness. The
Dimaano y Victoria, thus commencing the commission of allegation therein that the Edgardo 'tr[ied] and attempt[ed] to
the crime of Rape, directly by overt acts, but nevertheless rape the complainant does not satisfy the test of sufficiency of a
did not perform all the acts of execution which would complaint or information, but is merely a conclusion of law by the
produce it, as a consequence by reason of cause other one who drafted the complaint. This insufficiency therefore prevents
than his spontaneous desistance that is due to the timely this Court from rendering a judgment of conviction; otherwise we
arrival of the complainant’s mother. CONTRARY TO LAW. would be violating the right of Edgardo to be informed of the nature
of the accusation against him.
The trial court found Edgardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of rape (2 counts) and the crime of attempted rape. The CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court with modifications as to the
award of damages. In accordance with Sec. 13, Rule 124 of the
Amended Rules to Govern Review of Death Penalty Cases (A.M. No.
15
2. SASOT v PEOPLE However, under Rule 112 Sec. 3 of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, a complaint is substantially sufficient if it
Facts: states the known address of the respondent, it is accompanied by
complainant’s affidavit and his witnesses and supporting
NBA Propeties Inc. is a foreign corporation which owns trademarks documents, and the affidavits are sworn to before any fiscal, state
and names of certain basketball teams registered with the Bureau of prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath,
Trademarks and Patents and Technology Transfer. On the basis of its or in their absence or unavailability, a notary public who must
complaint filed, the NBI conducted an investigation on possible certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is
unfair competition under RPC Art 189 against petitioner for the satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their
unauthorized use of the trademarks and names owned by NBA affidavits. All these have been duly satisfied in the complaint filed
Props. Inc. before Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez. It must be
noted that even the absence of an oath in the complaint does not
In its report, the NBI discovered that petitioner is engaged in the necessarily render it invalid. Want of oath is a mere defect of form,
manufacture , printing, sale and distribution of counterfeit “NBA” which does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on
garment products and recommended prosecution of petitioner for the merits.
unfair competition.
In this case, the basis of the information is Welt’s complaint affidavit
In the meantime, a Special Power of Attorney(SPA) was drawn by which though subscribed abroad before a foreign notary public, it
Welts, President of NBA Prop. Inc. which authorized the Ortega law bears the authentication of the Phil. Consul. Although what was
firm to file cases in their behalf in the Phils. Accompanying it is the initially presented was just presented was a photocopy, there was
complaint-affidavit made by Welts. The SPA and complaint-affidavit an offer to produce the original which was in the hands of another
were notarized abroad which were authenticated by the Philippine prosecutor. Moreover, there are other basis such as the report of
Consul. the NBI and the Ortega law firms letter asking NBI’s assistance and
the affidavit of a consulting service commissioned by the
On the basis of the complaint filed by Welts and the report of the
prosecution to conduct investigation.
NBI, an Information was filed against the accused with the following
accusatory portion: (Only if sir asks)
That on or about May 9, 1997 and on dates

With regard to other defects, Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules
prior thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within
of Criminal Procedure, which was then in force at the time the alleged
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above named criminal acts were committed, enumerates the grounds for quashing an
accused ALLANDALE SASOT and MELBAROSE SASOT of information, to wit:
Allandale Sportslines, Inc., did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously manufacture and sell various a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
garment products bearing the appearance of "NBA" b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
names, symbols and trademarks, inducing the public to offense charged or the person of the accused;
believe that the goods offered by them are those of "NBA" c) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to
to the damage and prejudice of the NBA Properties, Inc., do so;
the trademark owner of the "NBA". d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
e) That more than one offense is charged except in those cases in
which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various
Petitioner now filed a motion to Quash Information on the basis that offenses;
the facts charged does not constitute an offense and that the court f) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
has no jurisdiction of the offense charged and the person of the g) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a
legal excuse or justification; and
accused. This was denied by RTC and now under a petition for
h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy
certiorari. of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged.
ISSUE: Whether the complaint is sufficient and the denial of the Nowhere in the foregoing provision is there any mention of the
motion to quash information should be sustained. defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal and the complainant’s capacity
to sue as grounds for a motion to quash.
HELD: Yes. Petitioner harps on the insufficiency of the charge based
on the following circumstances: formal defects such that 3. LASOY v ZENAROSA
complainant has not personally sworn before the investigating
prosecutor; complainant’s lack capacity to sue such that there was FACTS: In an Information filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Evelyn
no board resolution authorizing Welts(president) to institute the Dimaculangan-Querijero ,accused Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa
action; and other exculpatory defenses against the crime. were charged of selling prohibited drugs (42.410 GRAMS of dried
marijuana fruiting tops). The case was presided by Judge Jaime
Salazar. Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded guilty and were
16
sentenced on July 16, 1996 to suffer a jail term of 6 months and 1 the law, that is, to apprise the accused of the nature of the charge
day. Both accused applied for probation. against them, is reasonably complied with. Applying Rule 110Section
6, shows on its face that it is valid.
On August 28 1996, Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Aurora Escasa-
Ramos filed two separate motions, first, to admit amended Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or
Information and second, to set aside the arraignment of the information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the
accused, as well as the decision of the trial court. The prosecutor designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions
alleges that the accused should rather be charged for transportation complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended
and delivery, with intent to sell, 45 pieces of dried marijuana fruiting party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and
tops (42.410 KILOS) and that it is imperative to file an amended the place wherein the offense was committed.
information in order to make it conformable to the evidence on
Further, we cannot overlook the fact that accused were arraigned,
hand.
entered a plea of guilty and convicted under the first information.
The trial court denied the first motion. However, it granted the Granting that alleged alteration/tampering of information took place
second motion for rearraignment it appearing from the published and the accused had a hand in it, this does not justify the setting
resolution in Inaki Gulhoran and Galo Stephen Bobares vs. Hon. aside of the early decision. The alleged tampering/alteration
Francisco Escano, Jr. it is said that the jurisdiction over drug of small allegedly participated in by the accused may well be the subject of
quantity as in the case at bar should be tried by the Metropolitan another inquiry.
Trial Court, although under the statute of R.A. 7659, the penalty for
(2) On the issue of jurisdiction, the case of Gulhoran and Bobares v.
possession or use of prohibited or regulated drugs is from prision
Escano, Jr., upon which both trial courts justified their claim of
[correccional] to reclusion temporal which indeterminate penalty
jurisdiction was already superseded by a later resolution where the
and under the rule on jurisdiction the court which has jurisdiction
RTC is exclusively designated try and decide cases of Kidnapping For
over a criminal case is dependent on the maximum penalty attached
Ransom, Robbery In Band, Robbery Committed Against A Banking Or
by the statute to the crime. This second information was assigned to
Financial Institution, Violation Of The Dangerous Drugs Act, and
Judge Monina Zenarosa.
Violation Of The Anti-Carnapping Act, and other heinous crimes
Both accused filed a Motion to Quash before the trial court which penalized under Rep. Act No. 7659 committed within their
was denied and subsequently, a petition for certiorari before the CA respective territorial jurisdictions. This issue is further settled
which was also denied. Hence this Petition for Certiorari with prayer inPeople v. Velasco where it is stated that “[A]ll drug-related cases,
for injunction and TRO. regardless of the quantity involved and the penalty imposable
pursuant to R.A. No. 7659, still fall within the exclusive original
ISSUES brought before the Supreme Court: jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts, in view of Section 39 of R.A. No.
(1) W/N there was valid information filed and therefore double 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). “
jeopardy sets in? YES (3) The belated move on the part of the prosecution to have the
(2) W/N the original court already obtained jurisdiction over the information amended defies procedural rules, the decision having
case? YES attained finality after the accused applied for probation and the fact
that amendment is no longer allowed at that stage. Rule 110 of the
ISSUE further addressed by the ponente: Rules on Criminal Procedure is emphatic:
(3) W/N after conviction and application for probation, information Sec. 14. Amendment. – The information or complaint may be
may still be amended and the accused arraigned anew on the amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time
ground that the information was allegedly altered/tampered with? before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to
NO. all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when
RATIO: the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.
(1) To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
requisites must be present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the
the court has jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has pleaded original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
to the charge; and (4) he has been convicted or acquitted or the case charging the proper offense in accordance with Rule 119, Section 11,
against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double
consent. jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial.
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory
designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive Even appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence will
thereof. If the offense is stated in such a way that a person of not lie. The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is
ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
court can decide the matter according to law, the inevitable to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was
conclusion is that the information is valid. It is not necessary to denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a
follow the language of the statute in the information. The sham.
information will be sufficient if it describes the crime defined by law. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accused Marcelo
The first information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently alleges the Lasoy and Felix Banisa are forthwith ordered released from
manner by which the crime was committed. Verily the purpose of detention.
17
SUBSTITUTION OF INFORMATION Moreover, no new allegations were made, nor was the criminal
liability of the accused upgraded in the re-filed information. Thus,
new preliminary investigation is not in order.
1. SALUDAGA v SANDIGANBAYAN
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of

The undersigned Prosecutor of the Office of the Special
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it refused
Prosecutor/Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses, MAYOR
to order the preliminary investigation of the case a quo, when the
QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA and SPO2 FIEL E. GENIO, for the violation of
second Information in the instant case constituted substituted
Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
Information whose submission required the conduct of preliminary
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, committed as follows:
investigation. - NO
That in or about the months of November and December, 1997 at

RULING:
the Municipality of Lavezares, Province of Northern Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA, a high ranking public official being There is no substitution of information there being no change in the
then the Mayor of Lavezares, Northern Samar, and committing the nature of the offense charged.
crime herein charged while in the discharge of his official
administrative function, conspiring and conniving with accused SPO2 While it is true that preliminary investigation is a statutory and
FIEL B. GENIO, a member of Lavezares Police Force (PNP) and with substantive right accorded to the accused before trial, the denial of
the late OLIMPIO LEGUA, a private individual, with deliberate intent, petitioners’ claim for a new investigation, however, did not deprive
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give them of their right to due process. An examination of the records of
unwarranted benefit or advantage to the late Olimpio Legua, a non- the case discloses that there was a full-blown preliminary
license contractor and non-accredited NGO, through evident bad investigation wherein both petitioners actively participated.
faith and manifest partiality by then and there entering into a
Pakyaw Contract with the latter for the Construction of Barangay Petitioners erroneously concluded that giving undue injury, as
Day Care Centers for barangays Mac-Arthur and Urdaneta, alleged in the first Information, and conferring unwarranted
Lavezares, Northern Samar, in the amount of FORTY EIGHT benefits, alleged in the second Information, are two distinct
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P48,500.00) each or a total of violations of, or two distinct ways of violating Section 3(e) of
NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P97,000.00) Philippine Currency, Republic Act No. 3019, and that such shift from giving undue injury
without the benefit of a competitive public bidding to the prejudice to conferring unwarranted benefit constituted, at the very least, a
of the Government and public interest. substantial amendment. It should be noted that the Information is
founded on the same transaction as the first Information, that of
Petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation dated June 4, entering into a Pakyaw Contract for the construction of barangay
2008 which was strongly opposed by the prosecution in its day care centers for barangays Mac-Arthur and Urdaneta, Lavezares,
Opposition dated June 18, 2008. Northern Samar. Thus, the evidentiary requirements for the
prosecution and defense remain the same.
Petitioners contend that the failure of the prosecution to conduct a
new preliminary investigation before the filing of the second A new preliminary investigation is also required if aside from the
Information constituted a violation of the law because the latter original accused, other persons are charged under a new criminal
charged a different offense–that is, violation of Section 3(e) by giving complaint for the same offense or necessarily included therein; or if
unwarranted benefit to private parties. Hence, there was a under a new criminal complaint, the original charge has been
substitution of the first Information. They argue that assuming that upgraded; or if under a new criminal complaint, the criminal liability
no substitution took place, at the very least, there was a substantial of the accused is upgraded from that as an accessory to that as a
amendment in the new information and that its submission should principal. The accused must be accorded the right to submit
have been preceded by a new preliminary investigation. Further, counter-affidavits and evidence.
they claim that newly discovered evidence mandates re-examination
of the finding of a prima facie cause to file the case. No such circumstance is obtaining in this case, because there was no
modification in the nature of the charged
The graft court found that there is no substituted information or offense.1avvphi1 Consequently, a new preliminary investigation is
substantial amendment that would warrant the conduct of a new unnecessary and cannot be demanded by the petitioners.
preliminary investigation. It gave the following ratiocination:
AMENDED INFORMATION
The re-filed information did not change the nature of the offense
charged, but merely modified the mode by which accused
1. BONIFACIO v RTC
committed the offense. The substance of such modification is not
such as to necessitate the conduct of another preliminary
investigation. FACTS:
18
Planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI) - a wholly owned subsidiary of caused to be composed, posted and published in the
Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, also owned by the said website www.pepcoalition.com, a website
Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC) - who had previously accessible in Makati City, an injurious and defamatory
article, which was first published and accessed by the
purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable
private complainant in Makati City, as follows:
to collect thereon or avail of the benefits thereunder after PPI, due
to liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer x x x x (emphasis and underscoring in
for suspension of payments before the Makati RTC, formed PEPCI. the original; italics supplied)

PEPCI manages and controls the following websites that
served as a forum to seek redress for their pecuniary loss under their ISSUE: whether grave abuse of discretion attended the public
policies; www.pepcoalition.com, www.pacificnoplan.blogspot.com, respondent’s admission of the Amended Information.
as well as a yahoo e-group [7] at no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com.
These websites are easily accessible to the public or by anyone RULING: YES
logged on to the internet and were alleged to contain libellous
statements against the Yuchengcos. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where
the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the
action but constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. [33] This
Gimenez, on behalf of the Yuchengco Family and of the Malayan principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given that
Insurance Co., Inc. (Malayan), a criminal complaint before the Article 360, as amended, specifically provides for the possible
Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, for thirteen (13) counts venues for the institution of the criminal and civil aspects of such
of libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised cases.
Penal Code (RPC) against petitioners.
Venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is
The Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, found probable cause and limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the
caused the issuance of the information which was eventually complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the
reversed on appeal by the Secretary of Justice. The Justice Secretary offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and
opined that the crime of “internet libel” was non-existent, hence, first published.2 The Amended Information in the present case
the accused could not be charged with libel under Article 353 of the opted to lay the venue by availing of the second. Thus, it stated that
RPC. the offending article “was first published and accessed by the private
complainant in Makati City.” In other words, it considered the
Hence, Petitioners, filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the phrase to be equivalent to the requisite allegation of printing and
grounds that it failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the acts first publication.
complained of in the Information are not punishable by law since
internet libel is not covered by Article 353 of the RPC; and the If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first
Information is fatally defective for failure to designate the offense published are used by the offended party as basis for the venue in
charged and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the the criminal action, the Information must allege with
offense of libel. Motion granted. particularity where the defamatory article was printed
and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the
Motion for reconsideration granted and accordingly ordered the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of
public prosecutor to “amend the Information to cure the defect of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition
want of venue. The prosecution thereupon moved to admit the becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.
Amended Information dated March 20, 2007, the accusatory portion
of which reads: The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains
to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as
That on or about the 25 th day of August there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and
2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the 2
Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that a criminal
above-named accused, being then the trustees of
action for libel may be instituted in any jurisdiction where the
Parents Enabling Parents Coalition and as such libelous article was published or circulated, irrespective of
trustees they hold the legal title to the where it was written or printed (People v. Borja, 43 Phil. 618).
websitewww.pepcoalition.com which is of general Under that rule, the criminal action is transitory and the injured
circulation, and publication to the public conspiring, party has a choice of venue.
confederating together with John Does, whose true
names, identities and present whereabouts are still Experience had shown that under that old rule the
offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by
unknown and all of them mutually helping and
laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant
aiding one another, did then and there willfully, place.
unlawfully and feloniously and publicly and maliciously
with intention of attacking the honesty, virtue, honor To forestall such harassment, Republic Act No. 4363 was
and integrity, character and reputation of complainant enacted. It lays down specific rules as to the venue of the
Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., Yuchengco Family criminal action so as to prevent the offended party in written
particularly Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen defamation cases from inconveniencing the accused by means
of out-of-town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in remote
Dee and for further purpose exposing the complainant
municipal courts
to public hatred and contempt published an article
imputing a vice or defect to the complainant and
19
first publication. To credit Gimenez’s premise of equating his Petitioner’s arraignment nevertheless followed. He filed a motion to
firstaccess to the defamatory article on petitioners’ website set aside his arraignment pending resolution of his 2nd MR.
in Makati with “printing and first publication” would spawn the very
ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to ISSUE: Whether or not the motion to set aside arraignment should
discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see be granted due to the pending MR?
the chaos that would ensue in situations where the website’s author
or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be RULING: No. The motion should not be granted even though the
sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private resolution of the MR was still pending.
complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website.
The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as
amended by Administrative Order No. 15, Series of 2001 , sanction
FILING OF INFORMATION IF THERE IS PENDING MOTION the immediate filing of an information in the proper court upon a
FOR RECONSIDERATION finding of probable cause, even during the pendency of a motion for
reconsideration. Section 7, Rule II of the Rules, as amended,
1. RAMISCAL v SANDIGANBAYAN provides:
Section 7. Motion for

FACTS:
Reconsideration. –
Petitioner Jose S. Ramiscal, retired Brigadier General of the Armed a) Only one motion for
Forces of the Philippines (AFP), was President of the AFP-Retirement reconsideration or reinvestigation of an
and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) for almost 4 years. approved order or resolution shall be
During his term as president, AFP-RSBS’ board of trustees approved allowed, the same to be filed within five (5)
the acquisition of a parcel of land in General Santos City for days from notice thereof with the Office of
development as housing projects. the Ombudsman, or the proper Deputy
Ombudsman as the case may be, with
Thus, AFP-RSBS, represented by petitioner, executed bilateral deeds corresponding leave of court in cases where
of sale over the subject property (at the agreed price of P10,500.00 the information has already been filed in
per square meter) with Atty. Nilo J. Flaviano, representing the 12 court;
individual sellers.
b) The filing of a motion for
Subsequently, Flaviano executed unilateral deeds of sale over the reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not
same property. The unilateral deeds of sale reflected a purchase bar the filing of the corresponding
price of only P3,000.00 per square meter instead of the actual information in Court on the basis of the
purchase price of P10,500.00 per square meter. These deeds of sale finding of probable cause in the resolution
were presented for registration and later on became the basis for subject of the motion. (Emphasis supplied)
the TCTs issued by the Register of Deeds.
Luwalhati R. Antonino, the Congresswoman representing the first If the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the resolution
district of South Cotabato, filed in the Ombudsman a complaint- finding probable cause cannot bar the filing of the corresponding
affidavit against petitioner, along with 27 other respondents, for (1) information, then neither can it bar the arraignment of the
violation of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti- accused, which in the normal course of criminal procedure logically
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and (2) malversation of public funds follows the filing of the information.
or property through falsification of public documents.
Moreover, any of grounds for suspension of arraignment as
In a Resolution, the Ombudsman found petitioner probable guilty of provided for under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court is not
the 2 offenses. Thereafter, the Ombudsman filed with the present in this case (i.e. accused of unsound mind, prejudicial
Sandiganbayan 12 informations for violation of RA 3019 and 12 question, etc.)
informations for falsification of public documents against Petitioner
Ramiscal and the other respondents. Lastly, the Court also said that Petitioner cannot anymore file a 2 nd
MR questioning again the same finding of the
Petitioner Ramiscal then filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation.
Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against him. The
Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to evaluate its evidence and
report its recommendations on the MR filed. Initially, the PRESCRIPTION
prosecution recommended the dropping of petitioner in the cases
filed. However, the prosecution’s final recommendation was that 1. PANAGUITON v DOJ(lifted from net)
the MR filed by Petitioner should be denied. Upon receipt of this
finding/recommendation, the Sandiganbayan scheduled the
Facts:
arraignment of Petitioner.
Afterwards, Petitioner filed his 2 nd MR of the Ombudsman’s finding Based from the facts culled from the records, in 1992, Rodrigo Cawili
of probable cause against him. borrowed various sums of money amounting to P1,979,459.00 from
20
petitioner. On 8 January 1993, Cawili and his business associate, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the DOJ resolution.
Ramon C. Tongson, jointly issued in favor of petitioner three (3)
checks in payment of the said loans. Significantly, all three (3) checks On 3 April 2003, the DOJ, this time through then Undersecretary Ma.
bore the signatures of both Cawili and Tongson. Upon presentment Merceditas N. Gutierrez, ruled in his favor and declared that the
for payment on 18 March 1993, the checks were dishonored, either offense had not prescribed and that the filing of the complaint with
for insufficiency of funds or by the closure of the account. Petitioner the prosecutor's office interrupted the running of the prescriptive
made formal demands to pay the amounts of the checks upon Cawili period citing Ingco v. Sandiganbayan.
on 23 May 1995 and upon Tongson on 26 June 1995, but to no avail.
However, in a resolution dated 9 August 2004, the DOJ, presumably
On 24 August 1995, petitioner filed a complaint against Cawili and acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Tongson, ruled that
Tongson for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) before the subject offense had already prescribed and ordered "the
the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. During the preliminary withdrawal of the three (3) informations for violation of B.P. Blg. 22"
investigation, only Tongson appeared and filed his counter-affidavit. against Tongson. In justifying its sudden turnabout, the DOJ
However, Tongson claimed that he had been unjustly included as explained that Act No. 3326 applies to violations of special acts that
party-respondent in the case since petitioner had lent money to do not provide for a prescriptive period for the offenses thereunder.
Cawili in the latter's personal capacity. Tongson averred that he was Since B.P. Blg. 22, as a special act, does not provide for the
not Cawili's business associate; in fact, he himself had filed several prescription of the offense it defines and punishes, Act No. 3326
criminal cases against Cawili for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Tongson applies to it, and not Art. 90 of the Revised Penal Code which
denied that he had issued the bounced checks and pointed out that governs the prescription of offenses penalized thereunder.
his signatures on the said checks had been falsified.
Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
To counter these allegations, petitioner presented several Appeals assailing the 9 August 2004 resolution of the DOJ. The
documents showing Tongson's signatures, which were purportedly petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals in view of
the same as those appearing on the checks. He also showed a copy petitioner's failure to attach a proper verification and certification of
of an affidavit of adverse claim wherein Tongson himself had non-forum shopping. In the instant petition, petitioner claims that
claimed to be Cawili's business associate. the Court of Appeals committed grave error in dismissing his petition
on technical grounds and in ruling that the petition before it was
In a resolution dated 6 December 1995, City Prosecutor III Eliodoro patently without merit and the questions are too unsubstantial to
V. Lara found probable cause only against Cawili and dismissed the require consideration.
charges against Tongson. Petitioner filed a partial appeal before the
Department of Justice (DOJ) even while the case against Cawili was
filed before the proper court. In a letter-resolution dated 11 July The DOJ, in its comment, states that the Court of Appeals did not err
1997, after finding that it was possible for Tongson to co-sign the in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with the Rules of
bounced checks and that he had deliberately altered his signature in Court. It also reiterates that the filing of a complaint with the Office
the pleadings submitted during the preliminary investigation, Chief of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City does not interrupt the running
State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño directed the City Prosecutor of of the prescriptive period for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. It argues that
Quezon City to conduct a reinvestigation of the case against Tongson under B.P. Blg. 22, a special law which does not provide for its own
and to refer the questioned signatures to the National Bureau of prescriptive period, offenses prescribe in four (4) years in
Investigation (NBI). accordance with Act No. 3326.
Tongson moved for the reconsideration of the resolution, but his Issue: Whether there is prescriptive period upon violating B.P. Blg.
motion was denied for lack of merit. 22 per Act No. 3326 and not Art. 90 of the RPC, on the institution of
judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment?
On 15 March 1999, Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Lelibet S. Sampaga
(ACP Sampaga) dismissed the complaint against Tongson without Held: It must be pointed out that when Act No. 3326 was passed on
referring the matter to the NBI per the Chief State Prosecutor's 4 December 1926, preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was
resolution. In her resolution, ACP Sampaga held that the case had conducted by justices of the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law,
already prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326, as amended, which "institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
provides that violations penalized by B.P. Blg. 22 shall prescribe after punishment," and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a
four (4) years. complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for preliminary
Petitioner appealed to the DOJ. But the DOJ, through investigation, the prescription of the offense is halted.
Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee, dismissed the same, stating
that the offense had already prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326. Although, Tongson went through the proper channels, within the
21
prescribed periods. However, from the time petitioner filed his

complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor (24 August ISSUE:
1995) up to the time the DOJ issued the assailed resolution, an W/N Ayco should be held administratively liable?
aggregate period of nine (9) years had elapsed. Clearly, the delay
was beyond petitioner's control. After all, he had already initiated HELD:
the active prosecution of the case as early as 24 August 1995, only to YES. Ayco should be held administratively liable.
suffer setbacks because of the DOJ's flip-flopping resolutions and its
misapplication of Act No. 3326. As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the
control and direction of the public prosecutor.
Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep on their rights
and actively pursue their causes, should not be allowed to suffer If the schedule of the public prosecutor does not permit, however,
unnecessarily further simply because of circumstances beyond their or in case there are no public prosecutors, a private prosecutor may
control, like the accused's delaying tactics or the delay and be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the
inefficiency of the investigating agencies. Regional State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case, subject to
the approval of the court. Once so authorized, the private
The court rules and so hold that the offense has not yet prescribed. prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case until the
Petitioner’s filing of his complaint-affidavit before the Office of the termination of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor,
City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995 signified the commencement of unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and thus
effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they Ayco’s act of allowing the presentation of the defense witnesses in
had been charged under B.P. Blg. 22. Moreover, since there is a the absence of complainant public prosecutor or a private
definite finding of probable cause, with the debunking of the claim prosecutor designated for the purpose is thus a clear transgression
of prescription there is no longer any impediment to the filing of the of the Rules which could not be rectified by subsequently giving the
information against petitioner. prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of the Court

of Appeals dated 29 October 2004 and 21 March 2005 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The resolution of the Department of Justice dated 9
August 2004 is also ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Department of
Justice is ORDERED to REFILE the information against the petitioner.
No costs.
CONTROL AND DIRECTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION
1. PINOTE v AYCO
FACTS:
State Prosecutor Pinote filed an administrative case against RTC
Judge Ayco for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority,
and grave misconduct. In a criminal case being handled by Pinote,
Judge Ayco allowed the testimony of 2 witnesses in court, despite
the absence of Pinote. Pinote, at that time, was undergoing medical
treatment in the Philippine Heart Center.
In the following hearings, despite orders of Ayco, Pinote refused to

cross examine the witnesses due to his being absent during their
direct examinations, contending that the proceedings were void.
Pinote filed a Manifestation stating such, but Judge Ayco ruled that
the prosecution was waiving its right to cross-examine the 2
witnesses instead.
The Court Administrator found in favor of Pinote, stating that Ayco

violated Rule 110, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
22

Rem Digest Crimpro Part1andrule110

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Rem Digest Crimpro Part1andrule110

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III

Clearly, under Section 50, DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine

Hence, petitioners Lazatin et al. filed a petition for Facts:

The rule is based not only upon respect for the

In the case of Office of Ombudsman v. Hon. Breva, court held that

2. W/N the clarificatory Resolution in the Uy vs. Sandiganbayan case

RULING: YES to BOTH. FACTS

Petitioner failed to establish that her MR was indeed filed 3.

The CA also failed to follow Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 42 of the 1997

00-5-03-SC, effective 15 October 2004), the case was CERTIFIED to

That on or about May 9, 1997 and on dates

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of

That in or about the months of November and December, 1997 at

Section 7. Motion for

prescribed periods. However, from the time petitioner filed his

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of the Court

CONTROL AND DIRECTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION

In the following hearings, despite orders of Ayco, Pinote refused to

The Court Administrator found in favor of Pinote, stating that Ayco

You might also like