Criminal Procedure a2010 page 1 Prof.

Rowena Daroy Morales

ABBARIAO v BELTRAN Ratio A court can only take cognizance of a case warrant of arrest. The spouses then filed a motion to
that falls within its jurisdiction. quash and sought the nullification of “subsequent
468 SCRA 421
Reasoning orders”. They alleged that the MTCC had no
PANGANIBAN; August 31, 2005 - April 15, 1994 is the date of effectivity of RA 7691. jurisdiction and authority to conduct a
RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first-level preliminary investigation of a complaint filed
NATURE courts by providing that first-level courts shall have by an offended party directly with the court.
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court jurisdiction over criminal cases in which the offense The authority to conduct a preliminary
is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 investigation was vested solely on the Office of
FACTS years, regardless of the amount of the fine. the City Prosecutor.
- This stemmed from an administrative case filed by - January 30, 1995 was the date the information was - While waiting for the resolution of their motion to
Abbariao against Judge Beltran. Beltran was charged filed. The case had to do with the violation of BP 22 quash, the spouses did not post bail. On April 10,
with gross ignorance of the law and knowingly which is penalized by an imprisonment of not less 2002 Corazon Ribaya was apprehended by arresting
rendering unjust judgment. than 30 days but not more than one year. Thus when officers in the public market by virtue of a warrant of
- Abarriao was the former branch manager of Country the information was filed, RA 7691 was already in arrest issued by respondent judge.
Banker’s Assurance Corporation. In October 1992, effect. - The complainant filed this administrative case
Joseph Abraham procured 2 insurance policies from - During the tenure of the former presiding judge, the against Judge Parcia. The motions basically
him and issued a post-dated check to serve as issue of jurisdiction over the case was already questioned respondent’s authority to conduct a
pasyment. But the cheque was subsequently pending resolution. He also displayed indecisiveness preliminary investigation.
dishonored. by relying on the public prosecutor’s assurance that - In her answer, respondent judge claimed that
- Informations were filed before before Judge Beltran his court had acquired jurisdiction. complainant was not a party in Criminal Case No.
for estafa and violation of BP 22. - Aside from this instance, there were two other 8617. Respondent explained that she
Petitioners’ Claim occasions when Beltran was charged and found conducted the preliminary investigation of the
- Petitioner claims that Beltran’s ruling that there was guilty of gross ignorance of the law (in De Austria v. criminal complaint against the spouses
no valid insurance contract with Abraham was Beltran and Andres v. Beltran). because the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the
erroneous and that he had no jurisdiction over the DISPOSITION Judge Beltran was found guilty of Office of the City Prosecutor was too busy to
case in the first place. gross ignorance of the law for which he is fined do so.
Respondents’ Comments P20,000 as recommended by the OCA and is warned - To support her claim, respondent attached the
- Beltran claims that there was no valid insurance that a repetition of the same act would merit a affidavit of OIC City Prosecutor Vasquez of the then
contract between Abbariao and Abraham because graver penalty. newly-created Ligao City. Vasquez stated that the
the insurance policy form of Abraham was City Prosecutor’s Office was still undergoing
disapproved.
RIBAYA v JUDGE BINAMIRA-PARCIA reorganization when the subject criminal complaint
- He also claims he has jurisdiction over the case was filed. It had neither enough manpower nor office
because the accused was arraigned in his court and AM No. MTJ-04-1547
space in the Hall of Justice. Positions had not yet
the prosecutor failed to withdraw the case. CORNEJO; April 15, 2005 been filled. His workload as Asst Provincial
Prosecutor and OIC City Prosecutor was so heavy that
ISSUE NATURE time constraints did not permit him to conduct
1. WON the judge is guilty of rendering unjust Administrative case against Judge Aurora Binamira- preliminary investigations. Thus, it was the
judgment Parcia of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), respondent judge who conducted the preliminary
2. WON Beltran’s ruling showed gross ignorance of Ligao City, Albay relative to Criminal Case No. 8617 investigation.
the law in terms of assuming jurisdiction over the (People v. Sps. Ribaya) - the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found
case that respondent erred when she conducted the
FACTS preliminary investigation of the subject criminal
HELD - Asst Provincial Prosecutor Pedro Vega, in his complaint even after the Municipality of Ligao, Albay
1. NO, the judge must be absolved from this charge. personal capacity, filed before the MTCC, Ligao City a had been converted into a city. The OCA
Ratio The acts of judges pertaining to their judicial criminal complaint for estafa against the Spes Ribaya recommended that: (1) the complaint be re-docketed
functions are not subject to disciplinary power, on November 29, 2001. The spouses, after receiving as a regular administrative matter; and (2) the
unless such acts are commited with fraud, P12,000 from Vega, allegedly misappropriated the respondent be reprimanded, directed to concentrate
dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. In the absence of amount to the latter’s prejudice. The preliminary her time and effort on performing her judicial tasks
proof to the contrary, an erroneous decision or order investigation was then conducted by respondent and warned that a repetition of the same or similar
is presumed to have been issued in good faith. judge. offense would be dealt with more severely.
2. YES. Beltran had no authority to rule over the - Complainant, the daughter of the accused spouses, - A motion for reconsideration was filed by
case. observed several irregularities in the conduct of the respondent on October 1, 2003. This time,
preliminary investigation and the issuance of the respondent claimed that what she conducted
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 2 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

on November 29, 2001 was a preliminary instituted by filing the complaint only with the judge rendering it must at all times maintain the
examination to determine probable cause for City Prosecutor. The rule implies that the task of appearance of fairness and impartiality.
the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the conducting preliminary investigation in these cities is - Considering all this, respondent judge committed
spouses. Respondent also claimed that the now lodged with the Office of the City Prosecutor. simple misconduct in office. Misconduct in office has
criminal complaint was governed by Sec. 9, Consequently, inferior court judges of cities a well-defined meaning. It refers to misconduct that
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal whose charters authorize only the fiscal to affects the judge’s performance of her duties and not
Procedure, the rule governing cases that did conduct preliminary investigation are no just her character as a private individual. To
not require preliminary investigation. Since the longer allowed to perform this function. constitute an administrative offense, misconduct
amount involved in the estafa case was P12,000, no - The Municipality of Ligao was converted into a should relate to or be connected with the
preliminary investigation was required. city by RA 9008 which took effect on Feb 21, 2001. performance of the official functions and duties of a
This law, also known as the charter of the City of public officer.
ISSUES Ligao, provides in Sec. 50 that: 3. YES
1. WON respondent judge had the authority to (a) There shall be established in the city a - Respondent correctly observed that it was not
conduct preliminary investigation prosecution service to be headed by a city needed in the estafa case. The maximum penalty for
2. WON respondent judge is guilty of misconduct in prosecutor and such number of assistant prosecutors the crime allegedly committed there (6 months and 1
office as may be necessary, who shall be organizationally day to 4 years and 2 months) did not meet the
3. WON preliminary investigation was not required part of the DOJ… minimum penalty (at least 4 years, 2 months and 1
for the estafa case (b) The City Prosecutor shall handle the criminal day) required to make a preliminary investigation
4. WON warrant of arrest was valid prosecution in the MTC in the city as well as in the part of the spouses’ right to due process.
RTC for criminal cases originating in the territory of 4. YES
HELD the city, and shall render to or for the city such - As long as the constitutional mandate was complied
1. NO services as are required by law, ordinance or with, that is, the warrant of arrest was issued upon a
- Although judges of inferior courts are authorized to regulation of the DOJ… finding of probable cause personally by the judge
conduct preliminary investigation of all crimes within - Clearly, respondent judge had no more authority to after an examination under oath or affirmation of the
their jurisdiction, the task is essentially an executive conduct a preliminary investigation of the subject complainant and the witnesses he may produce, the
function. As far back as Collector of Customs v. criminal complaint. The officer authorized to conduct warrant of arrest was valid.
Villaluz, we already held that: preliminary investigations in the then newly-created - Respondent judge examined the complainant Pedro
[w]hile we sustain the power of the x x x courts to City of Ligao was its City Prosecutor. At that time, Vega on the day the complaint was filed and she was
conduct preliminary examination, pursuant to Our the duty devolved upon OIC City Prosecutor Vasquez, satisfied that probable cause existed. The warrant of
Constitutional power of administrative supervision despite the administrative difficulties he was arrest she issued against the spouses Ribaya was,
over all courts, as a matter of policy, we enjoin encountering. therefore, justified and no violation of their
x x x judge[s] x x x to concentrate on hearing 2. YES constitutional rights occurred. DISPOSITION
and deciding before their courts. x x x - We noticed the contradiction between her answer Respondent Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia is hereby
[Judges] should not encumber themselves and her motion for reconsideration as to what she found guilty of simple misconduct and a fine of
with the preliminary examination and actually conducted on November 29, 2001. In her P11,000 is imposed on her. She is hereby directed to
investigation of criminal complaints, which answer, she justified her authority to conduct a devote her time and effort exclusively to discharging
they should refer to the municipal judge or preliminary investigation. In her motion for her judicial functions. She is furthermore warned
provincial or city fiscal, who in turn can reconsideration of the OCA’s resolution, however, she that a repetition of the same or similar act will merit
utilize the assistance of the state prosecutor declared that she conducted a preliminary a more severe penalty.
to conduct such preliminary examination and examination to justify the issuance of a warrant of
investigation. arrest TUMANG v BAUTISTA
- City judges then were clearly authorized to conduct -There appear just too many intriguing uncertainties
136 SCRA 682
preliminary investigation and examination. But even surrounding the filing of the estafa case. We
then, we also held that the provisions of Rule therefore direct our attention to respondent judge’s ABAD-SANTOS; May 31 1985
112 granting city judges the authority to failure to erase our doubts over how she administers
conduct preliminary investigation did not apply justice in her jurisdiction. NATURE
to judges of cities the charters of which - Respondent judge must be reminded that she Petition to review and annul orders of RTC Laguna
authorized the city fiscal only to conduct should do honor to her position not only by rendering
preliminary investigation of criminal just, correct and impartial decisions but doing so in a FACTS
complaints. manner free from any suspicion as to their fairness - Emilio Javier filed a sakdal against Enrique Tumang
- This ruling was, in fact, integrated into the Revised and impartiality, and as to her integrity. A spotless and his daughter Georgia Tumang.
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under Sec. 1, Rule dispensation of justice requires not only that the - The sakdal was written in Tagalog and was
110, criminal actions in chartered cities are decision rendered be intrinsically fair but that the unaccompanied by an English translation.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 3 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The Tumangs prayed that Javier be ordered to file a 383 SCRA 449 orders should be set aside and that the Feb. 1
copy of the complaint as translated in English, and a Decision should be reinstated.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; June 26, 2002
copy of the criminal complaint and Decision of
acquittal in the unjust vexation case mentioned in ISSUES
NATURE
Javier’s complaint. 1. WON the trial court, upon motion by a private
Review on certiorari on a decision of RTC of
- TC ruled on Oct. 21 1982 that the complaint written complainant, can set aside a previous judgment of
Catarman, Northern Samar
in Pilipino, which is an official language, is proper and conviction and remand the records of a case to the
is admitted. TC also ruled that it is not absolutely Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for re-evaluation of
FACTS
necessary that copies of the complaint and criminal the evidence and the filing of the corresponding
- Dec.12,1999: Potot was charged with homicide
case be attached as annexes. Javier should have, charge
before the RTC for assaulting and stabbing a certain
however, at least stated the docket number as well 2. WON the manifestation by the accused that he is
Rodolfo Dapulag with a knife, thereby causing his
as name of the court and branch number. not appealing from the trial court’s Decision render
death.
- The Tumangs failed to answer the sakdal and were the judgment final
- Feb.1, 2000: Upon arraignment, Potot pleaded
declared in default. They sought to reconsider, not 3. WON the trial court err in granting private
guilty and invoked the mitigating circumstances of
only the order of default but also the order admitting complainant’s motion for reconsideration/retrial
plea of guilty and voluntary surrender. He was later
the complaint in Pilipino. 4. WON the assailed orders violate petitioner’s
convicted of homicide w/ the above stated mitigating
- TC set aside its order of default that refused to constitutional right against double jeopardy
circumstances.
reconsider its order of October 21, 1982.
- Feb.3, 2000: Potot filed a manifestation with motion
- The Tumangs filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that HELD
informing the TC that he is not appealing from the
the complaint did not state a cause of action and that 1. NO
Decision and praying that a commitment order be
the venue was improperly laid. TC denied the motion Ratio Only the accused may ask for a modification or
issued so he could immediately serve his sentence.
on both grounds. setting aside of a judgment of conviction which he
- Feb.11, 2000: Private complainant Rosalie Dapulag
must do before the said judgment becomes final or
(wife of the victim), with the conformity of the public
ISSUE before he perfects his appeal.
prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration/retrial
WON the sakdal should have been in English and not Reasoning
praying that the decision be set aside and that the
Tagalog - Sec. 7 Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
case be heard again because of certain irregularities
Procedure, as amended, provides:
committed before and during the trial. She alleged
HELD Sec. 7. Modification of judgment - A judgment of
that there were 2 other men involved in the
YES conviction may, upon motion of the accused , be
commission of the crime and that the eyewitness
- In the ponente’s lecture, “Writing Decisions”, he modified or set aside before it becomes final or
deliberately withheld the information upon
said in part: before appeal is perfected. Except where the
solicitation by a certain Mayor Dapulag and upon the
“What language should the judge use? The death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes
eyewitnesses’ own belief that such inclusion would
constitution says that until otherwise provided final after the lapse of the period for perfecting
complicate the case and make it more difficult.
by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official an appeal, or when the sentence has been
- Petitioner opposed this motion, asserting that the
languages! (Art. XV, Sec. 3, Par 3.) If we are to partially or totally satisfied or served, or when
decision can no longer be modified or set aside
be guided by this provision then either English of the accused has waived in writing his right to
because it became final when he formally waived his
Pilipino can be used. But in fact English is almost appeal, or has applied for probation.
right to appeal.
exclusively used and with good reason. For - It is thus clear that only the accused may ask for a
- May 3, 2000: The trial court granted Rosalie
Pilipino is still a gestating language. The modification or setting aside of a judgment of
Dapulag’s motion, set aside its previous Decision as
constitution says so. It directs that “the conviction. And this he must do before the said
well as ordered that the records of the case be
Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the judgment becomes final or before he perfects his
remanded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
development and formal adoption of a common appeal. Such judgment becomes final in any of the
for re-evaluation of the evidence and filing of the
national language to be known as Pilipino.” following ways: (a) when no appeal is seasonably
corresponding charge.
- However, petitioner cannot now raise this question filed by the accused, except in case of automatic
- Petitioner filed a MFR, contending that the trial
before the Supreme Court, As they have tacitly review of the decision imposing the capital penalty;
court has no jurisdiction to issue the Feb.1 order as
submitted to the TC’s ruling that the sakdal did not (b) when he has partially or totally served his
the Decision had become final, and that the said
have to be translated in English; they analyzed the sentence; (c) when he expressly waives his right to
order would place him in double jeopardy.
sakdal in arguing that it stated no cause of action. appeal the judgment, except when the death penalty
- May 26, 2000: The trial court denied the MFR for
Such analysis demonstrated that they understood its is imposed; or (d) when he applies for probation.
the reason that the State is not bound by the error or
contents. When a judgment becomes final, the trial court which
negligence of its prosecuting officers, hence,
DISPOSITION Denied for lack of merit. rendered the judgment of conviction loses
jeopardy does not attach.
jurisdiction to alter, modify, or revoke it.
- Petitioner now assails the May 3 rd and May 26
POTOT v PEOPLE orders with the Sol.Gen. agreeing that the challenged
2. YES
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 4 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Ratio The waiver by the accused of his right to pleaded guilty to the charge. On the basis of his plea, Considering that the offended party had paid the
appeal from a judgment of conviction has the effect petitioner was convicted and meted the corresponding filing fee for the estafa cases prior to
of causing the judgment to become final and corresponding penalty. As petitioner has been placed the filing of the BP 22 cases with the Metropolitan
unalterable. in jeopardy for the crime of homicide, he cannot be Trial Court (MeTC), the RTC allowed the private
Reasoning prosecuted anew for the same offense, or any prosecutor to appear and intervene in the
- It is an undisputed fact that after the promulgation offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily proceedings.
of the judgment of conviction, petitioner filed a included in the first offense charged.
manifestation expressly waiving his right to appeal DISPOSITION The petition is granted. The assailed ISSUE
therefrom. His intention not to appeal is further orders dated May 3, 2000 and May 26, 2000 issued WON a private prosecutor can be allowed to
indicated by his prayer in the same manifestation for by the trial court are set aside. Its decision dated intervene and participate in the proceedings of the
the immediate issuance of a commitment order so he Feb. 1, 2000 is reinstated. above-entitled estafa cases for the purpose of
could serve his sentence. Such waiver has the effect prosecuting the attached civil liability arising from
of causing the judgment to become final and RODRIGUEZ v PONFERRADA the issuance of the checks involved which is also
unalterable. Thus, it was beyond the authority of the subject mater of the pending B.P. 22 cases
465 SCRA 338
trial court to issue the order of May 3, 2000 setting
aside its Feb.3, 2000 Decision which had attained PANGANIBAN; July 29, 2005 HELD
finality. YES. Settled is the rule that the single act of issuing a
3. YES NATURE bouncing check may give rise to two distinct criminal
Ratio When the MFR of the judgment of conviction is Petition for Certiorari seeking to reverse the July 27, offenses: estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa
not initiated by the accused or at the instance of the 2002 Order of the RTC of Quezon City: Bilang 22 (BP 22). The Rules of Court allow the
trial court with the consent of the accused, the same “WHEREFORE, the appearance of a private offended party to intervene via a private prosecutor
should be denied outright. prosecutor shall be allowed upon payment of the in each of these two penal proceedings. However,
Reasoning legal fees for these estafa cases pending before this the recovery of the single civil liability arising from
- Sec. 1 Rule 121 of the same Rules provides: Court.” the single act of issuing a bouncing check in either
Sec.1. New trial or reconsideration – At any time FACTS criminal case bars the recovery of the same civil
before a judgment of conviction becomes final, - Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor Rossana S. liability in the other criminal action. While the law
the court may, on motion of the accused or at its Morales-Montojo of Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office allows two simultaneous civil remedies for the
own instance but with the consent of the issued her Resolution: “there being PROBABLE offended party, it authorizes recovery in only one. In
accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration. CAUSE to charge respondent for ESTAFA under Article short, while two crimes arise from a single set of
- Since the MFR of the judgment of conviction was 315 paragraph 2(d) as amended by PD 818 and for facts, only one civil liability attaches to it.
not initiated by the accused or at the instance of the Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it is respectfully Reasoning
trial court with his consent, the same should have recommended that the attached Information be - Petitioner theorizes that the civil action necessarily
been denied outright as being violative of the above approved and filed in Court.’ arising from the criminal case pending before the
provision. At any rate, the records do not show any - As a consequence thereof, separate informations MTC for violation of BP 22 precludes the institution of
irregularity in the preliminary investigation of the were separately filed against herein [p]etitioner the corresponding civil action in the criminal case for
case before the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. before proper [c]ourts, for Estafa and [v]iolation of estafa now pending before the RTC. She hinges her
4. YES Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 theory on the following provisions of Rules 110 and
Ratio The right against double jeopardy prohibits - petitioner through counsel filed in open court before 111 of Rules of Court.
any subsequent prosecution of any person for a the [p]ublic [r]espondent an ‘Opposition to the - Based on the foregoing rules, an offended party
crime of which he has previously been acquitted or Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private Prosecutor’ may intervene in the prosecution of a crime, except
convicted. - “The [p]ublic [r]espondent court during the said in the following instances: (1) when, from the nature
Reasoning hearing noted the Formal Entry of Appearance of of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no
- To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the Atty. Felix R. Solomon as [p]rivate [p]rosecutor as civil liability arises in favor of a private offended
following requisites must be present: (1) a valid well as the Opposition filed thereto by herein party; and (2) when, from the nature of the offense,
complaint or information; (2) the court has [p]etitioner. the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity,
jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has - Ruling of the Trial Court but (a) they waive the right to institute a civil action,
pleaded to the charge; and (4) he has been convicted Noting petitioner’s opposition to the private (b) expressly reserve the right to do so or (c) the suit
or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or prosecutor’s entry of appearance, the RTC held that has already been instituted. In any of these
otherwise terminated without his express consent. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising instances, the private complainant’s interest in the
- These requisites have been established. Records from the offense charged is deemed instituted, case disappears and criminal prosecution becomes
show that petitioner was charged with homicide unless the offended party (1) waives the civil action, the sole function of the public prosecutor. None of
under a valid information before the trial court which (2) reserves the right to institute it separately, or (3) these exceptions apply to the instant case. Hence,
has jurisdiction over it. He was arraigned and institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. the private prosecutor cannot be barred from
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 5 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

intervening in the estafa suit. accused. However, in a decision of October 25 1979,

True, each of the overt acts in these instances may CRESPO v MOGUL the CA dismissed the petition and lifted the
give rise to two criminal liabilities -- one for estafa restraining order of Jan 23,1979. The motion for
151 SCRA 462
and another for violation of BP 22. But every such reconsideration of the accused was denied in a
act of issuing a bouncing check involves only one GANCAYCO; June 30, 1987 resolution.
civil liability for the offended party, who has
sustained only a single injury. NATURE ISSUE
- criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if Petition to review the decision of the Circuit Criminal WON the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a
the same felonious act or omission results in damage Court of Lucena City (petitioner prays that criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon
or injury to another and is the direct and proximate respondent judge be perpetually enjoined from instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the
cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignment case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant
evidently the foundation of the civil action. and trail of petitioner, ordering respondent Judge to the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on
- Thus, the possible single civil liability arising from dismiss the said case, and declaring the obligation of the merits
the act issuing a bouncing check can be the subject petitioner as purely civil.)
of both civil actions deemed instituted with the HELD
estafa case and the BP 22 violation prosecution. FACTS YES
On Election of Remedies - Assistant Fiscal Proceso de Gala filed an information Ratio Once an information is filed in court, the
- “In its broad sense, election of remedies refers to for estafa against Mario Crespo in Circuit Criminal court’s prior permission must be secured if fiscal
the choice by a party to an action of one of two or Court of Lucena City. When the case was set for wants to reinvestigate the case. While it is true that
more coexisting remedial rights, where several such arraignment, the accused filed a motion to defer the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to
rights arise out of the same facts, but the term has arraignment on the ground that there was a pending determine whether or not a criminal case should be
been generally limited to a choice by a party petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice filed in court or not, once the case had already been
between inconsistent remedial rights, the assertion of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal brought to Court, whatever disposition the fiscal may
of one being necessarily repugnant to, or a for the filing of the information. The presiding judge feel should be proper in the case thereafter should
repudiation of, the other.” In its more restricted and (leodegario Mogul) denied the motion through his be addressed for the consideration of the Court.
technical sense, the election of remedies is the order. DISPOSITION Petition dismissed
adoption of one of two or more coexisting ones, with - The accused filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of
the effect of precluding a resort to the others. STA. ROSA MINING v ZABALA
- no binding election occurs before a decision on the injunction. In an order (Aug 17 1977), the CA
restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the 153 SCRA 367
merits is had or a detriment to the other party
supervenes arraignment of the accused until further orders from BIDIN; August 31, 1987
- it was not the intent of the special rule to preclude the Court
the prosecution of the civil action that corresponds to - On May 15 1978, a decision was made by the CA NATURE
the estafa case, should the latter also be filed. The granting the writ and perpetually restraining the Mandamus to compel respondent Fiscal to prosecute
crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22 are different judge from enforcing his threat to compel the Criminal Case No. 821 of the then Court of First
and distinct from each other. There is no identity of arraignment of the accused in the case until the Dept Instance of Camarines Norte until the same is
offenses involved, for which legal jeopardy in one of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for terminated.
case may be invoked in the other. The offenses review.
charged in the informations are perfectly distinct - On March 22, 1978, The Undersecretary of Justice FACTS
from each other in point of law, however nearly they Hon Catalino Macaraig Jr, resolving the petition for - On March 21, 1974, petitioner filed a complaint for
may be connected in point of fact review, reversed the resolution of the Office of the attempted theft of materials (scrap iron) forming part
- In promulgating the Rules, this Court did not intend Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for of the installations on its mining property at Jose
to leave the offended parties without any remedy to immediate dismissal of the information filed against Panganiban, Camarines Norte against private
protect their interests in estafa cases. Its power to the accused. The Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to respondents Romeo Garrido and Gil Alapan with the
promulgate the Rules of Court is limited in the sense dismiss for insufficiency of evidence on April 10, Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte,
that rules “shall not diminish, increase or modify 1978. On November 24 1978, The Judge denied the then headed by Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre.
substantive rights.” Private complainant’s motion and set the arraignment - The case was assigned to third Assistant Fiscal
intervention in the prosecution of estafa is justified - The accused filed a petition for certiorari, Esteban P. Panotes for preliminary investigation who,
not only for the prosecution of her interests, but also prohibition, and mandamus with petition for the after conducting said investigation, issued a
for the speedy and inexpensive administration of issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or resolution dated August 26, 1974 recommending that
justice as mandated by the Constitution. temporary restraining order in the CA. On January 23 an information for Attempted Theft be filed against
DISPOSITION Petition is DISMISSED and the 1979, a restraining order was issued by the CA private respondents on a finding of prima facie case
assailed order AFFIRMED against the threatened act of arraignment of the which resolution was approved by Provincial Fiscal
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 6 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Joaquin Ilustre. Private respondents sought - In this action, petitioner prays for the issuance of not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
reconsideration of the resolution but the same was the writ of mandamus "commanding respondent done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite
denied by Fiscal Ilustre in a resolution dated October fiscal or any other person who may be assigned or sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of
14, 1974. appointed to act in his place or stead to prosecute which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence
- On October 29, 1974, Fiscal Ilustre filed with the Criminal Case No. 821 of the Court of First Instance of suffer" (Suarez vs. Platon, 69 Phil. 556).
Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte an Camarines Norte" There is no question that the - Accordingly, if the fiscal is not at all convinced that
Information dated October 17, 1987 docketed as institution of a criminal action is addressed to the a prima facie case exists, he simply cannot move for
Criminal Case No. 821, charging private respondents sound discretion of the investigating fiscal. He may the dismissal of the case and, when denied, refuse to
with the crime of Attempted Theft. or he may not file the information according to prosecute the same. He is obliged by law to proceed
- In a letter dated October 22, 1974, the private whether the evidence is in his opinion sufficient to and prosecute the criminal action. He cannot impose
respondents requested the Secretary of Justice for a establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable his opinion on the trial court. At least what he can do
review of the Resolutions of the Office of the doubt. (Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance, 63 Phil. is to continue appearing for the prosecution and then
Provincial Fiscal dated August 26, 1974 and October 846) and when he decides not to file the information, turn over the presentation of evidence to another
14, 1974. in the exercise of his discretion, he may not be fiscal or a private prosecutor subject to his direction
- On November 6, 1974, the Chief State Prosecutor compelled to do so (People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 748). and control (U.S. vs. Despabiladeras, 32 Phil. 442;
ordered the Provincial Fiscal to elevate entire records However, after the case had already been filed in U.S. vs. Gallegos, 37 Phil. 289). Where there is no
PFO Case 577 against Garrido et al.The letter-request court, "fiscals are not clothed with power, without the other prosecutor available, he should proceed to
for review was opposed by petitioner in a letter to consent of the court, to dismiss or nolle prosequi discharge his duty and present the evidence to the
the Secretary of Justice dated November 23, 1974 criminal actions actually instituted and pending best of his ability and let the court decide the merits
alleging, among other things, that an information for further proceedings. The power to dismiss criminal of the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by
Attempted Theft had already been filed against actions is vested solely in the court" (U.S. vs. both parties.
private respondents for which reason the request for Barredo, 32 Phil. 444, 450; Gonzales vs. Court of First - The mere fact that the Secretary of Justice had,
review has become a moot question as the Provincial Instance, supra). after reviewing the records of the case, directed the
Fiscal has lost jurisdiction to dismiss the charge for prosecuting fiscal to move for the dismissal of the
attempted theft. ISSUE case and the motion to dismiss filed pursuant to said
- On March 6, 1975, the Secretary of Justice, after WON the fiscal can be compelled to prosecute the directive is denied by the trial court, is no
reviewing the records, reversed the findings of prima case after his motion to dismiss has been denied justification for the refusal of the fiscal to prosecute
facie case of the Provincial Fiscal and directed said the case. It is the court where the case is filed and
prosecuting officer to immediately move for the HELD not the fiscal that has full control of it.
dismissal of the criminal case. Petitioner sought YES - In order therefore to avoid such a situation whereby
reconsideration of the directive of the Secretary of - This court is of the view that the writ prayed for the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed
Justice but the latter denied the same in a letter should issue. Notwithstanding his personal the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the
dated June 11, 1975. convictions or opinions, the fiscal must proceed with trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as
- A motion to dismiss dated September 16, 1975 was his duty of presenting evidence to the court to practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for
then filed by the Provincial Fiscal but the court enable the court to arrive at its own independent review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when
denied the motion on the ground that there was a judgment as to the culpability of the accused. The the complaint or information has already been filed
prima facie evidence against private respondents fiscal should not shirk from his responsibility much in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the
and set the case for trial on February 25, 1976. less leave the prosecution of the case at the hands of determination of the Court."
- Private respondents sought reconsideration of the a private prosecutor. At all times, the criminal action DISPOSITION petition is hereby Granted Public
court's ruling but in an Order dated February 13, shall be prosecuted under his direction and control respondent or any other person who may be
1976, the motion filed for said purpose was likewise (Sec. 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court). Otherwise, the assigned or appointed to act in his place or stead, is
denied. Trial of the case was reset to April 23, 1976. entire proceedings will be null and void (People vs. hereby ordered to continue prosecuting Criminal
- Thereafter, Fiscal Ilustre was appointed a judge in Beriales, 70 SCRA 361). Case No. 821 until the same is terminated.
the Court of First Instance of Albay and respondent - "In the trial of criminal cases, it is the duty of the
Fiscal Zabala became officer-in-charge of the public prosecutor to appear for the government since PEREZ v HAGONOY
Provincial Fiscal's Office of Camarines Norte. an offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the
327 SCRA 588
- On April 19, 1976, respondent Fiscal filed a Second State." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol.
Motion to Dismiss the case. This second motion to IV, 1980 Ed., p. 10). This is so because "the DE LEON; March 9, 2000
dismiss was denied by the trial court in an order prosecuting officer is the representative not of an
dated April 23, 1976. Whereupon, respondent fiscal ordinary party to a controversy but of a sovereignty NATURE:
manifested that he would not prosecute the case and where obligation to govern impartially is as Review on Certiorari
disauthorized any private prosecutor to appear compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
therein. Hence, this petition for mandamus. whose interest, therefore, in criminal prosecution is FACTS
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 7 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Private respondent Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. owns order of the Secretary of Justice, which motion, certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings
the Hagonoy Money Shop which employed petitioner however, was denied with finality by the before the courts of law.
Cristina O. Perez as Officer-In-Charge, Cashier and latter.Pursuant to the said resolution, the prosecutor Reasoning
Teller, Alberto S. Fabian as Bookkeeper, and Cristina filed a motion in the RTC praying for the dismissal of - In the case of Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals,we held
Medina and Milagros Martin as Solicitors/Field the case against herein petitioner and the admission that:
Managers. of an amended information excluding petitioner as "In a special civil action for certiorari filed under
- For the period starting August 3, 1992 up to one of the accused which motion was granted by the Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is
December 5, 1993, the Laya, Manabat, Salgado and RTC. Private respondent assailed the dismissal of the alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of
Company, an independent management, consultancy case against the petitioner in a motion for discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on
and accounting firm, conducted an audit of the reconsideration filed in the RTC which motion was other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the
financial affairs of the Hagonoy Money Shop and denied by the RTC after finding that the private petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In
found anomalies in more or less twenty-eight (28) respondent, as private complainant, had no legal such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and
savings accounts consisting of withdrawals which personality to question the dismissal of the criminal the private offended party or complainant. The
were recorded in the subsidiary ledgers of the money charges against the petitioner. complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the
shop but not in the passbooks which were in the case so he may file such special civil action
possession of the depositors. The audit also revealed ISSUES questioning the decision or action of the respondent
that to cover-up the anomalous withdrawals, fake 1. WON Judge Masadao, presiding judge of RTC court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the
deposits were recorded in the money shop's Branch 9, Malolos, Bulacan, committed grave abuse complainant should not bring the action in the name
subsidiary ledgers whenever the remaining balance of discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to of the People of the Philippines. The action may be
in a particular savings account went below the dismiss the criminal case against petitioner without prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant."
amount of legitimate withdrawals made by a an independent assessment of the sufficiency or - Furthermore, our ruling in the case of Dee v. Court
depositor.This prompted the private respondent to insufficiency of the evidence against the latter of Appeals allowing the private offended party to file
file an affidavit-complaint for estafa against the 2. WON the private respondent, as private a special civil action for certiorari to assail the order
aforementioned employees of the money shop and complainant, in a criminal case has the legal of the trial judge granting the motion to dismiss upon
two outsiders, Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas. personality to question the dismissal by the trial the directive of the Secretary of Justice is apropos. It
Acting Provincial Prosecutor, Jesus Y. Manarang judge of the criminal charges against herein follows, therefore, that if the private respondent in
(hereinafter "prosecutor"), issued a resolution finding petitioner upon the motion filed by the prosecutor this case may file a special civil action for certiorari,
prima facie evidence that the petitioner and her co- then with more reason does it have legal personality
employees had committed the crime of estafa thru HELD to move for a reconsideration of the order of the trial
falsification of commercial documents, and 1. YES, Judge Masadao acted with grave abuse of court dismissing the criminal charges against the
recommending the filing of the corresponding discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to petitioner. In fact, as a general rule, a special civil
information against them with the Regional Trial dismiss the criminal charges against the petitioner on action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration
Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The charges against the basis solely of the recommendation of the is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it
Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas were, however, Secretary of Justice. an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.
dismissed. Reasoning
- Perez filed a petition for review with the Secretary - As aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor PEOPLE v BUBAN
of Justice praying for the dismissal of the charges General, in failing to make an independent finding of
GR No. 166895
against her. On the other hand, private respondent the merits of the case and merely anchoring the
moved for a reconsideration of the portion of the dismissal on the revised position of the prosecution, VELASCO, JR; January 24, 2007
same resolution dismissing the complaint against the trial judge relinquished the discretion he was
Susan Jordan. duty bound to exercise. In effect, it was the NATURE
- The prosecutor granted private respondent's motion prosecution, through the Department of Justice which Petition for review decision of CA
for reconsideration.8 Hence, on April 27, 1994, an decided what to do and not the court which was
information for estafa thru falsification of commercial reduced to a mere rubber stamp in violation of the FACTS
documents was filed against herein petitioner, ruling in Crespo v. Mogul.. - Romeo Buban is accused of raping his then 12 year
Alberto Fabian, Milagros Martin, Cristina Medina and 2. YES old daughter 5 times, on separate occasions. The
Susan Jordan, Ratio While it is only the Solicitor General that may medical examination of the girl reveals that she was
- On September 23, 1994, then Secretary of Justice, bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of indeed raped.
Franklin M. Drilon, issued Resolution No. 696, series the Philippines, or represent the People or State in - Although the girl’s sworn statement mentioned five
of 1994 ordering the prosecutor to cause the criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court occasions of rape, the Complaint mentioned only the
dismissal of the information against herein petitioner and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party 5th incident. The charges of rape committed on other
on the ground of insufficient evidence. The private retains the right to bring a special civil action for occasions were not supported with the required
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 8 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

complaints in accordance with Section 5, Rule 110 of

the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. NATURE HELD
- RTC found the accused guilty (sentence: death Original action for certiorari and prohibition 1. NO
penalty plus moral damages, civil indemnity, Ratio Private prosecutors cannot intervene
exemplary damages) but only with regard the 5 th FACTS independently of and take a position inconsistent
incident only. The other 4 charges were dismissed for - Solicitor General Estilito P. Mendoza, Assistant with that of the Solicitor General.
lack of legal basis to convict. The dispositive portion Solicitor General Alicia Simpio-Diy and Solicitor Reasoning
of the RTC’s decision was not specific as to which Eduardo L. Kilayko for respondents. - Participation of the private prosecution in the
charge it found the accused guilty, but the body of Estanisloo A. Fernandez and Dakila F. Castro & instant case was delimited by this Court in its
the decision implies the dismissal of the other 4 Associate as private prosecutors. Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: "to collaborate
charges, thus it can be deduced that the conviction - petitioners seek the annulment of respondent with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the
pertains to the 5th incident only. CA affirmed. Judge's Orders in the Criminal Case People of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this
Philippines v Jorge Tan, Jr, Cesar Tan, Teofanis Court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and
ISSUES Bondoc, Osmundo Tolentino, Mariano Bartido and to assist the Solicitor General. It was never intended
1. WON CA erred in finding the accused guilty Librado Sode for frustrated murder and Double that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand
despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence Murder of the son and uncle of Mayor Inigo independent of or in contravention of the position
2. WON the accused may be convicted for the other Larazzabal. taken by the Solicitor General.
counts of rape, where the complaint mentions only - Judge Pedro Gallardo made the two life sentences to - Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the
one instance of rape death penalty allegedly after meeting with Mayor sovereignty of the State, it is but natural that the
Larazzabal and receipt of other paraphernalia such representatives of the State should direct and control
HELD as whisky and wine according to the court the prosecution.
1. NO stenographer. > Suarez v Platon: the prosecuting officer "'is the
Ratio there is no error in the appreciation of - Jan 14, 1976 - SolGen, on behalf of the People of the representative not of, an ordinary party to a
evidence by the court. Philippines, submitted his Comment to the petition. controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation
Reasoning They are "persuaded that there are bases for stating to govern impartially is as compelling as its
- the argument of the accused that the testimony of that the rendition of respondent Judge's decision and obligation to govern at all; and whose interest,
the girl is not reliable for inconsistencies is his resolution on the motion for new trial were not therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it
untenable. free from suspicion of bias and prejudice… therefore, shall win a case, but that justice shall he done. As
People v. Antonio: Discrepancies and inconsistencies they interpose no objection to the remand of the such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the
in the testimony of a witness referring to minor aforementioned criminal cases "for the rendition of a servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that
details, and not in actuality touching upon the central new decision by another trial judge." guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may
fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility. If at - Jan 30, 1976 - private prosecutors submitted their prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he
all, they serve as proof that the witness is not Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows,
coached or rehearsed. the respondent Judge and objected to the remand of he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much
2. As can be gleamed from the case, the complaint this case. his duty to refrain from improper methods
should contain all instances of the crime charged. - Feb 12, 1976, the petitioners moved to strike out calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is
The other 4 counts of rape were dismissed because the "Motion to Admit Attacked Comment" and the to use every legitimate means to bring about a just
the complaint did not specify the same, and only "Comment" of the private prosecutor on the ground one."
mentioned the last instance of rape, despite the that the latter has "absolutely no standing in the > People v Esquivel: that there is an absolute
inclusion of the other 4 in the sworn statement of the instant proceedings before this Honorable Court and, necessity for prosecuting attorneys to lay "before
girl. The prosecution did not question anymore the hence, without any personality to have any paper of the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with
dismissal of the other 4 counts, so the court did not his entertained by this Tribunal” methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying
discuss it further. - private prosecutors now contend that they are contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in
DISPOSITION judgment affirmed with modification. entitled to appear before this Court, to take part in their evidence, to the end that the court's mind
Sentence changed to reclusion perpatua (pursuant to the proceedings, and to adapt a position in may not be tortured by doubts, that the innocent
RA 9346, abolishing the death penalty) and higher contravention to that of the Solicitor General. may not suffer and the guilty not escape
damages. unpunished. Obvious to all, this is the prosecution's
ISSUES prime duty to the court, to the accused, and to the
1. WON private prosecutors have the right to state."
TAN, JR v GALLARDO intervene independently of the Solicitor General and - It is for the purpose of realizing the aforementioned
to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter objectives that the prosecution of offenses is placed
73 SCRA 308
2. WON respondent Judge should be disqualified under the direction, control, and responsibility of the
ANTONIO; October 5, 1976 from further proceeding with the criminal cases prosecuting officer.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 9 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Role of the private prosecutors is to represent his right to intervene therein is subject to the private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the
the offended party with respect to the civil action for promotor fiscal's right of control, it cannot be stated State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand
the recovery of the civil liability arising from the that an order of dismissal decreed upon petition of inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General, for
offense. This civil action is deemed instituted with the promoter fiscal himself deprives the offended that would be tantamount to giving the latter the
the criminal action, unless the offended party either party of his right to appeal from an order overrruling direction and control of the criminal proceedings,
expressly waives the civil action or reserves to a complaint or information, which right belongs contrary to the provisions of law and the settled
institute it separately. Thus, "an offended party may exclusively to the promotor fiscal by virtue of the rules on the matter.
intervene in the proceedings, personally or by provisions of section 44 of General Orders, No. 2. It is already moot because the judge is no longer
attorney, specially in case of offenses which can not 58. To permit a person injured by the commission of in the judicial service
be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended an offense to appeal from an order dismissing a DISPOSITION SC grants the petition and hereby
party The only exception to this is when the offended criminal case issued by a Court of First Instance upon remands the case to the trial court in order that
party waives his right to civil action or expressly petition of the promoter fiscal, would be tantamount another Judge may hear anew petitioners' motion for
reserves his right to institute it after the termination to giving said offended party of the direction and new trial and to resolve the issue accordingly on the
of the case, in which case he lost his right to control of a criminal proceeding in violation of the basis of the evidence
intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have provisions of the above-cited section 107 of General
lost his interest in its prosecution. in any event, Orders, No. 58. PEOPLE v DELA CERNA
whether an offended party intervenes in the - from the nature of the offense, or where the law
390 SCRA 538
prosecution of a criminal action, his intervention defining and punishing the offense charged does not
must always be subject to the direction and control provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not CORONA ; October 9, 2002
of the prosecuting official." intervene in the prosecution of the offense.
> Herrero v Diaz: "intervention of the offended - Solicitor General represents the People of the NATURE
party or his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings Automatic review of decision of Cebu City RTC
Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, subject to the pending either in the Court of Appeals or in this
provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all Court. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 478, FACTS
criminal actions either commenced by complaint or "Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of - Ernesto dela Cuesta was charged on May 16, 1997
by information shall be prosecuted under the the Solicitor General", provides: with raping his minor daughter, Irene, seven times
direction and control of the Fiscal." SECTION 1. Function and Organization, (1) The over a period of eight years beginning 1989 when
- the position occupied by the offended party is Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the the victim was seven years old.
subordinate to that of the promotor fiscal because, Government of the Philippines, its agencies and - The victim testified in open court about the
as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any incidents of rape. However, prior to the rendering of
represent the public prosecution, or the People of the litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter judgment, the victim, on July 3, 1998, filed an
Philippine Islands, in the prosecution of offenders, requiring the services of a lawyer. * * * The office affidavit of desistance stating among others that she
and to control the proceeding, and as it is of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law was no longer interested in pursuing the case and
discretionary with him to institute and prosecute a office of the Government, and as such, shall that she had already forgiven her father.
criminal proceeding, being at liberty to commence it discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. - The SC noted that the rape incidents in this case
or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not, It shall have the following specific powers and occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353, The Anti-
depending upon whether or not there is, in his functions: Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on October 22,
opinion, sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of (a) Represent the Government in the Supreme 1997. Under this statute, the crime of rape was
the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, except Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal classified as a crime against person. It should be
when the case is pending in the Court of First proceedings; represent the Government and its further noted that the law at the time the crimes
Instance, the continuation of the offended party's officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of were committed treated rape as a private crime
intervention depends upon the continuation of the Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil covered by Article 344 of the RPC. As provided for in
proceeding. Consequently, if the promotor fiscal actions and special proceedings in which the the said article, offenses of seduction, abduction,
desists from pressing the charge or asks the Government or any officer thereof in his official rape, or acts of lasciviousness shall not be
competent Court of First Instance in which the case is capacity is the party. prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
pending for the dismissal thereof, and said court (k) Act and represent the Republic and/or the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
grants the petition, the intervention of the person people before any court, tribunal, body or guardian, nor in any case, the offender has been
injured by the commission of the offense ceases by commission in any matter, action or proceeding expressly pardoned by the above named persons.
virtue of the principle that the accessory follows the which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the - The trial court found the defendant guilty and
principal. Consequently, as the offended party is not people as the ends of justice may require. sentenced him to the supreme penalty of death.
entitled to represent the People of the Philippine It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor - In his appeal, the offender claimed that he should
Islands in the prosecution of a public offense, or to General alone is authorized to represent the State no have been found guilty considering that the
control the proceeding once it is commenced, and as or the People of the Philippines the interest of the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 10 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

affidavit of desistance created a reasonable doubt as prosecution sufficient time to confer with her. above-named persons, as the case may be.
to his guilt. - Trial court allowed the prosecution to put on the - Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
witness stand a Medical Officer of the National Procedure states: The offenses of seduction,
Center for Mental Health. Dr. Tuazon testified that abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness shall not be
ISSUE
she found that JONALYN was suffering from a prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
WON the trial court erred in convicting the defendant
moderate level of mental retardation and that offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
although chronologically the latter was already 20 guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
HELD
years of age, she had the mental age of an 8½-year- expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as
NO
old child under the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. the case may be. In case the offended party dies or
- The affidavit did not in fact contain any retraction
- The trial court issued an order allowing leading becomes incapacitated before she could file the
on the claim of rape. Hence the guilty verdict was
questions to be propounded to JONALYN. Thus, complaint and has no known parents, grandparents,
proper considering that the testimony of the victim
JONALYN took the witness stand. She declared in or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal
was considered by the trial court as credible and
open court that BIENVENIDO raped her twice. She action in her behalf. The offended party, even if she
believable. There was as such no reasonable doubt to
stated that BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her were a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution
speak of.
and inserted his private part into her womanhood. for the above offenses, independently of her parents,
- Even using the old statute which considered rape as
- The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent
a private crime and the forgiveness of the victim or
was granted. It admitted that it could have moved to or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her
the parents, grandparents, or guardian as
quash the information but it did not because the minority. Where the offended party who is a minor
extinguishing the crime, the Supreme court held that
complaint on which the information was based was fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents
the pardon or forgiveness must be prior to the
on its face valid, it having been signed by JONALYN as or guardian may file the same.
institution of the criminal action. After the case has
the offended party. However, the undeniable truth is - A complaint of the offended party or her relatives is
been filed the control of the prosecution is removed
that JONALYN had no capacity to sign the same required in crimes against chastity out of
from the offended party’s hand and any change of
considering her mental deficiency or abnormality. consideration for the offended woman and her
heart by the victim will not affect the state’s right to
The defense also insisted on assailing the family, who might prefer to suffer the outrage in
vindicate the atrocities committed against itself.
competency of JONALYN as a witness. It claimed that silence rather than go through with the scandal of a
- The Court also ruled that the death penalty is not
JONALYN’s testimony, considering her mental state, public trial. The law deems it the wiser policy to let
applicable in this case as the prosecution was not
was coached and rehearsed. the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether
able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
- The trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence and to expose to public view or to heated controversies in
alleged minority of the victim. It cited its previous
set the dates for the presentation of the evidence for court the vices, fault, and disgraceful acts occurring
rulings to this effect.
the defense. Trial court convicted BIENVENIDO of the in the family.
crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 1275-M-96, but - The complaint in the instant case has complied with
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96 for the requirement under the Revised Penal Code and
384 SCRA 375 insufficiency of evidence. the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which vest upon
DAVIDE; July 11, 2002 JONALYN, as the offended party, the right to institute
ISSUES the criminal action. As signed by JONALYN, the
FACTS 1. WON the complaint for rape filed was valid complaint started the prosecutory proceeding. The
- Upon a complaint signed by JONALYN with the 2. WON Jonalyn was competent to testify assistance of JONALYN’s aunt, or even of her mother,
assistance of her aunt Carmelita Borja, two 3. WON Jonalyn was credible as a witness was a superfluity. JONALYN’s signature alone suffices
informations were filed by the Office of the Provincial 4. WON leading questions should have been allowed to validate the complaint.
Prosecutor before the RTC of Malolos charging to be asked to Jonalyn - If a minor under the Rules of Court can file a
Bienvenido Dela Cruz with rape. BIENVENIDO complaint for rape independently of her parents,
entered a plea of not guilty. HELD JONALYN, then 20 years of age who was found to
- When JONALYN was presented as its first witness, 1. YES have the mentality of an 8-year-old girl, could
the prosecution sought to obtain from the trial court - The pertinent laws existing at the time the crimes likewise file the complaint independently of her
an order for the conduct of a psychiatric examination were committed were Article 344 of the Revised relatives. Her complaint can be rightfully considered
to determine her mental and psychological capability Penal Code (prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 8353 filed by a minor.
to testify in court. Trial court allowed the prosecutor which took effect on 22 October 1997) and Section 5 2. YES
to conduct direct examination on JONALYN so that if of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. - The determination of the competence of witnesses
in its perception she would appear to be suffering - The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who sees
from mental deficiency, the prosecutor could be of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except them in the witness stand and observes their
permitted to ask leading questions. Noticing that upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her behavior or their possession or lack of intelligence,
JONALYN had difficulty in expressing herself, the trial parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, as well as their understanding of the obligation of an
court decided to suspend the proceedings to give the if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the oath.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 11 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The prosecution has proved JONALYN’s competency the means of defense available to the person
by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon. The finding of the FACTS attacked.
trial court, as supported by the testimony of Dr. - Calpito was a student from Baguio city. One time, - Article III, Section 14, of the 1987 Constitution, in
Tuazon that JONALYN had the understanding of an 8- he wanted some fishballs so he and Gosil bought particular, mandates that no person shall be held
year-old child, does not obviate the fact of her some fishballs worth P15. When Calpito counted his answerable for a criminal offense without due
competency. Its only effect was to consider her change, he found out that he only received P35 for process of law and that in all criminal prosecutions
testimony from the point of view of an 8-year-old his P100. Confronted by Calpito and Gosil, the the accused shall first be informed of the nature and
minor. fishball vendor would not admit that he had short- cause of the accusation against him. The right to be
changed Calpito. The 3 men kept arguing. Moments informed of any such indictment is likewise explicit in
3. YES later, Soriano saw eight men rushing towards Gosil procedural rules.
- The foregoing narrative has established not only and Calpito. Calpito got stabbed and fell to the - object of informing an accused in writing of the
JONALYN’s competency but also her credibility. ground. charges against him: First. To furnish the accused
Considering her feeble mind, she could not have - The RTC found Ronnie Quitlong, Salvador Quitlong with such a description of the charge against him as
fabricated or concocted her charge against and Emilio Senoto guilty of murder for the killing of will enable him to make his defense; and second, to
BIENVENIDO. Also, no improper motive was shown Jonathan Calpito. Accused-appellants, shortly after avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
by the defense as to why JONALYN would file a case the filing of the information, submitted a motion for protection against a further prosecution for the same
or falsely testify against BIENVENIDO. reinvestigation alleging that “it was a certain Jesus cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts
- Complainant has made herself clear about the Mendoza who stabbed the victim. The trial court alleged, so that it may decide whether they are
sexual molestation she suffered in the hands of the acted favorably on the motion. The City Prosecutor sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should
accused. Plain and simple her testimony may have filed a motion to admit an amended information on be had. (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S., 542).
been, unembellished, as it is, with details, yet, it is in the basis of affidavits. The information, as amended, In order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts
its simplicity that its credence is enhanced. included Jesus Mendoza among the named accused. must be stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is
4. YES But unlike accused-appellants who were immediately made up of certain acts and intent; these must be
- It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading arrested after the commission of the crime, Jesus set forth in the complaint with reasonable
questions in conducting the examination of a witness Mendoza remained at large. At their arraignment, particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff and
who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical the detained accused pleaded not guilty to the crime defendant), and circumstances. In short, the
condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed charged. complaint must contain a specific allegation of every
to, court proceedings; inexperienced; feeble-minded; - On 21 April 1995, the trial court, following his fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the
confused and agitated; terrified; timid or evaluation of the respective submissions of the crime charged
embarrassed while on the stand; lacking in prosecution and the defense, including their rebuttal DISPOSITION appellant Ronnie Quitlong is found
comprehension of questions asked; deaf and dumb; and sur-rebuttal evidence, rendered its now assailed guilty of the crime of murder for the killing of
or unable to speak or understand the English or decision. Jonathan Calpito. Appellants Salvador Quitlong and
imperfectly familiar therewith. Emilio Senoto, Jr., are found guilty as accomplices in
- The leading questions were neither conclusions of ISSUES the commission of the crime.
facts merely put into the mouth of JONALYN nor 1. WON the RTC abused its discretion and/or acted in
prepared statements which she merely confirmed as excess of or without jurisdiction in finding that there ROCO v CONTRERAS
true. was conspiracy between and among the accused-
461 SCRA 505
DISPOSITION RTC decision finding accused- appellants
appellant BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ guilty of the crime 2. WON the RTC gravely abused its discretion and/or GARCIA; June 28, 2005
of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in finding
reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the the accused-appellants guilty of the crime of Murder NATURE
modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay instead of Homicide Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
the victim JONALYN YUMANG civil indemnity in the Rules of Court the decision dismissing appeal and
reduced amount of P50,000 and moral damages in HELD resolution denying motion for reconsideration of the
the amount of P50,000. 1. YES, Quitlong is guilty of murder while the other 2 Court of Appeals
are only accomplices.
PEOPLE v QUITLONG 2. NO, the crime was qualified The crime committed
was qualified by abuse of superiority. While FACTS
292 SCRA 360 - Domingo Roco, engaged in buying and selling of
superiority in number would not per se mean
VITUG ; July 10, 1998 superiority in strength, enough proof was adduced, dressed chicken, purchased his supply from private
however, to show that the attackers had cooperated respondent Cal’s Poultry Supply Corporation (Cal’s)
NATURE in such a way as to secure advantage of their - As payment for his purchase, petitioner drew 5
Appeal from the decision of the RTC superiority in strength certainly out of proportion to checks payable to Cal’s against his account with
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 12 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

PCIB. PCIB dishonored the checks for having been documents requested are immaterial and irrelevant pointed out by the CA, petitioner had been issued by
drawn from a closed account. Cal’s then filed a to the crimes for which the petitioner was being Cal’s with temporary receipts in the form of yellow
criminal complaint for violation of BP22 prosecuted. pad slips of paper evidencing his payments, which
- Before trial could commence, Roco filed with the - In a resolution, the MTCC, thru its Judge Edward B. pad slips had been validated by the corporation
BIR a denunciation letter against Cal’s in that it failed Contreras, denied petitioner’s request on the itself. It is clear that the production of the books and
to issue commercial invoices. BIR found no prima following grounds: (a) the requested documents, documents requested by petitioner are not
facie evidence of tax evasion. book ledgers and other records were immaterial in indispensable to prove his defense of payment.
- Trial for Roco’s violation of BP 22 commenced. After resolving the issues posed before the court; and (b) DISPOSITION the instant petition is DENIED and
the prosecution rested, the MTCC declared the cases the issuance of the subpoenas will only unduly delay the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of
submitted for decision on account of petitioner’s the hearing of the criminal cases. Appeals AFFIRMED.
failure to adduce evidence in his behalf. Later, - Judge Contreras similarly denied the MFR. RTC
MTCC rendered a judgment of conviction denied due course to petition for failure to prove ASTORGA v PEOPLE
against petitioner. grave abuse of discretion. Similarly, it denied MFR.
437 SCRA 152
- Petitioner went to appeal to the RTC contending Petitioner went to CA via certiorari. The petition was
that he was deprived of due process. RTC agreed and still dismissed. MFR was still dismissed. YNARES-SANTIAGO.; Aug 20, 2004
vacated the MTCC decision. Petitioner’s claim
- Pending the remanded cases, petitioner filed with The denial of the request for the issuance of FACTS
the MTCC a “Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces - Three (3) private offended parties who are
Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum”, tecum is violative of his constitutional rights members of the Regional Special Operations Group
requiring Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap, both of (RSOG) of the DENR Tacloban City, together with two
Cal’s Corporation or their duly authorized ISSUE (2) members of Philippine National Police Regional
representatives, to appear and testify in court and WON the lower courts erred in denying the subpoena Intelligence Group, were sent to the Island of Daram,
to bring with them certain documents, records and requested by Roco Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on
books of accounts for the years 1993-19991. possible illegal logging activities. At around 4:30-
Prosecution did not object. HELD 5:00 p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18
- Acting Judge Geomer C. Delfin, issued an order Ratio NO. Before a subpoena duces tecum may meters in length and 5 meters in breadth being
granting petitioner’s request and accordingly issue, the court must first be satisfied that the constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they
directed the issuance of the desired subpoenas. following requisites are present: (1) the met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram,
-Cal’s counsel manifested that it was improper for books, documents or other things requested who turned out to be the owner of the boats. A
the trial court to have directed the issuance of the must appear prima facie relevant to the issue heated altercation ensued between petitioner and
requested subpoenas, to which the Roco countered subject of the controversy (test of the DENR team. Petitioner called for reinforcements
by saying that Judge Delfin’s had become final and relevancy); and (2) such books must be and, moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men,
hence, immutable. Nonetheless, the trial court reasonably described by the parties to be some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The
issued an order allowing the prosecution to file its readily identified (test of definiteness). DENR team was then brought to petitioner’s house in
comment or opposition to petitioner’s request for the Reasoning Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. The team
issuance of subpoenas. They argued that Deocampo - A subpoena is a process directed to a person left at 2:00 a.m.
had earlier attested that the documents, records and requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing - On the basis of the foregoing facts, petitioner was
books of accounts were already burned, they did not or trial of an action or at any investigation conducted charged with and convicted of Arbitrary Detention by
maintain the requested sales ledger and that other under the laws of the Philippines, or for the taking of the Sandiganbayan.
documents could not be produced because of the his deposition. The first, subpoena ad testificandum, - SC affirmed the conconviction of Daram.
recent computerization of records was still in the is used to compel a person to testify, while the Defendant filed MFR – denied with finality
process of completion. They also maintained that the second, subpoena duces tecum, is used to compel Filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File 2 nd MFR –
the production of books, records, things or granted
1 documents therein specified.
Sales Journal for the year 1993; - The books and documents that petitioner requested ISSUES
Accounts Receivable Journal for the year 1993;
to be subpoenaed are designated and described in Procedural
Sales Ledger for the year 1993;
Accounts Receivable Ledger for the year 1993 (in its absence, Accounts his request with definiteness and readily identifiable. WON filing of 2nd MFR is proper
Receivable Ledger for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 or The test of definiteness, therefore, is satisfied in this Substantive
1999);
case. However, in the matter of relevancy of those WON the guilt of the accused was proven beyond
Audited Income Statement for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
1997, 1998 and Income Statements as of February 1999; books and documents to the pending criminal cases reasonable doubt
Audited Balance Sheet for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his
1998 and pBalance Sheet as of February 1999; and
burden. HELD
Income Tax Returns for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.
- Based on the records below and as correctly Procedural
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 13 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

YES G.R. No. 160451 Evidence.7 Petitioner opposed the pleading,

Ratio While a second motion for reconsideration is, contending that the private complainant was
CALLEJO, SR; February 9, 2007
as a general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within represented by the ACCRA Law Offices and the
the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same, Balgos and Perez Law Office during trial, and it was
provided it is filed with prior leave whenever NATURE only after the prosecution had rested its case that
substantive justice may be better served thereby. Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the SRMO entered its appearance as private prosecutor
Reasoning Court of Appeals representing the PCIB. Since the ACCRA and Balgos
- The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to and Perez Law Offices had not withdrawn their
facilitate the attainment of justice. They were FACTS appearance, SRMO had no personality to appear as
conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the - Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was employed as a private prosecutor. Under the Informations, the
court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not collector-messenger by City Service Corporation, a private complainant is Caltex and not PCIB; hence,
slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial domestic corporation engaged in messengerial the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by SRMO should be
discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always services. He was assigned to the main office of stricken from the records.
been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex) in Makati City. His - Petitioner further averred that unless the
the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex Informations were amended to change the private
backseat against substantive rights, and not the and deliver them to the cashier. He also delivered complainant to PCIB, his right as accused would be
other way around. Thus, if the application of the invoices to Caltex’s customers. prejudiced. He pointed out, however, that the
Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote - On November 6, 1997, Caltex filed a criminal Informations can no longer be amended because he
justice, it is always within our power to suspend the complaint against petitioner before the Office of the had already been arraigned under the original
rules, or except a particular case from its operation. City Prosecutor of Makati City for estafa through Informations.8 He insisted that the amendments of
Substantive falsification of commercial documents. Romano the Informations to substitute PCIB as the offended
NO alleged that, on October 16, 1997, while his party for Caltex would place him in double jeopardy.
Ratio When the guilt of the accused has not been department was conducting a daily electronic report - PCIB, through SRMO, opposed the motion. It
proven with moral certainty, the presumption of from Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) contended that the PCIB had re-credited the amount
innocence of the accused must be sustained and his Dela Rosa, Makati Branch, one of its depositary to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity; hence, the
exoneration be granted as a matter of right. For the banks, it was discovered that unknown to the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests
prosecution’s evidence must stand or fall on its own department, a company check, Check No. 74001 of Caltex as private complainant. Consequently, the
merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from dated October 13, 1997 in the amount of PCIB is entitled to receive any civil indemnity which
the weakness of the evidence for the defense. P5,790,570.25 payable to Dante R. Gutierrez, had the trial court would adjudge against the accused.
Furthermore, where the evidence for the prosecution been cleared through PCIB on October 15, 1997, Moreover, the re-credited amount was brought out on
is concededly weak, even if the evidence for defense notwithstanding two missing checks and two other cross-examination by Ramon Romano who testified
is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the check forgeries, one of which amounted to for the Prosecution. PCIB pointed out that petitioner
benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional P1,790,757.25. All of these were never issued by had marked in evidence the letter of the ACCRA Law
presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. Caltex. Office to PCIBank dated October 10, 1997 and the
When the circumstances are capable of two or more - Further investigation revealed that said savings credit memo sent by PCIB to Caltex
inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent account had actually been opened by petitioner; the - On July 18, 2001, the RTC issued an Order granting
with the presumption of innocence while the other is forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him the motion of the private prosecutor for the
compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence under Gutierrez’s name. substitution of PCIB as private complainant for
must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better - In the meantime, the PCIB credited the amount of Caltex. It however denied petitioner’s motion to have
to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent P581,229.00 to Caltex on March 29, 1998. However, the formal offer of evidence of SRMO expunged from
man. the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed the record. Petitioner filed a motion for
Reasoning of this development. After the requisite preliminary reconsideration which the RTC denied on November
- No sufficient evidence to show that petitioner investigation, the City Prosecutor filed two (2) 14, 2001.
instilled fear in the minds of the private offended Informations for estafa through falsification of - Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
parties. It appears that Darma merely extended his commercial documents on June 29, 1998 against 65 of the Rules of Court with Urgent Application for
hospitality and entertained the DENR team in his petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of
house. Makati City, Branch 63. Appeals (CA,) praying for the annulment of the RTC’s
DISPOSITION REVERSED. Petitioner Benito Astorga - Petitioner was arraigned on August 18, 1998, and Orders of July 18, 2001 and November 14, 2001.
is ACQUITTED of the crime of Arbitrary Detention on pleaded not guilty to both charges. Pre-trial ensued - According to petitioner, damage or injury to the
the ground of reasonable doubt. and the cases were jointly tried. The prosecution offended party is an essential element of estafa. The
PEOPLE v TULIN presented its witnesses, after which the Siguion amendment of the Informations substituting the
Reyna, Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) PCIBank for Caltex as the offended party would
as private prosecutor filed a Formal Offer of prejudice his rights since he is deprived of a defense
RICARZE v CA (PEOPLE, CALTEX)
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 14 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

available before the amendment, and which would either be legal or conventional. Legal subrogation is the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63, for
be unavailable if the Informations are amended. that which takes place without agreement but by further proceedings.
Petitioner further insisted that the ruling in the operation of law because of certain acts. Instances of
Sayson case did not apply to this case. legal subrogation are those provided in Article PEOPLE v GUEVARRA
- The appellate court declared that when PCIB 1302of the Civil Code. Conventional subrogation, on
179 SCRA 740
restored the amount of the checks to Caltex, it was the other hand, is that which takes place by
subrogated to the latter’s right against petitioner. It agreement of the parties. Thus, petitioner’s PADILLA: December 4, 1989
further declared that in offenses against property, acquiescence is not necessary for subrogation to
the designation of the name of the offended party is take place because the instant case is one of legal NATURE
not absolutely indispensable for as long as the subrogation that occurs by operation of law, and Automatic Review
criminal act charged in the complaint or information without need of the debtor’s knowledge.
can be properly identified. The appellate court cited 3. NO FACTS
the rulings of this Court in People v. Ho and People v. - The rules on criminal procedure require the -On or about April 8, 1980, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija,
Reyes. complaint or information to state the name and several armed men namely Jaime Guevarra y Arcega,
surname of the person against whom or against Poncing Abergas, Dan Tolentino, Baldo de Jesus,
ISSUE whose property the offense was committed or any Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, Boy Pogi, Chotse Doe alias
1. WON petitioner’s rights are prejudiced with the appellation or nickname by which such person has Bernabe Sulaybar y Hernandez, and Vergel
substitution of the complainant been or is known and if there is no better way of Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak", entered the house of
2. WON there was a valid subrogation of rights by Identifying him, he must be described under a the sps Cruz and robbed them of P3000 and jewelry.
Caltex to PCIB fictitious name (Rule 110, Section 11, Revised Rules Thereafter, Luisito Cruz was threatened by the men
3. WON charges against him should be dismissed of Court; now Rule 110, Section 12 of the 1985 Rules and forced to give the keys to his car by Vergel
because the allegations in both Informations failed to on Criminal Procedure.] In case of offenses against Bustamante. The members of the household were
name PCIB as true offended party property, the designation of the name of the then made to enter a room and were tied. After the
offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as robbery, Priscilla Cruz was forcibly boarded in her
HELD long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or own car by 5 of her kidnappers where she was held
1. NO information can be properly identified. at knife and gunpoint. She was then told she was
- The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by - Legal Basis: Section. 12. Name of the offended being held for ransom of P50k but they had to stop in
the amendment is whether a defense under the party. –The complaint or information must state the San Rafael Bulucan to hire a truck because the car
information as it originally stood would be available name and surname of the person against whom or broke down. However, she was left at Valenzuela
after the amendment is made, and whether any against whose property the offense was committed, Bulacan as the men said the kidnapping “did not
evidence defendant might have would be equally or any appellation or nickname by which such person materialize”. The five men then boarded a taxi and
applicable to the information in the one form as in has been or is known. If there is no better way of the truck driver later took her home. On the same
the other. An amendment to an information which identifying him, he must be described under a night, Luisito reported the incident which led to the
does not change the nature of the crime alleged fictitious name. detention of Vergel Bustamante who was positively
therein does not affect the essence of the offense or (a) In offenses against property, if the name of the identified by Priscilla.
cause surprise or deprive the accused of an offended party is unknown, the property must be -Bustamante denied the allegations and interposed
opportunity to meet the new averment had each described with such particularity as to properly the defense of alibi, claiming to be in Caloocan at the
been held to be one of form and not of substance. identify the offense charged. time of the crime. His defense was rejected
- In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB (b) If the true name of the person against whom or considering the proximity of Gapan and Caloocan and
as private complaint is not a substantial amendment. against whose property the offense was committed is since witnesses had positively identified him.
The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must -After a separate trial for Poncing Abergas and Vergel
in both Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak," inasmuch as Dan
to petitioner. The documentary evidence in the form or information and the record Tolentino, who had previously entered of plea of "not
of the forged checks remained the same, and all such (c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is guilty" could not be served with subpoenas, and the
evidence was available to petitioner well before the sufficient to state its name, or any name or other accused were reported to have died, judgment
trial. Thus, he cannot claim any surprise by virtue of designation by which it is known or by which it may was rendered finding the accused Vergel Bustamante
the substitution. be identified, without need of averring that it is a alias "Dan Saksak" guilty of the crime of Kidnapping
2. YES juridical person or that it is organized in accordance and Serious Illegal Detention and sentenced to suffer
- The Court agrees with respondent PCIB’s comment with law. the death penalty, and to indemnify the offended
that petitioner failed to make a distinction between Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. party, Mrs. Priscilla Cruz, in the amount of P5,000.00.
legal and conventional subrogation. Subrogation is The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of The accused Poncing Abergas, upon the other hand,
the transfer of all the rights of the creditor to a third Appeals are AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED to was acquitted of the charge. Hence, this appeal.
person, who substitutes him in all his rights. It may
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 15 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

ISSUES money in exchange for Priscilla’s safe return. is essential. But of course if his name cannot be
1. WON TC erred in ordering the amendment of the Besides, the Amended Information failed to allege ascertained, it may be alleged that it is unknown.
information to include Vergel Bustamante alias “Dan that the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting - From the fact that the name of the injured person
Saksak” despite lack of proof that the 2 are 1 and the a ransom. The rule is that an accused cannot be may, in case of necessity, be alleged as unknown it
same person. convicted of a higher offense than that charged in should NOT be inferred that the naming of such
2. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to the complaint or information. person, when known, is of no importance. Where the
justify the filing of the amended information -Hence, Bustamante can only be convicted of name of the injured party is necessary as matter of
3. WON the TC erred in convicting Bustamante upon kidnapping of a female under Article 267 with the essential description of the crime charged, the
the prosecution witnesses’ contradictory and aggravating circumstances of (a) the use of a motor complaint must invest such person with individuality
improbable testimonies and the appellant’s extra- vehicle and (b) the aid of armed men bringing the by either naming him or alleging that his name is
judicial confession penalty up to the maximum. However, due to Article unknown. It is elementary that in crimes against
4. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping 3 Sec. 19 of the Constitution, the death penalty is property, ownership must be alleged as matter
for ransom reduced to reclusion perpetua. essential to the proper description of the offense. To
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed constitute robbery, the property obtained must be
HELD from is hereby AFFIRMED that of another, and indictments for such offenses
1. NO. must name the owner; and a variance in this respect
- The ff circumstances led the RTC judge of Nueva US v LAHOYLAHOY and MADANLOG between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. It
Ecija to believe that Vergel Bustamante and “Dan is also necessary in order to identify the offense.
38 Phil. 330
Saksak” are one and the same person as the accused - A complaint charging the commission of the
is mentioned in each as Vergel Bustamante alias STREET; July 15, 1918 complex offense of robbery with homicide must
“Dan Saksak”: A subpoena issued by the MTC of necessarily charge each of the component offenses
Gapan; a Return of Service of one subpoena; an NATURE with the same precision that would be necessary if
order issued by the Municipal Court of Gapan finding Review of a decision of the CFI of Province of Iloilo, they were made the subject of separate complaints.
a prima facie case against the accused; and the sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and It is well recognized in this jurisdiction that where a
letter of transmittal of the records of the cases to the Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint charging complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to
RTC of Nueva Ecija stating Bustamante aka Dan the crime of robbery with multiple homicide. support the charge as to one of the component
Saksak was detained in the Manila City Jail. offenses the defendant can be convicted of the other.
-In, any case, the issue cannot be raised for the first FACTS The mere circumstance that the two crimes are so
time on appeal as it is one affecting jurisdiction over - The information in a prosecution for robbery with related as to constitute one transaction in no way
the person and should have been raised before the quadruple homicide charged that the accused affects the principles of pleading involved in the
trial court in a motion to quash the information. As criminally and by force appropriated certain articles case. To permit a defendant to be convicted upon a
the accused failed to do so, he is deemed to have of value, the property of one Roman Estriba, and on charge of robbing one person when the proof shows
waived his objection to the information and is occasion thereof killed the said Roman Estriba and that he robbed an entirely different person, when the
assumed to be satisfied with its legality. three others. However, the proof showed that the first was not present, is violative of the rudimentary
2. NO money which was the subject of the robbery was principles of pleading; and in addition, is subject to
- The reinvestigation is evidenced by the certification taken from one Juana Seran who was robbed and the criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in
of the Fiscal stating that there was reasonable killed separately from the other three victims. a position where he could not be protected from a
ground to believe a crime had been committed and future prosecution by a plea of former conviction or
that the accused were informed of the complaint and ISSUE acquittal. If we should convict or acquit these
given an opportunity to submit controverting WON the conviction for robbery with quadruple defendants today of the robbery which is alleged to
evidence. homicide can be sustained have been committed upon the property of Roman
3. NO Estriba, it is perfectly clear that they could be
- The said discrepancies in the testimonies were HELD prosecuted tomorrow for robbery committed upon
minor details which could not destroy the substance NO the property of Juana; and the plea of former
of said testimonies. As the highest degree of respect - Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. 58 jeopardy would be of no avail.
is accorded to the factual findings of the TC, the issue declares that a complaint or information shall show, - In the light of what has been said it is evident that,
of the credibility of the witnesses cannot be raised. among others things, the names of the persons by reason of the lack of conformity between the
Also, the evidence presented by the prosecution was against whom, or against whose property, the allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of
sufficient to support a finding of guilt even without offense was committed, if known. The complaint in the property, it is impossible to convict the two
the said extra-judicial confession. this case therefore properly contained an averment accused of the offense of robbery committed by
4. NO as to the ownership of the property; and upon them in this case; and therefore they cannot be
-No element of ransom exists as no ransom note was principle, in charging the crime of robbery committed convicted of the complex offense of robbery with
presented in court. Neither was there a demand for upon the person, the allegation of the owner's name
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 16 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

homicide. HOWEVER, the accused were sentenced by weapons”) and par3 (It is unlawful to carry outside of are other statutes (SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. 1780,
the Supreme Court for four separate homicides. residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such ORDINANCE NO. 3820 OF THE CITY OF MANILA ) which may
as 'fan knife,' 'spear,' 'dagger,' 'bolo,' 'balisong,' be charged against the accused for their acts to
'barong,' 'kris,' or club, except where such articles constitute a crime. It is the second element which
are being used as necessary tools or implements to removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon, if
earn a livelihood and while being used in connection concealed, outside of the scope of the statute or the
PEOPLE v PURISIMA therewith; and any person found guilty thereof shall city ordinance mentioned above. In other words, a
suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from five simple act of carrying any of the weapons described
86 SCRA 542
to ten years as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in
MUNOZ-PALMA; November 20, 1978 may direct.) itself. What makes the act criminal or punishable
-Petitioner’s Contention: (1) Par 3, PD 9 shows that under the decree is the motivation behind it. Without
NATURE the prohibited acts need not be related to the that motivation, the act fans within the purview of
Petitions for review (26 petitions consolidated) of the subversive activities; that the act proscribed is the city ordinance or some statute when the
decisions of the Courts of First of Manila and Samar. essentially malum prohibitum penalized for reasons circumstances so warrant.
of public policy; (3) that since it is malum prohibitum, -ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION: for a complaint or
FACTS the intention of the accused who commits it is information to be sufficient it must, inter alia, state
-The private respondents were all charged with illegal immaterial; (4) that PD was enacted to eradicate the designation of the offense by the statute, and the
possession of deadly weapons (one (1) carving knife lawless violence which characterized pre-martial law acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
with a blade 1/2 inches and a wooden handle of 5-1/4 days; and (5) that the real nature of the criminal offense. This is essential to avoid surprise on the
inches, or an overall length of 11-3/4 inches in the charge is determined not from the caption or accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare
Information filed with J.Purisima; ice pick with an preamble of the information nor from the his defense accordingly. It is necessary that the
overall length of about 8 1/2 inches in the specification of the provision of law alleged to have particular law violated be specified as there
Information filed with J. Maceren; socyatan in the been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the exists a substantial difference between the
Information filed with J. Polo) in violation of PD 9, Par. complaint or information. statute and city ordinance on the one hand
3. Informations were filed with respondent judges in and P.D. 9 (3) on the other regarding the
their respective courts (2 Branches of CFI, then CFI circumstances of the commission of the crime
Samar) but upon motion to quash filed by the several ISSUE and the penalty imposed for the offense.(PD 9
accused, the said judges dismissed the Informations WON the Informations filed by the People sufficient in punishes the offender with 5-10 yrs imprisonment;
on the common ground that the said Informations did form and substance to constitute the offense of Sec26, Act 1780 with a fine of P500 or by
not allege facts which constitute the offense “Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon” penalized imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both;
penalized by PD 90 – failed to state 1 of the 2 under PD 9 Ordinance 3820 with a fine of not more than P200 or
essential elements of the crime punished (the imprisonment for not more than 1 month or both).
carrying outside of the accused's residence of a HELD But since it was specified in the Informations that the
bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or NO. accused were charged with violation of Par3, PD 9, it
on the occasion of, connected with or related to The two elements of the offense covered by P.D. 9(3) was necessary for the Court to elucidate the
subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized must be alleged in the information in order that the elements of the said PD to differentiate it from other
lawlessness or public disorder.) latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. statutes (see above) – the rest of the discussion was
- In the 2 cases filed before the different branches of Ratio. The sufficiency of an Information is on the intent of the PD: to justify their decision that
CFI Manila, the orders of dismissal were given determined solely by the facts alleged therein. Where Par3 should be interpreted with the Whereas clause.
before arraignment of the accused. In the the facts are incomplete and do not convey the - there exists a valid presumption that undesirable
criminal case before the CFI Samar the accused was elements of the crime, the quashing of the consequences were never intended by a legislative
arraigned but at the same time moved to quash the accusation is in order. measure, and that a construction of which the
Information. In all the cases where the accused were - It is a constitutional right of any person who stands statute is fairly susceptable is favored, which will
under arrest, the three Judges ordered their charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible,
immediate release unless held on other charges. the nature and cause of the accusation against him. wrongful, evil, and injurious consequences. It is to be
-ON PD 9:THIS CASE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION Reasoning. The offense carries two elements: first, presumed that when P.D. 9 was promulgated by the
AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF THIS P.D. the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, President of the Republic there was no intent to work
The pertinent paragraphs of the said PD is its blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a a hardship or an oppressive result, a possible abuse
“Whereas” clause ("WHEREAS, subversion, rebellion, necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and of authority or act of oppression, arming one person
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos and second that the act of carrying the weapon was with a weapon to impose hardship on another, and so
public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection on. Penal statutes are to be construed strictly
Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and abetted by with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless against the state and liberally in favor of an
the use of firearms, explosives and other deadly violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. There accused.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 17 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

-ON OTHER REMEDIES OF THE PEOPLE: Under Rule 117, - CFI decision: Each of the accused MELQUIADES intelligence would be able to understand and thereby
Sec 7 and Rule 110, Sec 13, Information may be FERNANDEZ and FEDERICO CONRADO is guilty know what acts he was to defend himself against.
amended or ordered by the court to be amended. Or, beyond reasonable doubt of two crimes of rape, (b) As clearly found by the trial court: “Both accused
the People could have filed a complaint either under aggravated by cruelty or ignominy. Court sentences have, obviously, conspired and confederated to
Sec 26 of Act 1780 or under Manila City Ordinance each of them to suffer 2 penalties of death. commit the crime, considering that they entered the
3820 since most of the cases were dismissed prior to - Appeal before SC: The accused filed this appeal to bathroom where Rebecca was, together and at the
arraignment of the accused and on a motion to reduce penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. same time. Accused Fernandez then tied her with a
quash. However, in light of the 1987 Consti specifically Sec piece of cloth tightly around her neck, while accused
Dispositive. WHEREFORE, We DENY these 26 19(1), Art III, under which a death penalty already Conrado held her hands placing them behind her
Petitions for Review and We AFFIRM the Orders of imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua, Fernandez body. Then after Fernandez had raped Rebecca,
respondent Judges dismissing or quashing the withdrew his appeal. The lone appellant therefore is Conrado raped her. Both fled from the scene of the
Information concerned, subject however to Our Conrado who insists on his appeal, notwithstanding crime together and at the same time.”
observations made in the preceding pages 23 to 25 the advice of his counsel de officio to discontinue. 2. NO
of this Decision regarding the right of the State or - Appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
Petitioner herein to file either an amended ISSUES ignominy is correct because of the greater perversity
Information under Presidential Decree No. 9, 1. WON CFI erred in convicting them for 2 crimes of displayed by the offenders. The act of "plastering"
paragraph 3, or a new one under other existing rape mud on the victim's vagina right after she was raped
statute or city ordinance as the facts may warrant. 2. WON CFI erred in holding that the rape was is adequately described as "ignominy" (rather than
Without costs. SO ORDERED. attended by the aggravating circumstance of cruelty “cruelty or ignominy”)
or ignominy 3. NO
PEOPLE v FERNANDEZ 3. WON CFI erred in sentencing each to suffer 2 - The original death sentence was correctly imposed:
penalties of death Art 335 RPC states that when the crime of rape is
183 SCRA 511
committed by 2 or more persons, the penalty shall be
PADILLA; March 22, 1990 HELD reclusion perpetua to death; Art 63 RPC states that
1. NO when the penalty prescribed is composed of 2
NATURE Ratio The imposition on each of the accused of the indivisible penalties and the offense is attended by
Appeal from CFI Pangasinan decision penalty corresponding to 2 crimes of rape is proper, an aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty
because of the existence of conspiracy. In multiple shall be applied.
FACTS rape, each defendant is responsible not only for the - However, since the original death penalties
- Criminal complaint filed before the CFI alleged that rape personally committed by him, but also for the imposed by the trial court are no longer imposable
the accused, conspiring and mutually helping one rape committed by the others, because each of them under the present Constitution and are reduced to
another, had sexual intercourse with the 15-yr old cooperated in the commission of the rape reclusion perpetua, the sentence on appellant
Rebecca SORIANO, by means of force and perpetrated by the others, by acts without which it Conrado has to be reduced to 2 penalties of reclusion
intimidation. Assisted by counsel, the accused would not have been accomplished. perpetua. But the indemnity he has to pay to the
FERNANDEZ and CONRADO pleaded not guilty on Reasoning CFI is accused of violating the rule victim must be increased to P20T in line with
arraignment and underwent trial. against duplicity of offenses in that, the accused prevailing jurisprudence.
- REBECCA is Teofilo Malong’s househelper. Ater she were convicted for 2 crimes of rape even when under Dispositive Appeal has no merit. Decision affirmed.
had just taken a bath and still naked, the two the criminal complaint against them, there is only 1
accused, both in short pants, surreptitiously entered crime of rape alleged. The rule invoked is Sec 13, PEOPLE v LUMILAN
the bathroom and sexually abused her. Fernandez Rule 110 of the ROC which states that there should
then got a handful of mud near the bathroom and 323 SCRA 170
be only 1 offense charged in a criminal complaint or
placed it on her vagina. She ran to the upper floor of information, the purpose of which is to afford the DE LEON; June 25, 2000
the house to report the tragic incident to Amelita, defendant a necessary knowledge of the charge so
Teofilo’s daughter. that he may not be confused in his defense. NATURE
- TEOFILO stated that upon being informed that his (a) BUT it is likewise the rule that if ever duplicity of Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
housemaid Rebecca was raped by the accused, they offenses is committed, the same constitutes a Ilagan, Isabela
all proceeded to the office of the INP Police Station of ground for a motion to quash the complaint; failure of
Malasiqui to report the crime and had Rebecca the accused to interpose the objection constitutes FACTS
physically examined in that same afternoon. waiver. Neither can he claim that he was denied - Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan, Isabela, found
- In defense, the 2 denied any involvement in the information that he was to be tried for two crimes. accused-appellants Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia
offense, both claiming they were nowhere at the The acts complained of were stated in ordinary and guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of
scene of the crime when it was committed. concise language that any person of common murder, two (2) counts of frustrated murder, and
three (3) counts of attempted murder, under an
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 18 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Information charging them and accused Fred Orbiso - Sec. 4. Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court themselves against the charges for murder,
with the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of provides that an accused may not be convicted of an frustrated murder and attempted murder.
Firearms Used in Murder, in violation of Presidential offense other than that with which he is charged in - While the Information specifically states that
Decree (P.D.) No. 1866. the Information, unless such other offense was both appellants are being accused of the crime of
- The evidence of the prosecution reveals that in the established by evidence and is included in the Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in
early evening of October 12, 1987, Meliton Asuncion, offense charged in the Information. Since murder or Murder in violation of P.D. No. 1866, its text is so
Modesto Roque, Eliong dela Cruz, Jerry Palomo, homicide neither includes or is necessarily included worded that it describes at least three (3) crimes:
Simeon Pacano, Benito Alonzo, Nolasco Estrada, in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in illegal possession of firearms, murder, and
Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho were drinking liquor murder or homicide, the trial court may not validly attempted/frustrated murder.
inside the house of Policarpio Palomo when it was convict an accused for the former crime under an - The Information is undeniably duplicitous.
sprayed with bullets. The successive gunshots Information charging the latter offense. Conversely, Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court
emanated from the fence about six (6) meters away an accused charged in the Information with homicide provides that a complaint or information must
from where they were drinking, killing Meliton or murder may not be convicted of qualified illegal charge but one offense, except only in cases
Asuncion, Modesto Rogue, and Eliong dela Cruz and possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, where the law prescribes a single punishment
seriously wounding Jerry Palomo, Simeon Pacano, for the latter is not included in the former. for various offenses. Duplicity or multiplicity of
Nolasco Estrada, Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho. -Further, a significant change was introduced to Sec. charges is a ground for a motion to quash
- Upon being arraigned, both Lumilan and Garcia 1 of P.D. No. 1866 by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294, under Sec. 2 (e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules
entered the plea of not guilty, and during trial, they such that now, where an accused uses an unlicensed of Court. The accused, however, may choose
interposed the defense of alibi. firearm in committing homicide or murder, he may not to file a motion to quash and be convicted
- After an assessment of the evidence, the trial court no longer be charged with what used to be the two of as many distinct charges as are alleged in
declared that no proof beyond reasonable doubt was separate offenses of homicide or murder under the the information and proved during the trial. In
adduced by the prosecution to justify the conviction Revised Penal Code and qualified illegal possession of the same vein, failure to interpose any
of appellants for Qualified Illegal Possession of firearms used in homicide or murder under P.D. No. objection to the defect in the information
Firearms Used in Murder. However, the trial court 1866. constitutes waiver.
convicted the appellants for Murder, Frustrated -As amended by R.A. No. 8294, P.D. No. 1866 now - In the instant case, appellant did not file any motion
Murder and Attempted Murder. mandates that the accused will be prosecuted only to quash the Information. More significantly, the bulk
- Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration which for the crime of homicide or murder with the fact of of the evidence that they presented during the trial
was, however, denied - Hence, the instant appeal. illegal possession of firearms being relegated to a was intended to disprove their complicity in the
mere special aggravating circumstance. murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder of
ISSUE - The Information charging appellants with Qualified the victims.
WON the appellants may be properly convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder, -As such, appellants cannot pretend that the
murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder violates Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. Information did not fully apprise them of the charges
under an Information that charges them with No. 8294, which obliterated the now obsolete against them as to cause them surprise in the event
qualified illegal possession of firearms used in concept of qualified illegal possession of firearms or of conviction. The appellation of the crime charged
murder in violation of Section 1 of presidential illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form, as determined by the provincial fiscal may not
Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended. i.e., where the penalty for illegal possession is exactly correspond to the actual crimes constituted
increased to reclusion perpetua or death by the by the criminal acts described in the Information to
HELD attendance of homicide or murder. In fact, qualified have been committed by the accused, but what
YES illegal possession of firearms, which used to be a controls in the description of the said criminal acts
- At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment distinct offense, no longer exists in our statute books. and not the technical name of the crime supplied by
of conviction in September 1990, it had already been - Whether considered in the light of our ruling in Tac- the provincial fiscal. Since appellants defended
six (6) months since the Court held in People v. Tac- an and its progeny of cases or in the context of the themselves not only against the offense of Qualified
an that the unlawful possession of an unlicensed amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 to P.D. No. Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder as
firearm or ammunition, whether or not homicide or 1866, the Information charging appellants with specified in the Information, but also, and more
murder resulted from its use, on one hand, and Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in seriously against the crimes of Murder, Frustrated
murder or homicide, on the other, are offenses Murder, is defective, and their conviction for Murder, Murder and Attempted Murder as described in the
different and separate from and independent of, each Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder, is irregular. body of the Information, it cannot be said that their
other. While the former is punished under a special - However, such defect in the Information and the conviction for the latter crimes is infirm and invalid
law, the latter is penalized under the Revised Penal irregular conviction of appellants, does not invalidate ***Appellants in this case were nonetheless
Code. Consequently, the prosecution for one will not the criminal proceedings had in the trial court acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The
bar prosecution for the other, and double jeopardy because the appellants waived their right to quash constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of
will not lie. the Information, and they effectively defended the appellants was not over-turned by the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. The Court entertained
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 19 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

doubts as to the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimony on, or using or producing" as employee or laborer of of the information that the accused is charged with
that they were able to identify the appellants as the the complainant, as provided for in Presidential the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential
authors of the crime considering that it was dark Decree No. 133. Except for the dates of commission Decree No. 133," does not suffice for the purpose
outside, and the only source of light were two and the amounts involved, the aforesaid three (3) envisioned by the constitutional guarantee that the
kerosene lamps inside the house. They also took informations uniformly stated that said accused were accused should be informed of the nature and cause
note of the fact that Pacano, one of the witnesses, charged with the crime of qualified theft, in relation of the accusation against him. The Supreme Court
only executed his sworn statement more than five to Presidential Decree No. 133, committed as follows: said that the appropriate penalty is that under Article
months atfer the incident. "That on or about the 14th day of November, 1973 309 (3) of the RPC-prision correccional in its
Disposition The decision of the Regional Trial Court in the Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, minimum and medium periods if value of property
of Ilagan, Isabela is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed
accused-appellants, Leon Lumilan and Antonio Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being 6,000 pesos. But with the mitigating plea of guilty,
Garcia, are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that then laborers working at the Markes Agro-Chemical penalty is in its minimum period.
their alleged guilt was not proven beyond reasonable Enterprises, conspiring and confederating together
doubt. with one Renato Matuto y Ann, who is still at large,
all of them mutually helping and aiding one
MATILDE v JABSON another, with intent of gain, grave abuse of
confidence, and without the knowledge and
68 SCRA 456
consent of the said firm, its President and General
ANTONIO; December 29, 1975. Manager, Marciano K. Espiritu, did then and there BALITAAN v CFI (DE LOS REYES)
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and
NATURE 115 SCRA 729.
carry away the following, to wit: . . ."
Certiorari to nullify the judgment of respondent Court - When the informations were amended from GUERRERO; July 30, 1982
of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXVI, in Criminal Qualified Theft to Simple theft and deleting from the
Cases Nos. 9552, 9553 and 9554, imposing upon the body of Information the phrase “Grave abuse of
accused Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz, for the crime of confidence”, Matilde pleaded GUILTY but the Court FACTS
simple theft, the penalty prescribed in Presidential imposed the penalty under PD 133 and not those by - Luz Balitaan owns a baby dresses mending shop.
Decree No. 133 (which imposes a heavier penalty) Article 309 (3) of the RPC. From this decision, Matilde Rita de los Reyes is the manager of her business.
instead of that imposed by Article 309, paragraph 3, sought from the Court a quo a reconsideration - Luz, thru Special Counsel Aguila, filed with the MTC
of the Revised Penal Code. contending that in the absence of any allegation in of Bauan, Batangas an Information charging Rita of
the body of information alleging specifically all the the crime of estafa. The information contains that
FACTS elements of the offense defined and penalized under Rita misappropriated P127.58, through grave abuse
- An Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three PD. 133, he cannot be conviceted and penalized of confidence, despite of repeated demands of Luz.
informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 9552, 9553 and under the aforesaid decree. (See original for exact wording of Information.)
9554 against Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz, Patricio - During trial at the MTC, Luz testified that Rita
Guiruela y Luna, Ricardo Abener y San Pascual, ISSUE delivered the baby dresses to Uniware, and for this
Edgardo Cape y Atienza, Servando Calpo y Caballero, WON the information that the accused is charged she (Rita) obtained 3 checks totaling P1,632.97. A
and Ireneo Belver y Bale. with the crime of simple theft “in relation to PD 133” cash voucher evidencing the receipt of said amount
In three criminal cases, respondent court imposed suffices was entered into evidence. The lawyer for the
upon petitioner, for the crime of simple theft, the defense moved:
penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. 133, HELD (1) to strike the testimonies with regard to the
instead of that imposed by Article 309, paragraph 3, NO voucher evidence on the ground that said
of the Revised Penal Code. The information charged - The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari testimonies are at variance with the allegations in
that petitioner and his co-accused, being then and set aside the judgment, and directed that the information, that there is no allegation in the
laborers, conspired and confederated with, and another one be rendered. It held that since the information whatsoever regarding these checks and
mutually aided one another, with intent of gain and objective of Presidential Decree No. 133 is to place a this cash voucher; and
without knowledge and consent of their employer, in strong deterrent on workers from sabotaging the (2) in the nature of an objection to any other
stealing the articles mentioned therein belonging to productive efforts of the industry where they are question or questions regarding these checks that
their employer. Although the preamble of said employed, it is essential, to qualify the offense and to were allegedly received by the herein accused from
informations stated that petitioner was charged with justify the imposition of the heavier penalty the Uniware Incorporated because there is no
the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential prescribed by said Decree, that the information allegation in the information.
Decree No. 133," nowhere was it alleged in the body should aver that the articles stolen were materials or The court overruled such objections as the lawyer
of said information that the articles stolen were products which the accused was "working on or using of the complainant told the judge that the evidence
materials or products which petitioner was "working or producing," and that a statement in the preamble was presented to prove that the P127.58 was
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 20 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

misappropriated from the P1,632.97. The testimony and not thru abuse of confidence (Art 315 par 1b upon sworn complaint of the offended party,
thus continued. [It turns out that Rita told Luz that RPC). The elements of these two are different. Under Neddy Calayca, accuses ARTEMIO CALAYCA of the
P127.58 was due a Cesar Dalangin for some of the par 2a, demand is not necessary and deceit or false crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
dresses he made. Luz then instructed Rita to encash representation must be shown. But this doesn’t mean That on or about the 29th day of January,
the checks and pay Cesar. Rita gave Luz the that proof of deceit is not allowed for par 1b. Abuse 1994 at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning,
encashed amount minus the P127.58. Three weeks of confidence and deceit may co-exist. Even if deceit more or less, at Barangay Solo, Municipality of
later, when she noticed that many baby dresses were may be present, the abuse of confidence will Balingasag, Province of Misamis Oriental,
lost, she verified the receipts of the payments. Cesar characterize the estafa as the deceit will be merely Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
said he did not make the baby dresses Rita said he incidental or, is absorbed by abuse of confidence. Honorable Court, the above-named accused
did, and he didn’t receive the amount (he didn’t even - As long as there is a relation of trust and confidence did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
know Rita). Luz then demanded from Rita the said between the complainant and the accused and even feloniously and by means of force and
amount; but Rita kept the money.] though such relationship has been induced by the intimidation, succeeded in having carnal
- The defense then filed a petition for certiorari in accused thru false representations and pretense and knowledge (sexual intercourse) with her (sic)
the CFI of Batangas against the MTC judge for which is continued by active deceit without truthfully own daughter, Neddy Calayca, against her will
denying the motions to strike out the testimonies disclosing the facts to the complainant, the estafa and consent.
relating to the evidence. CFI granted the petition and committed is by abuse of confidence although deceit "CONTRARY TO and in VIOLATION OF Article
ordered the testimonies stricken out of the record. co-exists in its commission. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
- The presence of deceit would not change the whole Republic Act No. 7659.
ISSUE theory of the prosecution that estafa with abuse of "Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, March 6,
WON the testimonies are at variance with the confidence was committed. 1995.
allegations in the information. Dispositive CFI decision to strike out testimonies is (SGD.) ROBERTO S. CASIÑO
reversed and set aside. "Asst. Provincial Prosecutor II"
HELD - When arraigned under the above-quoted
NO PEOPLE v CALAYCA Information, the appellant entered a plea of "Not
- It is fundamental that every element of which the guilty" to the crime charged. Trial on the merits
301 SCRA 192
offense is composed must be alleged in the ensued thereafter.
complaint or information. What facts and MARTINEZ; January 20, 1999 - The evidence for the prosecution was anchored
circumstances are necessary to be stated must be mainly on the testimony of 16-year old Neddy
determined by reference to the definitions and the NATURE Calayca who, on May 2, 1995, narrated that at about
essentials of the specific crimes. The main purpose of Automatic review 1:00 o'clock in the morning of January 29, 1994, she
requiring the various elements of a crime to be set was sound asleep inside their house at Barangay
out in an information is to enable the accused to FACTS Solo, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental when she was
suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have - A daughter was again allegedly raped by her own awakened by the weight of her father, herein
no independent knowledge of the facts that father, herein appellant Artemio Calayca, who is now appellant Artemio Calayca, who was already on top
constitute the offense. facing a death sentence after having been found of her, naked and armed with a bolo. He forcibly
- Inasmuch as the crime of estafa through guilty of said crime in a Decision 1 dated June 13, undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina and
misappropriation or with grave abuse of confidence is 1995, rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch made a push and pull motion. Feeling the pain in her
charged, the information must contain these 24) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No. 95- vagina, she resisted his onslaught by kicking and
elements: 129. Hence, this automatic review. hitting him, telling him with bitter tears, "I wish you
(a) that personal property is received in trust, on - A rape charge was initiated by Neddy Calayca would die. You are a father without good morals." But
commission, for administration or under any other through a sworn complaint with supporting affidavits she was helpless to resist his lustful desire as he
circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of and documents 3 filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial threatened her with a knife saying, "I will kill you if
or to return the same, even though the obligation is Court of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental on January 9, you will not agree." After the sexual assault, she
guaranteed by a bond; 1995. MCTC Judge Alfredo Cain found sufficient picked up her clothes, dressed up and was left
(b) that there is conversion or diversion of such ground to prosecute the appellant for the crime of weeping. She was then 15 years old when this
property by the person who has so received it; rape. This was the same finding of the Office of the incident happened. 7
(c) that such conversion, diversion or denial is to the Provincial Prosecutor of Misamis Oriental upon - Neddy Calayca first thought of immediately filing a
injury of another and examination of the records of the preliminary case against appellant but was prevented by his
(d) that there be demand for the return of the investigation forwarded to it. Consequently, on March threat to kill her. She, however, reported her awful
property. 21, 1995, the corresponding Information was filed experience with the appellant to her relatives in
- The position of the defense is that the testimonies with the Regional Trial Court reading as follows: Mambayaan. She informed them that even before
tend to prove another kind of estafa --- using false "INFORMATION the January 29, 1994 incident, appellant had sexually
pretenses or fraudulent acts (Art 315 par 2a RPC)--- "The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor II, abused her many times. Her relatives, who were also
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 21 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

afraid of appellant, merely advised her to sue him. throws the whole case open for review and it Appeal From CFI Davao’s Decision
She immediately went home in Solo because she becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an
feared her father. When she reached home, her error as may be found in the appealed judgment, FACTS
eldest sister Betty Lani Calayca also arrived from whether it is made the subject of assignment of - Said CFI sustained a Demurrer to an INFORMATION
Manila. Informed of the rape incident, Lani and errors or not. and dismissed the case of rape against Antonio Javier
Neddy decided to leave the appellant. The two then - The trial court imposed the death penalty on Dichao.
traveled to Don Carlos, Bukidnon and worked as appellant because of the presence of the - The Information stated that Dichao committed the
servants of the mayor, thinking their father could no circumstance of minority of the victim (she was only crime of rape “on or about and during the interval
longer find them there. However, appellant was able 15 years old at the time she was raped on January between October 1910, to August 1912“ (vague di
to locate them. While in the house of the mayor, 29, 1994) as well as the relationship of the offender ba?) in Davao and that Dichao was, at that period,
appellant harassed them, so Betty Lani had him (father) and the victim (daughter), pursuant to the legal guardian, being the stepfather, of Isabel de
arrested by the police. While appellant was in jail, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 30 which la Cruz who was under 12 years old when he raped
Neddy reported to the police authorities that he amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. her; that as a result of said carnal knowledge Isabel
raped her. The police then took her sworn statement Section 11 provides, inter alia, that where the victim gave birth to a child on August 5, 1912.
on the rape incident. Thereafter, Neddy filed her of the crime of rape is under 18 years of age and the - The Demurrer alleged that the facts set forth in the
complaint for rape against the appellant. offender is a parent of the victim, the death penalty Information did not constitute a public offense and
- Appellant Artemio Calaycadid not deny the shall be imposed. This is among the seven (7) that the criminal complaint did not conform
imputation of her daughter Neddy Calayca that he circumstances enumerated in Section 11 which, as substantially to prescribed form and that complaint
raped her in the early morning of January 29, 1994. we have held in the recent case of People v. Garcia, was vague and ambiguous.
All that he testified to was that he was a widower in 32 are considered special qualifying circumstances
1998 and has six children by his late wife, two of specifically applicable to the crime of rape. ISSUE
whom he identified as Neddy, the private - There being no allegation of the minority of the WON CFI committed an error in dismissing the case
complainant, and Betty Lani. He claimed that Neddy victim in the Information under which the appellant based upon the Demurrer
was only nine years old when his wife died. The was arraigned, he cannot be convicted of qualified
private complainant stayed with him together with rape as he was not properly informed that he is being HELD
his five other children, while Betty Lani stayed with accused of qualified rape. Appellant's conviction of NO. CFI’s decision must be affirmed.
his (appellant's) brother at San Juan, Misamis qualified rape violates his constitutional right to be Ratio The allegations of an information should, if
Oriental. Betty Lani and Neddy left his house on properly informed of the nature and cause of possible, be sufficiently explicit and certain as to
August 19, 1993. They took his savings from the accusation against him. In a criminal prosecution, it TIME to inform the defendant of the date on which
proceeds of the sale of his pig in the amount of is the fundamental rule that every element of the the criminal act is alleged to have been committed.
P5,000.00. He then looked for his two daughters and crime charged must be alleged in the Information. Unless the accused is informed of the day, or about
found them at Bocboc, Don Carlos, Bukidnon. When The main purpose of this constitutional requirement the day, he may be, to an extent deprived of the
he asked them why they took his money, his two is to enable the accused to properly prepare his opportunity to defend himself.
daughters did not say a word, forcing him to slap defense. He is presumed to have no independent Reasoning
them. knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. - While Sec 7 of the Code of CrimPro provides that
- The defense did not present any other witness nor - The failure to allege the fact of minority of the “except when time is a material ingredient of an
any documentary evidence. A judgment convicting victim in the Information for rape is fatal and offense, the precise time of commission need not be
the appellant of the crime charged and imposing consequently bars the imposition of the death stated in a complaint or information, but the act may
upon him the penalty of death was rendered by the penalty. Having been informed only of the elements be alleged to have been committed at any time
trial court. of simple rape, the appellant can be convicted only before the filing thereof,” - this DOES NOT MEAN
of such crime and be punished accordingly with that the prosecuting officer may be careless in fixing
ISSUE reclusion perpetua. the date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit
WON the correct penalty was imposed Dispositive Judgment modified the date altogether, or that he may make the
allegation indefinite as to amount to the same thing.
HELD - Where the exact date cannot be fixed, or where the
NO prosecuting officer is NOT thoroughly satisfied that
- While the Court agrees that the penalty of death he can prove a precise date, he should allege in the
should be imposed on him, regrettably this is not in US v JAVIER DICHAO information that the crime was committed ON or
accord with the law and jurisprudence. ABOUT a DATE NAMED.
27 Phil 421
Although the matter of the proper imposition of the - Under such an allegation he is not required to prove
penalty is not assigned as an error by the appellant, MORELAND; March 30, 1914 any precise date but may prove any date which is
nevertheless, it is a well-established rule in criminal NOT SO REMOTE as to surprise and prejudice the
procedure that an appeal in a criminal proceeding NATURE defendant.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 22 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- In case of SURPRISE, the Court may allow an correct date and may grant an adjournment for such filed motion for leave to amend the complaint. This
amendment of the information as to time and an a length of time as will enable the defendant to was granted. Thus, the new complaint.
adjournment to the accused, if necessary to meet the prepare himself to meet the variance in date which - Molero filed motion to quash 2 nd criminal complaint
amendment. was the cause of his surprise. on ground of double jeopardy. This was denied.
- SC then cited cases: Dispositive Decision affirmed.
US v De Castro~ “While it is not necessary, ISSUES
unless time is a material ingredient of the offense, PEOPLE v MOLERO 1. WON Molero was under double jeopardy
that the precise time of the commission of the 2. WON Molero committed the rape
144 SCRA 397
offense should be stated, still the act should be
alleged to have been committed at some time before GUTIERREZ JR.; September 24, 1986 HELD
the filing of the complaint.” 1. NO
US v. Enriquez- question of time as alleged NATURE - Section 9, Rule 117 of 1985 Rules on Criminal
in the information was discussed in an incidental way Appeal from decision of CFI Procedure: Conviction or acquittal of the defendant
for the purpose of determining whether it of itself or or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another
in connection with the other allegations sufficiently FACTS prosecution for the offense charged…
identified the transaction which constituted estafa so - Molero was charged with rape by daughter in - Here, the case was not terminated because the
as to notify the defendant of the transaction referred complaint filed in CFI Negros Oriental. dispositive portion of the order expressly directed the
to; Time is not a mat’l ingredient in the crime of Molero told daughter to go with him to the river to Provincial Fiscal and/or prosecuting fiscal to file a
estafa. catch shrimps and fish. She was barely 17. She new complaint and/or information.
US v. Cardona- question of time was raised was hugged fr behind by Molero and she fell to the - The case was dismissed for no other reason except
in the demurrer (on appeal) as to the variance bet ground. He unsheathed his bolo. He succeeded in to correct the date of the crime.
the date of the crime in the info and that proved on having sexual intercourse and warned her not to - This dismissal did not amount to an acquittal.
the trial; Court here said that time being not an tell anyone. - There was no need for trial court to have used such
ingredient of the theft of a carabao, it did not have to - The mother learned of the incident and told procedure. It should just have denied motion for
be proved as laid. daughter to keep quiet for the moment; they were reconsideration of the order granting the
- The question whether the allegations of the info are secretive of their plan to report because Molero is a prosecution’s motion for leave to amend the
sufficiently definite as to time and the question which fierce man. complaint.
arises on a variance between the allegations and the - Mother and daughter went to Station Commander. After arraignment and where appellant pleaded not
proof are different in nature and legal effect, and are They were advised to report to the PC Headquarters. guilty, is it still proper to amend date of commission
decided on different principles. At the PC Headquarters, complaint was investigated, of crime? Applying Sections 10 and 13 of Rule 110 of
- In this case, the statement of the time when the but accused didn’t want investigation to continue Revised Rules of Court, amendment sought by
crime was committed is too indefinite to give the because accdg to him, this was their own problem. prosecution should have been granted. The precise
accused an opportunity to prepare his defense, and - Internal and external exam of victim showed she time is not an essential element of rape. The
that indefiniteness is not cured by setting out the had previous sexual intercourse. amendment was only a matter of form and did not
date when a child was born as a result of such crime. - Molero denied the charge, saying he couldn’t have prejudice the rights of the appellant.
- Sec 7 Rules of CrimPro’s purpose is to permit the done it because he was already committed in the 2. YES
allegation of a date of the commission of a crime as provincial jail that time. He also denied the sworn - Molero argues that if a crime was committed by him
NEAR to the ACTUAL date as the information of the statement he made, saying he’s illiterate. He said he at all, it was qualified seduction.
prosecuting officer will permit and when that has was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to - SC didn’t agree. Appellant was shown to have
been done, any date proved which does not surprise counsel; that he was not assisted by counsel during employed force and intimidation against daughter.
and substantially prejudice the defense. investigation. Also, he had moral ascendancy and influence over
- It does not authorize the total omission of a date or - Molero’s alibi was readily refuted. the victim. The victim is illiterate and unschooled,
such an indefinite allegation with reference thereto - Trial court found Molero guilty beyond reasonable and Molero threatened her with a bolo and rendered
as amounts to the same thing. doubt of rape. her practically helpless.
- SC: the variance bet the date of the commission of - A double jeopardy issue arose because there were
the crime as alleged in the info and that as proved on two complaints filed:
trial DOES NO warrant necessarily the acquittal of - filed March 22, 1977: rape was committed Feb
the accused. IF such variance occurs and it is shown 13, 1976
- filed March 30, 1978: rape was committed Feb
that the defendant is surprised thereby, and that, by PEOPLE v LUALHATI
reason of that surprise, he is unable to defend 5, 1976
- Molero was arraigned under the first complaint, he 171 SCRA 277, 283
himself properly, the court may in the exercise of
sound discretion based on ALL circumstances, order pleaded not guilty. - During trial, the provincial fiscal GRINO-AQUINO; March 16, 1989
the information amended so as to set forth the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 23 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

NATURE possessed the "patria potestas" over the offended committed as the information or complaint will
Petition for review of the Decision of the Trial court party in spite of his having abandoned her. permit.
- Trial court denied the motion to dismiss on account 2. NO
FACTS of the insistence of the victim's father to prosecute Ratio Art. 344(3) of the Revised Penal Code prohibits
- Complainant Josephine Dimaunahan was born on the accused, absent judicial pronouncement a prosecution for seduction, abduction, rape, or acts
January 7, 1967 depriving him of parental authority over the offended of lasciviousness, except upon a complaint made by
- In 1970, her mother separated from her father and party, a child below twelve years old. the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
started to live with appellant Vicente Lualhati without - Accused filed Motion to Quash, which was denied by guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
the benefit of marriage. She likewise lived with the trial court expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as
appellant who supported her, took care of her studies - Trial court convicted the accused of rape, and the case may be. It does not prohibit the continuance
and treated her like his own daughter. imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. of a prosecution if the offended party pardons the
- Sometime in June, 1978, while complainant's offender after the cause has been instituted, nor
mother was at work, appellant and complainant were ISSUES does it order the dismissal of said cause. The only act
alone in the house. Appellant had sexual intercourse 1. WON there was a valid complaint against the that riding to Article 344 extinguishes the penal
with complainant. It appeared that even prior to June, appellant action and the penalty that may have been imposed,
1978, appellant had already several sexual relations 2. WON the pardon given to him by the offended is the marriage between the offender and the
with complainant party, her mother, and grandmother extinguished his offended party.
- Upon arraignment on, the accused pleaded not criminal liability, in spite of the objection of the Reasoning
guilty victim's father. - The rationale of the law on the prosecution of
- The defense filed a motion to dismiss on the ground private crimes is simple: The law deems it the wiser
that the complaint charged more than one offense, HELD policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family
namely: 1. YES decide whether to expose to public view or to heated
“That on or about the month of June, 1978, and for Ratio Discrepancies between the accusation and the controversies in court the vices, faults and
sometime prior and subsequent thereto, ... the complaint as to time of occurrence of the carnal disgraceful acts occurring in the family. However,
accused Vicente Lualhati wilfully, unlawfully and copulations in rape do not affect any essential right when, as in the case at bar, the pardon is given after
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the of the accused, where the acts occurred within the the filing of the complaint in court, it comes too late
complainant Josephine M. Dimaunahan ...” period of time alleged in both writings and the to hide the shameful occurrence from public notice.
- Fiscal alleged that the accused was being tried on difference noted in other respects was of a formal, Dispositive Decision of trial court affirmed
the Information which charged only one offense rather than a substantial, character.
committed "in or about the month of June 1978." Reasoning
- Trial judge denied motion to dismiss. - Appellant contends that the complaint is void
- The accused filed another Motion to Dismiss, because it charges at least three crimes of rape,
alleging that he had been pardoned by the offended namely: (1) that which was committed "on or about
party, her mother and grandmother. Attached, to the the month of June, 1978;" (2) that which was
Motion to Dismiss was the joint affidavit of committed "sometime prior to said period;" and (3) PEOPLE v RAZONABLE
desistance signed by the offended party, her mother that which was committed "subsequent thereto."
330 SCRA 562
and grandmother - Argument has no merit. Attached to Josephine's
- -The offended party executed and filed an affidavit complaint was her sworn statement wherein, she PUNO; April 12, 2000
alleging that her father abandoned her at the age of categorically affirmed that Vicente abused her before
two years and three months, without providing for the start of classes in June 1978. That affidavit, which NATURE
her support and studies, and that the same were may be considered part of the complaint required by - Appeal from a decision by the RTC of Camarines
provided by her mother and grandmother who, on law, cures any ambiguity in the complaint regarding Norte, dated May 3, 1996, finding appellant Benjamin
the same date, executed a joint affidavit to the same the number of offenses committed by the accused. Razonable guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping
effect - Furthermore, Section 10, Rule 110 of the 1964 Rules his daughter, Maria Fe Razonable, and sentencing
- The Prosecuting Fiscal filed an Addendum to the of Court provided: him to suffer the penalties of 3 reclusion perpetua
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. He alleged that Sec. 10. Time of the commission of the offense.-It and to pay the amount of P200,000 as moral
the express pardon given the accused was invalid for is not necessary to state in the complaint or damages.
the offended party did not have "a will of her own," information the precise time at which the offense
being merely eleven years old when the crime was was committed except when time is a material FACTS
committed; that the father of the offended party, ingredient of the offense, but the act may be - Razonable was charged in 3 separate Informations
executed an affidavit objecting to the pardon given alleged to have been committed at any time as with the crime of rape, which are identically worded,
to the accused; and that, as the father, he still near to the actual date at which the offense' was as follows:
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 24 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

"That sometime in the year 1987, at Purok I, Brgy. IV, - Firstly, it behooved the accused to raise the issue - The fact that Maria Fe continued to live with
Mantagbac, Municipality of Daet, Province of of a defective information, on the ground that it does Razonable will not likewise crumple her credibility. At
Camarines Norte, and within the jurisdiction of this not conform substantially to the prescribed form, in a the time of the incident, she was a simple, naïve and
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then motion to quash said information or a motion for bill hapless child of twelve years. She was living by her
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have of particulars. An accused who fails to take this lonesome self with her father, entirely dependent on
carnal knowledge of his own daughter MARIA FE H. seasonable step will be deemed to have waived the him for all her needs. Her mother was in Isabela and
RAZONABLE, against the latter's will and by means of defect in said information. The only defects in an her nearest sibling lived in another town. It could
force and intimidation, to her damage and prejudice. information that are not deemed waived are where hardly be expected that such a child of tender age
"The crime was committed with the aggravating no offense is charged, lack of jurisdiction of the would know what to do and where to go under the
circumstances of relationship, the accused is the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty circumstances. It is not proper to judge the actions of
father of the offended party and that said offense and double jeopardy. Corollarily, we have ruled that children who have undergone traumatic experiences
was committed in their own dwelling and the objections as to matters of form or substance in the by the norms of behavior expected under the
offended party not having given provocation for it." information cannot be made for the first time on circumstances from mature persons.
Razonable pleaded not guilty and his case was tried appeal. Razonable did not raise either in a motion to - The delay in the filing of the cases does not
on the merits. quash or a motion for bill of particulars the defect in necessarily impair the credibility of the victim.
- Although Maria Fe was raped on 3 consecutive days the Information regarding the indefiniteness of the Experience teaches us that many victims of rape
in the middle of June 1987, she was able to disclose allegation on the date of the commission of the never complain or file criminal charges against the
the dastardly acts of her father to her elder sister offense. rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy
only in February of 1993 because her conscience - Secondly, during the trial, the defense never and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world
would not allow her any peace of mind. She also objected to the presentation of evidence by the or risk the offender's making good on his threats.
feared recurrence of the bestial acts. Her father often prosecution to prove that the offense was committed Dispositive Considering that the acts were
drank with friends inside their house and she was in the middle of June 1987. It has not been shown committed prior to the effectivity of RA 7659, the
wary that appellant might give her to his friends. that Razonable was taken by surprise with the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
Thus, accompanied by her sister Ana Marie, testimony of Maria Fe that she was raped in the perpetua in each of the three cases. However,
complainant went to the police station and filed a middle of June 1987, and hence could not properly consistent with recent rulings, the amount of P50,000
complaint. Then they proceeded to the Camarines defend himself. On the contrary, he was able to give for each count of rape should be awarded by way of
Norte Provincial Hospital where she was examined. an alibi as to his whereabouts at that particular time. moral damages, and hence the award given by the
Based on the medical certificate, she had, at the time In fine, he cannot pretend that he was unable to trial court should be reduced to P150,000. Likewise,
of examination, incompletely healed hymenal defend himself in view of the vagueness of the current case law dictates that the victim shall be
lacerations at 5, 6, 7, and 9 o'clock positions. allegation in the information as to when the crimes entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000
were committed. for each count of rape.
ISSUE 2. NO - Decision of the RTC AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Reasoning Appellant claims that his guilt has not
1. WON the RTC erred in not considering the
information insufficient to support a judgment of
been proven beyond reasonable doubt on the ALMEDA v VILLALUZ
following grounds: (1) the identity of the perpetrator
conviction for its failure to state the precise date of has not been established with certitude since the
the alleged commission of the offense, it being an PEOPLE v CASEY and FELIX
room was dark and it has not been shown that it was
essential element of the crime charged properly illuminated; (2) it was unnatural for Maria Fe 103 SCRA 21
2. WON the lower court erred in finding that the guilt to remain in their house if it was true that she was GUERRERO; February 24, 1981
of Razonable of the three counts of rape has been threatened and intimidated; and (3) there was an
proven beyond reasonable doubt unreasonable delay in the filing of the complaint NATURE
which rendered the rape charges doubtful. Automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit
HELD - It is highly inconceivable that Maria Fe would not Criminal Court imposing upon Casey and Felix the
1. NO recognize her own father with whom she has been capital c\punishment for the death of Alfredo Valdez.
Ratio The rationale of the rule (Section 11, Rule 110 living alone for a long time. It is the most natural
of the ROC) is to inform the accused of the nature reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to FACTS
and cause of the accusation against him. To claim see the appearance of their assailant and observe - On May 22, 1968, Assistant Fiscal Herminio I. Benito
this substantive right protected by no less than the the manner in which the crime was committed. Most filed an Information for Murder against accused-
Bill of Rights, the accused is duty bound to follow our often, the face and body movements of the assailant appellant Joseph Casey alias "Burl", alleging:
procedural rules which were laid down to assure an create a lasting impression which cannot be easily That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in
orderly administration of justice. erased from their memory. The impression becomes the municipality of San Juan, province of Rizal, a
more profound where the malefactor is the victim's place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Reasoning own father. Court, the above- named accused, being then
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 25 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

armed with a knife, together with one Ricardo defense that he acted in legitimate self-defense - There is evident premeditation when the killing had
Felix alias "Carding Tuwad" who is then armed been carefully planned by the offender or when he
with a firearm and who was (sic) still at large, HELD had previously prepared the means which he had
and the two of them conspiring and 1. NO considered adequate to carry it out, when he had
confederating together and mutually helping and Reasoning prepared beforehand the means suitable for carrying
aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident - The lack of arraignment under the amended it into execution, when he has had sufficient time to
premeditation and treachery and taking information is objected to by accused-appellant consider and accept the final consequences, and
advantage of superior strength, did, then and Joseph Casey allegedly on the ground that there is a when there had been a concerted plan. 16 It has also
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, violation of his constitutional right to be informed of been held that to appreciate the circumstances of
assault and shoot and stab with the said firearm the charge against him. There can be a violation of evident premeditation, it is necessary to establish
and knife one Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting such right, however, only when the amendment the following; (1) the time when the offender
upon the latter fatal wounds which directly pertains to matters of substance. In the case at bar, determined to commit the crime; (2) the act
caused his death. the alterations introduced in the information refer to manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
- In June, 1968, upon arraignment, Casey pleaded the inclusion of accused appellant Ricardo Felix to determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time
not guilty to the crime charged in the said complaint. the same charge of murder. They do not change the between the determination and execution to snow
- September, 1968, accused ' appellant Ricardo Felix nature of the crime against accused-appellant Casey. him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and
alias "Carding Tuwad" was arrested. Accordingly, an Conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of
Amended Information was filed by the same fiscal to taking advantage of superior strength are similarly his will had he desired to hearken to its warning.
include Ricardo Felix as an accused, stating: alleged in both informations. No extenuating - From the answers of accused-appellant Casey in
That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in circumstance is likewise alleged in both. Thus the said sworn statement, it can be gleaned that the
the municipality of San Juan, province of Rizal, a amendment of the information as far as accused- killing was not a preconceived plan. It was not
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable appellant Casey is concerned is one of form and not preceded by any reflection or deep thought. It was
Court, the above named accused Joseph Casey of substance as it is not prejudicial to his rights. just a spontaneous decision reached when the victim
alias "Burl" being then armed with a knife, - The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by started to run away upon being approached by
together with the accused Ricardo Felix alias the amendment of an information has been said to accused-appellant Ricardo Felix.
"Carding Tuwad" who was then armed with a be whether a defense under the information as it - There are indeed two accused-appellants in this
firearm, and the two of them conspiring and originally stood would be available after the case charged with the murder of not one victim but
confederating together and mutually helping and amendment is made, and whether any evidence superiority in number does not necessarily mean
aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident defendant might have would be equally applicable to superiority in strength. It is necessary to show that
premeditation and treachery and taking the information in the one form as in the other. A look the aggressors "cooperated in such a way as to
advantage of superior strength, did, then and into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that an secure advantage from their superiority in strength."
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, amendment to an information introduced after the 3. YES
assault and shoot and stab with the said firearm accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which does Reasoning
and knife one Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, - Although there is no direct showing that the
upon the latter fatal wounds which directly does not expose the accused to a charge which could accused had conspired together, but their acts and
- The court a quo rendered the aforementioned call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence the attendant circumstances disclose that common
judgment of conviction. It found that two aggravating of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the motive that would make accused Ricardo Felix as a
circumstances attended the commission of the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment co-principal with the actual slayer, Joseph Casey.
crime, namely: employing or taking advantage of had each been held to be one of form and not of Without doubt, he performed overt acts in
superior strength and evident premeditation, one of substance — not prejudicial to the accused and, furtherance of the conspiracy.
which qualified the killing to murder. therefore, not prohibited by Section 13, Rule 110 of - Ricardo Felix's overt acts consist in instigating the
the Revised Rules of Court. pursuit of the deceased, in firing a shot at him and in
ISSUES 2. YES giving Joseph Casey encouragement by his armed
1. WON the Court a quo erred in illegally trying Reasoning presence while the latter inflicted the fatal wounds
appellant Casey on the amended information without - Indeed, accused-appellant Joseph Casey gave an on the deceased. From the extrajudicial confession of
arraignment extrajudicial sworn statement that he met accused- the accused-appellant Joseph Casey, it can also be
2. WON the Court a quo erred in holding that appellant Ricardo Felix and another person named inferred that Ricardo Felix was the moving factor of
appellants acted with evident premeditation and Rudy in Cubao, Quezon City on that fateful day. the evil act perpetrated by the former against the
abuse o of superior strength, and in qualifying the However, there is no showing that this meeting was victim. While it was Joseph Casey who inflicted the
crime committed as aggravated murder purposely arranged to plan the killing of the victim. mortal wounds that caused the death of the victim,
3. WON whether or not there is conspiracy between In fact, the following questions and answers in the he did so out of his perverted sense of friendship or
the two accused in the commission of the crime said sworn statement show that there was no companionship with Ricardo Felix.
4. WON the Court erred in discounting Casey’s preconceived design to kill the victim. 4. YES
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 26 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Reasoning Estrella, a Philippine Constabulary soldier stationed amendment would prejudice the substantial rights of
- claim is uncorroborated and contrary to the at Bulacan, and Melecio Guevarra, all conspiring the accused was issued.
testimony of the eyewitness, Mercedes Palomo. together, without the knowledge and consent of
- The fact that the victim sustained four stab wounds the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away one ISSUE
while the accused complained merely of abrasions on (1) Bedford truck with Chassis No. 153559, with WON the respondent Court abused its discretion
his back indicates the falsity of the claim. Motor No. 2/54/5/6, with Plate No. T-35049, Series when it refused an amendment to the information to
Dispositive the judgment of the trial court under of 1964, to the damage and prejudice of the change the date of the alleged commission of the
automatic review is MODIFIED in that the accused- owner, Maria Ignacio-Francisco in the amount of offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964", on the
appellants Joseph Casey and Ricardo Felix are found P23,000.00, value of said vehicle. ground it would constitute an impairment of the
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of - On November 15, 1969, the Acting City Fiscal of substantial rights of the accused as guaranteed by
homicide without any attending circumstances and San Jose City, (converted into city) Nueva Ecija, filed the Constitution.
should be sentenced to reclusion temporal in its an information (Crim. Case No. CCC-IV-170) with the
medium period. But applying the Indeterminate respondent Court, charging private respondent HELD
Sentence Law, each of the accused is sentenced to Francisco Estrella and three others, with qualified NO
an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision theft. This time the information contained “Aug. Ratio While it has been held that except when time
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four 1969” instead of “Aug. 1964” in the previous is a material ingredient of an offense, the precise
months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The information and alleged grave abuse of confidence time of commission need not be stated in the
accused are likewise sentenced to indemnify the and that accused dismantled the vehicle. information, this Court stated that this does not
heirs of the deceased Alfredo Valdez in the amount of - On January 28, 1970, private respondent Francisco mean that the prosecuting officer may be careless
TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS jointly and severally, and Estrella was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty. about fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he
to pay the costs. During the arraignment, respondent-Judge required may omit the date altogether, or that he may make
his clerk to read the information to Francisco Estrella. the allegation so indefinite as to amount to the same
From January 28, 1970, up to May 21, 1970, the thing. The prosecution is given the chance to allege
PEOPLE v REYES
latter date being the scheduled trial of the case, the an approximation of time of the commission of the
108 SCRA 203 prosecution never moved to amend the information. offense and the precise date need not be stated but
CONCEPCION, JR; October 23, 1981 - On May 21, 1970 when the prosecution was it does not mean that it can prove any date remote
scheduled to present its evidence, it verbally moved or far removed from the given approximate date so
NATURE that it be allowed to amend the information so as to as to surprise and prejudice the accused.
Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary change the date of the commission of the offense Reasoning
injunction on the order dated July 10, 1970, of the from "August 1969" to "August 1964." Private - The period of almost five years between 1947 and
respondent Judge, (Hon. Alfredo C. Reyes of the respondent Francisco Estrella, having come to the 1952 covers such a long stretch of time that one
Circuit Criminal Court, 4th Judicial District, trial court ready to defend himself from an offense cannot help but be led to believe that another theft
Cabanatuan City) in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170- allegedly committed in "August 1969", vigorously different from that committed by the co-defendants
NE, "People v Francisco Estrella," which denied objected to the verbal motion. in 1952 was also perpetrated by them in 1947. Under
petitioner's verbal motion for the amendment of the - Respondent Judge withheld his ruling on the this impression the accused, who came to Court
information in said case, by deleting the year "1969" prosecution's motion to amend, and instead, prepared to face a charge of theft of large cattle
as alleged therein, and in lieu thereof to put the year required the prosecution to present its first witness, allegedly committed by them in 1952, were certainly
"1964 ". to determine whether the sought amendment in the caught by sudden surprise upon being confronted by
information would constitute a change of substance evidence tending to prove a similar offense
FACTS affecting the rights of the accused or merely of form. committed in 1947. The variance is certainly unfair to
- Sometime in October, an information for qualified - Florentino Alcantara, originally a co-accused but them, for it violates their constitutional rights to be
theft was filed against private respondent Francisco discharged as a prosecution witness, testified that informed before the trial of the specific charge
Estrella and three others, as Criminal Case No. 6799, the offense was committed in 1964. The defense against them and deprives them of the opportunity
in the Municipal Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, refused to cross-examine witness Alcantara, asked to defend themselves. Moreover, they cannot be
pertinent portion as follows: respondent Court to strike off the testimony of convicted of an offense of which they were not
That in the month of August, 1964, in the Alcantara because it referred to an offense not charged. (People v Opemia)
municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija, mentioned in the information, and asked for a ruling Dispositive WHEREFORE, the questioned orders
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this by respondent Court on the prosecution's verbal dated July 10, 1970 and September 14, 1970, by
Honorable Court, the above named accused motion to amend the information. respondent Judge are hereby AFFIRMED, the
Narciso Mananing being the driver of complainant - Respondent Judge required the prosecution and the preliminary injunction issued on September 24, 1970
Maria Ignacio- Francisco, Florentino Alcantara, defense to submit memoranda. The contested order dissolved, and this petition DISMISSED for lack of
repair shop owner where the truck hereinafter of July 22, 1970, denying the prosecution's verbal merit. Without costs.
described was found and recovered, Francisco motion to amend information on the ground that said
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 27 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Voting Fernandez,* Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., - To amend the information so as to change the crime informations on the ground that the evidence
concur. charged from homicide to the more serious offense of disclosed a prima facie case against Luis Padilla and
murder after the petitioner had pleaded not guilty to Magsikap Ongchenco who acted in conspiracy with
the former is indubitably proscribed by the first Ruiz.
SEPARATE OPINION paragraph of the above-quoted provision. For - Ruiz filed his opposition to the motion.
certainly a change from homicide to murder is not a - The trial Judge denied the motion to amend the
matter of form; it is one of substance with very information saying that allowance of the amendment
BARREDO [concur]
serious consequences. alleging conspiracy would be amending the manner
I concur, but I believe this decision cannot bar
- Can the amendment be justified under the second of committing the crime and thereby would
another prosecution of private respondent under
paragraph? The answer is, No. For the provision constitute substantial amendment.
another information charging theft committed in
speaks not of amendment but of dismissal of the - As a consequence, State Prosecutor filed two new
1964.
information. in other words the provision informations for frustrated homicide against Luis
contemplates the filing of a substitute, not an Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco (Criminal Cases
DIONALDO v DACUYCUY amended information Nos. 9673 and 9674) alleging that the two conspired
108 SCRA 736 - Can not the information for homicide against the with Ruiz who was referred to as accused in Criminal
ABAD SANTOS; October 30, 1981 petitioner be dismissed since no judgment has yet Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748.
been rendered and another information for murder - Padilla and Ongchenco moved to quash the two
NATURE be filed? The answer, again, is, No. For the petitioner new informations. The motion was denied by the
Petition to nullify orders of respondent judge having pleaded not guilty to homicide, to dismiss the lower court.
charge against him so as to file another charge for - Ruiz also filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and
FACTS murder will place him thereby in double jeopardy. 9674 a motion to permit to quash and/or strike out
-Petitioner Rolando Dionaldo stands charged with the Aquino concur: the allegation of conspiracy in the two informations.
crime of homicide. After he entered a plea of not - respondent Judge relied on Dimalibot vs. Salcedo The trial Judge ordered the striking out from the
guilty, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to - The Dimalibot case is different from the instant records the aforesaid motion and clarified that “the
amend the information, attaching thereto an case. The plea in the Dimalibot case was made allegation of conspiracy does not alter the theory of
amended information charging the accused with during the preliminary investigation to a complaint the case, nor does it introduce innovation nor does it
murder qualified by treachery and evident for homicide filed in the justice of the peace court. present alternative imputation nor is it inconsistent
premeditation-a more serious offense. That is not the plea contemplated in Section 9, Rule with the with the original allegations.”
-No explanation was given in the motion for alleging 117 of the Rules of Court. The plea in the instant - From these orders of the lower court, Ruiz, Padilla,
evident premeditation but as to the allegation of case was made to an information filed in the Court of and Ongchenco went to the CA on a petition for
treachery it was explained that, "the affidavit of the First Instance. certiorari with preliminary injunction alleging that the
complaining witness indicates that the attack was trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his
sudden and it was only after they sustained the PEOPLE v CA (RUIZ) judicial discretion in issuing the orders in Criminal
Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.
wounds consequent to the treacherous attack that 121 SCRA 733
they were forced to fight back to repel further - CA granted petition. The motion for
RELOVA: April 28, 1983 reconsideration by herein petitioners to the foregoing
aggression." It can thus be seen that all along this
claimed circumstance was known to the prosecution decision of the CA was denied for lack of merit.
NATURE
but it was not alleged.
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to ISSUE
-Counsel for the accused opposed the motion to
review the decision and resolution of the CA WON the CA erred in granting the petition of (Ruiz,
amend the information but the respondent judge
granted the motion Padilla, and Ongchenco)
FACTS
- As a result of a shooting incident, two informations HELD
ISSUE
for frustrated homicide were filed against Sixto Ruiz YES
WON an information for the crime of homicide can be
in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. - First and foremost, the trial Judge should have
amended so as to charge the crime of murder after
- In Criminal Case No. 4747, Ernesto Bello was allowed the amendment in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747
the accused had entered a plea of not guilty
named as the victim, while in Criminal Case No 4748, and 4748 considering that the amendments sought
Rogelio Bello was the complainant. were only formal.
HELD
- Upon arraignment, Sixto Ruiz pleaded not guilty to - The amendments of Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and
NO.
the two informations. 4748 would not have prejudiced Ruiz whose
- The provision which is relevant to the problem is
- A reinvestigation of these two cases was made in participation as principal in the crimes charged did
Rule 110, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court
the Dept. of Justice, following which State Prosecutor not change.
- The petitioner invokes the first paragraph, whereas
filed a motion for leave of court to amend the
the respondent relies on the second.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 28 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- But the fact that the trial court erred in denying alleged to have been stolen in the original the allegations in the amended information, in the
the motion of the prosecution to amend the Information and substituting them with a different set preparation of their defenses to the charge filed
informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 of items valued at P71,336.80. against them. It will be observed that private
was no bar to the filing of the new informations. The - Private respondents opposed the admission of the respondents were accused as accessories-after-the-
allegation in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 filed Amended Information. The respondent court resolved fact of the minor Ricardo Cabaloza who had already
against Padilla and Ongchenco that the two to deny the proposed amendments contained in the been convicted of robbery of the items listed in the
conspired and confederated with Ruiz merely Amended Information. Petitioner moved for original information. To charge them now as
describe the fact that the latter was already charged reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the accessories-after-the-fact for a crime different from
with the same offense. It is incorrect to say that the respondent court denied said motion; hence, this that committed by the principal, would be manifestly
allegations of conspiracy include Ruiz as a defendant petition. incongruous as to be allowed by the Court.
in the said case. Thus, he cannot file a motion to - The allegation of conspiracy among all the private
quash the same. ISSUE respondents-accused, which was not previously
Dispositive Decision and resolution of the CA are WON the amended information should be admitted included in the original information, is likewise a
SET ASIDE. Decisions of lower court allowing substantial amendment saddling the respondents
retention of the allegation of conspiracy and the HELD with the need of a new defense in order to meet a
reference to Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 in - Amendment of an information under Sec. 14, Rule different situation in the trial court. To allow at this
the informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure stage the proposed amendment alleging conspiracy
and 9674 are SUSTAINED. (formerly, Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules on among all the accused, will make all of the latter
Criminal Procedure) may be made at any time before liable not only for their own individual transgressions
PEOPLE v MONTENEGRO the accused enters a plea to the charge. Thereafter or acts but also for the acts of their co-conspirators.
and during the trial, amendments to the information Dispositive Petition is DISMISSED. Orders of the
159 SCRA 236
may also be allowed, as to matters of form, provided respondent court AFFIRMED. TRO lifted.
PADILLA; March 25, 1988 that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the
accused. GARCIA v FLORIDO
NATURE - The test as to when the rights of an accused are
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction 52 SCRA 420
prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
and/or restraining order information is when a defense under the complaint or ANTONIO; August 31, 1973
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be
FACTS available after the amendment is made, and when NATURE
- The City Fiscal of Quezon City, thru Assistant Fiscal any evidence the accused might have, would be Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Virginia G. Valdez, filed an Information for "Robbery" inapplicable to the complaint or information as First Instance of Misamis Occidental, dismissing
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against amended. On the other hand, an amendment which petitioners' action for damages against respondents,
Antonio Cimarra, Ulpiano Villar, Bayani Catindig and merely states with additional precision something Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and Pedro Tumala, "without
Avelino de Leon. Said accused (now private which is already contained in the original prejudice to refiling the said civil action after
respondents) were all members of the police force of information, and which, therefore, adds nothing conviction of the defendants in the criminal case filed
Quezon City and were charged as accessories-after- essential for conviction for the crime charged is an by the Chief of Police of Sindangan, Zamboanga del
the-fact in the robbery committed by the minor amendment to form that can be made at anytime. Norte", and from the order of said Court dated
Ricardo Cabaloza, who had already pleaded guilty - The proposed amendments in the amended January 21, 1972, denying petitioners' motion for
and had been convicted in a crimial case before the information, in the instant case, are clearly reconsideration.
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. substantial and have the effect of changing the crime
Ricardo Cabaloza was convicted for the robbery of charged from "Robbery" punishable under Article 209 FACTS
the same items, articles and pieces of jewelry to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" punishable - On August 4, 1971, petitioners, German C. Garcia,
belonging to Ding Velayo, Inc. valued at P75,591.40. under Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital, together
- Upon arraignment, all of the accused (now private exposing the private respondents-accused to a with his wife, Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester
respondents) entered a plea of "not guilty" to the higher penalty as compared to the penalty imposable Francisco, bookkeeper of said hospital, hired and
charge filed against them. for the offense charged in the original information to boarded a PU car with plate No. 241-8 G Ozamis 71
- However, before the trial could proceed, the which the accused had already entered a plea of "not owned and operated by respondent, Marcelino Inesin,
prosecuting fiscal filed a Motion to Admit Amended guilty" during their arraignment. and driven by respondent, Ricardo Vayson, for a
Information seeking to amend the original - Moreover, the change in the items, articles and roundtrip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City, for
information by: (1) changing the offense charged pieces of jewelry allegedly stolen into entirely the purpose of attending a conference of chiefs of
from "Robbery" to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place," different articles from those originally complained of, government hospitals, hospital administrative
(2) alleging conspiracy among all the accused, and affects the essence of the imputed crime, and would officers, and bookkeepers of Regional Health Office
(3) deleting all items, articles and pieces of jewelry deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all No. 7 at Zamboanga City.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 29 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- At about 9:30 a.m., while the PU car was determined only after the termination of the criminal 111 with reference to . . . Articles 32, 33 and 34 of
negotiating a slight curve on the national highway at case the Civil Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of
kilometer 21 in Barrio Guisukan, Sindangan, 2. WON the lower court erred in saying that the said articles, for these articles were drafted . . .
Zamboanga del Norte, said car collided with an and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the
the action is not based on quasi-delict since the
oncoming passenger bus (No. 25) with plate No. 77-4 general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule
allegations of the complaint in culpa aquiliana must
W Z.N. 71 owned and operated by the Mactan Transit 111. The proviso, which is procedural, may also be
not be tainted by any assertion of violation of law or
Co., Inc. and driven by defendant, Pedro Tumala. As a regarded as an unauthorized amendment of
traffic rules or regulations and because of the prayer
result of the aforesaid collision, petitioners sustained substantive law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil
in the complaint asking the Court to declare the
various physical injuries which necessitated their Code, which do not provide for the reservation
defendants jointly and severally liable for moral,
medical treatment and hospitalization. required in the proviso."
compensatory and exemplary damages
- Alleging that both drivers of the PU car and the - But in whatever way We view the institution of the
passenger bus were at the time of the accident civil action for recovery of damages under quasi-
HELD
driving their respective vehicles at a fast clip, in a delict by petitioners, whether as one that should be
1. YES
reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in governed by the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 111
Ratio An action based on quasi-delict may be
gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard of the Rules which require reservation by the injured
maintained independently from a criminal action. By
to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car, party considering that by the institution of the civil
instituting a civil action based on a quasi-delict, a
petitioners, German C. Garcia, Luminosa L. Garcia, action even before the commencement of the trial of
complainant may be deemed to abandon his/her
and Ester Francisco, filed on September 1, 1971 with the criminal case, petitioners have thereby
right to press recovery for damages in the criminal
respondent Court of First Instance of Misamis foreclosed their right to intervene therein, or one
case.
Occidental an action for damages (Civil Case No. where reservation to file the civil action need not be
Reasoning
2850) against the private respondents, owners and made, for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of
- In the case at bar, there is no question that
drivers, respectively, of the PU car and the passenger the Civil Code) already makes the reservation and
petitioners never intervened in the criminal action
bus that figured in the collision, with prayer for the failure of the offended party to do so does not
instituted by the Chief of Police against respondent
preliminary attachment. bar him from bringing the action, under the peculiar
Pedro Tumala, much less has the said criminal action
- The principal argument advanced by Mactan Inc. et. circumstances of the case, We find no legal
been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of
al to in a motion to dismiss was that the petitioners justification for respondent court's order of dismissal.
said accused.
had no cause of action for on August 11, 1971, or 20 2. YES, because the action in fact satisfies the
- It is, therefore, evident that by the institution of the
days before the filing of the present action for elements of quasi-delict.
present civil action for damages, petitioners have in
damages, respondent Pedro Tumala was charged in Ratio An action shall be deemed to be based on a
effect abandoned their right to press recovery for
Criminal Case No. 4960 of the Municipal Court of quasi-delict when all the essential averments under
damages in the criminal case, and have opted
Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, in a complaint Articles 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code are present,
instead to recover them in the present civil case.
filed by the Chief of Police and that, with the filing of namely: (a) act or omission of the private
- As a result of this action of petitioners the civil
the aforesaid criminal case, no civil action could be respondents; (b) presence of fault or negligence or
liability of private respondents to the former has
filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal case has the lack of due care in the operation of the
ceased to be involved in the criminal action.
been finally adjudicated, pursuant to Sec. 3 of Rule passenger bus No. 25 by respondent Pedro Tumala
Undoubtedly an offended party loses his right to
111 of the Rules of Court, and, therefore, the filing of resulting in the collision of the bus with the
intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case, not
the instant civil action is premature, because the passenger car; (c) physical injuries and other
only when he has waived the civil action or expressly
liability of the employer is merely subsidiary and damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the
reserved his right to institute, but also when he has
does not arise until after final judgment has been collision; (d) existence of direct causal connection
actually instituted the civil action. For by either of
rendered finding the driver, Pedro Tumala, guilty of between the damage or prejudice and the fault or
such actions his interest in the criminal case has
negligence; that Art. 33 of the New Civil Code, is not negligence of private respondents; and (e) the
disappeared.
applicable because Art 33 applied only to the crimes absence of pre-existing contractual relations between
- As we have stated at the outset, the same
of physical injuries or homicide, not to the negligent the parties.
negligent act causing damages may produce a civil
act or imprudence of the driver. Reasoning
liability arising from crime or create an action for
- The lower court sustained Mactan Inc. et. Al. and - The circumstance that the complaint alleged that
quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual. The former is a
dismissed the complaint respondents violated traffic rules in that the driver
violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a
drove the vehicle "at a fast clip in a reckless, grossly
distinct and independent negligence, having always
ISSUES negligent and imprudent manner in violation of traffic
had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal
1. WON the lower court erred in dismissing the rules and without due regard to the safety of the
writers are of the view that in accordance with Article
passengers aboard the PU car" does not detract from
complaint for damages on the ground that since no 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may
the nature and character of the action, as one based
express reservation was made by the complainants, proceed independently of the criminal proceeding for
on culpa aquiliana. The violation of traffic rules is
the civil aspect of the criminal case would have to be criminal negligence and regardless of the result of
merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to
the latter. Hence, "the proviso in Section 2 of Rule
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 30 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

observe for the protection of the interests of others, - Besides, the actual filing of Civil Case No. 2850 accused. People v. Dacudao and Metropolitan Bank
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which should be deemed as the reservation required, there and Trust Company v. Veridiano II apply, such that a
the circumstances justly demand, which failure being no showing that prejudice could be caused by private prosecutor in a criminal case has no authority
resulted in the injury on petitioners. Certainly doing so. to act for the People of the Philippines. It is the
excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear - Accordingly, I concur in the judgment reversing the government’s counsel, the Sol-Gen, who appears in
indication of negligence. Since the same negligent order of dismissal of the trial court in order that Civil criminal cases or incidents before SC.
act resulted in the filing of the criminal action by the Case No. 2850 may proceed, subject to the limitation
Chief of Police with the Municipal Court (Criminal mentioned in the last sentence of Article 2177 of the ISSUE
Case No. 4960) and the civil action by petitioners, it Civil Code, which means that of the two possible WON a private offended party in a criminal
is inevitable that the averments on the drivers' judgments, the injured party is entitled exclusively to proceeding may file a special civil action for certiorari
negligence in both complaints would substantially be the bigger one. under Rule 65, assailing an interlocutory order,
the same. It should be emphasized that the same without the conformity of the public prosecutor
negligent act causing damages may produce a civil RODRIGUEZ v GADIANE
liability arising from a crime under Art. 100 of the HELD
495 SCRA 368
Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi- YES
delict or culpa extra-contractual under Arts. 2176- TINGA; July 17, 2006 Ratio If criminal case is dismissed by the trial court
2194 of the New Civil Code. This distinction has been or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal
amply explained in Barredo vs. Garcia, et all (73 Phil. NATURE aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor
607, 620-621). Petition for review on certiorari General in behalf of the State. The capability of the
- It is true that under Sec. 2 in relation to Sec. 1 of private complainant to question such dismissal or
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court which became FACTS acquittal is limited only to the civil aspect of the
effective on January 1, 1964, in the cases provided - Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private case. (Metrobank v. Veridiano II). But if the order
for by Articles 31, 33, 39 and 2177 of the Civil Code, complainant in a criminal case filed against Rolando which is assailed is not one dismissing the case or
an independent civil action entirely separate and Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. (respondents), for acquitting respondents / defendants, there is no
distinct from the civil action, may be instituted by the violation of B.P. 22. The MTC hearing the complaint limitation to the capacity of the private complainant
injured party during the pendency of the criminal had suspended the criminal proceeding on the to seek judicial review of the assailed order.
case, provided said party has reserved his right to ground that a prejudicial question was posed in a Reasoning
institute it separately, but it should be noted, separate civil case then pending. On 28 Feb. 2001, - [1] A special civil action for certiorari may be filed
however, that neither Section 1 nor Section 2 of Rule petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 by an aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of
111 fixes a time limit when such reservation shall be before the RTC, Branch 12, seeking to set aside the discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction
made. MTC order of suspension. The petition was docketed on the part of the trial court. In a long line of cases,
as Civil Case No. CEB-26195. this Court construed the term “aggrieved parties” to
- Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition
SEPARATE OPINION include the State and the private offended party or
on the ground that the petition was filed by the complainant. The complainant has an interest in the
private complainant, instead of the government civil aspect of the case so he may file such special
BARREDO [concur] prosecutor representing the People of the Philippines civil action questioning the decision or action of the
- I would like to limit my concurrence. in criminal cases. RTC dismissed the petition for lack respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so
- Article 2176 and 2177 definitely create a civil of conformity or signature of the government doing, complainant should not bring the action in the
liability distinct and different from the civil action prosecutor. Petitioner moved MFR but was denied. name of the People of the Philippines. The action
arising from the offense of negligence under the From these orders, petitioner filed the instant petition may be prosecuted in name of said complainant.
Revised Penal Code. Since Civil Case No. 2850 is for review. - [2] In this case, there is no doubt that petitioner
predicated on the above civil code articles and not on Petitioner’s Claim That a person aggrieved may maintains an interest in the litigation of the civil
the civil liability imposed by the Revised Penal Code, file a special civil action for certiorari and that aspect of the case against respondents. Section 1(b),
I cannot see why a reservation had to be made in the “person” includes the complainant or the offended Rule 111 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states
criminal case. As to the specific mention of Article party. A special action on an order issued by a lower that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall
2177 in Section 2 of the Rule 111, it is my considered court in a criminal case may be filed by the private be deemed to include the corresponding civil action.
view that the latter provision is inoperative, it being offended party. Hence, the possible conviction of respondents would
substantive in character and is not within the power Respondents’s Comment In all criminal cases, all concurrently provide a judgment for damages in
of the Supreme Court to promulgate, and even if it initiatory pleadings, as well as subsequent favor of petitioner. The suspension of the criminal
were not substantive but adjective, it cannot stand proceedings, must be initiated by the government case which petitioner decries would necessarily
because of its inconsistency with Article 2177, an counsel because the injured party is the People of the cause delay in the resolution of the civil aspect of the
enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of Philippines and the private complainant is a mere said case which precisely is the interest and concern
1940. witness to the offense allegedly committed by the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 31 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

of petitioner. Such interest warrants protection from namely, Lots Nos. 13, 14 and 15. A corresponding -Before the civil action was filed, petitioner also filed
the courts. receipt for said amount was also issued by TSDC to on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a
Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. The assailed the petitioner. criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel
orders of RTC are SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. CEB- -Thereafter, from December 1983 up to June 1984, Lazatin, for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957,
26195 is REINSTATED petitioner demanded from TSDC the issuance in his specifically Section 25 thereof, which provides:
favor of the certificates of title for the three (3) lots, "PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957
last paid for, but the private respondents (TSDC and REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISIONS LOTS
Lazatin) refused on the ground that the petitioner AND CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
had not fully paid for said three (3) lots. VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
-Sometime in January, 1983, TSDC's Board of SEC. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or
Directors approved the petitioner's contemplated developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to
purchase of the aforesaid lots. To confirm the the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No
agreement, respondent Lazatin wrote petitioner a fee, except those required for the registration of
letter reiterating standard conditions of the sale, the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds shall be
which the petitioner allegedly accepted by affixing collected for the issuance of such title. In the event
his conformity to said letter. The conditions for the a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at
NAGUIAT v IAC (TIMOG SILANGAN sale of the lots were among others, "(i) 10% down the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer,
payment with a commitment to commence the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage
DEVELOPMENT CORP)
construction therefrom (thereon) in one month's or the corresponding portion thereof within six
164 SCRA 505 time; (ii) said construction to be finished within a months such issuance in order that the title over
PADILLA; August 18, 1988 period of six (6) months; and, (iii) the effective price any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and
was P70 per square meter with a rebate of P10.00 delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.
NATURE per square meter upon completion of the house in six SEC. 39. Penalties. Any person who shall violate
Petition to review on certiorari the decision of the (6) months." But, as alleged by the private any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule
Intermediate Appellate Court respondents, petitioner commenced the construction or regulation that may be issued pursuant to this
of a house on one lot but failed to finish it within the Decree, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
FACTS stipulated period of six (6) months. And as to the fine of not more than twenty thousand
-Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC, for other lots, petitioner allegedly failed altogether to (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not
short) is a domestic corporation engaged in the construct houses on them. more than ten years: Provided, that in the case of
business of developing and selling subdivision lots in -Private respondents contend that since petitioner corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or
"Timog Park," located in Angeles City, with Manuel P. did not comply with the agreement, he was not associations, the President, Manager or
Lazatin (Lazatin, for short) as its President. entitled to the 10% rebate in price, and as a Administrator or the person who has charge of the
- Antolin T. Naguiat purchased, on installment basis, consequence, the previous payments made by administration of the business shall be criminally
four (4) lots from TSDC, identified as Lots Nos. 13, petitioner did not amount to full payment as required responsible for any violation of this Decree and/or
14, 15 and 16, of Block 26 of Timog Park. Each lot for all the lots and which would have entitled the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant
consists of 300 square meters. The four (4) lots have petitioner to the issuance and delivery of the thereto."
a total area of 1,200 square meters, with a price of certificates of title to all the lots. -On 13 September 1984, an information was filed
P60.00 per square meter. On the same date (7 -On 26 July 1984, petitioner, filed a complaint for against respondent Lazatin.
February 1983) petitioner made a down payment of specific performance with damages, with the -Petitioner filed on 23 February 1985 a motion to
P7,200.00, representing 10% of the alleged total Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch LX, consolidate Civil Case No. 4224 and Criminal Case
price of P72,000.00 for the four (4) lots. A docketed as Civil Case No. 4224. In his complaint, No. 6727. Despite the objection and opposition of the
corresponding receipt for the downpayment was petitioner prayed, among others, that judgment be private respondents, in an Order dated 20 March
issued by TSDC to the petitioner. While the Contract rendered ordering private respondents to deliver to 1985, the trial court granted the motion and ordered
to Sell between TSDC and the petitioner stipulated a him the transfer certificates of title covering the consolidation of the two (2) cases.
two-year period within which to pay the total three (3) lots which he had allegedly fully paid for, -At the pre-trial hearing of both cases, petitioners's
contract price, the latter made substantial payments and which private respondents had refused to do so. counsel appeared as counsel for the plaintiff in Civil
in the months of June to August 1983. On 10 August Also, it was prayed that judgment be rendered Case and as private prosecutor in the Criminal Case.
1983, he paid the sum of P12,529.30 as his alleged ordering the private respondents to jointly and Private respondents objected, and filed their Motion
full payment for Lot. No. 16, after which, TSDC severally pay the petitioner, actual damages equal to and Opposition to Appearance of Plaintiff as Private
caused to be issued in the name of the petitioner the P320,000.00, representing unrealized gross profits; Prosecutor with respect to the trial of the Criminal
title to said lot. On 7 November 1983, petitioner paid moral damages at the discretion of the court; and, Case; the opposition was overruled by the trial court.
TSDC the amount of P36,067.97, which was allegedly attorney's fees equal to P15,000.00, plus the costs of -Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and
his full payment for the remaining three (3) Lots, the action. prohibition with the respondent appellate court,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 32 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

seeking the annulment of the orders of the trial Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional "Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses.
court, dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985. In due Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court." Whenever the offended party shall have instituted
course, the respondent appellate court rendered a - Based on the aforequoted ruling of the Habaluyas the civil action to enforce the civil liability arising
decision favorable to herein private respondents. case, motions for extension of time to file a motion from the offense, as contemplated in the first
-The decision of the respondent appellate court was for new trial or reconsideration may no longer be paragraph of Section 1 hereof, the following rules
received by petitioner's counsel on 16 October 1985. filed before all courts, lower than the Supreme Court. shall be observed:
On 30 October 1985, petitioner's counsel filed with The rule in Habaluyas applies even if the motion is (a) 'After a criminal action has been commenced,
the respondent appellate court a Motion for filed before the expiration of the period sought to be the pending civil action arising from the same
Extension of Time to file a motion for reconsideration extended, because the fifteen (15) day period for offense shall be suspended, in whatever stage it
of aforesaid decision, praying for fifteen (15) days filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration with may be found until final judgment in the criminal
from 31 October 1985, within which to file said said courts, is non-extendible. But as resolved also in proceeding has been rendered. However, if no final
motion. the Habaluyas case, the rule that no motion for judgment has been rendered by the trial court in
-On 15 November 1985, petitioner's counsel filed a extension of time to file a motion for new trial or the civil action, the same may be consolidated with
Second Motion for Extension of Time to file a motion reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or the criminal action upon application with the court
for reconsideration, praying for another fifteen (15) Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and trying the criminal action. If the application is
days from 15 November 1985, within which to file the Intermediate Appellate Court, shall be strictly granted, the evidence presented and admitted in
said motion for reconsideration. It was denied stating enforced "beginning one month after the the civil action shall be deemed automatically
among others that the fifteen (5) days period to file a promulgation of this Resolution." The Court reproduced in the criminal action, without
motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. promulgated the Habaluyas resolution on 30 May prejudice to the admission of additional evidence
-On 2 December 1985, petitioner's counsel still filed 1986. Thus, the Habaluyas ruling became effective, that any party may wish to present.
his motion for reconsideration it was also denied. and strictly enforced, only beginning 1 July 1986. Under the aforequoted provision, the civil action
2. YES that may be consolidated with a criminal action, is
ISSUES - In the cases at bar, the nature of the issues one for the recovery of civil liability arising from
1. WON no motion for extension of time to file a involved, at least, the factual issues in the civil and the criminal offense, or ex delicto. In the case at
motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed criminal actions are almost identical, i.e., whether or bar, the civil action filed by the petitioner was for
with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the not petitioner had fully paid for the lots he purchased specific performance with damages. The main
Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate from the private respondents, so as to entitle him to relief sought in the latter case, i.e., the delivery of
Court as applied in the Habaluyas rule the delivery of the certificates of title to said lots. The the certificates of title to the lots which petitioner
2. WON the civil and criminal case should be evidence in both cases, likewise, would virtually be had allegedly fully paid for, was grounded on the
consolidated the same, which are, the Contract to Sell, the letter Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the
which contains the conditions for the purchase of the private respondent. Hence the civil action filed by
HELD lots and, to which petitioner allegedly affixed his the petitioner was for the enforcement of an
1. NO conformity, the official receipts for the alleged obligation arising from a contract, or ex contractu,
- In the case at bar, the petitioner filed his motions payments made by the petitioner, and other related and not one for the recovery of civil liability arising
for extension of time to file a motion for documents. from an offense; hence, the law invoked by the
reconsideration on 30 October 1985 and 15 - Based on the foregoing, and considering that the petitioner is inapplicable.
November 1985, both within the periods sought to be criminal action filed is one for violation of a special - But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, the consolidation of
extended. Hence the Habaluyas ruling did not yet law where, irrespective of the motives, mere a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex
apply to bar said motions for extension. As admitted commission of the act prohibited by said special law, delicto, may still be done, based upon the express
by petitioner himself, he filed with the respondent constitutes the offense, then the intervention of the authority of Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court,
appellate court two (2) motions for extension of time petitioner's counsel, as private prosecutor in the which provides:
to file motion for reconsideration of the latter court's criminal action, will not prejudice the substantial "Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving
decision, with the justification that the two (2) rights of the accused. a common question of law or fact are pending before
motions were timely and properly presented, since - The consolidation of the two cases in question, the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any
they were filed before the expiration of the where petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order
respective periods sought to be extended. plaintiff in the civil case and private prosecutor in the all the actions consolidated; and it may make such
- The case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, criminal case, will instead be conducive to the early orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend
has ruled that: termination of the two (2) cases, and will redound to to avoid unnecessary costs or delay."
"Beginning one month after the promulgation of this the benefit and convenience of the parties; as well as - In Canos v. Peralta, where the Court sustained the
Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no to the speedy administration of justice. order of a trial court to consolidate a civil action (an
motion for extension of time to file a motion for new - As a ground for the consolidation of the criminal action for the recovery of wage differential, overtime
trial or reconsideration may be filed with the and civil cases, petitioner invokes Rule 111, Sec. and termination pay, plus damages) with a criminal
3(a), Rules of Court, which provides:
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 33 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law), it for damages arising from defamatory words which participation through the private prosecutor in said
was held that: were the subject of the information in the Criminal case clearly indicated her intention to have her claim
"A Court may order several actions pending before it action. for damages litigated in the criminal action against
to be tried together where they arise from the same - At the pre-trial plaintiff admitted that she was the accused. It was only after the trial of the case on
act, event or transaction, involve the same or like represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal the merits that a decision was rendered finding the
issues, and depend largely or substantially on the case against defendant Cristina Malicsi and in said accused guilty of slight slander and sentencing her to
same evidence, provided that the court has case she did not reserve the right to file a separate pay a fine of P50.00 but making no award of
jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and action for damages. There was also admission that damages in favor of the aggrieved party. The reason
that a joint trial will not give one party an undue the private prosecutor was for proving damages for the Court's not making any award of damages is
advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any against the accused. because of the failure of the aggrieved party to
of the parties . . .” - The issue in the RTC was WON the plaintiff, submit evidence to support her claim for damages.
- The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid represented by a private prosecutor and the failing to - In the present case, while it is true that Reyes was
multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and make a reservation to file a separate action, was represented by a private prosecutor for the purpose
abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, barred from filing a separate civil action for damages of proving damages, the unexpected plea of guilt by
to simplify the work of the trial court; in short the against the accused Cristina Malicsi. RTC ruled in the accused and her being sentenced immediately to
attainment of justice with the least expense and favor of the defendant. a fine of P50.00 prevented petitioner from proving
vexation to the parties litigants." - RTC: “There is no question that in defamation cases her claim for damages and making a reservation to
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. (such as the present) as in cases of fraud and file a separate civil action. Controlling case should be
The decision of the respondent appellate court, dated physical injuries, a civil action for damages entirely Meneses v Luat, and not Roa v Dela Cruz. In the Roa
9 October 1985, is SET ASIDE. The Orders of the trial separate and distinct from the criminal action may case, not only was the offended party represented by
court, in Civil Case No. 4224 and Criminal Case No. be brought by the injured party, and such action shall a private prosecutor in the criminal action, the action
6727, dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985 are proceed independently of the criminal prosecution went through trial on the merits. In the Luat case,
REINSTATED. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. defendant Luat did not proceed to trial, as he
SO ORDERED. An exception to the above rule; when the offended pleaded guilty upon arraignment. The mere
party actually intervenes in the criminal action by appearance of private counsel in representation of
CORPUS v PAJE appearing therein through a private prosecutor for the offended party did not constitute such active
the purpose of recovering indemnity for damages, he intervention as could only import an intention to
is deemed to have waived his right to file a separate press a claim for damages in the same action.
BORDAS v CANADALLA
civil action for damages if he failed to make a - The failure of petitioner to make a reservation to file
reservation therefore…” (Judgment in such a a separate civil action did not foreclose her right to
REYES v SEMPIO-DIY proceeding becomes binding as res judicata, file said separate complaint for damages. Under
141 SCRA 208 according to Roa v Dela Cruz. Thus, plaintiff is Article 33 of the Civil Code there is no requirement
PATAJO; January 29, 1986 barred). that as a condition to the filing of a separate civil
action for damages a reservation to file said civil
ISSUE action be first made in the criminal case and such
NATURE WON intervention of private prosecution and failure reservation is not necessary, the provision of Rule
Direct appeal on a question of law from a resolution to make a reservation bars plaintiff from filing a 111, Section 2 notwithstanding.
of the Regional Trial Court (Malabon). separate civil action for damages against the Dispositive Petition is granted.
accused
FACTS ABERCA v VER
HELD
- MTC (Navotas): Cristina Malicsi was charged with 160 SCRA 590
the crime of intriguing against honor. Zenaida Cruz NO, plaintiff is not barred.
Ratio The mere appearance of a private prosecutor YAP; April 15, 1988
Reyes (petitioner) was the aggrieved party. In said
criminal case, Reyes was represented by a private in the criminal case does not necessarily constitute
such intervention on the part of the aggrieved party NATURE
prosecutor named Atty. Barayang.
as could only import an intention on her part to press Petition for certiorari
- Malicsi pleaded guilty to the information and was
sentenced to pay P50. Because of her plea of guilty, her claim for damages in said criminal case and a
waiver of her right to file a separate civil action for FACTS
the aggrieved party was unable to present evidence
damages. -This case stems from alleged illegal searches and
to prove damages against the accused. Reyes was
Reasoning seizures and other violations of the rights and
not able to make a reservation of her right to file a
- In the Roa case, there was a full-blown hearing liberties of plaintiffs by various intelligence units of
separate civil action for damages.
where a private prosecutor participated actively and the AFP, known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM)
- Instead, she filed a new action against Cristina
there could be no question that the aggrieved party's ordered by General Fabian Ver "to conduct pre-
Malicsi and her husband with the Regional Trial Court
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 34 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist -December 15, 1983: Judge Fortun issued an order 1. WON the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
(CT) underground houses in view of increasing voluntarily inhibiting himself from further proceeding habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages for
reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro in the case and leaving the resolution of the motion illegal searches conducted by military personnel and
Manila," to set aside the order of dismissal to Judge Lising, "to other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed
-Plaintiffs allege, among others, that complying with preclude any suspicion that he (Judge Fortun) cannot under the Constitution
said order, elements of the TFM raided several resolve [the] aforesaid pending motion with the cold 2. WON a superior officer under the notion of
places, employing in most cases defectively issued neutrality of an impartial judge and to put an end to respondent superior be answerable for damages,
judicial search warrants; that during these raids, plaintiffs assertion that the undersigned has no jointly and severally with his subordinates, to the
certain members of the raiding party confiscated a authority or jurisdiction to resolve said pending person whose constitutional rights and liberties have
number of purely personal items belonging to motion." been violated
plaintiffs; that plaintiffs were arrested without proper -Plaintiffs resolved an amplificatory motion for 3. WON RTC was correct in dismissing the complaint
warrants issued by the courts; that for some period reconsideration signed in the name of the Free Legal with respect to plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca, Danilo de la
after their arrest, they were denied visits of relatives Assistance Group (FLAG) of Mabini Legal Aid Puente, Marco Palo, Alan Jazminez, Alex Marcelino,
and lawyers; that plaintiffs were interrogated in Committee. Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino, Alfredo Mansos and
violation of their rights to silence and counsel; that -May 2,1984: defendants filed a comment on said Rolando Salutin, on the basis of the alleged failure of
military men who interrogated them employed amplificatory motion for reconsideration. said plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of
threats, tortures and other forms of violence on them -May 11, 1984: RTC Judge Esteban Lising, without the court's resolution of November 8, 1983, granting
in order to obtain incriminatory information or acting on the motion to set aside order of November the respondent's motion to dismiss
confessions and in order to punish them; that all 8, 1983, issued an order declaring that since certain
violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights were part plaintiffs failed to file a motion to reconsider the HELD
of a concerted and deliberate plan to forcibly extract Order of November 8, 1983, dismissing the 1. NO
information and incriminatory statements from complaint, nor interposed an appeal therefrom within - The suspension of the privilege of the writ of
plaintiffs and to terrorize, harass and punish them, the reglementary period, as prayed for by the habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners' right and
said plans being previously known to and sanctioned defendants, said Order is now final against said cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and
by defendants. plaintiffs. detention and other violations of their constitutional
-Plaintiffs sought damages (actual/compensatory, -on May 28,1984: plaintiffs filed a motion for rights. The suspension does not render valid an
moral, exemplary), and attorney's fees. reconsideration, alleging that it was not true that the otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is
-Defendants filed motion to dismiss alleging that (1) plaintiffs mentioned in the order of May 11, 1984 suspended is merely the right of the individual to
plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the failed to file MR within the reglementary period. seek release from detention through the writ of
circumstances of their detention in the guise of a Plaintiffs claimed that the motion to set aside the habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his
damage suit because, as to them, the privilege of the order of November 8, 1983 and the amplificatory liberty.
writ of habeas corpus is suspended; (2) assuming motion for reconsideration was filed for all the - At the heart of petitioners' complaint is Article 32 of
that the courts can entertain the present action, plaintiffs, although signed by only some of the the Civil Code. It is obvious that the purpose of the
defendants are immune from liability for acts done in lawyers. above codal provision is to provide a sanction to the
the performance of their official duties; and (3) the -September 21, 1984: RTC issued order dealing with deeply cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in
complaint states no cause of action against the both motions (1) to reconsider its order of May 11, the Constitution. Its message is clear; no man may
defendants. 1984 declaring that with respect to certain plaintiffs, seek to violate those sacred rights with impunity.
-Plaintiffs filed two separate oppositions to the the resolution of November 8, 1983 had already Certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and
motion to dismiss. become final, and (2) to set aside its resolution of cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or
-Defendants filed a Consolidated Reply. November 8, 1983 granting the defendants' motion imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of
-RTC NCR Branch 95 Judge Willelmo C. Fortun issued to dismiss. In effect, the case against the defendants law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our
a resolution granting the motion to dismiss. "After a (except for Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and Master Sgt. commitment to democratic principles and to the rule
careful study of defendants' arguments, the court Bienvenido Balabaere) was dismissed. of law compels us to reject the view which reduces
finds the same to be meritorious and must, therefore, -March 15, 1985: petitioners (plaintiffs below) filed law to nothing but the expression of the will of the
be granted. On the other hand, plaintiffs' arguments the instant petition for certiorari seeking to annul and predominant power in the community. Democracy
in their opposition are lacking in merit." set aside RTC's resolution of November 8, 1983, its cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, of justice,
-Plaintiffs filed motion to set aside the order order of May 11, 1984, and its resolution dated unless the law is respected by him who makes it and
dismissing the complaint and a supplemental motion September 21, 1984. by him for whom it is made. Now this respect implies
for reconsideration. -Respondents filed comment on the petition, a maximum of faith, a minimum of Idealism. On
-Defendants filed a comment on the aforesaid motion November 9, 1985. going to the bottom of the matter, we discover that
of plaintiffs, furnishing a copy thereof to the -A reply was filed by petitioners on August 26, 1986. life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment
attorneys of all the plaintiffs. which is not derived from reason, but which reason
ISSUES nevertheless controls. 2
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 35 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- We find respondents' invocation of the doctrine of against torture and other cruel and inhuman must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts
state immunity from suit totally misplaced. The cases treatment. alleged in the complaint.
invoked by respondents actually involved acts done -However, we find it unnecessary to address the -Applying this test, it is difficult to justify the trial
by officers in the performance of official duties constitutional issue pressed upon us. On March 25, court's ruling, dismissing for lack of cause of action
written the ambit of their powers. It may be that the 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued the complaint against all the defendants, except
respondents, as members of the AFP, were merely Proclamation No. 2, revoking Proclamation Nos. 2045 Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt. Bienvenido
responding to their duty, as they claim, "to prevent and 2045-A and lifting the suspension of the privilege Balaba. The complaint contained allegations against
or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion of the writ of habeas corpus. The question therefore all the defendants which, if admitted hypothetically,
and subversion" in accordance with Proclamation No. has become moot and academic. would be sufficient to establish a cause or causes of
2054 of President Marcos, despite the lifting of 2. YES action against all of them under Article 32 of the Civil
martial law on January 27, 1981, and in pursuance of -The doctrine of respondent superior has been Code.
such objective, to launch pre-emptive strikes against generally limited in its application to principal and 3. NO
alleged communist terrorist underground houses. But agent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and -A timely motion to set aside said order of November
this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a employee) relationship. No such relationship exists 8, 1983 was filed by plaintiffs, through counsel. True,
roving commission untramelled by any constitutional between superior officers of the military and their the motion was not signed by all the counsels for the
restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights subordinates. several plaintiffs but the body of the motion itself
and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and -Be that as it may, however, the decisive factor in clearly indicated that the motion was filed on behalf
protected by the Constitution. The Constitution this case, in our view, is the language of Article 32. of all the plaintiffs.This must have been also the
remains the supreme law of the land to which all The law speaks of an officer or employee or person understanding of defendants' counsel himself for
officials, high or low, civilian or military, owe 'directly' or "indirectly" responsible for the violation when he filed his comment on the motion, he
obedience and allegiance at all times. of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. furnished copies thereof, not just to the lawyers who
- Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly signed the motion, but to all the lawyers of plaintiffs.
officer or employee or any private individual liable in responsible) who must answer for damages under -In filing the motion to set aside the resolution of
damages for violating the Constitutional rights and Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also November 8, 1983, the signing attorneys did so on
liberties of another, as enumerated therein, does not to answer for the damages or injury caused to the behalf of all the plaintiff. They needed no specific
exempt the respondents from responsibility. Only aggrieved party. authority to do that. The authority of an attorney to
judges are excluded from liability under the said -By this provision, the principle of accountability of appear for and in behalf of a party can be assumed,
article, provided their acts or omissions do not public officials under the Constitution acquires added unless questioned or challenged by the adverse
constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other meaning and a larger dimension. No longer may a party or the party concerned, which was never done
penal statute. superior official relax his vigilance or abdicate his in this case.
- In carrying out this task and mission to protect the duty to supervise his subordinates, secure in the Dispositive Petition granted. SC annuled and set
Republic from its enemies, constitutional and legal thought that he does not have to answer for the aside the resolution of the respondent court, dated
safeguards must be observed. transgressions committed by the latter against the November 8, 1983, its order dated May 11, 1984 and
-Moreover, petitioners' right and cause of action for constitutionally protected rights and liberties of the its resolution dated September 21, 1984. Case
damages are explicitly recognized in P.D. No. 1755 citizen. Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the remanded to the respondent court for further
which amended Article 1146 of the Civil Code by persons who are directly, as well as indirectly, proceedings. Costs against private respondents.
adding the following to its text: “However, when the responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors.
action (for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for a -RTC was therefore mistaken in dropping defendants SEPARATE OPINION
quasi-delict) arises from or out of any act, activity or General Fabian Ver, Col. Fidel Singson, Col. Rolando
conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of Abadilla, Col. Gerardo Lantoria, Jr., Col. Galileo
TEEHANKEE [concur]
powers or authority arising from Martial Law Kintanar, Col. Panfilo Lacson, Capt. Danilo Pizarro, lst
- All persons, be they public officers or employees, or
including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the Lt. Pedro Tango, Lt. Romeo Ricardo and Lt. Ricardo
members of the military or police force or private
plaintiff, the same must be brought within one (1) Bacalso from the acts of their subordinates.
individuals who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat,
year. -The responsibility of the defendants, whether direct
violate or in any manner impede or impair the
-Even assuming that the suspension of the privilege or indirect, is amply set forth in the complaint. It is
constitutional rights and civil liberties of another
of the writ of habeas corpus suspends petitioners' well established in our law and jurisprudence that a
person, stand liable and may be sued in court for
right of action for damages for illegal arrest and motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint
damages as provided in Art. 32 of the Civil Code.
detention, it does not and cannot suspend their states no cause of action must be based on what
- The decision herein upholds and reinstates the civil
rights and causes of action for injuries suffered appears on the face of the complaint. To determine
action for damages filed in the court below by
because of respondents' confiscation of their private the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts
petitioners-plaintiffs for illegal searches conducted by
belongings, the violation of their right to remain alleged in the complaint, and no others, should be
military personnel and other violations of their
silent and to counsel and their right to protection considered. For this purpose, the motion to dismiss
constitutional rights and liberties. At the same time it
against unreasonable searches and seizures and
rejects the automatic application of the principle of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 36 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

respondeat superior or command responsibility that uttering the following insulting words and complainant may appeal with respect only to the civil
would hold a superior officer jointly and severally statements: "Gago ikaw nga Barangay Captain, action, either because the lower court has refused to
accountable for damages, including moral and montisco, traidor, malugus, Hudas," which, freely award damages or because the award made is
exemplary, with his subordinates who committed translated, mean: "You are a foolish Barangay unsatisfactory to him.
such transgressions. However, the judgment gives Captain, ignoramus, traitor, tyrant, Judas" and other The right of either to appeal or not to appeal in the
the caveat that a superior officer must not abdicate words and statements of similar import which caused event of conviction of the accused is not dependent
his duty to properly supervise his subordinates for he great and irreparable damage and injury to his upon the other. Petitioner may, as he did, appeal
runs the risk of being held responsible for gross person and honor. from the decision on the civil aspect which is deemed
negligence and of being held under the cited - Private respondent as accused therein entered a instituted with the criminal action and such appeal,
provision of the Civil Code as indirectly and solidarily plea of not guilty. Trial ensued, at which petitioner, timely taken, prevents the decision on the civil
accountable with the tortfeasor. without reserving his right to file a separate civil liability from attaining finality.
- Brandeis:"In a government of laws, existence of the action for damages actively intervened thru a private 2. YES
government be imperilled following it fails to observe prosecutor. - Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are
the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent - After trial, private respondent was convicted of the governed by Article 100 of the RPC which provides
omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the offense of Slight Oral Defamation and was sentenced that "Every person criminally liable for a felony is
whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) with subsidiary also civilly liable," in relation to Article 2177 of the
government becomes the law breaker, it breeds imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the Civil Code on quasi-delict, the provisions for
contempt for the law, it invites every man to become costs. independent civil actions in the Chapter on Human
a law unto himself, it invites anarchy. To declare that - No damages were awarded to petitioner. Relations and the provisions regulating damages,
in the administration of criminal law the end justifies - Disagreeing, petitioner sought relief from the RTC, also found in the Civil Code.
the means ... would bring terrible retribution." which denied his petition. - Underlying the legal principle that a person who is
- It need only be pointed out that one of the first acts - Petitioner’s Claim The RTC decision is contrary to criminally liable is also civilly liable is the view that
of the present government under President Corazon Article 100 of the RPC providing that every person from the standpoint of its effects, a crime has dual
C. Aquino after her assumption of office in February, criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, and character:
1986 was to file our government's ratification and Article 2219 of the New Civil Code providing that (1) as an offense against the state because of the
access to all human rights instruments adopted moral damages may be recovered in libel, slander or disturbance of the social order; and
under the auspices of the United Nations, declaring any other form of defamation. (2) as an offense against the private person injured
thereby the government's commitment to observe - Respondents’ Comment The decision of the trial by the crime unless it involves the crime of treason,
the precepts of the United Nations Charter and the court carries with it the final adjudication of her civil rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More than liability. Since petitioner chose to actively intervene no civil liability arises on the part of the offender
this, pursuant to our Constitution which the people in the criminal action without reserving his right to either because there are no damages to be
decisively ratified on February 2, 1987, the file a separate civil action for damages, he assumed compensated or there is no private person injured by
independent office of the Commission on Human the risk that in the event he failed to recover the crime.
Rights has been created and organized with ample damages he cannot appeal from the decision of the In the ultimate analysis, what gives rise to the civil
powers to investigate human rights violations and lower court. liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair
take remedial measures against all such violations by or to make whole the damage caused to another by
the military as well as by the civilian groups. ISSUES reason of his act or omission, whether done
1. WON the decision of the MCTC constitutes the final intentional or negligently and whether or not
OCCENA v ICAMINA adjudication on the merits of private respondent's punishable by law.
civil liability - As a general rule, a person who is found to be
181 SCRA 328
2. WON petitioner is entitled to an award of damages criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the state or
FERNAN; January 22, 1990 society in which he lives and the individual member
HELD of the society or private person who was injured or
NATURE 1. NO damaged by the punishable act or omission. The
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of RTC - The decision of the MCTC has not yet become final offense of which private respondent was found guilty
due to the timely appeal filed by petitioner with is not one of those felonies where no civil liability
FACTS respect to the civil liability of the accused in said results because either there is no offended party or
- Petitioner Eulogio Occena instituted before the case. It was only the unappealed criminal aspect of no damage was caused to a private person.
Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sibalom, San the case which has become final. - There is here an offended party, whose main
Remigio — Belison, Province of Antique, Criminal - People vs. Coloma: from a judgment convicting the contention precisely is that he suffered damages in
Case No. 1717, a criminal complaint for Grave Oral accused, two (2) appeals may, accordingly, be taken. view of the defamatory words and statements
Defamation against private respondent Cristina The accused may seek a review of said judgment, as uttered by private respondent, in the amount of Ten
Vegafria for allegedly openly, publicly and maliciously regards both civil and criminal actions; while the Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 37 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the further sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) as active participation in the prosecution of such in the criminal case of the right to institute an
exemplary damages. criminal action. independent civil action) is not applicable because
- Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil Code allows the Article 29 does not require it.
recovery of moral damages in case of libel, slander or HELD - The requirement in Section 2 of Rule 111 of the
any other form of defamation This provision of law YES former Rules on Criminal Procedure, that there be a
establishes the right of an offended party in a case Ratio When the accused in a criminal case is reservation in the criminal case of the right to
for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been institute an independent civil action, has been
damages for injury to his feelings and reputation. The proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for declared as not in accordance with law. It is
offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive damages for the same act or omission may still be regarded as an unauthorized amendment to the
or exemplary damages. instituted against him, and only a preponderance of substantive law, in this case the Civil Code. In fact,
Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an evidence is required to hold the accused liable. The the reservation of the right to file an independent
ignoramus, traitor, tyrant and Judas is clearly an civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the civil action has been deleted from Section 2, Rule
imputation of defects in petitioner's character accused, where the acquittal is based on reasonable 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, in
sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social doubt (based on Article 29 of the Civil Code). consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring
humiliation. Petitioner testified to the feelings of Reasoning such requirement of a reservation as ineffective.
shame and anguish he suffered as a result of the - In the criminal case against Abamonga, the - The active participation of the Bonite heirs does not
incident complained of. accused was acquitted because there was insufficient act as a bar from pursuing a civil action for damages
- Petitioner is entitled to moral damages in the sum evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. because the civil action based on criminal liability
of P5,000.00 and a further sum of P5,000.00 as Clearly, the Bonite heirs have the right to file an and a civil action under Article 29 are two separate
exemplary damages. independent civil action for damages despite the and independent actions.
Dispositive The petition was granted. acquittal of the accused in the criminal case. Dispositive WHEREFORE, the orders of the
- Aside from basing their action for damages in respondent court are hereby REVERSED and SET
BONITE v ZOSA Article 29 of the Civil Code, the petitioners may also ASIDE, and a new one is entered reinstating the
rely on Article 2176 which provides that acquittal of complaint in the civil case directing said court to
162 SCRA 180
the accused from a charge of criminal negligence, proceed with the trial of the case. Costs against
PADILLA; June 20, 1988 whether on reasonable doubt or not, is not a bar to a private respondent.
subsequent civil action for recovery of civil liability,
NATURE arising not from criminal negligence, but from a SEPARATE OPINION
Petition for certiorari to review the order of the Court quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Br. III. Zosa, J. - It has been held that Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
in referring to "fault or negligence" covers acts "not MELENCIO-HERRERA [concur]
FACTS punishable by law" as well as acts that may be - 4 of them merely concurred in the result- If there
- September 24, 1968, 2 PM – Bonite, a caminero of criminal in character, whether intentional and has been active participation in the prosecution of a
the Bureau of Public Highways was killed when he voluntary or negligent. A separate civil action lies criminal case by the offended party, the civil action
was hit by a truck driven by Abamonga. A complaint against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not arising from the crime is deemed to have been also
for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or brought in the criminal case. Consequently, a
filed by the surviving heirs of Bonite but Abamonga acquitted, provided that the offended party is not judgment finding the accused guilty and granting
was acquitted because of insufficient evidence. allowed to recover damages on both scores. him damages is binding upon the offended party and
- In the course of the trial, the petitioners actively - Article 29 of the Civil Code does not state that the he may not file a separate civil action under Article
participated in the proceedings through their lawyer, right to file an independent civil action for damages 33.
private prosecutor Atty. Dulalas. (under said article) can be availed of only in offenses - However if the accused is acquitted on the ground
- December 28, 1970 – The Bonite heirs filed an not arising from a tortious act. The only requisite for of reasonable doubt, as in this case, the civil action
action for recovery of damages against Abamonga the exercise of the right to file a civil action for for damages for the same act may be instituted
based on the same act but the court dismissed the damages is that the accused must have been under Article 29 of the Civil Code, notwithstanding
complaint for damages because the Court believes acquitted in the criminal action based on reasonable the fact that the offended party had actively
that the Bonite heirs did not reserve the right to do doubt. participated in the criminal action.
so. - The respondent’s argument that the applicable - The rule in Corpus vs. Paje which states that
provision is Article 33 is devoid of merit because of reckless imprudence is not included in Article 33 of
ISSUE the abovementioned argument. In addition, Article the Civil Code, was note deemed as authoritative
WON an independent civil action for damages, under 33 assumes defamation, fraud, or physical injuries doctrine because, of 11 justices, only 9 took part in
Article 29 of the Civil Code, is deemed barred by were intentionally committed. the decision and
petitioners' failure in the criminal action to make a - In the case at bar, Rule 111 of the former Rules of
reservation to file a separate civil action and by their Criminal Procedure (i.e., that a reservation be made US v HEERY
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 38 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

25 Phil 600 imprisonment by reason of his insolvency, being there be any reason therefor. (Art. 112 of the said
argued that this would constitute double jeopardy. It Law of Criminal Procedure.)
TRENT; Oct 22, 1913
is well settled that execution against the person will - "The right to bring the civil action, as reserved by
issue in civil actions in case of personal injuries, and the person damaged or prejudiced, after the
FACTS
that this is not imprisonment for debt or punishment termination of the criminal case, is only permitted, if
-Heery was charged with attempted murder, but was
for crime. It is in lieu of the payment of the indemnity there be any reason therefore, and so says the law,
convicted of the lesser crime of maliciously inflicting
and is considered as a discharge thereof. If the in the event that the judgment rendered in the
serious injury upon Alex Sternberg, and was
payment of the indemnity is not punishment for the criminal cause is a finding of guilt against the
sentenced to one year and three months of prision
crime, the imprisonment in lieu thereof is not accused; but if the accused be acquitted, then the
correccional by the trial court.
punishment for the crime. compliant in the civil action must be based on some
-On appeal, the decision was affirmed but case was
- As the civil liability is no part of the punishment for fact and or cause distinct and separate from the
remanded because it did not include the evidence of
the crime, there would have been no question of criminal act itself."
civil damages suffered by the offended party.
double jeopardy... In the present case, the civil - The court then quotes from article 114 of the
-Then lower court, in its ruling, restated the
liability of the defendant was established, and the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
conviction (of one yr to 3 months of prision
sole question determined upon the second trial was "When a criminal proceeding is instituted for the
correccional) and then included P50,500 for
the amount of civil damages. The plea of double judicial investigation of a crime or misdemeanor,
indemnity, with subsidiary imprisonment, in case of
jeopardy can not be allowed. no civil action arising from the same act can be
insolvency.
-On civil liability of persons accused of crime: prosecuted; but the same shall be suspended, if
-Heery raised the question of double jeopardy, and
- Springer vs. Odlin: "By General Orders, No. 58, there be one, in whatever stage or state it may be
the award being excessive.
section 107, the privileges secured by the Spanish found, until final sentence in the criminal
law to persons claiming to be injured by the proceeding is pronounced.
ISSUES
commission of an offense to take part in the "To prosecute a penal action it shall not be
1. WON remanding the case for determination of
prosecution of the offense and to recover damages necessary that a civil action arising from the same
civil damages and their assessment against the
for the injury sustained by reason of the same, are crime or misdemeanor be previously instituted."
defendant are to be considered as a modification of
preserved and remain in force, and it is therein - Under the Spanish criminal law, an injured person
the punishment, by increasing the penalty or
expressly provided that the court, upon conviction had the right to intervene in the prosecution of the
otherwise, meted out to the defendant for the
of the accused, may enter judgment in favor of the accused for the purpose of having his damages
commission of the crime. (WON there is double
injured person, against the defendant in the ascertained. The trial court was required to include
jeopardy)
criminal case for the damage occasioned by the the amount of these damages in the judgment of
2. WON award was excessive
wrongful act." conviction. The plain provisions of section 107 of our
- Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co.: "According criminal procedure, quoted supra, expressly
HELD
to article 112 (Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure) preserves this right to the injured person. The refusal
1. NO.
the penal action once started, the civil remedy of the trial court to allow the injured person to
- Civil damages are no part of the punishment for the
should be sought therewith, unless it had been introduce evidence as to his damages is, therefore,
crime.
waived by the party injured or been expressly clearly prejudicial error.
- What was the effect of the action of this court in
reserve by him for civil proceedings for the future. 2. YES.
affirming that judgment as to the guilt and
If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out - There can be no objection to allowing the
punishment of the accused and of reversing it as to
of a crime that could be enforced only on private physicians' fees of P500 and P1,300 for the three
the question of civil damage, with instructions to
complaint, the penal action thereunder should be months' salary, being the time the injured party was
execute the punishment imposed and to try the civil
extinguished." incapacitated from performing the work in which he
branch of the case? Bearing in mind the broad line of
- Almeida vs. Abaroa (8 Phil. Rep., 178), was a civil was then engaged. The remainder, P48,700, appears
demarcation between the civil liability of the accused
action for damages brought the plaintiff against a to have been allowed on account of the permanent
and his criminal liability, the bare fact that his civil
person who had been previously acquitted on a diminution of Sternberg's ability to earn money. The
liability was determined and fixed had nothing
criminal charge. It was held that his acquittal in the evidence of record does not establish such disability
whatever to do with the punishment imposed. The
criminal action was a complete bar to a civil action with that degree of certainly which will justify an
latter was not thereby affected…. This time
for damages based upon the alleged criminal act award for that purpose. We have reached this
intervening between the judgment of guilt and the
of which the defendant had been accused. In the conclusion after a most careful examination of all the
judgment of civil damages could in no way give to
course of this decision it was said: testimony upon this point.
the latter the character of the former.
- "Instituting a criminal action only, it will be Dispositive The award of damages is reduced to
- (That) the defendant might serve the term of
understood, brings the civil action as well, unless the P1,800, the defendant to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment fixed by the court as the punishment
damaged or prejudiced person waives the same or imprisonment, which in no event can exceed one-
for his crime, and after the sentence for civil
expressly reserves the right to institute the civil third of the principal penalty, in case of insolvency.
damages and in case of his insolvency, he would
action after the termination of the criminal case, if
have to return to prison to serve the subsidiary
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 39 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

SEPARATE OPINION criminal case was already filed in CFI Camarines - The failure of Parker to reserve her right to institute
Norte against the supposed guilty parties. the civil action in the criminal case cannot in any way
- When the case was set for the continuation of the be deemed as waiver on her part to institute a
MORELAND [concurring and dissenting]
hearing, PAL presented an oral motion for the separate civil action against PAL based on its
The record being in this condition, I am inclined to
suspension of the hearing, invoking (then) sec 1 Rule contractual liability.
believe that this court should not take up and
107, of the Rules of Court, which provides that no 2. NO
discuss, much less decide, the question of former
civil action arising from the same offense can be - The present civil case is directly interwoven with
jeopardy. To do so it must not only hold, in violation
prosecuted until final judgment in the criminal the criminal case in the sense that the main issue
of the provisions of section 24 of the Code of Criminal
proceeding has been rendered. Parker vehemently involved in both cases is the determination of the
Procedure, that it is unnecessary to plead the
opposed. failure of Richard Parker to reach safely his
defense in the trial court but must also hold that it is
- CFI suspended the hearing until the final destination or the determination of the cause of his
unnecessary to introduce evidence in that court to
determination of the criminal case which was then death. This was the main reason that guided the
substantiate the plea. The plea of former conviction
pending appeal in the SC. lower court in postponing the hearing of the civil
or once in jeopardy should, according to established
Petitioners’ Claim It was a mistake on the part of case until final judgment in the criminal case has
rules and the provisions of the Code of Criminal
respondent judge to consider and apply Sec 1, Rule been rendered.
Procedure, be substantiated by the production of the
107 of the Rules of Court, as her cause of action in - Inasmuch as the power to grant or refuse
record of the former trial and the introduction of the
the civil case is based on culpa contractual and not continuances is inherent in all courts unless
same in evidence. That was not done in this case.
on the civil liability arising from the offense involved expressly limited by statute, and there is no showing
While the evidence taken in the former trial was
in the criminal case. that the lower court has abused its discretion is
introduced in the present case for the purpose of
Respondents’ Comments “When a criminal action suspending the hearing, the petition for certiorari
establishing the extent of defendant's civil liability,
is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of the must fail.
the remaining part of the record was not introduced
civil liability arising from the offense charged is Dispositive Petition denied
as evidence and was not, therefore, considered by
impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless
that court. If it had been introduced as evidence, the
the offended party expressly waives the civil action
government would have had the right to meet it and
or reserves the right to institute it separately”, and
be heard upon it in that court. To permit the question
that, inasmuch as petitioner had failed to expressly
to be raised here for the first time, and in the
reserve her right to institute the civil action
resolution thereof, to consider evidence that was
separately, she may not now institute another action
never introduced in the trial court and which the
government has never had an opportunity to meet in
under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code based on YAKULT PHILIPPINES v CA [CAMASO]
the act or omission complained of in the criminal
an orderly way, is not only to take the prosecution by 190 SCRA 357
action.
surprise but is to establish a precedent which may be GANCAYCO; Oct. 5, 1990
dangerous in practice and subversive of orderly
ISSUES
procedure. NATURE
1. WON CFI was correct in considering and applying
Sec 1, Rule 107, of the Rules of Court Petition for review of decision of the CA
PARKER v PANLILIO and PHIL AIR 2. WON respondent judge erred in suspending the
LINES hearing FACTS
- 5 year old Roy Camaso (standing on a sidewalk)
91 PHIL 1
HELD was sideswiped by a motorcycle owned by Yakult
BAUTISTA ANGELO; March 5, 1952 Philippines and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado
1. NO
- The present civil case is based upon a cause of on Dec.1982.
NATURE - An information was then filed on Jan.1983 against
action not arising from the civil liability involved in
Certiorari and mandamus Salvado charging him with the crime of reckless
the criminal case instituted against the accused. The
civil case is based on alleged culpa contractual imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries.
FACTS - On Oct. 1984, a complaint for damages was filed in
incurred by PAL because of its failure to carry safely
- Asuncion Parker and her minor daughter Kathleen the RTC of Manila by Roy Camaso (represented by his
Richard Parker to his place of destination, whereas
filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Air father, David) against Yakult and Salvado. The RTC
the criminal case involves the civil liability of the
Lines, Inc., based on the alleged failure of PAL to decided in favor of the Camaso’s and held the
accused.
carry safely Richard Parker from Daet, Camarines defendants (herein petitioners) jointly and severally
- Rule 107 contemplates a case where the offended
Norte to Manila. liable for damages, which then moved said
party desires to press his right to demand indemnity
- PAL set up as special defense that the plane defendants Yakult and Salvado to appeal the
from the accused in the criminal case which he may
exploded in mid-air due to “dynamite surreptitiously judgment. They also filed a peitition for certiorari in
assert either in the same criminal case or in a
introduced into said air craft by criminal hands”. A the CA challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction in the civil
separate action.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 40 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

case. Their argument was that the civil action for MANIAGO vCA (BOADO) rights provided in Arts. 2176 and 2177 of the Civil
damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal Code are substantive rights and, as such, their
253 SCRA 674
negligence, there being no malice, cannot be filed enforcement cannot be conditioned on a reservation
independently of the criminal action and that under MENDOZA; February 20, 1996 to bring the action to enforce them separately.
Rule 111 Sec.1 of the 1985 Rules of Crim. Pro., such a
separate civil action may not be filed unless FACTS ISSUE
reservation thereof is expressly made. - Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle WON despite the absence of reservation, Boado may
- The CA on Nov. 1989, dismissed the petition and buses which were used in transporting employees of nonetheless bring an action for damages against
the subsequent MFR. the Texas Instruments, Inc. from Baguio City proper petitioner under the Art.2176, 2180 and 2177 of the
to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in Civil Code and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE Loakan, Baguio City.
WON a civil action instituted after a criminal action - One of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with
was filed can prosper even if there was no a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent
reservation to file a separate civil action Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road, Baguio City. As a HELD
result of the accident, a criminal case for reckless NO
HELD imprudence resulting in damage to property and Ratio The right to bring an action for damages under
YES multiple physical injuries was filed against the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule
- Although the separate civil action filed in this case petitioner’s driver, Herminio Andaya, with the 111, § 1, otherwise it should be dismissed. §1 quite
was without previous reservation in the criminal Regional Trial Court of Baguio City clearly requires that a reservation must be made to
case, it was nevertheless instituted before the - A month later, a civil case for damages was filed by institute separately all civil actions for the recovery
prosecution presented evidence in the criminal private respondent Boado against petitioner himself of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to
action, and the presiding judge handling the criminal - Petitioner moved for the suspension of the have been instituted with the criminal case. The right
action was duly informed thereof, such that no proceedings in the civil case against him, citing the of the injured party to sue separately for the
damages was awarded in the disposition of the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. But recovery of the civil liability whether arising from
criminal action. the trial court denied petitioner’s motion on the crimes or from quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the
Reasoning ground that pursuant to the Civil Code, the action Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be
- Under the aforecited provisions of the rule, the civil could proceed independently of the criminal action, deemed instituted with the criminal action.
action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the Reasoning
instituted with the criminal action unless the accused in the criminal case. A. There are statements in some cases implying that
offended party waives the civil action, reserves his - CA dismissed his petition Rule 111, §§1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking
right to institute it separately or institutes the civil - There is no dispute that private respondent, as power of the Supreme Court under the Constitution.
action prior to the criminal action. offended party in the criminal case, did not reserve A careful examination of the cases, however, will
- Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity the right to bring a separate civil action, based on show that approval of the filing of separate civil
under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under the same accident, either against the driver, action for damages even though no reservation of
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Herminio Andaya, or against the latter’s employer, the right to institute such civil action had been
Philippines arising from the same act or omission of herein petitioner Ruben Maniago. reserved rests on considerations other than that no
the accused. - petitioner argues that the civil action against him reservation is needed.
It is also provided that the reservation of the right to was impliedly instituted in the criminal action - In Garcia v. Florido the right of an injured person to
institute the separate civil action shall be made previously filed against his employee because private bring an action for damages even if he did not make
before the prosecution starts to present its evidence respondent did not reserve his right to bring this a reservation of his action in the criminal prosecution
and under circumstances affording the offended action separately. (The records show that while this for physical injuries through reckless imprudence was
party a reasonable opportunity to make such case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the upheld on the ground that by bringing the civil action
reservation. criminal action was dismissed on July 10, 1992 for the injured parties had “in effect abandoned their
** The SC considered the actual filing of the civil failure of the prosecution to file a formal offer of its right to press for recovery of damages in the criminal
action far better than a compliance with the evidence, with the consequence that the prosecution case.
requirement of an express reservation that should be failed to prosecute its case. Accordingly, it seems to - In Abellana v. Marave in which the right of persons
made by the offended party before the prosecution be petitioner’s argument that since the civil action to injured in a vehicular accident to bring a separate
presents its evidence. It added that the purpose of recover damages was impliedly instituted with the action for damages was sustained despite the fact
this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the criminal action, the dismissal of the criminal case that the right to bring it separately was not reserved.
offended party from recovering damages twice for brought with it the dismissal of the civil action.) But the basis of the decision in that case was the fact
the same act or omission. - Private respondent admits that he did not reserve that the filing of the civil case was equivalent to a
Dispositive petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED. the right to institute the present civil action against reservation because it was made after the decision of
Andaya’s employer. He contends, however, that the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 41 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the City Court convicting the accused had been omission against the same party. Any award made Van being driven by its owner Annie U. Jao and a
appealed. against the employer, whether based on his passenger bus of herein petitioner San Ildefonso
- In Jarantilla v. CA the ruling is that the acquittal of subsidiary civil liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Lines, Inc. (hereafter, SILI) collided with each other at
the accused in the criminal case for physical injuries Penal Code or his primary liability under Art. 2180 of the intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez
through reckless imprudence on the ground of the Civil Code, is ultimately recoverable from the Lanuza Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila, totally
reasonable doubt is not a bar to the filing of an accused. wrecking the Toyota van and injuring Ms. Jao and her
action for damages even though the filing of the - In the present case, the criminal action was filed two (2) passengers in the process.
latter action was not reserved. This is because of Art. against the employee, bus driver. Had the driver - A criminal case was thereafter filed with the
29 of the Civil Code which provides that “when an been convicted and found insolvent, his employer Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18, 1991
accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. charging the driver of the bus, herein petitioner
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil But if the right to bring a separate civil action Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in
action for damages for the same act or omission may (whether arising from the crime or from quasi-delict) damage to property with multiple physical injuries.
be instituted.” This ruling obviously cannot apply to is reserved, there would be no possibility that the - About four (4) months later, or on January 13, 1992,
this case because the basis of the dismissal of the employer would be held liable because in such a herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and
criminal case against the driver is the fact that the case there would be no pronouncement as to the civil Surety Corporation (PISC), as insurer of the van and
prosecution failed to prove its case as a result of its liability of the accused. In such a case the institution subrogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner
failure to make a formal offer of its evidence. of a separate and independent civil action under the SILI with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to
- the rulings in these cases are consistent with the Civil Code would not result in the employee being recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor
proposition herein made that, on the basis of Rule held liable for the same act or omission. The rule vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages,
111, §§1-3, a civil action for the recovery of civil requiring reservation in the end serves to implement totaling P564,500.00 (P454,000.00 as
liability is, as a general rule, impliedly instituted with the prohibition against double recovery for the same actual/compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as
the criminal action, except only (1) when such action act or omission. exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees;
arising from the same act or omission, which is the - Nor does it matter that the action is against the P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; and P500.00 as
subject of the criminal action, is waived; (2) the right employer to enforce his vicarious liability under Art. appearance fees.)
to bring it separately is reserved or (3) such action 2180 of the Civil Code. Though not an accused in the - With the issues having been joined upon the filing
has been instituted prior to the criminal action. Even criminal case, the employer is very much a party, as of the petitioners' answer to the complaint for
if an action has not been reserved or it was brought long as the right to bring or institute a separate damages and after submission by the parties of their
before the institution of the criminal case, the action (whether arising from crime or from quasi respective pre-trial briefs, petitioners filed on
acquittal of the accused will not bar recovery of civil delict) is not reserved. The ruling that a decision September 18, 1992 a Manifestation and Motion to
liability unless the acquittal is based on a finding that convicting the employee is binding and conclusive Suspend Civil Proceedings grounded on the pendency
the act from which the civil liability might arise did upon the employer “not only with regard to its civil of the criminal case against petitioner Javier in the
not exist because of Art. 29 of the Civil Code. liability but also with regard to its amount because Pasig RTC and the failure of respondent PISC to
- Through all the shifts or changes in policy as to the the liability of an employer cannot be separated but make a reservation to file a separate damage
civil action arising from the same act or omission for follows that of his employee” is true not only with suit in said criminal action. This was denied by
which a criminal action is brought, one thing is clear: respect to the civil liability arising from crime but the Manila Regional Trial Court in its Order
The change has been effected by this Court. The new also with respect to the civil liability under the Civil dated July 21, 1993
rules require reservation of the right to recover the Code. Dispositive The decision appealed from is - After their motion for reconsideration of said July
civil liability, otherwise the action will be deemed to REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is 21, 1993 Order was denied, petitioners elevated the
have been instituted with the criminal action. DISMISSED. matter to this Court via petition for certiorari which
- Contrary to private respondent’s contention, the was, however, referred to public respondent Court of
requirement that before a separate civil action may SAN ILDEFONSO LINES, INC. v CA Appeals for disposition. On February 24, 1995, a
be brought it must be reserved does not impair, decision adverse to petitioners once again was
(PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY
diminish or defeat substantive rights, but only rendered by respondent court, upholding the assailed
regulates their exercise in the general interest of CORPORATION) Manila Regional Trial Court Order. Hence, this petition
orderly procedure. 300 SCRA 484 for review after a motion for reconsideration of said
- It is the conduct of the trial of the civil action - not MARTINEZ; April 24, 1998 respondent court judgment was denied.
its institution through the filing of a complaint - which
is allowed to proceed independently of the outcome NATURE ISSUES
of the criminal case. Petition for review after a motion for reconsideration 1. WON an independent civil action based on
B. There is a practical reason for requiring that the of respondent court judgment was denied quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
right to bring an independent civil action under the
can be filed if no reservation was made in the said
Civil Code separately must be reserved. It is to avoid FACTS criminal case
the filing of more than one action for the same act or - In the afternoon of June 24, 1991, a Toyota Lite Ace
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 42 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

2. WON a subrogee of an offended party can amended rule. Without such reservation, the civil to herein petitioners, Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap.
action is deemed impliedly instituted with the Thereupon, an information for homicide and serious
maintain an independent civil action during the
criminal action, unless previously waived or physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed
pendency of a criminal action when no reservation
instituted. against Felardo Paje in the CFI of Pampanga.
of the right to file an independent civil action was
- Far from altering substantive rights, the primary - On January 23, 1957, an action for damages was
made in the criminal action and despite the fact
purpose of the reservation is, to borrow the words of filed in the CFI of Rizal by Edgar Marcia and Renato
that the private complainant is actively
the Court in "Caños v. Peralta":"… to avoid Yap, together with their respective parents, against
participating through a private prosecutor in the
multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and the Victory Liner, Inc. and Felardo Paje, alleging that
aforementioned criminal case
abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, the mishap was due to the reckless imprudence and
to simplify the work of the trial court; in short, the negligence of the latter in driving the passenger bus.
HELD
attainment of justice with the least expense and - While said Civil Case was in progress in the Court of
1. NO
vexation to the parties-litigants." First Instance of Rizal, the criminal action proceeded
- On the chief issue of "reservation", at the fore is
2. NO in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The
Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which reads:
- Private respondent PISC, as subrogee, is not exempt accused Felardo Paje was convicted of the offense
"Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed
from the reservation requirement with respect to its charged. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals,
independently. -- In the cases provided for in
damages suit based on quasi-delict arising from the he was acquitted with the CA holding that "CRIMINAL
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
same act or omission of petitioner Javier complained NEGLIGENCE is WANTING in this case, and that
Philippines, the independent civil action which has
of in the criminal case. As private respondent PISC appellant was NOT even guilty of CIVIL NEGLIGENCE.
been reserved may be brought by the offended
merely stepped into the shoes of Ms. Jao (as owner of Insofar as appellant was concerned, the CA held that
party, shall proceed independently of the criminal
the insured Toyota van), then it is bound to observe this was a case of PURE ACCIDENT."
action, and shall require only a preponderance of
the procedural requirements which Ms. Jao ought to - As a consequence, herein private respondents,
evidence."
follow had she herself instituted the civil case. defendants in Civil Case of the Court of First Instance
- Even though these so-called "independent civil
Dispositive The assailed decision of the Court of of Rizal, moved for the dismissal of the complaint
actions" based on the aforementioned Civil Code
Appeals dated February 24, 1995 and the Resolution invoking the decision of the Court of Appeals
articles are the exceptions to the primacy of the
dated April 3,1995 denying the motion for acquitting Felardo Paje and citing Section 1 (d), Rule
criminal action over the civil action as set forth in
reconsideration thereof are reversed. The 107 of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 (c), Rule 111
Section 2 of Rule 111, it is easily deducible from the
"manifestation and motion to suspend civil of the New Rules of Court). On August 10, 1966, the
present wording of Section 3 as brought about by the
proceedings" filed by petitioners is granted. Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision
1988 amendments to the Rules on Criminal
dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against the
Procedure -- particularly the phrase "… which has
been reserved" -- that the "independent" character of MARCIA v CA (PAJE and VICTORY defendants Victory Liner, Inc. and Felardo Paje.
Petitioners appealed the case to the CA, which
these civil actions does not do away with the LINER)
basically affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this
reservation requirement. In other words, prior 120 SCRA 190 recourse.
reservation is a condition sine qua non before any of
these independent civil actions can be instituted and
RELOVA; January 27, 1983
ISSUE
thereafter have a continuous determination apart
NATURE WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting
from or simultaneous with the criminal action.
Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of the accused in reckless imprudence on the ground
- According to Justice Jose Y. Feria, remedial law
Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First that the incident was accidental, extinguished by
expert and a member of the committee which
Instance of Rizal, which dismissed the complaint filed implication the civil action for damages
drafted the 1988 amendments, whose learned
by the petitioners against private respondents in the
explanation on the matter was aptly pointed out by
concept of an independent civil action for damages HELD
petitioners, “the 1988 amendment expands the
for physical injuries resulting from reckless YES
scope of the civil action which is deemed impliedly
imprudence. Ratio Extinction of the penal action does not carry
instituted with the criminal action unless waived,
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
reserved or previously instituted. Under the present
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that
Rule as amended, such a civil action includes not
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
only recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal
FACTS Since, the CA found that this case was of pure
Code and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 of the
- On December 23, 1956, in the municipality of accident, it is as good as saying as if he did not
Civil Code of the Philippines, but also damages under
Lubao, Pampanga, a passenger bus operated by commit the crime charged. There being no crime
Article 2176 (quasi-delicts) of the said code.
private respondent Victory Liner, Inc. and driven by committed, no civil liability arises.
- It should be noted that while it was ruled in Abella
its employee, private respondent Felardo Paje, Reasoning
vs. Marave (57 SCRA 106) that a reservation of the
collided with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia,
right to file an independent civil action is not
resulting in the latter's death and in physical injuries
necessary, such a reservation is necessary under the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 43 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- It is the stand of herein petitioners that Section 2, - On Sept. 8, 1973 Conrado Bunag Jr. brought - Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, not Section 3 (c) Zenaida Cirilo to a motel or hotel where they had the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction
thereof, should apply in the case at bar. sexual intercourse and later that evening he brought proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that
"Sec. 2. Independent civil action. - In the cases Zenaida to the house of his grandmother’s house the fact from which the civil case might arise did not
provided for in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 exist.
the Civil Code of the Philippines, an independent days until Sept. 29, 1973. They filed their application Reasoning
civil action entirely separate and distinct from the for marriage license with the Local Civil Registral of -Generally, every person criminally liable is also
criminal action, may be brought by the injured Bacoor, Cavite. However, after a few days, Conrado civilly liable. Criminal Liability will give rise to civil
party during the pendency of the criminal case, filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a liability ex delicto only if the same felonious act or
provided the right is reserved as required in the marriage license. omission results in damage or injury to another and
preceding section. Such civil action shall proceed Plaintiff’s Claim Conrado Bunag Jr. abducted her in is the direct and proximate cause thereof.
independently of the criminal prosecution, and the vicinity of San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City -The two proceedings involved are not between the
shall require only a preponderance of evidence." and brought her to a motel where she was raped. same parties (the criminal action is between the
- We do not agree. Section 2 of Rule 111 merely Afterwhich he said that he would not let her go State and the defendant and the civil case is
refers to the institution of an independent civil action unless they get married, as he intended to marry between the offended party and the defendant).
without waiting for the filing or termination of the her , so much so that she promised not to make any Also, there are different rules as to the competency
criminal action and requires only preponderance of scandal and to marry him. They went to his of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal
evidence to prosper and not proof beyond reasonable gradmother’s house and lived together as husband and civil proceedings.(criminal action – proof beyond
doubt as required for conviction in criminal cases. and wife for 21 days until Bunag Jr. left and never reasonable doubt; civil action—preponderance of
However, an acquittal based on the finding that the returned which humiliated Zenaida and compelled evidence)
facts upon which civil liability did not exist, bars the her to go back to her parents. - In this case  the dismissal of the complaint for
filing of an independent civil action if it is based on Respondent’s Comment Conrado Bunag Jr.and forcible abduction with rape was by mere resolution
the crime. As early as 1952, We have held in the Zenaida Cirilo had earlier made plans to elope and of the fiscal at the preliminary investigation stage.
case of Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, 91 get married (same as first set of facts) . And that the There is no declaration in a final judgment that the
Phil. 672, that "the acquittal of the accused from the reason why Conrado broke off their plan to get fact from which the civil case might arise did not
criminal charge will not necessarily extinguish the married was their bitter disagreements over money exist.
civil liability unless the court declares in the and Zenaida’s threats to his life.
judgment that the fact from which the civil liability - The Cirilo’s filed a complaint for damages against JARANTILLA v CA (SING)
might arise did not exist. Where the court states 'that Conrado Bunag Jr. and his father Conrado Bunag Sr.
the evidence throws no light on the cause of fire and (Zenaida’s uncle claims that Bunag Sr. assured them
171 SCRA 429
that it was an unfortunate accident for which the that the couple were to be married). The REGALADO; March 21, 1989
accused cannot be held responsible,' this declaration Trial Court ordered Bunag Jr. to pay damages (80K-
fits well into the exception of the rule which exempts moral damages,20K-exemplary damages, 20k- NATURE
the accused, from civil liability." temperate damages and 10k attorney’s fees) Bunag Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals
- Also, the charge against Felardo Paje was not for Sr. was absolved from any and all liability.CA affirmed upholding the decision of the trial court awarding
homicide and physical injuries but for reckless in toto damages to the private respondent.
imprudence or criminal negligence resulting in - Bunag Jr contends that both the trial court awarded
homicide (death of Clemente Marcia) and physical the damages on the basis of a finding that he is FACTS
injuries suffered by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. guilty of forcible abduction with rape,despite the - Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped
They are not one of the three (3) crimes mentioned prior dismissal of the complaint therefore filed by by a vehicle in the evening of July 7, 1971 in lznart
in Article 33 of the Civil Code and, therefore, no civil Zenaida with the Pasay City Fiscal’s Office. Street, Iloilo City" The respondent Court of Appeals
action shall proceed independently of the criminal concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the
prosecution. ISSUE said vehicle which figured in the mishap, a
WON the Fiscal’s dismissal of the complaint for Volkswagen (Beetle type) car, was then driven by
BUNAG JR. v CA (CIRILO) forcible abduction with rape extinguished the civil petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said street toward
liability of Conrado Bunag Jr the direction of the provincial capitol, and that
211 SCRA 440 private respondent sustained physical injuries as a
REGALADO; July 10, 1992 HELD consequence.
NO - Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then
NATURE - The dismissal did not in any way affect the right of City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru
Petition for review from the decision of the CA Zenaida Cirilo to institute a civil action arising from reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 47207
the offense. thereof. Private respondent, as the complaining
FACTS witness therein, did not reserve his right to institute a
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 44 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

separate civil action and he intervened in the - The action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to
prosecution of said criminal case through a private the respondent to reserve his right to file a separate the civil liability of the accused amounts to a
prosecutor. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did reservation of the right to have the civil liability
case "on reasonable doubt". not bar him from filing such separate civil action for litigated and determined in a separate action. The
- On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a damages. rules nowhere provide that if the court fails to
complaint against the petitioner in the former Court Ratio The allegations of the complaint filed by the determine the civil liability it becomes no longer
of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, docketed therein private respondent supports and is constitutive of a enforceable.
as Civil Case No. 9976, and which civil action case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner. Dispositive Decision of CA affirmed, petion denied.
involved the same subject matter and act The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Hill
complained of in Criminal Case No. 47027. In his that:
JIMENEZ v AVERIA
answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special ... a separate civil action lies against the offender
and affirmative detenses that the private respondent in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally 22 SCRA 380
had no cause of action and, additionally, that the prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided DIZON; March 29, 1968
latter's cause of action, if any, is barred by the prior that the offended party is not allowed, if he is also
judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207 inasmuch as actually charged criminally, to recover damages on FACTS
when said criminal case was instituted the civil both scores; and would be entitled in such - Ofelia V. Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday
liability was also deemed instituted since therein eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, were charged with estafa in the CFI of Cavite with the
plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. information alleging that they misappropriated
participated in the criminal case. In other words, the extinction of civil liability P20,000 received from Manuel Jimenez for the
- Thereafter, acting on a motion to dismiss of therein referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers purchase of a fishing boat named Basnig. They also
defendant, the trial court issued on April 3, 1975 an exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 have the obligation to return the money if they do
order of denial. Petitioner thereafter filed in this Court of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the civil not purchase the boat, which they did not do.
a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, liability for the same act considered as a quasi- - Before arraignment, the accused filed a civil suit
which was docketed as G.R. No. L-40992, assailing delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished against Jimenez in the Quezon CFI contesting the
the aforesaid order of the trial court. Said petition even by a declaration in the criminal case that the validity of a certain receipt signed by them on
was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's criminal act charged has not happened or has not October 26, 1962 wherein they acknowledged having
resolution of July 23, 1975, and a motion for been committed by the accused . . . received from him the sum of P20,000.00 with which
reconsideration thereof was denied for the same - The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & Taxi to purchase for him a fishing boat and its
reason in a resolution of October 28, 1975. Co., Inc., et al. involved virtually the same factual accessories, and the further sum of P240.00 as
- After trial, the court below rendered judgment on situation. The Court, in arriving at the conclusion agent's commission, with the obligation, on their
May 23, 1977 in favor of the herein private hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that the part, to return the aforesaid amounts on January 30,
respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay failure of the therein plaintiff to reserve his right to 1963 in case they were unable to buy the fishing
damages. Thus, petitioner appealed said decision to file a separate civil case is not fatal; that his boat. They assert now that they never received any
the CA but said respondent court affirmed in toto the intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from amount from Jimenez and that they signatures were
decision of the trial court with a few changes in the filing a separate civil action for damages, especially taken through the means of fraud and deceit by
amount of the damages to be paid. considering that the accused therein was acquitted Jimenez
because his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable - After a few days, they filed a motion to suspend the
ISSUE doubt; that the two cases were anchored on two proceedings of the criminal case pending the
WON the private respondent, who was the different causes of action, the criminal case being on resolution of the prejudicial question in the civil case
complainant in the criminal action for physical a violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code – whether or not their signatures were taken through
injuries thru reckless imprudence and who while the subsequent complaint for damages was means of fraud and deceit by Jimenez.
participated in the prosecution thereof without based on a quasi-delict; and that in the judgment in - Judge Averia granted the motion and hence this
reserving the civil action arising from the act or the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not certiorari petition
omission complained of, can file a separate action for passed upon and resolved. Consequently, said civil - Pre-ratio: Jimenez erred in the filing of a certiorari
civil liability arising from the same act or omission case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the petition, and should have filed a mandamus to the SC
where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the Civil Code. instead – to compel the lower court to proceed with
criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil - Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where the the case.
liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment trial court acquits the accused on reasonable doubt,
of acquittal it could very well make a pronounce ment on the civil ISSUE
liability of the accused and the complainant could file WON the determination of the issue raised in the civil
HELD a petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to case mentioned heretofore is a prejudicial question,
YES include such civil liability in the judgment of in the sense that it must be first resolved before the
acquittal. And that the failure of the court to make
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 45 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

proceedings in the criminal case for estafa may - Rojas was charged w/ violation of Art.319 (Removal, - Pisalbor. v. Tesoro: CFI erred in holding that the
proceed sale, pledge of mortgaged property) of RPC for criminal case should be suspended. In the present
executing a new chattel mortgage on personal proceedings, the civil case does not involve a
HELD property (Caterpillar Tractor) in favor of another party question prejudicial to the criminal case, for to
NO w/o the consent of the previous mortgagee. After the whomsoever the land may be awarded after all the
- The issue of fraud and deceit raised in the civil case criminal case was instituted, a civil case was filed evidence has been presented in the civil case, may
does not constitute a prejudicial question. The against him by the offended party (CMS Estate) for not affect the alleged crime committed by the notary
criminal court must now try the estafa case against the termination of a management contract, one of public, which is the subject of the criminal case. But,
the two accused. the causes of action of which consisted of petitioner even supposing that both the civil and the criminal
Reasoning having executed a chattel mortgage when a prior case involve the same question and one must
- A prejudicial question has been define to be one chattel mortgage was still valid and subsisting, thus precede the other, it should be the civil case which
which arises in a case, the resolution of which, giving lie to his express manifestation that the should be suspended rather than the criminal, to
(question ) is a logical antecedent of the issued property was free from all liens and encumbrances. await the result of the latter.
involved in said case, and the cognizance of which - Note: the trigger for the filing of information re: - Dela Cruz v City Fiscal: Regardless of the outcome
pertains to another tribunal. Simply put, the art.319 violation was the filing of 5 estafa cases of the pending civil case for annulment of the
questions must be determinative of the case before against Rojas. affidavit of adjudication, determination of the charge
the court, and that jurisdiction to try and resolve said - CFI Judge Alikpala ordered the arraignment, then of falsification would be based on the truth or falsity
question must be lodged in another tribunal. the trial for the criminal case. Rojas filed an action for of the narration of facts in the affidavit of
- Applying these to the case, it will be readily seen certiorari against the arraignment order, and adjudication, * * *. Therefore, the civil case
that the alleged prejudicial question is not prohibition against the order setting the trial, based aforementioned does not involve a prejudicial
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the on the civil action for the revocation of the question.
parties charged with estafa, because even on the management contract. He contended that a - Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr (more analogous): the fact
assumption that the execution of the receipt whose prejudicial question was involved, thus he could no that the principal issues in both cases are the same
annulment they sought in the civil case was vitiated longer be tried pending the termination of the civil and did arise from the same facts would not show
by fraud, duress or intimidation, their guilt could still suit. The respondents, in turn, contended that the any necessity that the civil case be determined first
be established by other evidence showing, to the resolution of the civil case will not determine the before taking up the criminal case.
degree required by law, that they had actually liability of Rojas in the criminal case (not a prejudicial - Isip v. Gonzales: there is a prejudicial question only
received from the complaint the sum of P20,000.00 question); and even granting that there was a when the matter that has to be priorly decided by
with which to buy for him a fishing boat, and that, prejudicial question, the cases could proceed another authority is one the cognizance of which
instead of doing so, they misappropriated the money independently pursuant to Art.33 of CC, which pertains to that authority and should not, under the
and refused or otherwise failed to return it to him provides: In cases of defamation, fraud and physical circumstances, be passed upon by the court trying
upon demand. The contention of the private injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate the criminal case.
respondents herein would be tenable had they been and distinct from the criminal action may be brought - Moreover, Art.33 explicitly provides that in cases of
charged with falsification of the same receipt by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed xxx fraud, xxx, a civil action for damages entirely
involved in the civil action. independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall separate and distinct from the criminal action, may
- If the ruling were otherwise, there would hardly be a require only a preponderance of evidence. be brought by the injured party. Such civil action
case for estafa that could be prosecuted speedily, it SHALL proceed independently of the criminal
being the easiest thing for the accused to block the ISSUE prosecution xxx.
proceedings by the simple expedient of filing an WON the is a prejudicial question, thus requiring the - in this case, fraud is the basis for both the civil and
independent civil action against the complainant, resolution of the civil action for the determination of criminal actions, thus they are to proceed
raising therein the issue that he had not received the criminal case independently. The invocation of the doctrine of
from the latter the amount alleged to have been prejudicial question is thus attended with futility.
misappropriated. HELD Personal note: ang pangit ng case. there’s realy no
NO discussion, puro citations, that’s why this digest is
ROJAS v PEOPLE (ALIKPALA) Ratio: A prejudicial question, which is must be also full of it.
determinative of the case before the court, and Dispositive Petition DENIED.
57 SCRA 243
jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in
FERNANDO; May 31, 1974 another court, is not present in this case. RAS v RASUL
Reasoning:
NATURE 100 SCRA 125
- It is indispensable then for this petition to succeed
Petition for certiorari and prohibition that the alleged prejudicial question must be TEEHANKEE; September 18, 1980
determinative of the criminal case before respondent
FACTS Judge. It is not so in this case. NATURE
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 46 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Petition to review and set aside the order of based on the very same facts which would be special proceeding on November 24, 1976 and was
respondent Judge dated December 12, 1978 of necessarily determinative of Ras' guilt or innocence terminated on the basis of a Project of Partition
criminal case in CFI Basilan denying petitioner's as accused in the criminal case. among Rufino Rivera Damandaman, Democrata
motion as accused therein to suspend proceedings Ratio A prejudicial question is defined as that which Guantero, and Zosimo Guantero.
due to the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical - Rufino’s share of the estate comprise of lots
Case of the same court antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the designated as Lots 559-B, 1906-B, 1910-B, and a901-
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The B which were all sugar lands. On January 18, 1977,
FACTS prejudicial question must be determinative of the Rufino leased the properties to Dr. Librodo, the
- April 27, 1978 - Luis Pichel filed a COMPLAINT case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and petitioner, for a period of ten agricultural crop years.
against Alejandro Ras and Bienvenido Martin before resolve the question must be lodged in another court - On August 31, Democrata filed a petition to re-open
CFI Basilan praying for the nullification of the deed of or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct the intestate proceeding on the ground that she was
sale executed by Ras in favor of Martin and for the and separate from the crime but so intimately not present when the subdivision plan was submitted
declaration of the prior deed of sale allegedly connected with it that it determines the guilt or and that the judgment has not become final as the
executed in his favor by the defendant Alejandro Ras innocence of the accused. boundaries on the partition have not been platted.
as valid. Reasoning - In the meantime, according to the petitioner,
- RAS ANSWER - For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a private respondents, Guanteros, harvested the sugar
> they never sold the property to Pichel criminal action as to cause the suspension of the canes he planted on the land he leased from Rufino.
> the signatures appearing in the deed of sale in criminal action pending the determination of the civil, On August 10, 1978, a Criminal Case (the Criminal
favor of plaintiff Pichel were forgeries it must appear not only that the civil case involves Case) was filed against the respondents for theft
> therefore the alleged deed of sale in Pichel's favor the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution demanding damages amounting to Pesos 15,120.00.
sought to be declared valid was fictitious and is based, but also that the resolution of the issues During the pendency of the Criminal Case, another
inexistent raised in said civil action would be necessarily case for damages (the Damages Case) against the
- September 5, 1978 - while Civil Case was being determinative of the guilt or innocence of the private respondents alleging damages to the
TRIED before CFI Basilan, the Provincial Fiscal of accused. petitioner caused by the private respondents’ theft of
Basilan filed an INFORMATION for Estafa (criminal - If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is void or the sugar canes and their occupation of the leased
case) in the same court against Ras arising from the fictitious, then there would be no double sale and properties thus preventing him from cultivating or
same double sale subject matter of the civil petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged. taking possession of the same. He alleged that this
complaint filed by Luis Pichel. A conviction in the criminal case (if it were allowed to resulted in his being deprived of income for two
- November 6, 1978 - petitioner filed a MOTION FOR proceed ahead) would be a gross injustice and would years amounting to Pesos 78,280.00.
SUSPENSION OF ACTION in said Criminal Case have to be set aside if it were finally decided in the - In their answer, respondents asserted that the lots
claiming that same facts and issues were involved in civil action that indeed the alleged prior deed of sale are still under co-ownership among the heirs and
both the civil and criminal case and that the was a forgery and spurious. that this is the subject of another special proceeding
resolution of the issues in the civil case would Dispositive Order of respondent judge in Criminal (the Intestate Case). That said, Democrata
necessarily be determinative of the guilt or Case dated December 12, 1978 is hereby set aside. contended that Rufino could not execute the lease
innocence of the accused. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court contracts without her conformity without her
- December 4, 1978 - Provincial Fiscal of Basilan filed on May 16, 1979 is hereby made permanent and conformity as co-owner. The Guanteros filed a motion
his opposition on respondent judge is enjoined from proceeding with to suspend the proceedings in the Criminal Case on
- December 12, 1978 - respondent judge saw no the arraignment and trial of the criminal case unless the ground of pendency of the Damages Case, the
prejudicial question and accordingly denied the the civil case shall have been finally decided and Intestate Case, and the ejectment case (the
motion terminated adversely against petitioner. Ejectment Case) which was filed by Rufino against
Democrata on January 13, 1977.
ISSUE LIBRODO v COSCOLLUELA, JR. - The respondents took the position that the various
WON civil case would be prejudicial to the criminal cases focused on the issues of possession and
(GUANTERO)
case given that they would discuss same facts and ownership of the lots involved as well as of the
issues 116 SCRA 303 improvements thereon, hence, determinative of their
MELENCIO-HERRERA; August 30, 1982 guilt in the criminal action and hence constitutive of
HELD a prejudicial question.
YES NATURE - Despite the objections made by the petitioner, the
- there appears to be a prejudicial question in the Petition for certiorari to review Negros CFI order lower court issued the order finding that a prejudicial
case at bar, considering that Ras' defense in Civil question existed and suspending the Criminal case
Case of the nullity and forgery of the alleged prior FACTS proceeding. Hence this appeal.
deed of sale in favor of Pichel (plaintiff in the civil - Felipe Rivera died leaving certain properties in San
case and complaining witness in the criminal case) is Carlos, Negros Occidental. His estate was settled in a ISSUE
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 47 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

WON the issues raised in the three cases mentioned basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause
involve a prejudicial question that warrants a NATURE the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of
suspension of the Criminal Case Petition to review the decision of Sandiganbayan action must be addressed to the sound discretion of
the court.
HELD FACTS - The only instance when the appellate court should
NO - Balgos et al were charged with violation of Section stay the hand of the trial court in such cases is when
The issues raised in the three cases do not involve 3(c) of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft it is shown that the trial court acted without
the pivotal question of who planted the sugar can and Corrupt Practice Act, as amended, in an jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or otherwise
and, therefore, are not determinative juris et jure of information that was filed with the Sandiganbayan by committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
guilt or innocence in the Criminal Case. the Special Prosecutor which was approved by the such lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Reasoning Deputy Tanodbayan, after a preliminary - Petitioners are public officers charged with having
- A prejudicial question is one based on a fact investigation. violated Section 3(c) of RA 3019, for evident bad
distinct and separate from the crime but so - Lim, the plaintiff and prevailing party in Civil Case faith and manifest partiality in enforcing the writ of
intimately connected with it that it determines No. 4047 filed a complaint for rescission of the sale execution in Civil Case No. 4047 against a Mustang
the guilt or innocence of the accused., and for of the car by Juanito Ang to private respondent car registered in the name of Leticia Acosta-Ang
it to suspend the criminal action, it must Leticia Acosta-Ang for being allegedly in fraud of (complainant) who is not the judgment debtor
appear not only that said case involves facts creditors. The said complaint was filed with the RTC thereby causing undue injury to said complainant
intimately related to those upon which the of Nueva Vizcaya. On the same day, petitioners filed and giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment
criminal prosecution would be based but also a motion for reinvestigation in the Tanodbayan. The creditor in said case.
that in the resolution of the issue or issues same was granted. - Upon reinvestigation of the criminal case by the
raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence - The Tanodbayan ordered to dismiss the case for Tanodbayan, he found evidence tending to show that
of the accused would necessarily be lack of merit and to withdraw the Information filed in the sale of said car to the complainant by Juanito
determined. Criminal Case No. 11414 as soon as possible in the Ang, the judgment debtor, was a sham intended to
- In the case at bar, the issues raised would not interest of justice. defraud his creditors; that the deed of absolute sale
constitute a prejudicial question to the Criminal Case. - Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion which ostensibly was executed before a notary public
The Intestate Case involves only the co-heirs and the to withdraw the information against petitioners. This appeared to be fictitious inasmuch as the entry of
facts involved are totally unrelated to the Criminal was denied. the document in the notarial register of said notary
Case. Even if the Intestate Court should annul the - BAlgos et al filed a motion to suspend proceedings public on said date referred to a catering contract of
division and uphold the co-ownership, that would not in the criminal case against them on the ground of other parties; that the certificate of registration of
be determinative of the criminal responsibility of the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil Case the car was issued to complainant only on June 13,
private respondents for theft of the sugar cane, No. 5307. This was likewise denied by the 1984 which showed that the document of sale was
which petitioner claims he planted in good faith by Sandiganbayan. actually executed only on or about the same date,
virtue of the valid lease agreement. The Ejectment that is, seven days after Juanito Ang received copy of
Case also does not constitute a prejudicial question ISSUE the adverse decision in Civil Case No. 4047; and that
to the Criminal Case. It involves the issue of WON the denial by the Sandiganbayan of the motion upon the execution of the judgment, the car was
possession between co-owners. A decision therein in to withdraw the information and of another motion to found in the possession of Alvin, the son of Juanito
favor of Democrata would not affect the rights of suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial Ang, who admitted that the car belonged to his
Librodo, which spring from the lease contract. With question in a pending civil action constitute a grave father by showing the receipt of its repair in the
regard the Damages case, it is actually the civil abuse of discretion. name of Juanito Ang. This is the basis of the motion
aspect of the Criminal Case as the two cases are of for withdrawal of the information of the Tanodbayan.
the same facts, and the entitlement to damages HELD - The respondents are aware that the complainant is
being predicated on the unlawful taking treated of in NO. not a party to the civil case filed by the creditor
the Criminal Case, no necessity arises for that civil - While the public prosecutor has the sole direction against spouses Juanito and Lydia Ang and that a writ
Case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Case. and control in the prosecution of offenses, once the of execution cannot be implemented validly against
Dispositive In the absence of a prejudicial question, complaint or information is filed in court, the court one who is not a party to the action. All these,
the order of the judge is set aside and he is thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case and all coupled with the under haste in which the levy on
instructed to proceed without delay with the trial of subsequent actions that may be taken by the public the Mustang car was made without first ascertaining
the criminal case. prosecutor in relation to the disposition of the case the true owner thereof demonstrate quite
must be subject to the approval of the said court. convincingly the evident bad faith and manifest
BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN Before a re-investigation of the case may be partiality of the respondents, thereby giving
conducted by the public prosecutor, the permission unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor to the
176 SCRA 287
or consent of the court must be secured. And if after damage and prejudice of the complainant.
GANCAYCO; August 10, 1989 such reinvestigation the prosecution finds a cogent
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 48 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Although at the reinvestigation, the Tanodbayan P271,500, P270,000, P 270,000) They issued for this when in truth and fact, the land is covered by the
was persuaded that in fact the sale of the car to purpose 4 checks drawn against the Chartered Bank, land reform program and that vast portions thereof
Leticia Ang was fraudulent, this did not necessarily Manila Branch. The first check for P225,000.00 was are timber land, hence, allegedly indisposable public
clear petitioners of the aforesaid Anti-Graft charge honored upon its presentment. By arrangement the land. Therefore, according to petitioners, CV No.
against them. Still the burden is on the petitioners to petitioners made with the Edano spouses, a deed of 8769 involves issues, the resolution of which will
establish that they acted in good faith in proceeding absolute sale in the name of Orosea Dev’t Corp. was determine whether or not petitioners are criminally
with the execution on the car even they were executed even of the full purchase price has not yet liable in CR No. 1423-I. They further argue that, if
presented evidence tending to show it did not belong been fully paid. Thereafter, OROSEA secured a loan and when the court hearing CV No. 7869 annuls the
to Juanito Ang anymore. of P1,000,000.00 from the Philippine Veterans Bank subject deed of sale, then, their obligation to pay
- The denial of the motion to suspend the criminal using this property as security. When the check for private respondents under the said deed would be
proceedings on the ground of the pendency of a the second installment fell due, petitioners twice extinguished, resulting in the dismissal of CR No.
prejudicial question in Civil Case No. 5307 is well asked for deferment. The checks they have issued 1423-I. The contracts are thus voidable with the
taken. The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into were dishonored. As a consequence of the dishonor existence of fraud vitiating their consent.
play usually in a situation where a civil action and a of these checks, the Edano spouses filed a complaint - However, it cannot be denied that at the time the
criminal action are both pending and there exists in for estafa against petitioners. acts complained of in the estafa case were
the former an issue which must be preemptively - The information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal committed, the deed of sale they seek to be
resolved before the criminal action may proceed, against petitioners on May 21, 1981, and it was annulled, was still binding to the parties.
because whatsoever the issue raised in the civil docketed as Criminal Case No. 1423-I. Arraignment - The two (2) essential elements for a prejudicial
action is resolved would be determinative juris et jure was set on September 4, 1981 but petitioners failed question to exist are: (a) the civil action involves an
of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the to appear. It was reset to October 5, 1981 but this issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised
criminal case. was postponed upon motion of petitioners. in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such
- The pending civil case for the annulment of the sale - On October 14, 1981, OROSEA filed a Complaint in issue in the civil action determines whether or not
of the car to Leticia Ang is not determinative of the the Court of First Instance of Quezon against the the criminal action may proceed.
guilt or innocence of the petitioners for the acts Edano spouses for the annulment/rescission of the - Given the nature of a prejudicial question, and
allegedly committed by them in seizing the car. Even Contract of Sale for which the petitioners issued the considering the issues raised in CV No. 8769 and CR
if in the civil action it is ultimately resolved that the checks, subject of the criminal case. No. 1423-I, we agree with the ruling of the
sale was null and void, it does not necessarily follow - The estafa case was again set for arraignment. This respondent Court of Appeals that the resolution of
that the seizure of the car was rightfully undertaken. was postponed. With the entry of a new counsel, the issues in CV No. 8769 is not determinative of the
The car was registered in the name of Leticia Ang six petitioners filed a motion to quash the estafa case, guilt or innocence of the petitioners-accused in CR
months before the seizure. Until the nullity of the on ground of improper venue, but this motion was No. 1423-I, hence, no prejudicial question is involved
sale is declared by the courts, the same is withdrawn by petitioners before it could be resolved. between the said two (2) cases.
presumptively valid. Thus, petitioners must - The arraignment was again postponed thrice. Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
demonstrate that the seizure was not attended by Petitioners then filed a 'Motion to Suspend The decision dated 23 September 1982 of the Court
manifest bad faith in order to clear themselves of the Arraignment and Further Proceedings, with a of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 14504 is hereby
charge in the criminal action. Supplemental Motion To Suspend Proceedings. This AFFIRMED.
Dispositive The petition is DENIED for lack of merit was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon.
and the restraining order dated June 6, 1989 is Resolving the motion to suspend, respondent Judge VALDEPENAS V PEOPLE
hereby lifted. No costs. issued his orders, now under question, denying the
16 SCRA 871
motion. CFI of Zambales also denied the same
UMALI v IAC (EDANO) motion. A petition for certiorari is filed with CA and CONCEPTION; April 30, 1966
CA affirmed.
219 SCRA 339 NATURE
PADILLA; June 21, 1990 ISSUE Appeal by Maximino Valdepenas from a decision of
WON proceedings should be suspended until the civil the CA, affirming that of the CFI of Cagayan,
NATURE case is disposed of, since CV No. 8769 involves a convicting him of the crime of abduction with
Review on certiorari prejudicial question. consent.

FACTS HELD FACTS

- Petitioners (Umali, Calleja, Ledesma) are officers of NO. - Jan 25, 56 – Ester Ulsano filed with the justice of
the Orosea Dev’t Corporation. Sometime on Sept. 4, - CV No. 8769 seeks the annulment of the deed of peace a criminal complaint charging Valdepenas with
1979, Umali purchased from spoused Homorio and sale in favor of Orosea on the gound that there was forcible abduction with rape of Ester Ulsano. After the
Solina Edano a lot in Mulanay, Province of Queazon fraud in misrepresenting that the land is free from all preliminary investigation, the second stage of which
for P1, 036,500 payable on 4 installments (P225,000, liens and encumbrances, and that it is not tenanted, was waived by Valdepenas, the justice of peace
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 49 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

found that there was probable cause and forwarded forcible abduction, the accused may be convicted of reputation. The presumption of innocence includes
the complaint to the CFI. abduction with consent. Art 344 (3) RPC states that: that of morality and decency, and of chastity.
- CFI found him guilty as charged and sentenced him ". . . the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or Dispositive Wherefore, the decision appealed from
accordingly. acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
- On appeal, CA modified the decision, convicting him upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her petitioner Maximino Valdepenas. It is so
of abduction with consent. parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, ordered.
- Valdepenas filed MFR and new trial contesting the if the offended has been expressly pardoned by the
findings of CA, to the effect that complainant was above- named persons, as the case may be". PEOPLE v PLATEROS
below 18 y/o at the time of the occurrence. Motion - Art 344 RPC does not determine the jurisdiction of
83 SCRA 401
was granted. The decision was set aside and the our courts over the offense therein enumerated. It
case was remanded to the CFI could not affect said jurisdiction, because the same is AQUINO; May 30 1978
- CFI rendered decision reiterating findings of CA. governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948, not by RPC,
Petitioner again appealed to CA which affirmed the which deals primarily with the definition of crimes FACTS
CFI decision. and the factors pertinent to the punishment of the - One night, Pedro Candel together with other
- MFR was filed on the ground that lower court had culprits. The complaint required in said Article 344 is pedicab drivers and Tomas Metucua, a second year
no jurisdiction over the person and the subject merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the college student drank beer in the kitchenette.
matter of the action wrt the offense of abduction with proper authorities of the power to prosecute the Seated at another table were Warlito Plateros and
consent. MFR was denied guilty parties. And such condition has been imposed Murillo Lahoy who were also drinking beer.
Petitioner’s claims – there was no complaint for "out of consideration for the offended woman and - Metucua and Plateros were rivals for the affection
abduction with consent filed and that the lower court her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in of Estrella Silamro, the cashier in the kitchenette.
acquired no jurisdiction over his person or over the silence rather than go through with the scandal of a When Metucua was talking with Estrella, his alleged
crime of abduction with consent. public trial." sweetheart, Plateros went near them and refused to
- The gist of petitioner's pretense is that there are leave them, thereby annoying Metucua.
ISSUE some elements of the latter which are not included in - At about midnight. Piquero, Candel and Añora,
WON CA erred in not reversing he decision of the TC the former, and, not alleged, according to him, in the accompanied by Metucua, left the kitchenette and
for lack of jurisdiction over the accused and the complaint filed herein, namely: 1) that the offended went to their pedicab. Candel was seated in the
subject matter of the action for the offense abduction party is a virgin; and 2) that she is over 12 and under sidecar of the tricycle. Metucua sat on the driver's
with consent 18 years of age. The second element is clearly set seat. Lahoy and Plateros came out of the
forth in said complaint, which states that Ester kitchenette. Lahoy appeared to be angry, hostile and
HELD Ulsano is "a minor . . . 17 years of age . . .", and, menacing. Without any warning, he stabbed Candel
NO. hence, over 12 and below 18 years of age. (maybe thinking that it was Metucua who was inside
- Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is - As regards the first element, it is settled that the the pedicab because Candel is the driver – abberatio
acquired upon either his apprehension, with or virginity mentioned in Art 343 RPC, as an essential personae) two times. Plateros also stabbed Candel.
without warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction ingredient of the crime of abduction with consent, Moved by the instinct of selfpreservation, Candel
of the court. It is not claimed that petitioner had not should not be understood in its material sense and jumped out of the sidecar. He fell on the ground face
been apprehended or had not submitted himself to does not exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous down. Lahoy allegedly stabbed Metucua. Then,
the jurisdiction of the court. His actions show that he woman of good reputation because the essence of Plateros and Lahoy fled from the scene of the
never questioned the judicial authority of the CFI, the the offense "is not the wrong done to the woman, but assault,
justice of peace and the CA. He is deemed to have the outrage to the family and the alarm produced in - Candel was brought to the hospital but he died on
waived whatever objection he might have had to the it by the disappearance of one of its members." that same morning.
jurisdiction over his person, and, hence, to have - The complaint in the case at bar alleges not only Procedure
submitted himself to the Court's jurisdiction. His that Ester Ulsano is a minor 17 years of age, but also - Two informations were filed in the Court of First
behavior - particularly the motions therein filed by that petitioner "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously" Instance of Bohol accusing Plateros and Lahoy of (1)
him — implied, not merely a submission to the took her by force and violence . . . against her will Murder of Candel and (2) Attempted Murder of
jurisdiction thereof, but also, that he urged the courts and taking advantage of the absence of her mother" Metucua.
to exercise the authority thereof over his person. from their dwelling and carried "her to a secluded - The trial court tried the two cases jointly and
- On the other hand, it is well settled that jurisdiction spot to gain carnal intercourse with the offended rendered only one decision. Plateros and Lahoy were
over the subject matter of an action is and may be party against her will, using force, intimidation and found guilty of murder, sentencing each of them of
conferred only by law. That jurisdiction over a given violence, with lewd designs." This allegation implies reclusion perpetua. In that same decision, the trial
crime, not vested by law upon a particular court, may that Ester is a minor living under patria protestas, court convicted Lahoy of attempted murder (Plateros,
not be conferred thereto by the parties involved in thus leading to the presumption that she is a virgin his co-accused, was acquitted) of Metucua.
the offense; and that, under an information for apart from being virtuous and having a good - Lahoy appealed to the Court of Appeals and the CA
acquitted him.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 50 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The murder case was elevated to SC for review. committed on the same occasion usually by the together since four o'clock in the afternoon. They had
Together with it, the Solicitor General elevated the same accused. gone to different places and repaired twice to the
attempted murder case be he believed that the However, that general rule has an exception. Where, kitchenette. They were together when they left the
decision of CA is void because Lahoy’s appeal ought by allowing the Court of Appeals to decide a can scene of the stabbing.
to have been certified to the Supreme Court by the involving an offense, which is not punishable by 4. NO
CA because the attempted murder imputed to Lahoy death or reclusion perpetua but which arose out of Lahoy and Plateros, who could have stabbed Candel
was committed on the same occasion and arose out the same occurrence or was committed on the same or Metucua inside the kitchenette, did not do so.
of the same occurrence as the murder imputed to occasion, as the case involving an offense punishable They waited for Metucua and the pedicab drivers to
him and Plateros in this case, as contemplated in by death or reclusion perpetua pending in this Court, leave the kitchenette. Their intention was to make a
section 17(1), formerly section 17(4) of the Judiciary there will be no conflict between the decisions of this surprise attack without any risk to themselves. The
Law, which reads: Court and the Court of Appeals, the former case need assault was deliberate, sudden and unexpected. That
"SEC. 17, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. -x x x " not be elevated to this Court (People vs. Cariño, 101 is the characteristics manifestation of treachery
x x xx x x x x x "The Supreme Court shall have Phil. 1206). The rationale of that exception to the (alevosia). Hence, the killing was properly
exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, general rule is found in the maxim: Cessanie ratione categorized as murder by the trial court (Art. 14(16),
modify or affirm on appeal, as the law or rules of legis, cessat et ipsa lex. (The reason for the law Revised Penal Code).
court may provide, final judgments and decrees of ceasing, the law itself also ceases.) Dispositive WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgment
inferior courts herein provided, in "(1) All criminal Reasoning: is affirmed with costs against the appellants. They
cases involving offenses for which the penalty - The doctrine of the Cariño case may be applied in are entitled to credit for their preventive
imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those this case because here there can be no conflict imprisonment under the conditions laid down in
involving other offenses which, although not so between the decision of the Court of Appeals and this article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
punished, arose out of the same occurrence or Court's decision in the instant murder case inasmuch
which may have been committed by the accused as the victims in the two cases are different. The PEOPLE v LAGON
on the same occasion, as that giving rice to the attempted murder case decided by the Court of
185 SCRA 442
more serious offense, regardless of whether the Appeals involved the wounding of a certain Tomas
accused are charged as principals, accomplices or Metucua whereas, in the instant murder case the FELICIANO.: May 18, 1990
accessories, or whether have been tried jointly or victim was Pedro Candel. The acquittal of Lahoy in
separately; x x x." connection with the wounding of Metucua would not FACTS
- In other words, the attempted murder case like the affect the determination of his guilt or innocence in -On July 7 1976 a criminal action was filed with the
instant murder case, comes within the exclusive connection with the death of Pedro Candel. City Court of Roxas charging Lagon with estafa for
appellate jurisdiction of the SCt and should have - This holding does not in anyway emasculate the allegedly issuing a P4,232 check as payment for
been decided together with the instant murder case. rule in section 17(1) that criminal cases appealed to goods knowing she had insufficient funds. However
the Court of Appeals, involving offenses which arose on Dec. 2, as the trial commenced, the City Court
ISSUES out of the same occurrence, or which were dismissed the information on the ground that the
On Attempted Murder Case committed on the same occasion as the offense penalty prescribed by law for estafa was beyond the
1. WON the decision of the Court of Appeals punished by death or reclusion perpetua should be court’s authority to impose. Hence this petition for
acquitting Lahoy of attempted murder should be set certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals. It is review.
aside for lack of appellate jurisdiction or as a “lawless this Court that would determine whether or not the
thing” cases appealed to the Court of Appeals should be ISSUE
On Murder case decided together with the case appealed to this WON the City Court had jurisdiction over the case
2. WON the guilt of Lahoy and Plateros was proven Court.
beyond reasonable doubt 2. YES HELD
3. WON there was conspiracy between Lahoy and The feeble denials of Plateros and Lahoy (who NO
Plateros admittedly were near the owns of the crime, when it - It is settled doctrine that jurisdiction of a court in
4. WON the crime should be categorized as simple was perpetrated) cannot prevail over the positive criminal law matters is determined by the law in
homicide only and not murder and unequivocal declarations of the eyewitnesses, effect at the time of the commencement of the
Añora and Piquero, that the appellants were the criminal action and not the law in effect at the time
HELD authors of the stab wounds which caused Candal's of the commission of the offense charged.
1. NO. death. Their guilt was proven beyond reasonable -Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948,
Ratio: The rule in section 17(1) is designed to avoid doubt. “municipal judges in the capitals of provinces and
conflicts between the decisions of this Court and the 3. YES. sub-provinces and judges of city courts shall have
Court of Appeals in cases involving offenses which There was a conspiracy between Plateros and Lahoy like jurisdiction as the CFI to try parties charged with
arose from the same occurrence or which were as shown in their concerted efforts to injure Candel. an offense within their respective jurisdictions, in
Plateros and Lahoy, as boon companions, had been
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 51 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

which penalties provided do not exceed prision - The petitioner moved to quash the information on In all cases such institution interrupts the period of
correccional or fines no exceeding P6,000 or both. the ground that the crime had prescribed, but the prescription of the offense charged.
-At the time of the commission of the crime, the motion was denied. On appeal, the RTC of Rizal - Respondent maintains that the filing of the
imposable penalty under Art 315 of the RPC was affirmed the denial of the motion. complaint with the OPP comes under the phrase
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision Petitioner’s claims In this petition, the petitioner "such institution" and that the phrase "in all cases"
correccional it is minimum period, falling well within argues that the charge against her is governed by applies to all cases, without distinction, including
the jurisdiction of the City Court. But when the the following provisions of the Rule on Summary those falling under the RSP.
information was filed, PD 818 had increased the Procedure (RSP):
imposable penalty to prision mayor in its medium Section 1. Scope. This rule shall govern the ISSUE
period. procedure in the MetTC, the MTC, and the MCTC in WON the offense has prescribed
-The real question raised by petitioner is whether the the following cases:
said doctrine disregards the rule against retroactivity B. Criminal Cases: HELD
of penal laws. It has been repeatedly held that in 3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances; . YES
criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction is not determined - Petitioner also invokes Act No. 3326, "An Act to - The filing of the complaint in the MTC, even if it be
by what may be meted out to the offender in after Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations merely for purposes of preliminary examination or
trial but by the extent of the penalty which the law Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period
imposes. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the Court in and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run," of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if
which the information is filed, it is retained regardless reading as follows: the court where the complaint or information is filed
of whether the evidence proves a lesser offense Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts can not try the case on its merits. Even if the court
which carries a penalty that would otherwise fall shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, where the complaint or information is filed may only
within the jurisdiction of an inferior court. prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . . proceed to investigate the case, its actuations
-In the instant case, should the information be refiled . Violations penalized by municipal ordinances already represent the initial step of the proceedings
with the RTC, the court may not impose a more shall prescribe after two months. against the offender.
onerous penalty upon Lagon. Although the RTC Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the - It is important to note that this decision was
retains subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide day of the commission of the violation of the law, promulgated on May 30, 1983, two months before
the refiled case under PD 818, given the date of the and if the same be not known at the time, from the the promulgation of the RSP on August 1, 1983. On
commission of the crime (before effectivity of PD discovery thereof and the institution of judicial the other hand, Section 1 of Rule 110 is new, having
818), the lower penalty provided in Art 315 proceedings for its investigation and punishment. been incorporated therein with the revision of the
(otherwise within the jurisdiction of the City Court) The prescription shall be interrupted when RCP on January 1, 1985, except for the last
should be imposed. proceedings are instituted against the guilty paragraph, which was added on October 1, 1988.
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to person, and shall begin to run again if the - Sec. 1 of the RCP begins with the phrase, "for
DENY the petition proceedings are dismissed for reasons not offenses not subject to the rule on summary
constituting jeopardy. procedure in special cases," which plainly signifies
ZALDIVIA V REYES, JR. - Petitioner concludes that as the information was that the section does not apply to offenses which are
filed way beyond the two-month statutory period subject to summary procedure. The phrase "in all
211 SCRA 277
from the date of the alleged commission of the cases" appearing in the last paragraph obviously
CRUZ; July 3, 1992 offense, the charge against her should have been refers to the cases covered by the Section, that is,
dismissed on the ground prescription. those offenses not governed by the RSP.
NATURE Prosecution’s position The prosecution contends - The charge against the petitioner, which is for
Petition for review on certiorari that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is
filing of the complaint against her with the OPP. The governed by the RSP and not the RCP.
FACTS SolGen invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules - Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of
- The petitioner Lus Zaldivia is charged with on Criminal Procedure (RCP), providing as follows: "offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the MTC and
quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's Section 1. How Instituted For offenses not MCTC," the obvious reference is to Section 32 (2) of
permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, subject to the rule on summary procedure in B.P. No. 129, vesting in such courts:
of the Municipality of Rodriguez, in the Province of special cases, the institution of criminal action (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
Rizal, allegedly committed on May 11, 1990. The shall be as follows: punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four
referral-complaint of the police was received by the …b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of years and two months, or a fine of not more than
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Rizal on the MTC and MCTC, by filing the complaint directly four thousand pesos, or both such fine and
May 30, 1990 and the information was filed with the with the said courts, or a complaint with the imprisonment, regardless of other imposable
MTC of Rodriguez, presided by Judge Andres Reyes, fiscal's office. However, in Metropolitan Manila and accessory or other penalties, including the civil
Jr., on October 2, 1990. other chartered cities, the complaint may be filed liability arising from such offenses or predicated
only with the office of the fiscal. thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 52 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

amount thereof; Provided, however, That in offenses the parties named in the info even if the acts of
involving damage to property through criminal NATURE falsification was allegedly done in Makati and QC,
negligence they shall have exclusive original Petition for review on Certiorari and Prohibition and thus outside the jurisdiction of said court
jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not Other procedural issues
exceed twenty thousand pesos. FACTS 2. WON the motion to quash was improper, and
- These offenses are not covered by the RSP. Under -Petitioners (Roy Villasor, Angelina Meijia Lopez and should not be allowed since by filing the said motion,
Section 9 of the RSP, "the complaint or information Aurora Mejia Villasor) and other heirs of spouses the petitioners necessarily assumes the truth of the
shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior Manuel Meijia and Gloria Lazatin entered into a allegation of the information to the effect that the
preliminary examination or preliminary contract with respondent Trinidad Lazatin for the offense was committed within the territorial
investigation." Both parties agree that this provision development and subdivision of 3 parcels of land jurisdiction of Angeles City
does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a belonging to the intestate estate. Lazatin transferred 3. WON the prayer for writs of certiorari and
preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the his rights to Terra Dev’t Co (TDC). prohibition is proper
case shall be deemed commenced only when it is -Petitioners and co-heirs filed an action in CFI QC for
filed in court, whether or not the prosecution decides rescission of said contract with Lazatin for alleged HELD
to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means gross and willful violation of its terms. 1. NO.
that the running of the prescriptive period shall be -Respondents (Lazatin and TDC) filed with Fiscal’s Ratio. The place where the criminal offense
halted on the date the case is actual filed in court Office of City of Angeles a complaint against was committed not only determines the venue
and not on any date before that. petitioners for violation of A172 in relation to A171, of the action but is an essential element of
- This interpretation is in consonance with the afore- par4, RPC. Preliminary investigation conducted. Fiscal jurisdiction [US vs. Pagdayuman].
quoted Act No. 3326 which says that the period of filed with Court in Angeles City information charging Reasoning. Petitioners are charged with having
prescription shall be suspended "when proceedings petitioners with crime of falsification of private falsified a private document, not using a falsified
are instituted against the guilty party." The document. Allegedly, Aurora and Angelina made it document, so it is essential to determine when and
proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are appear that they were the guardians of minors where the offense of falsification of a private
"judicial proceedings," contrary to the submission of George and Alexander Meijia (sons of the spouses?) document is deemed consummated or committed.
the SolGen that they include administrative when they weren’t the guardians at the date of the The crime of falsification of a private document is
proceedings. execution of the document, a certain Carolina M. de consummated when such document is actually
- At any rate, the Court feels that if there be a Castro was the judicial guardian of the said minors). falsified with the intent to prejudice a 3 rd person,
conflict between the RSP and the RCP, the former -Petitioners asked for a reinvestigation. Angeles City whether such falsified document is or is not put to
should prevail as the special law. And if there be a Fiscal reinvestigated to give them opportunity to use illegally. The improper and illegal use of the
conflict between Act No. 3326 and the RCP, the latter present exculpatory evidence. After reinvestigation, document is not material or essential element of the
must again yield because this Court, in the exercise parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case crime of falsification of a private document [US vs.
of its rule-making power, is not allowed to "diminish, mainly on the ground that the City Court of Infante, US vs. Barreto]
increase or modify substantive rights" under Article Angeles had no jurisdiction over the offense 2. NO
VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution Prescription in because the private document that contained Ratio. The motion to quash now provided for in Rule
criminal cases is a substantive right. the alleged false statement of fact was signed 117 of the Rules of Court is manifestly broader in
- The prescriptive period for the crime imputed to by them outside the territorial limits of said scope than the demurrer, as it is not limited to
the petitioner commenced from its alleged city (One in Makati, the other one in QC). defects apparent upon the face of the complaint or
commission on May 11, 1990, and ended two months -However, the resolution of their motion to dismiss information but extends to issues arising out of
thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance with was delayed and the City Court already set their extraneous facts, as shown by the circumstance that,
Section 1 of Act No. 3326. It was not interrupted by criminal case for arraignment. Petitioners secured among the grounds for a motion to quash, Section 2
the filing of the complaint with the OPP on May 30, several postponements of the arraignment. But since of said Rule provides for former jeopardy or acquittal,
1990, as this was not a judicial proceeding. The City Fiscal continually failed to act on their motion to extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of
judicial proceeding that could have interrupted the dismiss, petitioners filed a motion to quash instead, the accused etc., which necessarily involve questions
period was the filing of the information with the MTC on the ground that court had no jurisdiction. of fact in the determination of which a preliminary
of Rodriguez, but this was done only on October 2, Respondents (with conformity of City Fiscal) filed an trial is required.
1990, after the crime had already prescribed. opposition to the motion to quash. Respondent judge Reasoning. The argument of the respondents refer
Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. Case is DISMISSED denied motion to quash, set arraignment. So to the now obsolete demurrer to an information.
on the ground of prescription. petitioners filed present action. 3. YES
Ratio. The general rule is that a court of equity will
LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE ISSUE not issue a writ of certiorari to annul an order of a
1. WON City Court of Angeles City had jurisdiction to lower court denying a motion to quash, nor issue a
18 SCRA 616
try and decide the criminal case for alleged writ of prohibition to prevent said court from
DIZON, October 29, 1966 falsification of a private document allegedly done by proceeding with the case after such denial, it being
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 53 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the rule that upon such denial the defendant should delivery of the merchandise; (2) estafa is not - The place where the bills were written, signed or
enter his plea of not guilty and go to trial and, if indictable when checks are postdated or issued in dated does not necessarily fix the place where they
convicted, raise on appeal the same legal questions payment of pre-existing obligations; (3) venue was were executed. What is decisive is the delivery of the
covered by his motion to quash. In this as well as in improperly laid because checks were issued and instrument which is the final act essential to its
other jurisdictions, however, this is no longer the received by complainant in Caloocan, Yabut’s office. consummation as an obligation.
hard and fast rule. - The People opposed and maintained that new law - The receipt of the bad checks by a certain Yambao
-The writs of certiorari and prohibition, as on checks, RA 4885, amending Art. 315 par.2(d) RPC, in Caloocan cannot be taken as delivery of the
extraordinary legal remedies, are, in the ultimate penalizes the postdating and that Malolos court can checks to Freeway Tires because he did not take
analysis, intended to annul void proceedings; to exercise jurisdiction since the last ingredient of the delivery of the checks as holder.
prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal case, damage, transpired in Bulacan (residence of - Place of business of Freeway Tires is at Malolos,
authority and to provide for a fair and orderly the complainant) after the dishonor of the checks for Bulacan from where the tire and gas purchases were
administration of justice. lack of funds. made by the private respondents. Payment should
Reasoning. In several cases, the court already took - The judge quashed the information for the reason of then be considered effected there.
cognizance of said writs, overlooking the flaw in the improper venue. The other issue was not resolved by 2. YES
procedure followed in the interest of a more the judge. - Due to the absence of concrete evidence on the
enlightened and substantial justice. The lack of - People’s MFR for this dismissal was denied. specific nature of the obligation assumed or
jurisdiction of the City Court of Angeles is patent and ** This is actually a decision for two petitions: the supposedly discharged by the issuance of the bad
it would be highly unfair to compel the petitioners to other case involved Cecilia’s husband, GEMINIANO checks, resolution of this controversial issue on the
undergo trial in said court and suffer all the who was also charged with estafa, in his capacity as basis of the averments in the informations alone is
embarrassment and mental anguish that go with it. the President of Yabut Transit Lines. The exact same not ripe.
Dispositive WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby thing happened in his case (motion to quash -> 3. YES
rendered declaring that the offense charged in the improper venue reason -> quashed -> MFR denied). Reasoning In considering a motion to quash based
information filed in Criminal Case No. C-2268 of the on the ground that the facts charged do not
City Court of Angeles City is not within the ISSUE constitute an offense, the point of resolution is
jurisdiction of said court and that, therefore, said 1. WON CFI Bulacan had jurisdiction over the case whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted,
court is hereby restrained and prohibited from further 2. WON new law punishes the postdating or issuance would meet the essential elements of the offense as
proceedings therein. Costs against the private thereof in payment of a pre-existing obligation defined in the law. Facts alleged should be taken as
respondents. 3. WON facts charged in the informations constitute they are.
estafa Dispositive Appealed orders ordering the quashal
PEOPLE v YABUT of the estafa informations against the two private
HELD respondents are reversed and set aside. Arraignment
76 SCRA 624
1. YES of the private respondents in the criminal cases
MARTIN; April 29, 1977 Ratio Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check should be set at the earliest date, and thereafter, the
under Art. 315 par 2(d) of the RPC may be a trial on the merits to proceed immediately.
NATURE transitory or continuing offense. Its basic
Petition for review on certiorari of Orders of CFI elements of deceit and damage may independently SEPARATE OPINION
Bulacan arise in separate places. In the event of such
occurrence, the institution of the criminal action in
FACTS TEEHANKEE [concurring]
either place is legally allowed.
- Cecilia YABUT was accused of ESTAFA by means of - The motion to quash on the ground of improper
- The venue of the offense lies at the place where the
false pretenses before the CFI Bulacan. She, as venue must yield to the express allegations of the
check was executed and delivered to the payee.
treasurer of the Yabut Transit Lines, made out 3 informations, bearing in mind that what determines
Reasoning Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the ROC: “In
checks in the total sum of P6, 568.94 drawn against jurisdiction are the allegations in the information and
all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted
the Merchants Banking Corp (located in Caloocan that venue is sufficiently conferred wherein any one
and tried in the Court of the municipality or province
City), payable to Freeway Tires Supply. The checks of the essential ingredients of the offense charged
wherein the offense was committed or any one of the
were dishonored because of insufficient funds. Yabut took place. It also imports on the part of the accused
essential ingredients thereof took place.”
failed to deposit the necessary funds to cover the a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
- The estafa charged in the 2 informations involved
checks. information.
here appear to be transitory or continuing in nature.
- Instead of entering a plea, YABUT filed a MOTION TO Deceit has taken place in Malolos (thru issuance and
QUASH contending that: (1) the acts charged do not delivery of worthless checks), while the damage in AGBAYANI v SAYO
constitute the offense as there is no allegation that Caloocan, where the checks were dishonored by the 89 SCRA 699
the postdated checks were issued and delivered to drawee banks there. AQUINO; April 30, 1979
the complainant prior to or simultaneously with the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 54 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

NATURE -After petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of jurisdiction where the libelous article was published
Instant petition for certiorari and prohibition that order was denied, they filed in this Court the or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or
instant petition. printed. Under that rule, the criminal action is
FACTS transitory and the injured party has a choice of
-Conrado B. Mahinan, a lawyer, was the manager of ISSUE venue.
the Cagayan Valley Branch of the Government WON the CFI of Nueva Ecija was the proper venue of -Experience had shown that under that old rule the
Service Insurance System (GSIS) stationed at the criminal action for written defamation filed by offended party could harass the accused in a libel
Cauayan, Isabela. Among his subordinates were Mahinan case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a
Wilson Agbayani, Carmelo N. Bautista, Pablo R. remote or distant place.
Pascual, and Renato Romeo P. Dugay. HELD -Republic Act No. 4363 was enacted so as to prevent
-On March 8, 1976, Mahinan filed with the fiscal's NO the offended party in written defamation cases from
office at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya a complaint for -There is no issue as to whether Mahinan is a public inconveniencing the accused by means of out-of-
written defamation against Agbayani, Bautista, officer. As GSIS branch manager, he is town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in remote
Pascual and Dugay. unquestionably a public officer. municipal courts
-On July 23, 1976, the provincial fiscal of Nueva -Article 360, which lays down the rules on venue in -The rules on venue in article 360 may be restated
Vizcaya filed in the Court of First Instance of that cases of written defamation and which specifies the thus:
province an information for libel charging Agbayani, officer or court that should conduct the preliminary 1. Whether the offended party is a public official or
Bautista, Pascual and Dugay with having maliciously investigation, reads as follows: a private person, the criminal action may be filed
made defamatory imputations against Mahinan on or ART. 360.Persons responsible. . . . in the Court of First Instance of the province or city
about February 17, 1976 in Bambang, Nueva "The criminal and civil action for damages in cases where the libelous article is printed and first
Vizcaya. of written defamations as provided for in this published.
-Quoted in the information were the affidavits of chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately 2. If the offended party is a private individual, the
Pascual and Bautista signed at Cauayan, Isabela, with the court of first instance of the province or criminal action may also be filed in the Court of
Bautista's undated letter asking for Mahinan's city where the libelous article is printed and first First Instance of the province where he actually
dismissal, and Agbayani's "unusual incident report" published or where any of the offended parties resided at the time of the commission of the
subscribed and sworn to before a Manila notary and actually resides at the time of the commission of offense.
enclosing documentary evidence to support his the offense: 3. If the offended party is a public officer whose
charges of malversation and falsification against "Provided, however, That where one of the office is in Manila at the time of the commission of
Mahinan and praying for the latter's separation from offended parties is a public officer whose the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of
the service. office is in the City of Manila at the time of First Instance of Manila.
-According to the information, all those documents the commission of the offense, the action 4. If the offended party is a public officer holding
allegedly depicted Mahinan "as an incorrigible shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in
managerial misfit, despoiler of public office, the City of Manila or of the city or province the Court of First Instance of the province or city
spendthrift of GSIS funds, inveterate gambler, where the libelous article is printed and first where he held office at the time of the commission
chronic falsifier", and an "unreformed ex-convict". published, and in case such public officer of the offense.
-The four accused filed a motion to quash contending does not hold office in the City of Manila, the -As a corollary, the preliminary investigation of the
that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya has action shall be filed in the Court of First criminal action for written defamation shall be
no jurisdiction over the offense charged because Instance of the province or city where he conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the
Mahinan was a public officer holding office at held office at the time of the commission of province or city, or by the municipal court of the city
Cauayan, Isabela when the alleged libel was the offense or where the libelous article is or capital of the province where such action may be
committed and, under Article 360 of the Revised printed and first published… instituted.
Penal Code, the offense charged comes within the "Preliminary investigation of criminal actions -Applying the foregoing rules, the proper venue of
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Isabela. for written defamations as provided for in Mahinan's criminal action for written defamation
They argued that the provincial fiscal of Nueva the chapter shall be conducted by the against the petitioners is the Court of First Instance
Vizcaya had no authority to conduct the preliminary provincial or city fiscal of the province or of Isabela, since as a GSIS branch manager, he was a
investigation and to file the information. city, or by the municipal court of the city or public official stationed at Cauayan, Isabela and the
-It was denied by the trial court in its order of April capital of the province where such actions alleged libel was committed when he was (as he still)
25, 1977 on the ground that Mahinan was not a may be instituted in accordance with the in the public service. The preliminary investigation of
public officer within the meaning of article 203 of the provisions of this article. the complaint should have been conducted by the
Revised Penal Code since the insurance business of ". . . ." (As amended by Republic Act Nos. 1289 and provincial fiscal of Isabela, or by the municipal judge
the GSIS is not an inherently governmental function. 4363) of Ilagan, the provincial capital, or by the Court of
- Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that First Instance of the same province.
a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 55 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

-The criminal action could have been filed also in the however, denied by the General Manager (there was MELENCIO-HERRERA ; January 20, 1988
Court of First Instance of the province or in the city already an admission in this letter).
court of the city where the libel was printed and first -Catingub, was charged with the crime of FACTS
published. malversation (take note: crimes of estafa and - Manuel Parulan is a wholesale dealer of San Miguel
-The information in this case is defective or deficient malversation are similar in nature: difference is that Corp (SMC). He issued two checks in favor of SMC
because it does not show that the Court of First the funds in malversation are public in character) in (P86,071.20 and P11,918.80) that were dishonored
Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, where it was filed, has the Court of First Instance of Manila. He filed for insufficiency of funds.
jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action for written motion to dismiss after arraignment on the sole - The checks were received at the SMC Bulacan
defamation initiated by Mahinan against the ground that "the prosecution made a wrong branch, then forwarded to the SMC Regional Office in
petitioners and that the provincial fiscal of that choice of jurisdiction." He contended that "on the San Fernando, Pampanga.
province had the authority to conduct the preliminary basis of the prosecution's evidence, the offense - SMC Finance Officer deposited the check in BPI San
investigation. charged, together with all its essential ingredients Fernando, Pampanga branch.
-Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of occurred and the consummation thereof (was) - (Parulan’s bank is Planters Development Bank in
jurisdiction completed, in Cagayan de Oro. Bulacan)
Dispositive Petition granted. The trial court's order -TC and CA dismissed motion hence this petition - SMC filed for violation of BP22 (1 st check) and for
denying petitioners' motion to quash is set aside. It is before the SC estafa under par. 2d2 (2nd check) with the RTC in
directed to dismiss Criminal Case No. 509, the libel Pampanga.
case against the petitioners, without prejudice to the ISSUE - After hearing the facts and evidence, Judge Grospe
filing of another criminal action for written WON CFI of Manila has jurisdiction to continue with of the Pampanga RTC dismissed the case because he
defamation in the Court of First Instance of Isabela the trial of the offense as charged in view of the said that the two essential elements, deceit and
evidence presented by the prodecution damage, of the offenses charged occurred and took
CATINGUB v CA (PCSO) place in Bulacan. DECEIT took place when Parulan
HELD gave the checks to SMC in Bulacan, with the false
121 SCRA 106.
YES. assurance that it had sufficient funds. DAMAGE
GUERRERO; March 25, 1983. - Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, Sec. 14(a) occurred at the moment the checks issued by the
provides: accused were dishonored by the Planters
NATURE "Sec. 14. Place where action is to be instituted. — Development Bank, the drawee bank, at Santa Maria,
This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of (a) In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be Bulacan which received them from the BPI, San
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38698-R entitled instituted and tried in the court of the municipality Fernando, Pampanga branch for clearing purpose.
"PEDRITO L. CATINGUB, Petitioner, versus HON. or province wherein the offense was committed or
RICARDO C. PUNO, Judge of the CFI Manila, Branch any one of the essential ingredients thereof took ISSUES
24, and the PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES place.” 1. WON any of the essential elements of the
OFFICE, Respondents." -Petitioner could have been charged and tried offenses charged occurred or took place within the
in Cagayan de Oro City for it is not disputed jurisdiction of RTC Pampanga.
FACTS that he received the sweepstakes tickets from 2. WON this petition for Certiorari places accused in
- Catingub was designated Temporary Sales the PCSO, Cagayan de Oro branch. The double jeopardy.
Supervisor of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes essential ingredient of receiving the
Office (PCSO) assigned at the Cagayan de Oro sweepstakes tickets took place in Cagayan de HELD
Branch. As such, he received sweepstakes tickets on Oro City. He could also be charged in the City 1. YES
consignment, with the express obligation to turn over of Manila since the final accounting must be - A person charged with a transitory crime may be
the proceeds of the sales of these tickets to the rendered in the Central Office, Manila. This is validly tried in any municipality or province where
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. Later, he was therefore, a case of concurrent jurisdiction by the offense was in part committed. In transitory or
informed by the Auditing Examiner of the PCSO, the proper court of the place wherein "anyone continuing offenses in which some acts material and
Cagayan de Oro Branch that he has been found short of the essential ingredients thereof took essential to the crime and requisite to its
of P12,307.45. Petitioner was ordered to explain the place." But the choice of venue lies with the consummation occur in one province and some in
shortage in writing and to produce the missing prosecuting officer and not with the accused. another, the Court of either province has jurisdiction
amount. He failed to do so. His services were Dispositive Decision of CA Affirmed. Remand to the to try the case, it being understood that the first
terminated without prejudice to whatever court trial court for further proceedings in the ordinary Court taking cognizance of the Case will exclude the
action the PCSO will take for the recovery of the course of law others.
amount involved. In a letter, petitioner proposed to
the General Manager of the PCSO, Manila, to settle
PEOPLE v GROSPE 2
Art. 315, par. 2(d) states: 'By postdating a check, or issuing a check
his shortages by making monthly payments in the
amount of at least P200.00, which proposal was, 157 SCRA 154. in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 56 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

ESTAFA under par 2d 181 SCRA 459 officer filed on January 6, 1984, a motion to
- Elements: terminate Manuel Bala's probation, at the same time
MARTINEZ; January 20, 1999
(1) Deceit took place in Pampanga, where it was attaching his progress report on supervision dated
uttered and delivered. The rule is that the issuance January 5, 1984. The same motion, however, became
NATURE
as well as the delivery of the check must be to a the subject of a "Manifestation," dated January 10,
Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
person who takes it as a holder, which means the 1984, which stated that the probation officer was not
injunction to review the order of the Court of First
payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in pursuing the motion to terminate dated January 6,
Instance of Manila
possession of it, or the bearer, thereof, who in this 1984; instead, he was submitting a supplemental
case is the Financial Officer of SMC report which recommended the revocation of
FACTS
(2) Damage took place in Bulacan, where the probation "in the light of new facts, information, and
- The petitioner had been indicted for removing and
check was dishonored by the drawee bank. evidences."
substituting the picture of Diazen which had been
- Therefore, jurisdiction may be entertained by - Thereafter, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
attached to her United States of America passport,
either the Bulacan or the Pampanga court. and/or strike out the motion to revoke probation,
with that of Notarte, in effect falsifying a genuine
BP 22 violation questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his case
public or official document. The trial court adjudged
- In respect of the Bouncing Checks Case, the offense inasmuch as his probation period had already
petitioner Bala in Criminal Case No. 24443, guilty of
also appears to be continuing in nature. It is true that expired. Moreover, his change of residence
the crime of falsification of a public document. The
the offense is committed by the very fact of its automatically transferred the venue of the case from
petitioner seasonably appealed, but the Court of
performance; and that the Bouncing Checks Law the RTC of Manila to the Executive. Judge, of the RTC
Appeals, on April 9, 1980, affirmed in toto the lower
penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check but of Makati which latter court include under its
court's decision. After the case had been remanded
also the act of making or drawing and issuance of a jurisdiction the Municipality of Las Piñas the
to the court of origin for execution of judgment, the
bouncing check. The case, therefore, could have probationer's place of residence, invoking Section 13,
petitioner applied for and was granted probation by
been filed also in Bulacan. The determinative factor P.D. No. 968, which provides
the respondent judge in his order dated August 11,
(in determining venue) is the place of the issuance of Sec. 13. Control and Supervision of Probationer. ...
1982. The petitioner was then placed under
the check. However, it is likewise true that Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a
probation for a period of one (1) year, subject to the
knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of the place under the jurisdiction of another court,
terms and conditions enumerated therein.
check of the insufficiency of his funds, which is an control over him shall be transferred to the
- The probationer (petitioner) asked his supervising
essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a Executive Judge of the, Court of First Instance of
probation officer for permission to transfer his
continuing eventuality, whether the accused be that place, and in such a case a copy of the
residence from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision
within one territory or another. Accordingly, probation order the investigation report and other
in Las Piñas specifically 33 Jingco Street. The
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense also lies pertinent records shall be furnished to said
probation officer verbally granted the probationer's
in the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga. Executive Judge.
request as he found nothing objectionable to it.
- Jurisdiction or venue is determined by the Thereafter. the Executive Judge to whom
- By the terms of the petitioner's probation, it should
allegations in the Information, which are controlling. jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred shall
have expired on August 10, 1983, one year after the
The Information filed herein specifically alleges that have the power with respect to him that was
order granting the same was issued. But, the order of
the crime was committed in San Fernando, previously possessed by the court which granted
final discharge could not be issued because the
Pampanga, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the probation.
respondent probation officer had not yet submitted
the Court below. - The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss
his final report on the conduct of his charge.
2. NO for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.
Subsequently, the respondent People of the
The case was dismissed not on merits but on the
Philippines, through Assistant City Fiscal Jose D.
erroneous conclusion of the judge that his court had ISSUE
Cajucom of Manila, filed a motion to revoke the
no jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal being null WON his transfer of residence automatically
probation of the petitioner before Branch XX of the
and void, the proceedings before the RTC can’t be transferred jurisdiction over his probation from the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, presided over by
said to have been lawfully terminated. Therefore, Manila Regional Trial Court to the same court in his
the respondent judge. The motion alleged that the
there is no second proceeding to place the accused new address.
petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of
in double jeopardy.
his probation.
Dispositive Petition granted. Judge is ordered to HELD
- On January 4, 1984, the petitioner filed his
reassume jurisdiction over Criminal Cases Nos. 2800 NO
opposition to the motion on the ground that he was
and 2813 of his Court and to render judgment of - In criminal cases, venue is an element of
no longer under probation, his probation period
either conviction or acquittal in accordance with the jurisdiction. Such being the case, the Manila RTC
having terminated on August 10, 1983, as previously
evidence already adduced during the joint trial of would not be deprived of its jurisdiction over the
adverted to. As such, no valid reason existed to
said two cases. probation case. To uphold the petitioner's contention
revoke the same, he contended. As if to confirm the
would mean a depreciation of the Manila court's
Manila Assistant City Fiscal's motion to revoke the
BALA v MARTINEZ petitioner's probation, the respondent probation
power to grant probation in the first place. It is to be
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 57 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

remembered that when the petitioner-accused - September 23 and October 1, 1980: the PC bonds, adopting the plea of the petition, namely, (1)
applied for probation in the then CFI of Manila, he provincial commander filed 7 separate complaints for the setting aside, by certiorari, of the order of the
was a resident of Las Piñas as he is up to now, murder against the accused Pablo Sola, Francisco Municipal Court of Kabankalan, presided over by
although in a different subdivision. As pointed out Garcia, Ricardo Garcia, Jose Bethoven Cabral, Judge Rafael Gasataya, granting bail to the accused
earlier, he merely moved from BF Homes to Philam Florendo Baliscao and 14 other persons of unknown in the 7 Criminal Cases, and (2) the petition for a
Life Subdivision 33 Jingco Street, also in Las Piñas. names. change of venue or place of trial of the same criminal
On the other hand, pursuing the petitioner's - After due preliminary examination of the cases to avoid a miscarriage of Justice; (b) [Transfer]
argument on this score to the limits of it logic would complainant's witnesses and his other evidence, the the venue of the aforesaid criminal cases to Branch V
mean that his probation was null and void in the municipal court found probable cause against the of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental at
place, because then the Manila CFI was without accused. It thus issued an order for their arrest. Bacolod City, presided by Executive Judge Alfonso
jurisdiction to grant him probation as he was a - Without giving the prosecution the opportunity to Baguio, considering that District Judge Ostervaldo
resident of Las Piñas. It is therefore incorrect to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong, the court Emilia of the Court of First Instance, Negros
assume that the petitioner's change of abode granted them the right to post bail for their Occidental, Branch VI at Himamaylan has an
compels change of venue, and necessarily, control temporary release. Sola, Garcia and Cabral posted approved leave of absence covering the period from
over the petitioner, to the Executive Judge of the RTC bail and have since been released. January 12 to March 12, 1981 due to a mild attack of
of his new residence. Thus, in the apportionment of -The witnesses informed the prosecution of their cerebral thrombosis and that the said Branch V is the
the regional trial courts under Batas Pambansa Blg. fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan nearest court station to Himamaylan: and (c) [Await]
129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their the comment of respondents on the petition to
Act of 1980, Las Piñas is one among the safety could be jeopardized. At least two of the cancel bail, without prejudice to the public officials
municipalities included in the National Capital Judicial accused are officials with power and influence in concerned taking the necessary measures to assure
Region (Metro Manila) with a seat at Makati. 18 Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In the safety of the witnesses of the prosecution." Thus,
Needless to say, the Regional Trial Court in Makati, addition, most of the accused remained at large. the issue of a change of venue has become moot and
like the Manila Regional Trial Court, forms part of the Indeed, there have been reports made to police academic.
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region. 19 authorities of threats made on the families of the
Accordingly, the various branches of the regional trial witnesses. ISSUE
courts of Makati or Manila under the National Capital - February 11, 1981: petition for cancellation of bail WON the bail bonds should be cancelled
Region, are coordinate and co-equal courts, the bonds and change of venue was filed.
totality of which is only one Regional Trial Court. - February 12, 1981: the Court required the comment HELD
Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judges. of the Solicitor General as well as of the private YES
In other words, the case does not attach to the respondents. Ratio Whether the motion for bail of a defendant
branch or judge. Therefore, in this case, RTC Branch - March 4, 1981, the Comment was submitted by who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in
XX of Manila, which granted the probation, has not Solicitor General Mendoza. It opened with this a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular
lost control and supervision over the probation of the preliminary statement: "The present petition was trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
petitioner. filed by the private prosecutors in Criminal Cases present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence
Dispositive Petition dismissed Nos. 1700-1706, People v. Pablo Sola, et al., pending that it may desire to introduce before the court
trial before the CFI of Negros Occidental. Rightly, any should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the
PEOPLE v SOLA petition before this Honorable Court on behalf of the criminal case involved in the instant special civil
People of the Philippines can, under the law, be action, the prosecution should be denied such an
103 SCRA 393
instituted only by the Solicitor General. The assertion opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural
FERNANDO; March 17, 1981 of the petitioner private prosecutors that they are due process, and the order of the court granting bail
instituting the action 'subject to the control and should be considered void on that ground. (People v
FACTS supervision of the Fiscal' will not, therefore, improve San Diego)
- September 15, 1980: acting on the evidence their legal standing." Nonetheless, it adopted the Reasoning
presented by the Philippine Constabulary two-pronged trusts of the petition: 1. the setting - Bail was granted to the accused without hearing the
commander at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, the CFI aside, by certiorari, of the order of the Municipal prosecution
issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of Court of Kabankalan, presided over by Judge -Justice Cardozo: "The law, as we have seen, is
the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the Gasataya, granting bail to the accused in the criminal sedulous in maintaining for a defendant charged with
hacienda of Pablo Sola at Sta. Isabel, Kabankalan, cases mentioned above, and 2. the petition for a crime whatever forms of procedure are of the
Negros Occidental. change of venue or place of trial of the same criminal essence of an opportunity to defend. Privileges so
- September 16, 1980: elements of the 332nd PC/INP cases to avoid a miscarriage of justice. fundamental as to be inherent in every concept of a
Company proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings - March 15, 1981: The Court Resolved to: (a) [Note] fair trial that could be acceptable to the thought of
made in a canefield yielded two common graves the comment of the Solicitor General on the urgent reasonable men will be kept inviolate and inviolable,
containing the 7 bodies. petition for change of venue and cancellation of bail however crushing may be the pressure of
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 58 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

incriminating proof. But justice, though due to the Jesus (14 yrs old) accused Gerardo Fajardo, Rufino –CFI: found Gorospe and Bulanadi guilty beyond
accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe of the crime of reasonable doubt of Rape committed against
fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a Forcible Abduction with Rape. Anastacia de Jesus as charged in the information;
filament. We are to keep the balance true." - The crime was said to have been committed on sentenced each of the accused to suffer 2 perpetual
- It does not suffice that the questions asked by the September 30, 1974, starting in Plaridel, Bulacan, penalties of reclusion perpetua to be served in
municipal judge before bail was granted could be thru Pulilan, and thence to Talavera, Nueva Ecija (in a accordance with Art. 70 of the RPC, with all the
characterized as searching. That fact did not cure an hut where she was detained for 9 days and sexually accessory penalty of the law; to indemnify de Jesus in
infirmity of a jurisdictional character. abused during the night. She was made to lose her the amount of P40,000.00 for actual exemplary and
On change of venue consciousness first by waiving a hankerchief on her moral damages, and to pay the costs.
- 1973 Constitution: The Supreme Court could order face before they abducted her and eventually taking
"a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a her to said place.) ISSUES
miscarriage of justice." - Municipal Judge Alfredo V. Granados of the 1. WON there was error in filing the complaint since it
- People v. Gutierrez: To compel the prosecution to Municipal Court of Pulilan received the complaint and was not filed in Plaridel, Bulacan or Talavera, Nueva
proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will conducted a preliminary investigation, first stage. Ecija but in Pulilan, Bulacan (and if yes, then WON an
not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make - October 25, 1974: the Complaint was amended. error was by the CFI of Bulacan in hearing the said
a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the - Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe were again case and not by the CFI of Nueva Ecija)
very purpose for which courts have been named but Gerardo Fajardo was dropped and Oscar 2. WON Judge Vega had authority to hear the case
established." Alvaran was named instead. (***there are other issues but no longer related to
-
It may be added that there may be cases where the -The date when the crime was said to have been the topic “venue” so I didn’t include them anymore ~
fear, objectively viewed, may, to some individuals, committed was changed from September 30, 1974 to eoc)
be less than terrifying, but the question must always September 25, 1974.
be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. - Again Judge Granados conducted a preliminary HELD
The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution investigation and on November 18, 1974, he issued 1. NO
must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should an order for the arrest of Bulanadi, Gorospe and - The Municipal Court of Pulilan had jurisdiction
be resolved in favor of a change of venue. As a Alvaran and fixed their bail at P15,000.00 each. because the abductors and their captive passed
matter of fact, there need not be a petition of this -Bulanadi and Gorospe posted the requisite bail. Pulilan on their way from Plaridel to Talavera. And the
character filed before this Court. Such a plea could Alvaran remained at large. CFI of Bulacan [as well as the CFI of Nueva Ecija] had
have been done administratively. In this particular -The second stage of the preliminary investigation jurisdiction because essential elements of the offense
case, however, there is justification for the procedure was set on February 5, 1975, but on that day, neither took place in Bulacan [and also in Nueva Ecija].
followed in view of the fact that along with the Bulanadi or Gorospe appeared for which reason, Reasoning Abduction is a persistent and continuing
change of venue, the cancellation of the bail bonds Judge Granados declared that they had waived their offense. (U.S. vs. Bernabe, 23 Phil. 154 [1912]).
was also sought. right thereto and elevated the case to the CFI of - Hence it may be "tried in the court of the
Dispositive The assailed order of Judge Gasataya Bulacan. municipality or province wherein the offense was
granting bail to private respondents is nullified, set - March 19, 1975: Provincial Fiscal Pascual C. committed or any one of the essential ingredients
aside, and declared to be without force and effect. Kliatchko filed with the CFI of Bulacan an Information thereof took place." (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec.
Exec. Judge Alfonso Baguio of the CFI of Negros for forcible Abduction with Rape against Gorospe and 14[a]).
Occidental, to whose sala the cases had been Bulanadi. But said information was later on amended. 2. YES.
transferred is directed forthwith to hear the petitions -Judge Nelly L. Romero Valdellon started the trial of - Judge de Vega had the power to decide the case.
for bail of private respondents, with the prosecution the case on October 15, 1975. Reasoning "Where a court of first instance is divided
being duly heard on the question of whether or not -The accused and their counsel de parte had long into several branches, each of the branches is not a
the evidence of guilt against the respondents is been notified that the case was to be tried on that court distinct and separate from the others.
strong. This decision is immediately executory. No day but they did not appear so the former were tried Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judges,
costs. in absentia. so that when a complaint or information is filed
-After hearing part of the testimony of Anastacia de before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not
PEOPLE v FELICIANO GOROSPE and Jesus, the complainant, Judge Valdellon was attach to said branch or judge alone, to the exclusion
transferred to Metro Manila and she was replaced by of the others. Trial may be had or proceedings may
RUFINO BULANADI
Judge Fidel P. Purisima who finished the trial. continue by and before another branch or judge."
129 SCRA 233 -But Judge Purisima inhibited himself from deciding [Lumpay, et al. vs. Moscoso, 105 Phil. 968 (1959)].
ABAD SANTOS; May 15, 1984 the case because J. Granados is his first cousin by Dispositive The judgment of the Court a quo is
affinity (to make sure that the decision to be hereby affirmed in all respects.
FACTS rendered in this case shall be above suspicion)
- In a verified Complaint filed on October 8, 1974 with -So it was Judge Jesus R. de Vega who decided the HASHIM v CITY FISCAL OF MANILA
the Municipal Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, Anastacia de case
71 Phil 216
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 59 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

LAUREL; January 13, 1941 same is, in effect, to ask for another prelim because they "were found to be in the nature of a
investigation. counter charge, the same having been filed after
NATURE more than 1 month from the date of the alleged
Certiorari and mandamus TANDOC v RESULTAN incident." However, as to the charge of Trespass to
Dwelling filed by Conrado Payopay, Sr. against Pedro
175 SCRA 37
FACTS Tandoc, a prima facie case was found by the
PADILLA; July 5, 1989 investigating fiscal. Thus, an information was filed
- Hashim was caught in possession of counterfeit
treasury certificates, but was released upon filing of with the City Court.
NATURE - 28 July 1981: Arnulfo Payopay, Conrado Payopay, Sr.
bond. Complaint was filed with Office of City Fiscal
Petition for certiorari to annul orders of the City Court and Manuel Cancino, directly lodged with the City
and after investigation of fiscal, information was
of San Carlos Court of San Carlos City the following criminal
lodged. Case was docketed and Judge issued arrest
warrant. complaints: (1) against Pedro Tandoc, Rogelio Ercella,
FACTS Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario and Fred Menor for Serious
Petitioner’s counsel filed motion asking fiscal to
- October 19, 1980: Respondents entered the store Physical Injuries, filed by Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay;
furnish clerk of court w/ testimony of witnesses who
and dining room of the Pacita Tandoc without her (2) against Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario and Fred Menor
testified at preliminary investigation. Fiscal opposed.
permission. There was an altercation between Tandoc for Trespass to Dwelling, filed by Conrado Payopay,
- Counsel for petitioner put in motion that should his
and respondent, Arnold Payopay, regarding the Sr.; (3) against Pedro Tandoc, Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario
first motion be acted upon adversely, that Court itself
stoning of the store and house. Payopay picked up and Fred dela Vega for Less Serious Physical Injuries,
conduct the investigation under Sec 4 of Rule 108.
stones and struck Tandoc but instead her helper, filed by Manuel Cancino; (4) against Pedro Tandoc,
Fiscal opposed.
Bonifacio Menor, was hit and suffered physical Rudy Diaz, Rogelio Ercella, Juan Rosario & Fred Menor
- Petitioner’s counsel asked that warrant of arrest be
injuries which according to the medico-legal for Grave Threats to Kill, with Arnulfo Payopay as
cancelled and the court conduct preliminary
certificate will heal in more than 30 days. Beda private complainant.
investigation. Judge denied motions and the MFRs.
Acosta, who was behind Arnold Payopay, picked up - 13 August 1981: City Court, after conducting a
Hence the instant certiorari and mandamus petition.
the stone and struck Tandoc but her helper, Fred de preliminary examination of the 4 aforementioned
la Vega, was hit instead and suffered injuries which cases, found reasonable ground to believe that the
ISSUE
injury will heal in less than 9 days. offenses charged may have been committed by the
WON in prelim investigation by fiscal, accused is
- 19 October 1980: a criminal complaint was lodged herein petitioners and that the latter were probably
entitled to be informed of substance of testimony
with the Office of the City Fiscal with the charges of guilty thereof.
and evidence against him
Serious Physical Injuries, filed by Bonifacio Menor - The issuance of warrants of arrest was ordered
against Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay; Slight Physical against them, although said warrants were later
HELD
Injuries, filed by Fred de la Vega against Beda Acosta, suspended upon motion of the petitioners.
NO
and Trespass to Dwelling, filed by Pacita Tandoc - A motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Prelim investigation by fiscal is not within purview
against Arnulfo Payopay, Beda Acosta, Manuel - Petitioners moved for a re-investigation of the cases
of Sections 13 and 11 of Rule 108. Sec 13 deals with
Cancino, Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria. by the Office of the City Fiscal. The court a quo
transmission of records requirements and Sec 11
- 2 December 1980: Arnulfo Payopay and his father denied said motion. Petitioners sought a
deals with prelim investigation by justices of peace
Conrado Payopay, Sr., together with Manuel Cancino, reconsideration of said order, but it was likewise
and judges for purpose of issuance of warrant.
also filed a complaint with the Office of the City denied.
- Sec 2, Act No 612: In cases triable only in CFI,
Fiscal, against Pedro Tandoc, Pacita Tandoc, Rudy
defendant shall have speedy trial, but shall not be
Diaz, Fred Menor, Rogelio Ercella, Juan Rosario and ISSUE
entitled as of right to a prelim investigation where
Fred de la Vega, with the charges of Trespass to WON the city court has the power and authority to
prosecuting attorney, after investigation, shall have
Dwelling, Serious Oral Defamation, Grave Threats conduct a new a preliminary examination of charges,
presented an information against him.
and Physical Injuries which were previously the subject of a preliminary
- THE RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS
- 10 December 1980: the investigating fiscal found investigation conducted by the Office of the City
STATUTORY, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Its purpose is to
reasonable ground to believe that respondents Fiscal and thereafter dismissed by the latter.
secure the innocent against hasty prosecutions and
Arnulfo Payopay, Beda Acosta, Manuel Cancino,
protect him from public accusation, and also to
Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria committed the HELD
protect the State from useless prosecutions.
crimes charged. Informations were filed with the City YES
- This investigation is called preliminary, to be
Court. Ratio As long as the offense charged has not
followed by trial proper. Investigating judge or
- With respect to the criminal complaint filed by prescribed, the city court has the power and
prosecuting officer acts upon probable cause and
Arnulfo Payopay and Manuel Cancino against authority to conduct a preliminary examination and
reasonable belief, not upon proof beyond reasonable
petitioners for Serious Oral Defamation, Grave proceed with the trial of the case properly within its
doubt.
Threats and Physical Injuries, the Office of the City jurisdiction.
- In this case, to ask for abstract of testimony at that
Fiscal recommended the dropping of said charges Reasoning
stage for no other purpose than to scrutinize the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 60 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The offenses charged against petitioners for - Nature: merely inquisitorial, and is often the only CARSON; December 9, 1916
Trespass to Dwelling, Grave Threats and Physical means of discovering the persons who may be
Injuries were all within the jurisdiction of the City reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal FACTS
Court. The complaints could be filed directly with the to prepare his complaint or information; not a trial of - CASIANO MARFORI was convicted of the crime of
City Court which is empowered to conduct a the case on the merits and has no purpose except injurias graves (aggravated slander), and sentenced
preliminary examination for purposes of issuance of that of determining whether a crime has been to six months and one day of destierro (banishment)
warrants of arrest, and thereafter to proceed with the committed and whether there is probable cause to for a distance of 25 kilometers from the municipality
trial of the cases on the merits. The preliminary believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does where the crime was committed, to pay a fine of P65,
investigation proper conducted by the City Fiscal not place the person against whom it is taken in together with subsidiary destierro as prescribed by
could have been dispensed with. Neither did the jeopardy. law on failure to pay this fine and to pay the costs.
earlier order of dismissal of the complaints by the - Under Section 10, Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised The complaint charges him of having spoken of the
investigating fiscal bar the filing of said complaints Rules of Criminal Procedure, in cases falling within complainant in a manner which reflected adversely
with the city court on the ground of double jeopardy. the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court, as well upon her virtue and good name in the presence of
- The prescriptive period of a crime depends upon as in cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the several witnesses.
the penalty imposed by law. The penalties for the city courts or municipal courts with Courts of First - The complaint was originally filed in the court of a
crimes charged are: arresto mayor for Trespass to Instance, the accused was not entitled to be heard in justice of the peace who held a preliminary
Dwelling, Grave Threats and Less Serious Physical a preliminary investigation proper. The reason behind investigation and discharged the accused on the
Injuries; and arresto mayor in its maximum period to this rule is as follows: " The loss of time entailed in ground that he was not guilty of the crime with which
prision correccional in its minimum period for Serious the conduct of preliminary investigations, with the he was charged.
Physical Injuries. The prescriptive period of offenses consequent extension of deprivation of the accused's - A report of the proceedings was forwarded to the
punishable by arresto mayor is 5 years, while crimes liberty, in case he fails to post bail, which at times provincial fiscal by the justice of the peace. The
punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in 10 outlasts the period of the penalty provided by law for complaining witness renewed the complaint in the
years. The complaints were filed with the City Court the offense, besides the mental anguish suffered in CFI. An information was filed in that court and Marfori
only 9 months from said occurrence. protracted litigations, are eliminated with the was brought to trial without further proceedings.
- The re-investigation sought by petitioners applies assurance of a speedy and expeditious trial for the - Upon arraignment, when Marfori was called upon to
only to instances where a case is cognizable by the accused, upon his arraignment (without having to plead, his counsel declined to proceed on the ground
Court of First Instance but filed with the City Court for undergo the second stage of the preliminary that the court was without jurisdiction to bring
purposes of preliminary investigation only and investigation), and of a prompt verdict on his guilt or Marfori to trial, no order remanding him for trial
thereafter dismissed by the latter on the ground that innocence. On the other hand, the so-called first having been issued by a competent magistrate as a
no prima facie case exists. However, for cases stage of preliminary investigation or the preliminary result of a preliminary trial (old term for PI, I think)
cognizable by inferior courts and filed with the same examination, conducted by the duly authorized held in accordance with law.
not only for purposes of preliminary investigation but officer, as borne out by the examination and sworn - The trial judge overruled the objections of counsel,
for trial on the merits, the Office of the City Fiscal has written statement of the complainants and their and ordered the parties to proceed with the trial on
no authority to re-investigate. witnesses, generally suffices to establish the the ground that the report of the proceedings had at
On Preliminary Investigation: existence of reasonable ground to charge the the preliminary trial held by the justice of the peace
- Purpose: to protect the accused from the accused with having committed the offense disclosed a reasonable probability that the crime
inconvenience, expense and burden of defending complained of." charged had been committed and that the accused
himself in a formal trial unless the reasonable - The result of a preliminary investigation can neither had committed it; that the justice of the peace had
probability of his guilt shall have been first constitute nor give rise to the defense of double erred in discharging the accused; and that he should
ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a jeopardy in any case, because such preliminary have remanded the accused for trial.
competent officer; and to protect the state from investigation is not and does not in itself constitute a - Marfori’s counsel then exempted to the ruling and
having to conduct useless and expensive trials. trial or even any part thereof. In order that the insisted on the right to a preliminary trial. Marfori
- Stages: (1) the preliminary examination of the defense of jeopardy may lie, there must be a former refused to enter a plea so that the court was
complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of judgment, either of acquittal or of conviction, compelled to direct the entry of a plea of not guilty in
the accused to determine whether or not there is rendered by a court competent to render the same, his behalf.
ground to issue a warrant of arrest; (2) preliminary not only by reason of the offense committed, which
investigation proper, wherein the accused, after his must be the same or at least comprised within it, but ISSUE
arrest, is informed of the complaint filed against him also by reason of the place where it was committed. WON the trial court erred in bringing the accused to
and is given access to the testimonies and evidence Dispositive Petition dismissed. trial, over his objection, in the absence of an order
presented, and he is also permitted to introduce remanding him for trial based upon a preliminary trial
evidence in his favor. The purpose of this stage of UNITED STATES v MARFORI held in accordance with the provisions of law
investigation is to determine whether or not the
35 Phil 666
accused should be released or held before trial.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 61 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

HELD corresponding motion for dismissal. The

YES. PEOPLE v OVILLA provincial fiscal of Laguna complied with all these
Ratio The right of an accused not to be brought to requirements before asking for the dismissal of the
65 Phil 722
trial except when remanded as the result of a present case, thereby keeping within the powers
preliminary examination before a committing VILLA-REAL; June 27, 1938 conferred upon him by section 1687 of the Revised
magistrate or, within the city of Manila, not to be Administrative Code.
brought to trial except in pursuance of like NATURE Dispositive Finding no merit in the sole error
proceeding or the proceeding substituted by law, is a This is an appeal by the offended party, Petra Flores, assigned by the appellant, the offended party in this
substantial one. Its denial, over the objection of the from the order of the Court of First Instance of case, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed,'
accused is prejudicial error, in that it subjects the Laguna. with costs against the appellant.
accused to the loss of life, liberty or property without
FACTS
due process of law. PEOPLE v VELOSO
Reasoning The accused was brought to trial, over - ORDER OF CFI:"The provincial fiscal having filed a
motion in the above entitled case praying for the 112 SCRA 173
his objection without having been committed or
remanded for trial by an investigating magistrate. dismissal of the case, and the court having found PER CURIAM; February 25, 1982
The justice of the peace who held the preliminary meritorious the reasons alleged therein, add case is
investigation dismissed the original complaint hereby dismissed, as prayed, with costs de oficio, NATURE
against the accused, being of opinion that there was and the bond filed for the temporary release of the Automatic review of CFI decision imposing the capital
no probable cause to believe him guilty of the accused is hereby ordered cancelled. It is so penalty of death on accused Veloso for the crime of
offense; and although a so-called “report of the ordered." robbery with homicide and double serious physical
proceedings” was forwarded to the fiscal and injuries
doubtless submitted to the trial judge, original ISSUE
jurisdiction to commit the accused for trial as result WON the provincial fiscal has authority to conduct FACTS
of those proceedings was vested exclusively in the another preliminary investigation and thereafter ask - Veloso and others entered the Odiamar’s house and
justice of the peace before whom they were had. the Court of First Instance to dismiss the criminal robbed them around 7:30 in the evening. They stole
- The order of the justice of the peace discharging case remanded by the justice of the peace, after the money, tear gas gun, jewelry, old coins.
the accused did not operate as a final acquittal, and latter had conducted the preliminary investigation - Hermenegildo Odiamar was shot and killed during
was not a bar to re-arrest and prosecution for the and issued an order to the effect that there was the robbery, while the Odiamar spouses sustained
offense originally charged. If the fiscal was not probable cause to prosecute the offense charged serious physical injuries.
satisfied with the action of the justice of the peace, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First - Veloso, among others, was charged for robbery with
he could have secured the arrest of the accused Instance." homicide and double serious physical injuries
upon a new complaint, and sought an order - July 5, 1970 (the case says july but I think it’s a
remanding the accused for trial in a second HELD typo… probably june) : Judge Templo conducted
preliminary investigation had before either the After a criminal case has been remanded by the preliminary examination
justice of the peace who held the first investigation justice of the peace to the Court of First Instance - June 22, 1970 – Judge Templo set the case for
or before the judge of the CFI in the exercise of his which has jurisdiction to try it on the merits, and preliminary investigation to afford the accused the
functions as a committing magistrate. (Act 1627, before the provincial fiscal has filed the necessary occasion to confront the witnesses against him and
Sec. 37) information, the latter not only has the power but to present his own evidence
- But it would manifestly defeat the end sought to be also the duty to investigate the facts upon which the - instead of availing himself of this opportunity, he
attained by the provisions of law for the holding of complaint filed in the justice of the peace court was filed a manifestation stating that he “Waives his right
preliminary investigations if either the fiscal, or the based, to examine the evidence submitted to the to present evidence at the second stage of the
trial judge, or both acting together were permitted to justice of the peace and such other evidence as the preliminary investigation.”
make use of the record of the proceedings had before parties may deem proper to submit on their own free - the case was forwarded to the CFI, and it appears
a justice of the peace at a preliminary trial, as a will or on demand of the fiscal, for the purpose of that accused entered his non-guilty plea without
result of which the accused was discharged, for the determining whether there is at least prima facie raising the question of lack of preliminary
purpose of bringing the accused to trial despite the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused and investigation.
order of discharge and over his objection based on overcoming the presumption of innocence in his Petitioners' Claim
the ground that he has not been remanded for trial favor. If after he has done all this and (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case
as a result of a preliminary trial. considering all the circumstances of the case, for want of preliminary investigation
Dispositive Judgment convicting and sentencing the the fiscal believes that the evidence is not (2) the extrajudicial confession he executed was
accused REVERSED with the costs of both instances sufficient to establish prima facie the guilt of obtained through force and intimidation and,
de officio and the record REMANDED to the court the accused, he should submit to the court therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and
below for further proceedings. before which the case is pending the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 62 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

(3) in the absence of adequate proof that it was he each of the accused was accordingly issued. The
who killed the deceased Hermenegildo Odiamar, he accused Pedro Cuento and Cesar Castillo HELD
should be held guilty of the offense of robbery only, pleaded not guilty. YES
and not of the complex crime of robbery with 2. Criminal Case No. 3084.-- Estafa thru falsification Ratio The preliminary investigations in these four (4)
homicide and double serious physical injuries. of public/official documents against Lorenzo cases were terminated in 1962, or before the New
Delantar, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano and Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964. Rules
two other unidentified persons, Richard Doe and 112 and 113 thereof cannot, therefore, apply to
John Doe. The prosecution also certified under these cases at bar.
ISSUE oath that they conducted a preliminary Reasoning The government prosecutors certified
WON the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case investigation of the case… Upon arraignment, under oath that they had conducted a preliminary
for want of preliminary investigation Jesus Atilano, Prudencio Cichon and Lorenzo investigation in said cases. And, in Criminal Case No.
Delantar pleaded not guilty. 3128, it was District Judge Gregorio Montejo who
HELD 3. Criminal Case No. 3088.-- Estafa thru falsification conducted the preliminary investigation and, finding
NO of public/official documents was filed in the the existence of a prima facie case, ordered the
Reasoning Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City arrest of the defendant. It is clear, therefore, that the
- When Judge Templo set the case for preliminary against Prudencio Cichon and Paulino Duma, required investigations were complied with.
investigation to afford the accused occasion to Also has certification of the State Prosecutors - But then, assuming that the informations did
confront the witnesses against him, the accused that they had conducted a preliminary not contain the requisite certificates regarding
instead filed a manifestation waiving his right to investigation in the case… The two accused the Fiscal's having held a preliminary
present evidence at the second stage of the pleaded not guilty. investigation, the omissions are not necessarily
preliminary investigation. When the case was 4. Criminal Case No. 3128.-- Prudencio Cichon, fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations
forwarded to the CFI, the accused entered his plea Jesus F Atilano and Pedro Cuento were charged does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the
without raising the question of lack of preliminary with Estafa thru falsification of public/official case. Nor do they impair the validity of the
investigation. The aforesaid constitute waiver of the documents. No certification that a preliminary information or otherwise render it defective. If
accused’s right to preliminary investigation. It is well- investigation of the case had been made by the there were no preliminary investigations and the
settled that the right to preliminary investigation is prosecutors. So District Judge himself made the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the
not a fundamental right and that the same may be preliminary investigation and once satisfied that attention of the court to their absence, the court,
waived expressly or by silence. Such waiver carried a prima facie case against the three accused "instead of dismissing the information, should
with it the waiver of any procedural error or existed, issued warrants for their arrest on the conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to
irregularity that may have attended the preliminary same day. At the arraignment, all the accused conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so
investigation. pleaded not guilty. that the preliminary investigation may be
Dispositive The judgment under review is hereby - On June 22, 1966, the accused in the four (4) cases, conducted." (People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478). The
affirmed thru their counsel, filed a MOTION TO DECLARE defendants in these cases did not question the
INFORMATIONS AND WARRANTS OF ARREST null and validity of the informations on the ground of
PEOPLE v GOMEZ void on the ground that the prosecution failed to defective certifications or the right to preliminary
observe the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of Rule investigations before they entered the plea of not
117 SCRA 72
112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary guilty. They filed the motion to declare informations
RELOVA; September 30, 1982 investigation and prayed the court to cancel the and warrants of arrest null and void only after more
warrants of arrest issued. than one (1) year thereafter. Consequently, when
FACTS - On September 27, 1966, the lower court, for lack of they entered a plea of not guilty, they thereby
- In 1962, four (4) informations were filed by the merit, denied the aforesaid motion. waived all objections that are grounds for a motion to
prosecuting fiscals before the Court of First Instance - Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the quash, except lack of jurisdiction or failure of the
of Zamboanga City. They were as follows: accused, thru counsel, the lower court, on November information to charge an offense. Thus, they waived
1. Criminal Case No. 3083.-- Edilberto Gomez, 2, 1966, reversed its former ruling and ordered the the right to a preliminary investigation when they
Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro dismissal of all the four (4) cases against them, failed to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of
Cuento and John Doe charged with Estafa thru without prejudice to the refiling of the same. the entry of their plea in the Court of First Instance.
falsification of public/official documents. The Dispositive ACCORDINGLY, the order dated
prosecuting officers certified under oath that ISSUE November 2, 1966 of the Court of First Instance of
they had conducted a preliminary investigation WON the trial court erred in dismissing these cases Zamboanga is set aside and the said court is hereby
of the case in accordance with law; and that they on the ground that the preliminary investigations ordered to proceed with the trial of the said criminal
believed that the offense charged had been conducted therein were not in accordance with cases.
committed and the accused were probably guilty Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112, in relation to Rule
thereof. The corresponding warrant of arrest for 144 of the Revised Rules of Court. PLACER v VILLANUEVA
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 63 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

126 SCRA 463 he finds the same to be patently without basis or

HELD merit
ESCOLIN; December 29, 1983
NO.
FACTS
-The primary requirement for the issuance of a GO v CA (PELAYO)
warrant of arrest is the existence of probable cause
-petitioners the City Fiscal of Butuan City and his 206 SCRA 138
(Sec. 3, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution). P.D. No. 911
assistants filed in the City Court of Butuan certain
authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine FELICIANO; February 11, 1992
informations and certified them as follows: “that a
the existence of probable cause.
preliminary examination has been conducted by me
- There is thus no dispute that the judge may rely NATURE
in this case, having examined the complainant and
upon the fiscal's certification of the existence of Petition for review on certiorari from the decision of
his witnesses; that on the basis of the sworn
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a the Court of Appeals
statements and other evidence submitted before this
warrant of arrest. But this does not bind the judge to
Office, there is reasonable ground to believe that the
issue a warrant FACTS
crime charged has been committed and that herein
- Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court:: - July 2, 1991 – Eldon Maguan entered a one-way
accused is probably guilty thereof.”
"Warrant of arrest, when issued. - If the judge be street (Wilson St.) from the opposite direction
-respondent judge set a hearing to determine the
satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted (counterflow), heading towards P. Guevarra St. In so
propriety of issuing warrants of arrest. After hearing,
by him or by the investigating officer that the offense doing, he nearly collided with the car of accused
judge issued orders requiring petitioners to submit to
complained of has been committed and that there is Rolito Go. Go got out of his car and shot Maguan.
the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses
reasonable ground to believe that the accused has - A security guard of a nearby bake shop witnessed
and other documentary evidence in support of the
committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his the event and was able to note the plate number of
informations to aid him in the exercise of his power
arrest." the petitioner. The car was eventually traced to an
of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by
-the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of Elisa Ang Go, wife of the accused.
petitioners
probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of - The police were informed that the petitioner had a
-petitioners filed two separate motions for
arrest. If on the face of the information the judge meal at the bake shop where his credit card was
reconsideration stating that they were authorized to
finds no probable cause, he may disregard the used to pay for the transaction. Police were able to
determine the existence of probable cause ni a
fiscal's certification and require the submission of the identify the card owner as the accused Go and when
preliminary investigation and that their findings
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a his picture was shown to the security guard who
constitute sufficient basis for the issuance of
conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause. positively identified him as the supposed assailant.
warrants of arrest.
Without the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses Police then launched a manhunt for Go.
-respondent justifies his order as an exercise of his
and other evidence which, as a matter of long- - July 8, 1991 – Go presented himself in the San Juan
judicial power to review the fiscal's findings of
standing practice had been attached to the police station with his two lawyers in tow to verify
probable cause. He further maintains that the failure
informations filed in his sala, respondent found the reports that he was being hunted down by the police.
of petitioners to file the required affidavits destroys
informations inadequate bases for the determination 1. The police detained Go and a COMPLAINT for
the presumption of regularity in the performance of
of probable cause FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE was filed against him.
petitioners' official duties, particularly in the light of
-Also, Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, 2. Asst. Prov. Prosecutor Villa Ignacio informed Go,
the long standing practice of the Office of the City
is applicable to some of the crimes in the said in the presence of his lawyers, of his right to avail
Fiscal of Butuan of attaching to the informations filed
informations. This rule requires that the “complaint of preliminary investigation but in so doing, Go had
with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses
or information must be accompanied by the affidavits to waive the provisions in Art. 125, RPC. Go
and other documentary evidence presented during
of the complainant and of his witnesses in such refused.
the preliminary investigation
number of copies as there are defendants plus two - July 9, 1991 – Maguan died as a result of his
-judge denied motion. And asked the submission of
(2) copies for the court's files” gunshot wounds before an INFORMATION could be
documents earlier asked for.
-judge also did not commit grave abuse of discretion filed.
*eventually, petitioners submitted the documents
in remanding some of the cases to the City Fiscal for - July 11, 1991:
rendering the case mute (haha) and academic. But
further investigation. From the informations and 3. The prosecutor filed an INFORMATION for
the Court decided to tackle the issue nonetheless.
affidavits presented to him, he found the charges murder, instead of an information for frustrated
Some warrants were granted, some were remanded
patently without basis or merit. For respondent to homicide. The prosecutor stated that no
to
issue the warrants of arrest and try the accused preliminary investigation was conducted because
would only expose the latter to unnecessary Go refused to waive provisions of Art. 125, RPC.
ISSUE
harrassment, anxiety and expense. And as already 4. Go’s counsel filed an OMNIBUS MOTION FOR
WON the respondent city judge may, for the purpose
pointed out, under the Rule on Summary Procedure IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND PROPER PRELIMINARY
of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel the fiscal to
in Special Cases, the respondent judge has the power INVESTIGATION with the allegations that an illegal
submit to the court the supporting affidavits and
to order the outright dismissal of the charge if, from warrantless arrest had been effected and that no
other documentary evidence presented during the
the information and the affidavits attached thereto,
preliminary investigation
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 64 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

preliminary investigation had been conducted and - None of the police officers who arrested him had that the police had was derived from eyewitness
prayed that Go be released on bail. any “personal knowledge” of the crime. accounts.
- July 12, 1991: Respondents’ Comments: Go had been validly - When Go walked into the police station 6 days after
5. Go filed an urgent EX-PARTE MOTION FOR arrested because the crime had been committed 6 Maguan was shot, he did not surrender (so as not to
SPECIAL RAFFLE in order to expedite action on the days before he was arrested. imply that he committed the crime) nor was he
bail recommendation. The cash bond was - Invoking Umali vs. Ramos where the Court upheld arrested but he placed himself in the disposal of the
approved and Go was released from jail. that a warrantless arrest was valid 14 days after the police authorities.
- July 16, 1991: crime was committed. 2. NO, Go had not waived his right to preliminary
6. Prosecutor filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO - The prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous investigation.
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION and supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable Ratio The rule is that the right to preliminary
prayed that the court proceedings be suspended and required petitioner to waive the provisions of investigation is waived when the accused fails to
momentarily. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at
7. The trial court granted LEAVE to conduct for carrying out a preliminary investigation. Go was arraignment.
preliminary investigation and cancelled the entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right Reasoning
arraignment scheduled on August 15, 1991. should have been accorded him without any - The right to have a preliminary investigation
- July 19, 1991: conditions. conducted before being bound over to trial for a
8. Go contended through a PETITION FOR criminal offense and hence formally at risk of
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS that ISSUES incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere
the information was null and void because no 1. WON the warrantless arrest was lawful formal or technical right; it is a substantive right.
preliminary investigation had been conducted. 2. WON the accused Go had waived his right to - The nature of the crime demanded that a
- July 23, 1991 – Go surrendered to the police and the preliminary investigation preliminary investigation be conducted. Go did ask
judge set the arraignment on August 23. for a preliminary investigation from the start. On the
- August 23, 1991: HELD day the information for murder was filed, he also
9. Respondent judge issued a commitment order 1. NO, the warrantless arrest was not lawful filed an OMNIBUS MOTION for IMMEDIATE RELEASE
for Go. Upon arraignment, a plea of not guilty was Ratio Rule 112, Sec. 7 states that a complaint for and PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. The Court is not
entered because Go refused to enter a plea. information can be filed sans preliminary ready to ignore that act by Go and consider it as a
10. Go filed a PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS and investigation when a person has been lawfully waiver based simply on the contention of the SolGen
the CA issued the writ. The petition for habeas arrested without a warrant except than an affidavit that the motion should have been filed with the trial
corpus was consolidated with the petition for should be executed by the person who was court and not the prosecutor.
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. responsible for the arrest. But the person arrested - According to Crespo vs. Mogul: The preliminary
- September 19, 1991 – The trial started and the can ask for preliminary investigation by the proper investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose
prosecution presented its first witness. This was officer before the complaint or information can be of determining whether a prima facie case exists
followed by three more witnesses on October 3, filed. In this case, the person arrested must waive warranting the prosecution of the accused is
1991. the provisions of A125, RPC with the assistance of terminated upon the filing of the information in the
- September 23, 1991 – The CA dismissed the counsel (a lawyer or another person of his choice if a proper court. Should the fiscal find it proper to
petition for habeas corpus and the petition for lawyer is not available). He may also apply for bail conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage,
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus on the despite the waiver and the investigation must the permission of the Court must be secured. After
following grounds, among others: terminate within 15 days. such reinvestigation the finding and
a) Validity of the warrantless arrest because the Reasoning recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted
crime had been “freshly committed.” He was - Umil vs. Ramos only applies to continuing crimes so to the Court for appropriate action.
positively identified by the witness and his identity it does not apply in the case at bar. Murder is not a - However, in the case at bar, Go’s omnibus motion
had been established when he came to the police continuing crime because it happens in one place at asked for a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION not
station. a particular point in time and ends there as well. REINVESTIGATION as discussed in Crespo vs. Mogul.
b) Waiver of the right to preliminary investigation - The warrantless arrest does not follow the requisites The Prosecutor also filed a MOTION for LEAVE TO
when he did not invoke it properly and waiver of in Rule 113, Sec. 5 because: CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION so the
any irregularity in his arrest when accused posted >The “arrest” took place 6 days after Maguan was omnibus motion of Go was, in effect, filed in the trial
bail. shot whereas the RoC provide that the crime court. Go did ask for a preliminary investigation on
c) Validity of the information against the accused should have been just committed, is about to be the very day that the information was filed without
precluded the grant of the petition for habeas committed or is being committed. such preliminary investigation, and that the trial
corpus >None of the arresting officers had personal court was 5 days later apprised of the desire of the
Petitioners’ Claim: Go contends that the crime had knowledge of the facts indicating that Go was the petitioner for such preliminary investigation.
not been “just committed” because of the 6-day gunman as required in the RoC. The information - There was no waiver of the right to preliminary
disparity. investigation because Go had vigorously insisted on
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 65 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

his right to preliminary investigation before his SUSPENDED to await the conclusion of the and that he (the petitioner) is probably guilty thereof
arraignment. At the time of his arraignment, preliminary investigation. (which the prosecutor, by filing the information
petitioner was already before the Court of Appeals on - Meantime, petitioner is hereby ORDERED released against him, presumably believed to be so).
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus precisely forthwith upon posting of a cash bail bond of One - This case did not suffer from a lack of previous
asking for a preliminary investigation before being Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). This investigation. Diligent police work, with ample media
forced to stand trial. release shall be without prejudice to issue, should the coverage, led to the identification of the suspect
- Go’s act of posting bail cannot be deemed to be a any lawful order that the trial court Office of the who, 7 days after the shooting, appeared at the San
waiver of his right to preliminary investigation. Go Provincial Prosecutor move for cancellation of all at Juan police station to verify news reports that he was
asked for release on recognizance or on bail and for the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. the object of a police manhunt. There witnesses
preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. He identified him to be the assailant.
had thus claimed his right to preliminary SEPARATE OPINION - It should be remembered that as important as is the
investigation before respondent Judge approved the right of the accused to a preliminary investigation, it
cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his is not a constitutional right. Its absence is not a
CRUZ [concurring]
release. ground to quash the information. It does not affect
- There was no waiver of the right to preliminary
Obiter the court's jurisdiction, nor impair the validity of the
investigation even if Go freely participated in his trial
- However, contrary to petitioner's contention, the information, nor constitute an infringement of the
and his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution
failure to accord preliminary investigation, while right of the accused to confront witnesses.
witnesses.
constituting a denial of the appropriate and full - The petitioner's motion for a preliminary
- Go had from the start demanded a preliminary
measure of the statutory process of criminal justice, investigation is not more important than his
investigation and that his counsel had reluctantly
did not impair the validity of the information for application for release on bail, just as the conduct of
participated in the trial only because the court
murder nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court. such preliminary investigation is not more important
threatened to replace him with a counsel de oficio if
- In the case at bar, a trial for merits had already than the hearing of the application for bail. The
he did not. The petitioner was virtually compelled to
commenced and the prosecution had already court's hearing of the application for bail should not
go to trial. Such compulsion and the unjustified
presented 4 witnesses. be subordinated to the preliminary investigation of
denial of a clear statutory right of the petitioner
> This, however, still entitles the accused to the charge. The hearing should not be suspended,
vitiated the proceedings as violative of procedural
preliminary investigation. Trial on the merits but should be allowed to proceed because the parties
due process.
should be suspended or held in abeyance and a will have an opportunity to show not only: (a)
- It appears that the trial court has been moved by a
preliminary investigation should accorded to whether or not there is probable cause to believe
desire to cater to public opinion to the detriment of
petitioner, even if eventually, the prosecutor may that the petitioner killed Eldon Maguan, but more
the impartial administration of justice. The petitioner
or may not find probable cause. The point is that importantly (b) whether or not the evidence of his
as portrayed by the media is not exactly a popular
Go was not accorded his proper rights. guilt is strong. The judge's determination that the
person. Nevertheless, the trial court should not have
> As for bail, Go is still entitled to be released on evidence of his guilt is strong would naturally
been influenced by this irrelevant consideration,
bail as a matter of right. Should the evidence foreclose the need for a preliminary investigation to
remembering instead that its only guide was the
against the accused be strong, the bail can then be ascertain the probability of his guilt.
mandate of the law.
cancelled. - Go was indeed arrested by the police. Arrest is the
> To hold that the rights of Go were obliterated by taking of a person into custody in order that he may
the presentation of evidence in the proceedings in GUTIERREZ [concurring] be bound to answer for the commission of an
the trial court would be to legitimize the - The need for a trial court to follow the Rules and to offense. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of
deprivation of due process. be fair, impartial, and persistent in getting the true the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the
Dispositive ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to facts of a case is present in all cases but it is custody of the person making the arrest
GRANT the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The particularly important if the accused is indigent;
more so, if he is one of those unfortunates who seem
Order of the trial court dated 17 July 1991 is hereby DOROMAL v SANDIGANBAYAN
SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED, and the Decision of the to spend more time behind bars than outside.
(OMBUDSMAN and SPECIAL
Court of Appeals dated 23 September 1991 hereby
REVERSED. GRIÑO-AQUINO [dissenting] PROSECUTOR)
- The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is hereby - After 4 witnesses have already testified, among 177 SCRA 1989
ORDERED to conduct forthwith a preliminary them an eyewitness who identified the accused as GRINO-AQUINO; September 7, 1989
investigation of the charge of murder against the gunman and a security guard who identified the
petitioner Go, and to complete such preliminary plate number of the gunman's car, there is no need NATURE
investigation within a period of fifteen (15) days from to conduct a preliminary investigation the sole Petition for Certiorari
commencement thereof. The trial on the merits of purpose of which would be to ascertain if there is
the criminal case in the Regional Trial Court shall be sufficient ground to believe that a crime was FACTS
committed (which the petitioner does not dispute)
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 66 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- October 1987, the Special Prosecution Officer against him had been changed as directed by the Van Twest by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission
conducted a preliminary investigation of the charge Ombudsman. The petitioner’s right to a preliminary (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by
against petitioner, Quintin Doromal, a former investigation of the new charge is secured to him by respondent judge.
commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. - Petitioners filed this petition and principally
Good Government for violation of the Anti-Graft and That right of the accused is substantial and its denial contended that respondent judge acted with grave
Corrupt Practices Act in connection with his over his opposition is a prejudicial error in that it abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in
shareholdings and position as president and director subjects the accused to loss of life, liberty, or "whimsically holding that there is probable cause
of the Doromal International Trading Corporation property without due process of law. Since the right against petitioners without determining the
which submitted bids to supply equipment to the belongs to the accused, he alone may waive it. If he admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and
DECS and the National Manpower and Youth Council. demands it, the State may not withhold it. However, without even stating the basis of his findings," and in
- January 25, 1988, Special Prosecution Officer filed in as the absence of a preliminary investigation is not a "relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their
the Sandiganbayan an information against petitioner. ground to quash the complaint or information, the certification that probable cause exists when the
- The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and proceedings upon such information in the certification is flawed." Petitioners maintain that the
prohibition in the SC questioning the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan should be held in abeyance and the records of the preliminary investigation which
the Tanodbayan to file the information without the case should be remanded to the office of the respondent judge solely relied upon failed to
approval of the Ombudsman after the effectivity of Ombudsman for him or the Special Prosecutor to establish probable cause against them to justify the
the 1987 Constitution. conduct a preliminary investigation. issuance of the warrant of arrest. Petitioners likewise
- June 30, 1988, the SC annulled the information 2. NO assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias and
- Upon the annulment of the information against the - Since the petitioner is an incumbent public official partiality."
petitioner, the Special Prosecutor sought clearance charged in a valid information with an offense - On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor
from the Ombudsman to refile it punishable under the Constitution and the laws, the General argues that the determination of probable
- The Ombudsman granted clearance but advised law’s command that he “shall be suspended from cause is a function of the judge who is merely
that some changes be made in the information office” pendent lite must be obeyed. His approved required to personally appreciate certain facts to
previously filed leave of absence should not be a bar to his convince him that the accused probably committed
- A new information was filed in the Sandiganbayan preventive suspension for, as indicated by the the crime charged.
- Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information Solicitor General, and approved leave, whether it be
for being invalid because there had been no for a fixed of indefinite period may be cancelled or ISSUE
preliminary investigation and defective because the shortened at will by the incumbent. However, since WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse
facts alleged do not constitute the offense charged. the preventive suspension has exceeded the of discretion in the preliminary inquiry which
- The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash reasonable maximum period of ninety days provided determines probable cause for the issuance of a
- The Special Prosecutor filed a motion to suspend in Section 42 of the Civil Service Decree of the warrant of arrest
accused pendente lite. Over the objection of the Philippines, it should now be lifted.
accused the Sandiganbayan ordered his suspension Dispositive Petition for certiorari and prohibition is HELD
pendente lite from his position as PCGG granted. - In the Order of respondent judge, it is expressly
Commissioner and from any other office he may be stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of
holding. ALLADO v DIOKNO the evidence on record, believes and rules that
probable cause exists; and therefore, a warrant of
232 SCRA 192
ISSUES arrest should be issued." However, we are unable to
1. WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse BELLOSILLO; May 5, 1994 see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling. We
of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash have painstakingly examined the records and we
the information NATURE cannot find any support for his conclusion. On the
2. WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a contrary, we discern a number of reasons why we
of discretion in suspending the petitioner from office temporary restraining order consider the evidence submitted to be insufficient for
despite the President’s having previously approved a finding of probable cause against petitioners.
his indefinite leave of absence until final decision in FACTS - The PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of
the case - Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Security Guard Umbal who supposedly confessed his
Mendoza, alumni of the College of Law, University of participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of
HELD the Philippines, are partners of the Law Firm of Van Twest. For one, there is serious doubt on Van
1. YES Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In the practice of Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has
- A new preliminary investigation of the charge their profession, and on the basis of an alleged not been established, nor have his remains been
against the petitioner is in order not only because the extrajudicial confession of a security guard (Umbal), recovered. Umbal claims that Van Twest was
first was a nullity but also because the accused they have been accused of the heinous crime of completely burned into ashes with the use of
demands it as his right. Moreover, the charge kidnapping with murder of a German national named gasoline and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 67 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the evening to six o'clock the next morning. This is for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
highly improbable, if not ridiculous. A human body preliminary investigation proper which ascertains aforementioned order.
cannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it whether the offender should be held for trial or - The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution
with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open released. Even if the two inquiries be conducted in denying the application for a writ of preliminary
field. Even crematoria use entirely closed the course of one and the same proceeding, there injunction.
incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense should be no confusion about their objectives. The
heat. Thereafter, the remains undergo a process determination of probable cause for the warrant is ISSUE
where the bones are completely ground to dust. made by the judge. The preliminary investigation WON public respondent Judge Asuncion
- Strangely, if not awkwardly, after Van Twest's proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering
reported abduction which culminated in his believe that the accused is guilty of the offense the issuance of warrants of arrest without
decimation by cremation, his counsel continued to charged and therefore, whether or not he should be examining the records of the preliminary
represent him before judicial and quasi-judicial subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment investigation.
proceedings. Hence, even Asst. Solicitor General of trial is a function of the prosecutor.
Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted - ALLADO DOCTRINE: If upon the filing of the HELD
the latter's death. information in court, the trial judge, after reviewing YES.
- Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of the information and the document attached thereto, - Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution
discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of finds that no probable cause exists, he must either provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest
petitioners it appearing that he did not personally call for the complainant and the witnesses shall issue except upon probable cause to be
examine the evidence nor did he call for the themselves or simply dismiss the case. There is no determined personally by the judge after
complainant and his witnesses in the face of their reason to hold the accused for trial and further examination under oath or affirmation of the
incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the expose him to an open and public accusation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
certification of the prosecutors that probable cause crime when no probable cause exists . - The determination of probable cause is a function of
existed. For, otherwise, he would have found out that Dispositive Petition granted the Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or
the evidence thus far presented was utterly Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain.
insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners. ROBERTS v CA Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this
- In Soliven v. Makasiar, we said that the judge (a) determination.
254 SCRA 307
shall personally evaluate the report and the - The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal DAVIDE, JR; March 5, 1996 not bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make the
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on determination of probable cause. The Judge does not
the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or, (b) if FACTS have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him.
on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, may - Several thousand holders of “349” Pepsi crowns in By itself, the Prosecutor’s certification of probable
disregard the fiscal's report and require the connection with the Number Fever Promotion filed cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all
aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the existence of complaints against the petitioner officials of PEPSI. other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s
probable cause. - The petitioners filed with the Office of the City certification which are material in assisting the Judge
- In People v. Inting, we emphasized the important Prosecutor a motion for the reconsideration of the to make his determination.
features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The Joint Resolution and with the DOJ a Petition for - The teachings of the cases of Soliven3, Inting4, Lim5,
determination of probable cause is a function of the Review. The petitioners also Motions to Suspend Allado, and Webb reject the proposition that the
judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor Proceedings and to hold in Abeyance Issuance of investigating prosecutor’s certification in an
to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone Warrants of Arrest on the ground that they had filed
makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry the aforesaid Petition for Review. 3
The Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and
made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It - Respondent Judge Asuncion issued the challenged his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a
merely assists him in making the determination of order (1) denying the petitioners’ Motion to Suspend commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be
probable cause. The judge does not have to follow Proceedings and to Hold In Abeyance Issuance of a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare
certification. All of these should be before the Judge.
what the prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the Warrants of Arrest and the public prosecutor’s Motion 4
to Defer Arraignment and (2) directing the issuance The supporting documents may consist of, viz., “the affidavits, the
prosecutor's certification of probable cause is transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting
ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the of the warrants of arrest “after and setting the documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in
transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other arraignment on 28 June 1993. assisting the Judge to make his determination of probable cause
supporting documents behind the prosecutor's - The petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a 5
The issuance of the warrants of arrest by a judge solely on the basis
certification which are material in assisting the judge special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with of the prosecutor’s certification in the information that there existed
in his determination of probable cause; and, (c) application for a temporary restraining order. They probable cause, without having before him any other basis for his
Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the contended therein that respondent Judge Asuncion personal determination of the existence of a probable cause, is null
and void.
preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 68 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

information or his resolution which is made the basis petition. 171 SCRA 39
for the filing of the information, or both, would suffice
NARVASA; March 8, 1989
in the judicial determination of probable cause for ISSUE
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. WON the CA erred in finding that no probable cause
NATURE
- In the present case, nothing accompanied the exists to merit the filing of charges against private
Petition for certiorari and prohibition
information upon its filing with the trial court. Clearly, respondent Billy Cerbo
when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed
FACTS
order directing, among other things, the issuance of
- In July 1971, a complaint and a Joint Affidavit were
warrants of arrest, he had only the information,
filed directly by Renato Montes and Jose de Silva
amended information, and Joint Resolution as bases HELD
against Manuel Laconico. The complaint charged the
thereof. He did not have the records or evidence YES
latter with estafa in the amount of P1K. Preliminary
supporting the prosecutor’s finding of probable - The petition is meritorious.
investigation (now in question) was conducted by
cause. And strangely enough, he made no specific - The determination of probable cause during
respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, and
finding of probable cause; he merely directed the preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to
thereafter issued a warrant of arrest. He ordered
issuance of warrants of arrest. It may, however, be the public prosecutor. It is an executive function.
Provincial Fiscal to file the corresponding information
argued that the directive presupposes a finding of - The public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial
against the respondent before the court of
probable cause. But then compliance with a authority to determine whether or not a criminal case
competent jurisdiction within 24 hours from receipt
constitutional requirement for the protection of must be filed in court.
of said order.
individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition, - The primary objective of a preliminary investigation
- Provincial Fiscal failed to file the information
conjecture, or even convincing logic. is to free respondent from the inconvenience,
required within the time appointed, or at any time
expense, ignominy, and stress of defending
thereafter. Consequently, he was directed by His
PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until
Honor to explain within 10 days "why he should not
the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a
(Republic v CA in page 5 of the outline) be punished for contempt of court for delaying the
more or less summary proceeding by a competent
301 SCRA 475 office designated by law for that purpose.6
speedy administration of justice for disobeying a
lawful order of the Court." Fiscal filed a MFR, but was
PANGANIBAN; January 21, 1999 - Secondarily, such summary proceeding also
denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari and
protects the state from the burden of the
prohibition was presented by petitioner Fiscal,
NATURE unnecessary expense of an effort in prosecuting
seeking annulment of the aforesaid orders.
Petition for Review alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from
false, frivolous, or groundless charges.7
ISSUES
FACTS - The determination of probable cause to hold a
1.WON respondent judge had no jurisdiction to
- Private Respondent Jonathan Cerbo shot, at person for trial must be distinguished from the
conduct preliminary investigations, because the law
pointblank range, Rosalinda Dy in the presence and determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of
creating Circuit Criminal Courts, R.A. 5179, did not
at the office of his father private respondent Billy arrest, which is a judicial function.
confer on said courts the power to conduct
Cerbo. - A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of
preliminary investigations
- An information for murder was filed against arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable
2. WON judge erred in compelling fiscal under
Jonathan Cerbo. cause for doing so.
sanction of contempt, to file an information in court
- The daughter of the victim executed an affidavit- - Corrollarily, the judge should not override the public
without conducting his own preliminary investigation
complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold
conspiracy in the killing. an accused for trial, on the ground that the evidence
HELD
- Accordingly, the prosecution filed an amended presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest
1. YES
information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. warrant was insufficient, as in the present case.
Ratio: The conduct of a preliminary investigation is
A warrant for his arrest was later issued. - Therefore, if the information is valid on its face, and
not a judicial function but part of the fiscal’s job, a
- Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of
function of the executive. Wherever there are enough
arguing that the same was issued without probable discretion and prejudice on the part of the public
fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary
cause. prosecutor, the trial court should respect such
investigations, courts are counseled to leave this job
- The respondent judge issued an order dismissing determination.
which is essentially executive to them, and the fact
the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrant Dispositive Reversed.
that a certain power is granted does not necessarily
for his arrest.
mean that it should be indiscriminately exercised.
- The Court of Appeals debunked the petitioner’s CASTILLO v VILLALUZ Reasoning: [a] Sec. 37 of BP. 129 reiterated the
assertion that the trial judge committed grave abuse
removal from Judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts in
of discretion and that the evidence presented thus 6
Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 657, Sept. 5, 1997. the National Capital Region of the authority to
far did not substantiate the charge.. Hence this 7
Id. conduct preliminary investigations and Sec 2 of Rule
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 69 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

112 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure no longer FERNANDO; May 13, 1981 YES. Counsel could recall the witnesses.
authorizes RTC Judges to conduct PIs. [b] The - The Judge issued the denial for bail on the basis
assignment of PI function to judges of inferior courts NATURE of the motion of petitioner that he be granted
and to a very limited extent to courts of first instance Writ of Certiorari such right and the opposition filed by the First
was dictated by necessity and practical Assistant Provincial Fiscal without conducting
considerations, and the consequent policy, was that FACTS any hearing on such motion. Clearly, he acted
wherever there were enough fiscals or prosecutors to -Counsel for Reynaldo Rodil who was charged with on the mistaken belief that the presentation of
conduct preliminary investigations, courts were to murder, asks to recall witnesses for the prosecution evidence by the prosecution for the purpose of
leave that job which is essentially executive to them. to enable such counsel to cross-examine them, on, to the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the
It follows that the conclusions derived by a judge quote his words, "clarificatory and amplificatory preliminary examination proper, suffices for
from his own investigation cannot be superior to and matters" which was denied by Municipal Judge the denial of the plea for bail. In the latest case
conclusively binding on the fiscal or public Segundo M. Garcia of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. on the subject, People v. Sola, decided on March 17,
prosecutor, in whom that function is principally and -What is prayed for is not only that such order 1981, this Court relying on People v. San Diego,
more logically lodged. denying counsel's request to recall government nullified an order of a municipal judge named
2. YES witnesses be set aside and nullified, but also that bail respondent in that case as he granted bail to the
The power to conduct PI is lodged in the fiscal. It is be granted petitioner, a petition to that effect having accused without hearing the prosecution. The
grave abuse of discretion on a judge to seek to been denied with a subsequent motion for present case is much stronger; it is the
foreclose the fiscal's prerogative to conduct his own reconsideration still undecided. accused himself, the explicit beneficiary of the
preliminary investigation to determine for himself the -Respondents were required to comment and the constitutional right, who was not heard.
existence or non-existence of probable cause, and to Court likewise issued a temporary restraining order. - There was misapprehension on the part of
require him to show cause for not filing the Such a comment was submitted on behalf of respondent Judge of the import of the ruling in
information within 24 hours, on the sole basis of the respondents by the Solicitor General seeking the Ocampo v. Bernabe citing that “The regular trial is,
Judge's conclusions. The fiscal has the duty to satisfy dismissal of the petition on the ground that the to a limited extent at least, anticipated. While
himself of the existence of probable cause, and could right to cross-examine in a preliminary the guilt or innocence of the accused is not to
not shirk or be made to evade it by an unreasoning investigation is not a right granted an accused be determined, the quantity and character of
and indiscriminate reliance on the judge's and that the exercise of discretion by the proofs on this point are, for the special
investigation. respondent Judge considering the evidence of purpose in hand, necessarily considered.
Dispositive: Petition GRANTED. Challenged Orders record sufficed to justify denial of the Occasionally much time is thus consumed, and the
annulled and set aside. application for bail. court's attention is correspondingly diverted from
-An examination of the record, as well as the other business. But these objections cannot avail
SEPARATE OPINION pertinent doctrines, makes evident that the against a positive constitutional command; if the
jurisdictional issue posed arises from the Constitution requires the court to determine for itself
failure to accord petitioner a hearing on his whether or not the proof is evident or presumption
CRUZ [concurring]
application for bail. great in a given case, all considerations of
- The fiscal prevails over the judge only in the
-A resolution of that question in the sense of expediency or convenience, however potent they
determination of the existence of a prima facie case
respondent Judge affording petitioner his day in court might be at the common law, must give way.'" This is
to justify the filing of a complaint or information. This
is equally decisive of the other issue, whether or not so because the procedure to be followed in the
task is executive.
counsel for petitioner could recall witnesses for the hearing on an application for bail, while
- But the determination of probable cause to justify
prosecution for the purpose of asking clarificatory summary in character, is not to be a mere sham
the issuance of a search warrant or a warrant of
questions. That he could very well do when they or pretense. It must not be an exercise in
arrest is the constitutional prerogative of the judge
testify to prove evidence of guilt is strong. Under futility. The accused is not to be denied his day
and may not be withdrawn from him or even only
the present state of the law, it cannot be said in court.
limited by statute or ROC. This task is judicial. The
that the right to cross-examine is guaranteed - While it could be said that that the refusal of the
findings of fiscal in the PI do not control or foreclose
an accused at the stage of preliminary Justice of the Peace to allow the defense to
the exercise of the power conferred personally on the
investigation. cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses
judge under Sec. 2 the Bill of Rights. That power is
presented prior to petitioner's arrest, cannot
his alone.
ISSUE be utilized as argument for the contention that
WON counsel for petitioner could recall witnesses for the prosecution should not have been allowed
BALGOS v SANDIGANBAYAN to cross-examine the defense witnesses and
the prosecution for the purpose of asking clarificatory
[SUPRA, PAGE 34] questions (that he could very well do when they that an accused is not entitled to cross-
testify to prove evidence of guilt is strong) examine the witnesses presented against him
RODIL v GARCIA in the preliminary investigation before his
HELD arrest, this being a matter that depends on the
104 SCRA 362
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 70 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

sound discretion of the Judge or investigating was on its way to another place, Lalabuan, also in and other documents offered in support thereof. And
officer concerned (People v. Ramilo, \Dequito v. Masiu, had been ambushed it ends with the determination by the Judge either:
Arellano, Bustos v. Lucero) it could still be argued - The next day, a lawyer (Atty. Batuampar) of one of (1) that there is no ground to continue with the
that the judge is not a ministerial officer the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal, inquiry, in which case he dismisses the complaint
reduced to recording what takes place and asking for a “full blast preliminary investigation”. The and transmits the order of dismissal, together with
what witnesses say in the examination. Above letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons the records of the case, to the provincial fiscal; or (2)
all, his is the great responsibility of being implicated by the parties involved on both that the complaint and the supporting documents
safeguarding the accused from groundless or sides none of whom was, however, identified and show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry
vindictive prosecution. If the justice of the peace promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be and this ushers in the second phase.
is to ascertain, as he must, whether a crime has been filed. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a - This second phase is designed to give the
committed and, if so, whether there is probable "1st indorsement" to the respondent Judge, respondent notice of the complaint, access to the
cause that the accused committed it, his authority transmitting Atty. Batuampar's letter and requesting complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit
cannot be confined as in a straight jacket to the that "all cases that may be filed relative .. (to the counter-affidavits and supporting documents. At this
stiffness of medieval and outmoded technicalities of incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27, stage also, the Judge may conduct a hearing and
practice. It thus appears clearly that in the exercise 1985," be forwarded to his office, which "has first propound to the parties and their witnesses
of his discretion respondent Judge could have taken cognizance of said cases. questions on matters that, in his view, need to be
granted the request and thus avoided the necessity - On August 10, 1985, a criminal complaint for clarified. The second phase concludes with the Judge
of a petition of this character having to be filed. The multiple murder was filed. On the same day, rendering his resolution, either for dismissal of the
interest of a more speedy and a more efficient respondent Judge examined personally the 3 complaint or holding the respondent for trial, which
administration of justice would be best served witnesses. Thereafter, the Judge approved the shall be transmitted, together with the record, to the
if there is a greater awareness on the part of complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the provincial fiscal for appropriate action.
judges that in addition to safeguarding the 14 petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) - The argument, therefore, must be rejected that the
express rights of an accused person, a matter and 50 "John Does. respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of
mandated by the Constitution or the Rules of - On Aug 14, 1985, an ex-parte motion was filed by discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against
Court, they should likewise exercise their Atty. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of petitioners without first completing the preliminary
discretion in such a way that the purpose of a arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough investigation in accordance with the prescribed
preliminary investigation, the avoidance of investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial procedure. The rule is and has always been that such
groundless or vindictive prosecutions, could be investigation had been "hasty and manifestly issuance need only await a finding of probable cause,
attained in as fair and objective manner as haphazard" with "no searching questions" having not the completion of the entire procedure of
possible. been propounded. The respondent Judge denied the preliminary investigation
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is motion for "lack of basis;" hence the present petition. - Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other
granted. The order of respondent Judge denying bail argument that there was scarcely time to determine
is set aside. He, or whoever is now the Municipal ISSUE probable cause against sixty-four persons (the
Judge of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, must set forthwith WON the respondent Judge had the power to issue fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a matter
the hearing on the application for bail of petitioner, the warrant of arrest without completing the entire of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts
to be conducted in accordance with the requirements prescribed procedure for preliminary investigation are open only from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Nothing in
of the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and this the record before this Court belies or discredits those
opinion. No costs. HELD affirmations which have, besides, the benefit of the
YES. legal presumption that official duty has been
PANGANDAMAN v CASAR - What the Rule provides is that no complaint or regularly performed.
information for an offense cognizable by the Regional - Insofar, however, as said warrant is issued against
159 SCRA 599
Trial Court may be filed without completing that fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses
NARVASA; April 14, 1988 procedure. Sec. 6 of Rule 112 clearly authorizes the to the complaint could or would Identify, it is of the
MTC to issue a warrant even before opening the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs
FACTS second phase. long proscribed as unconstitutional and once
- On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in - This was equally true under the former rules, where anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of
Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur, which left at least five the first phase of the investigation was expressly the subject." Clearly violative of the constitutional
persons dead and two others wounded. What in fact denominated "preliminary examination" to injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly
transpired is still unclear. According to one version, distinguish it from the second phase, or preliminary describe the person or persons to be seized, the
armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao, investigation proper warrant must, as regards its unidentified subjects, be
Masiu, with both attackers and defenders suffering - Sec 3 of rule 112 consists of 2 phases: voided.
casualties. Another version has it that a group that - The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld;
the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits warrants against John Does denied
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 71 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Ratio 3 conditions must concur for the issuance of - For the purpose of preliminary investigation, the
SAMULDE v SALVANI the warrant of arrest. The investigating judge must: designated investigator, Harry O. Tantiado, TSg
(a) have examined in writing and under oath the (Legaspi) filed an amended complaint with the
165 SCRA 734
complainant and his witnesses by searching Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing, among
GRIÑO-AQUINO: September 26, 1988 questions and answers; others, Vicente Lim, Sr., Mayor Susana Lim of
(b) be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and Masbate, Jolly T. Fernandez, Florencio T. Fernandez,
NATURE (c) that there is a need to place the respondent Jr., Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor Nestor C. Lim and
Appeal from the decision of the RTC under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder
ends of justice. and frustrated murder in connection with the airport
FACTS Reasoning The mandatory provision that the incident.
- Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigating judge "must issue a warrant of arrest" if - July 31, 1989: after the preliminary investigation
investigation upon a complaint for robbery. After he finds probable cause that the respondent court released an order stating after that a probable
making a preliminary investigation based on the committed the crime charged, found in all previous cause has been established for the issuance of a
affidavits of the complainant and her witnesses and rules of criminal procedure, from General Orders No. warrant of arrest of named accused in the amended
counter-affidavits of the respondent and his 58 down to Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of complaint.
witnesses, Judge Samulde transmitted the records of Court, is absent in Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on - August 29, 1989: records of the case were
the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding Criminal Procedure. It is not obligatory, but merely transmitted to Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate.
that "there is prima facie evidence of robbery as discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a Respondent Acting Fiscal Antonio C. Alfane was
charge in the complaint". The fiscal returned the warrant for the arrest of the accused, for the designated to review the case. On September 22,
records on the ground that Judge Samulde failed to determination of whether a probable cause exists 1989, Fiscal Alfane issued a Resolution which
include the warrant of arrest against the accused as and whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in affirmed the finding of a prima facie case against the
provided in Sec 5, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his petitioners but differed in the designation of the
Criminal Procedure. Judge Samulde sent back the sound judgment or discretion. In this particular case, crime (he said it should be MURDER for each case,
records to Fiscal Salvani. He pointed out that under since the robbery charge was the offshoot of a with serious physical injuries). Fiscal Alfane filed with
Sec 6, Rule 112, he may issue a warrant of arrest if boundary dispute between two property owners, the the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, four (4) separate
he is satisfied "that a probable cause exists and that investigating judge did not believe there was any informations of murder against the twelve (12)
there is a necessity of placing the respondent under danger of the accused absconding before the filing of accused with a recommendation of no bail.
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends the information against him by the fiscal, hence, he - Respondents Lims filed a verified petition for a
of justice, " implying that, although he found that a found no need to place him under immediate change of venue. Court granted the petition. The
probable cause existed, he did not believe that the custody. case was raffled to Judge Nemesio Felix.
accused should be immediately placed under Dispositive The appealed decision is SET ASIDE. - Lims then prayed for the following:
custody. Hence, he refused to issue a warrant of 1. An order be issued requiring the transmittal of
arrest. TANDOC v RESULTAN the initial records of the preliminary inquiry or
- A special civil action of mandamus was filed in the investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge
[SUPRA, PAGE 43]
RTC by Provincial Fiscal Salvani against Judge Barsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment of
Samulde to compel the latter to issue a warrant of this Honorable Court in its personal determination
arrest. The RTC dismissed the petition but LIM vFELIX of the existence of a probable cause or prima facie
nevertheless ordered Judge Samulde to issue a 194 SCRA 292 evidence as well as its determination of the
warrant of arrest, and to transmit the warrant to the GUTIERREZ; February 19, 1991 existence of guilt, pursuant to the mandatory
Provincial Fiscal for appropriate action. He further mandate of the constitution that no warrant shall
advised the Municipal Judge "that henceforth he NATURE issue unless the issuing magistrate shall have
adheres to the same rule in similar cases where he Review for certiorari. himself been personally convinced of such probable
conducts a preliminary investigation with a finding of cause.
a prima facie or probable cause." Unconvinced, Judge FACTS 2. Movants be given ample opportunity to file
Samulde appealed to this Court. - March 17, 1989: at the vicinity of the airport road of their motion for preliminary investigation as a
the Masbate Domestic Airport (Masbate, Masbate), matter of right;
ISSUE Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security - In another manifestation, the Lims reiterated that
WON a judge may be compelled to issue a warrant of escorts, namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes, the court conduct a hearing to determine if there
arrest upon a finding of probable cause Gaspar Amaro, and Artemio Fuentes were attacked really exists a prima facie case against them in the
and killed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante, another light of documents which are recantations of some
HELD security escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. witnesses in the preliminary investigation. The
NO survived the assassination plot, although, he himself respondent court issued an order denying for lack of
suffered a gunshot wound. merit.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 72 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive

ISSUE and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to NATURE
WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In Original action in the SC. Certiorari, prohibition,
bail by simply relying on the prosecution's doing so, the judge is not required to personally mandamus, injunction.
certification and recommendation that a probable examine the complainant and his witnesses. -Petitioners: Harry S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, John
cause exists. Following established doctrine and procedures, he J. Brooks and Karl Beck; accused in certain
shall: deportation cases
HELD (1) personally evaluate the report and the -Respondents-prosecutors: DOJ Sec Jose W. Diokno,
NO supporting documents submitted by the fiscal NBI Acting Director Jose Lukban, Special Prosecutors
Ratio A Judge is not precluded from relying on the regarding the existence of probable cause and, Pedro D. Cenzon, Efren I. Plana and Manuel Villareal,
evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. The on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or Jr. and Manila City Asst. Fiscal Maneses G. Reyes
extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable -Repondents-judges: Judge Amado Roan of the
of each case and is subject to the Judge's sound cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and Municipal (now City) Court of Manila, Judge Roman
discretion. However, the Judge abuses that discretion require the submission of supporting affidavits of Cansino of the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila,
when having no evidence before him, he issues a witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion Judge Hermogenes Caluag of CFI Rizal Quezon City
warrant of arrest. as to the existence of probable cause. Branch, Judge Eulogio Mencias of CFI Rizal, Pasig
Reasoning - Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise Branch, and Judge Damian Jimenez of the Municipal
- Respondent Judge committed a grave error when he judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary (now City) Court of Quezon City.
relied solely on the Prosecutor's certification and examinations and investigation of criminal
issued the questioned Order dated July 5, 1990 complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and FACTS
without having before him any other basis for his deciding cases filed before their courts. -Upon application of the respondents-prosecutors,
personal determination of the existence of a probable - The determination of probable cause for the respondents-judges issued a total of 42 search
cause. If a Judge relies solely on the certification of warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The warrants against petitioners and/or the corporations
the Prosecutor as in this case where all the records of preliminary investigation proper - whether or not of which they were officers, directed to the any
the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not there is reasonable ground to believe that the peace officer, to search the persons above-named
personally determined probable cause. The accused is guilty of the offense charged and, and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses
determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor. therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to and/or residences, and to seize and take possession
The constitutional requirement has not been the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial - is of “books of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
satisfied. The Judge commits a grave abuse of the function of the Prosecutor. correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals,
discretion. - The power to make a preliminary examination for portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other
- The records of the preliminary investigation the purpose of determining whether probable cause documents and/or papers showing all business
conducted by the Municipal Court of Masbate and exists to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest (or transactions including disbursements receipts,
reviewed by the respondent Fiscal were still in search warrant) has been and remains vested in balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Masbate when the respondent Fiscal issued the every judge by the provisions in the Bill of Rights in Bobbins (cigarette wrappers)” as "the subject of the
warrants of arrest against the petitioners. There was the 1935, the 1973 and the present [1987] offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits
no basis for the respondent Judge to make his own Constitutions securing the people against of the offense," or "used or intended to be used as
personal determination regarding the existence of a unreasonable searches and seizures, thereby placing the means of committing the offense" of "violation of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest it beyond the competence of mere Court Rule or Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
as mandated by the Constitution. He could not Statute to revoke. Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code."
possibly have known what transpired in Masbate as - The problem lies with warrants of arrest especially Petitioners claim that the aforementioned search
he had nothing but a certification in metropolitan or highly urban areas. If a Judge has warrants are null and void, as contravening the
- Art. III, Sec. 2. (Constitution) to personally question each complainant and witness Constitution and the Rules of Court; that the
The right of the people to be secure in their or go over the records of the Prosecutor's searches and seizures made in pursuance thereof are
persons, houses, papers and effects against investigation page by page and word for word before illegal; and that evidences obtained therein are
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever he acts on each of a big pile of applications for arrest consequently inadmissible.
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and warrants on his desk, he or she may have no more Respondents/prosecutors’ comments (1) that the
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall time for his or her more important judicial functions. contested search warrants are valid and have been
issue except upon probable cause to be Dispositive Petition is granted. issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of
determined personally by the judge after said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners'
examination under oath or affirmation of the STONEHILL v DIOKNO consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners,
20 SCRA 383
and particularly describing the place to be searched regardless of the alleged illegality of the
and the persons or things to be seized. CONCEPCION; June 19, 1967 aforementioned searches and seizures.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 73 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Procedure: specific offense had been alleged in said Foreign references cited to support this contention
-March 22, 1962: SC issued the writ of preliminary applications. It was impossible for the judges who 1. Judge Learned Hand: “Only in case the prosecution
injunction prayed for in the petition. issued the warrants to have found the existence of which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that
-June 29, 1962: the writ was partially lifted or probable cause, which presupposes the introduction it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be
dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and of competent proof that the party against whom it is repressed.”
things seized from the offices of the corporations sought has performed particular acts, or committed 2. Weeks v US (1914): “The efforts of the courts and
above mentioned are concerned; but, the injunction specific omissions in violation of a given penal their officials to bring the guilty to punishment,
was maintained as regards the papers, documents provision. praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the
and things found and seized in the residences of -General search warrants are outlawed because they sacrifice of those great principles established by
petitioners. place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted
NOTE: The ponencia splits the documents, papers, communication and correspondence at the mercy of in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the
and things seized under the alleged authority of the the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers. land.”
warrants in question into two (2) major groups: (a) -To prevent the issuance of general search warrants, 3. Mapp v Ohio (1961): “all evidence obtained by
those found and seized in the offices of the SC amended Sec. 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution
aforementioned corporations, and (b) those found Court by providing in the Revised Rules of Court that is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a State
and seized in the residences of petitioners. "no search warrant shall issue for more than one court.
specific offense." *Without that rule the freedom from state invasions
ISSUES -Search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly
1. As regards the first group, WON petitioners have a accounts and records pertaining to all business severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom
cause of action transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to
2. As regards the second group, WON the search whether the transactions were legal or illegal permit this Court's high regard as a freedom “implicit
warrants in question, and the searches and seizures contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights in the concept of ordered liberty.”
made under the authority thereof, are valid (and, that the things to be seized should be particularly *The exclusion of the evidence which an accused had
WON said documents, papers and things may be described and defeat its major objective of been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure
used in evidence against petitioners) eliminating general warrants. is the most important constitutional privilege.
-SC resolved to adopt the doctrine in Mapp v Ohio *The purpose of the exclusionary rule to "is to deter
HELD (1961) and to finally abandon the 1948 ruling in -- to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in
1. NONE. Moncado vs. People's Court, 80 Phil. 1. the only effectively available way -- by removing the
-The legality of a seizure can be contested only by (*The latter case (citing Wigmore) held that illegally seized incentive to disregard it."
the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, evidence is admissible, as long as it is relevant, but without *We can no longer permit that right to remain an
and that the objection to an unlawful search and prejudice to the criminal liability of the peace officers who empty promise, to be revocable at the whim of any
made the seizure, for violation of domicile or under any
seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of other provision of the Penal Code. Justices Perfecto,
police officer who, in the name of law enforcement
by third parties. -Petitioners may not validly object to Bengzon, Briones & Paras dissented from the majority itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment. Our
the use in evidence against them of the documents, opinion. ~marge~*) decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the
papers and things seized from the offices and -The exclusionary rule is the only practical means of individual no more than that which the Constitution
premises of the corporations, since the right to object enforcing the constitutional injunction against guarantees him to the police officer no less than that
to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs unreasonable searches and seizures. to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to
exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized -The non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the
effects belong, and may not be invoked by the letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional true administration of justice.
corporate officers in proceedings against them in injunction against unreasonable searches and Obiter
their individual capacity. seizures. If there is competent evidence to establish -In their MFR, petitioners further alleged possession
2. NO. probable cause of the commission of a given crime of and control over the records, papers and effects
-1935 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3) provides (a) by the party against whom the warrant is intended, found in the offices of the corporation, and the
that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, then there is no reason why the applicant should not alleged "personal" nature thereof.
to be determined by the judge in the manner set comply with the requirements of the fundamental -SC disposed of them by saying that this new theory
forth in said provision; and (b) that the warrant shall law. If he has no such evidence, then it is not was advanced, not in their petition or amended
particularly describe the things to be seized. possible for the Judge to find that there is probable petition, but in the MR. At any rate, it is best to leave
-Search warrants, issued upon applications stating cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of the matter open for determination in appropriate
that the natural and juridical person therein named the warrant. The only possible explanation (not cases in the future.
had committed offenses as abstract as "violation of justification) for its issuance is the necessity of Dispositive Writs granted in part and denied in part;
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. But, MR denied.
Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code" do not then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the
satisfy the constitutional requirements because no absence of evidence to establish a probable cause. SEPARATE OPINION
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 74 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

(b) ownership and/or control or possession – actual or the Municipal Court of Tandag, charging the
CASTRO [concurring and dissenting] constructive -- of premises searched gives petitioner, with the crime of murder.
-Reasoning that the petitioners have not in their "standing"; and - Supporting the complaint were sworn statements of the
pleadings satisfactorily demonstrated that they have (c) the "aggrieved person" doctrine where the search witnesses for the prosecution, in the form of questions
warrant and the sworn application for search warrant and answers taken by T-Sgt. Patosa, and subscribed and
legal standing to move for the suppression of the
are "primarily" directed solely and exclusively against sworn to before the respondent Judge at the time of the
documents, papers and effects seized in the places
the "aggrieved person," gives "standing." filing of the complaint.
other than the three residences adverted to above,
-An examination of the search warrants in this case - The respondent Judge examined the prosecution
the opinion written by the Chief Justice refrains from
will readily show that, excepting three, all were witnesses by reading to them "all over again the
expressly declaring as null and void the such
directed against the petitioners personally. In some questions and answers" in their statements in
warrants served at such other places and as illegal
of them, the petitioners were named personally, writing, and the witnesses-affiants declared before
the searches and seizures made therein, and leaves
followed by the designation, "the President and/or said Judge that the questions were propounded by T-
"the matter open for determination in appropriate
General Manager" of the particular corporation. The Sgt. Candido Patosa, and that the answers were
cases in the future."
three warrants excepted named three corporate made by them.
-It is with this position that Justice Castro is not in
defendants. But the - The affiants signed their respective affidavits in the
accord.
"office/house/warehouse/premises" mentioned in the presence of the respondent Judge, who also signed
-He says that All the search warrants, without
said three warrants were also the same as those after the usual procedure of administering the oath.
exception, in this case are admittedly general,
declared to be owned by or under the control of the - Considering the answers of the affiants to the,
blanket and roving warrants and are therefore
petitioners in all the other search warrants. questions contained in their sworn statements,
admittedly and indisputably outlawed by the
-Thus, the petitioners have full standing to move for together with the postmortem and autopsy report on
Constitution; and the searches and seizures made
the quashing of all the warrants regardless whether the dead body of the victim Jaime Diaz Ng, the
were therefore unlawful.
these were directed against residences in the narrow certificate of death, the sketch showing the position
-He argues that assuming that the petitioners have
sense of the word, as long as the documents were of the victim and the accused, the respondent Judge
no legal standing to ask for the suppression of the
personal papers of the petitioners or (to the extent opine that there was reasonable ground to believe
papers, things and effects seized from places other
that they were corporate papers) were held by them that the crime of murder had been committed and
than their residences, this cannot in any manner
in a personal capacity or under their personal control. the amused was probably guilty thereof.
affect, alter or otherwise modify the intrinsic nullity
-SC, at all events, should order the return to the - Respondent Judge issued the order and warrant of
of the search warrants and the intrinsic illegality of
petitioners all personal and private papers and arrest, specifying therein that no bail should be
the searches and seizures made thereunder. Whether
effects seized, no matter where these were seized, accepted for the provisional release of the accused.
or not the petitioners possess legal standing the said
whether from their residences or corporate offices or - Upon motion of petitioner upon the ground that the
warrants are void and remain void, and the searches
any other place or places. The uncontradicted sworn evidence of guilt was not strong, respondent Judge
and seizures were illegal and remain illegal.
statements of the petitioners in their, various issued an order, granting bail,; which order, however,
-He insists that, upon the pleadings submitted to SC,
pleadings submitted to this Court indisputably show respondent Judge later revoked, and petitioner was
the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to
that amongst the things seized from the corporate denied bail.
move for the suppression and return of the
offices and other places were personal and private - The case was subsequently remanded to the CFI of
documents, papers and effects that were seized from
papers and effects belonging to the petitioners. Surigao del Sur, after petitioner filed a waiver of his
places other than their family residences.
-If there should be any categorization of the right to preliminary investigation.
-Since our constitutional provision on searches and
documents, papers and things which where the - Respondent Provincial Fiscal filed an information
seizures was derived almost verbatim from the
objects of the unlawful searches and seizures, I charging petitioner with the crime of murder. The
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
submit that the grouping should be: (a) personal or petitioner was detained in the provincial jail.
in the many years of judicial construction and
private papers of the petitioners, and (b) purely - Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
interpretation of the said constitutional provision, our
corporate papers belonging to corporations. with the CFI of Surigao del Sur, claiming that he was
courts have invariably regarded as doctrinal the
being deprived of liberty without due process of law,
pronouncement made on the Fourth Amendment by
on the ground that the imprisonment and detention
federal courts, especially the Federal Supreme Court LUNA v PLAZA was the result of a warrant of arrest issued by
and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. 26 SCRA 310 respondent Judge in violation of Republic Act No.
-The U.S. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing
ZALDIVAR; November 29, 1968 3828, and praying for the annulment of the order for
to move for the suppression or return of documents,
his arrest and his discharge from confinement.
papers and effects which are the fruits of an unlawful
FACTS - Respondents filed their answer, alleging that
search and seizure, may be summarized as follows:
- A criminal action was commenced by T-Sgt. Candido Republic Act Nor. 3828 had been substantially
(a) ownership of documents, papers and effects gives
Patosa, PC investigator against Simon Luna, by filing complied with; that a motion to quash, and not a
"standing;"
with respondent Municipal Judge Lorenzo M. Plaza, of petition for habeas corpus was the proper remedy,
and that petitioner's application for bail constituted a
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 75 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

waiver of the right to question the validity of the court, under the rules and precedents, must be any rate, the court a quo found that respondent
arrest. deemed final and binding upon this Court. Judge was "satisfied that the questions and answers
- The CFI of Surigao del Sur ruled that respondent 2. YES. contained in the sworn statements taken by T-Sgt.
Municipal Judge had substantially complied with - As provided in Republic Act No. 3828 Before a Patosa partake of the nature of his searching
Republic Act No. 3828, and consequently denied the municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest, the questions and answers as required by law," so the
application for the writ of habeas corpus, and following conditions must first be fulfilled: (1) he respondent Judge adopted them.
dismissed the case. must examine the witnesses personally; (2) the 3. NO
- Hence the appeal. examination must be under oath; (3) the - The Constitution, in Section 1 (3), Article III,
Petitioner’s Claim Republic Act No. 3828 imposes examination must be reduced to writing in the form provides that no warrant shall issue but upon
on a municipal judge, before he can issue a warrant of searching questions and answers. probable cause, to be determined by the judge after
of arrest, two specific duties, to wit: (1) personally - The first condition was fulfilled. The trial court found examination under oath or affirmation of the
examine the complainant and witnesses with as a fact that "the respondent judge personally complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
"searching questions and answers," which means examined the witnesses for the prosecution; that - The constitutional requirement of examination of
that the judge must cross-examine them in case their respondent judge adopted as his own personal witnesses under oath was, as shown above, fulfilled.
affidavits are presented; and (2) said examination examination the questions asked by T-Sgt. Patosa as The existence of probable cause depended to a large
must be reduced to writing and form part of the appearing in the written statements, which he read degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge
records of the case. The record of the instant case, over again to the witnesses together with the conducting the examination. Respondent Judge found
does not show that said examination was performed answers given therein, asking the witnesses whether that there was a probable cause, as stated in his
by respondent Judge notwithstanding his testimony said answers were theirs, and whether the same order of arrest.
to the effect that he adopted the questions answers were true, to which the witnesses answered - Preliminary examination is not an essential part of
propounded to each of the prosecution witnesses by in the affirmative. Republic Act No. 3828 does not due process of law. Preliminary examination may be
T-Sgt. Patosa. And assuming that the adoption of the prohibit the municipal Judge from adopting the conducted by the municipal judge, prior to the
questions made by T-Sgt. Patosa constituted questions asked by a previous investigator. issuance of the warrant of arrest, either in the
substantial compliance with the requirement that the - The second condition was also fulfilled. The trial presence, or in the absence, of the accused.
judge should examine the witnesses by asking court found that the complaint was "supported by - The record shows that herein petitioner waived the
searching questions, still the second requirement, statements of the witnesses under oath." The record preliminary investigation before respondent
that of reducing to writing the said procedure of also shows there were documents to have been Municipal Judge, and instead, he riled a petition for
adoption, has not been compiled with; and so, subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge. bail. This conduct of petitioner indicates that he had
Republic Act No. 3828 was still violated, and the - The third condition was likewise fulfilled. The waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the
issuance of the warrant of arrest was in violation of examination of the witnesses was written down, in preliminary examination conducted by respondent
said Act and the Constitution and constituted denial the form of searching questions and answers. The Judge prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
of due process. term “searching questions and answers" means only, 4. NO
taking into consideration the purpose of the - Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides
ISSUES preliminary examination which is to determine in part, as follows:
1. WON the trial court erred in giving absolute "whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that "Sec. 4 When writ not allowed or discharge
credence to the testimony of respondent Municipal an offense has been committed and the accused is authorized. If it appears that the person alleged to be
Judge. probably guilty thereof so that a warrant of arrest restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
2. WON the requirements of Republic Act No. 3828 may be issued and the accused held for trial," such under process issued by a court or judge ... and that
was satisfied. questions as have tendency to show the commission the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
3. WON the issuance of the warrant of arrest was a of a crime and the perpetrator thereof. What would process ... or make the order, the writ shall not be
violation of the Constitution and of procedural due be searching questions would depend on what is allowed ... "
process. sought to be inquired into, such as: the nature of the - All the conditions, in the afore-quoted Section 4, set
4. WON the trial court erred in denying the writ of offense, the date, time, and place of its commission, forth to deny the writ, are present in the instant case.
habeas corpus. the possible motives for its commission; the subject, - Petitioner is detained and is in the custody of the
his age, education, status, financial and social respondent Provincial Warden by virtue of the order
HELD circumstances, his attitude toward the investigation, of arrest and the order of respondent Judge, to
1. NO social attitudes, opportunities to commit the offense; confine petitioner in the provincial jail. It is not
- As a general rule, the lower court's findings, as to the victim, his age, status, family responsibilities, disputed by petitioner that respondent Judge had
the credibility of witnesses will not be interfered with financial and social circumstances, characteristics, jurisdiction to issue the warrant of arrest and the
by appellate courts. Since petitioner appealed etc. The points that are the subject of inquiry may order of commitment under the provisions of Section
directly to this Court he must, raise only questions of differ from case to case. 47, Republic Act No. 409, as amended by Republic
law and he has thereby waived the right to raise any - The questions, therefore, must to a great degree Act No. 1201, although petitioner did question the
question of fact, and the findings of facts of the trial depend upon the Judge making the investigation. At validity of the warrant of arrest for allegedly having
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 76 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

been issued in violation of Republic Act No. 3828 private respondent, for double physical injuries; - As the car was about to overtake the slow moving
which was found to be untenable. double less serious physical injuries; and damage to cargo truck, the car's front left tire suddenly burst
- The remedy available to the petitioner herein, property thru reckless imprudence, in CFI Urdaneta. due to pressure causing the car to swerve to the left
under the circumstances stated in this opinion, is not - Rosario was prosecuted and convicted by the trial and naturally making steering and control difficult.
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus but a petition to court in the criminal case. CA acquitted him from the - Because of the tendency of the car to veer towards
quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for a crime charged on the ground that his guilt has not the left due to the blown out tire, the driver steered
reinvestigation of the case by the respondent been proved beyond reasonable doubt. the car towards the direction where he could find a
Municipal Judge or by the Provincial Fiscal. - April 3, 1972: Respondents filed a "Request for safe place to park and fix the tire. He finally brought
- The Court stressed that what has been stated in the Admission" in the civil case, requesting petitioners to the car to a halt at the left shoulder of the road.
opinion was not intended to sanction the return to admit the truthfulness of the facts set forth as well as - Just as he was about to get off to fix the flat tire, the
the former practice of municipal judges of simply the correctness and genuineness of the documents car was suddenly bumped by the jeep which came
relying upon affidavits or sworn statements that are attached. from the opposite direction
made to accompany the complaints that are filed - May 5,1972: Petitioners filled a "Manifestation",
before them, in determining whether there is a admitting the allegations in the "Request for ISSUE
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of Admission" with some qualifications. Later, both WON petitioners were deprived of due process
arrest. - parties submitted their respective memoranda. because their civil action was decided on the basis of
- That practice is precisely what is sought to be - December 28, 1972: On the basis of the testimonies private respondent Juanita Rosario's acquittal in the
voided by the amendment of Section 87 (c) of and evidence submitted by the petitioners, as well as criminal case for reckless imprudence
Republic Act 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) which the records of the criminal case attached in the
requires that before a municipal judge issues a "Request for Admission" of the private respondents, HELD
warrant of arrest he should first satisfy himself that CFI Manila rendered a decision, dismissing the NO
there is a probable cause by examining the witnesses complaint of the petitioners against private Ratio Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
personally, and that the examination must be under respondents as well as the counterclaim of private conclusive on the parties and on the Supreme Court,
oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching respondents against the petitioners. unless (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded
questions and answers. - February 13, 1978: CA affirmed entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures;
- It is obvious that the purpose of this amendment is Petitioners’ Version Bernabe Castillo was driving (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3)
to prevent the issuance of a warrant of arrest against his jeep on the northbound lane of the McArthur there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment
a person based simply upon affidavits of witnesses Highway with his wife, father, and child at the rate of is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the Court of
who made, and swore to, their statements before a 25 kph. Just past San Nicolas bridge, he noticed, from Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its
person or persons other than the judge before whom a distance of 120 meters more or less, a speeding findings are contrary to the admission of both
the criminal complaint is filed. oncoming car along the same lane he was driving, appellant and appellee; (6) the findings of facts of
Dispositive The decision of the trial court appealed overtaking a cargo truck ahead of it. the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
from, was affirmed. Costs against petitioner- - He switched on his headlights to signal the car to court; (7) said findings of facts are conclusions
appellant. return to its own right lane as the way was not clear without citation of specific evidence on which they
for it to overtake the truck. The signal was are based; (8) the facts set forth in the petition as
disregarded, as the car proceeded on its direction. well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are
CASTILLO v CA (ROSARIO)
- To evade the collision, he swerved his jeep to the not disputed by the respondent; and (9) when the
176 SCRA 591 right towards the shoulder and applied on the brakes, finding of facts of the Court of Appeals is premised
FERNAN; August 21, 1989 leaving his feet on it, even, immediately after the on the absence of evidence and is contradicted by
impact. The car rested on the shoulder of the right evidence on record.
NATURE lane. The jeep's rear left wheel was on the road, Reasoning
Petition for review on certiorari leaving short tire marks behind it; while the car left - The subject action for damages, being civil in
long tire marks, specially its left rear wheel. nature, is separate and distinct from the criminal
FACTS Respodents’ Version Juanito Rosario who was aspect, necessitating only a preponderance of
- May 2, 1965: Parties figured in a vehicular accident driving the car, with his wife and daughter, were evidence.
which caused injuries to their persons and damage to along MacArthur Highway going southwards. They - A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal
their respective vehicles. They had conflicting saw ahead of them a big heavily loaded cargo truck. institution under the Civil Code, with a substantively
versions of the accident. The truck was moving very slowly because of its all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and
- June 30: Petitioners instituted a civil case for the heavy load so that Rosario decided to overtake it. But independent from a delict or crime. A distinction
recovery of damages for the injuries sustained and before doing so, he first saw to it that the road was exists between the civil liability arising from a crime
for the damage to the vehicle in CFI Manila. clear and as additional precautionary measure, he and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-
- September 29: While this case was pending, the blew his horn several times at the time he was contractual. The same negligence causing damages
Provincial Fiscal filed an information against Rosario, overtaking the truck. may produce civil liability arising from a crime under
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 77 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the Penal Code, or create an action for quasidelictos where the accused has filed bail and waived the
or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. CALLANTA v VILLANUEVA preliminary investigation proper, he has waived
Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary
77 SCRA 377
case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case. examination conducted prior to the issuance of the
- But this rule is not without exception. Thus, Section FERNANDO; June 20, 1977 warrant of arrest.
2 (c) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides: - The city fiscal had been quite active in the
Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it NATURE investigation and in the prosecution of the accused.
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction Original petitions in the Supreme Court, certiorari It was he who manifested his readiness to appear in
proceeds from a declaration from a final judgment with preliminary injunction the trial.
that the fact from which the civil action might arise Obiter
did not exist. FACTS - With regard to the issue of whether or not the only
- In a previous case, CA-G.R. No. 07684-CR, People v. - Judge Villanueva of Dagupan refused to grant the person vested with authority to conduct a
Rosario, the CA after a painstaking analysis of. (a) motions to quash two complaints for oral defamation preliminary investigation is the city fiscal, the Charter
the testimonial evidence; (b) the relative positions of against Callanta. of the City of Dagupan provides that “the City Court
the two vehicles as depicted in the sketches; (c) the - Callanta’s counsel argued that there was an issue of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary
distance of each of the two vehicles from the with regard to the validity of Villanueva’s issuance of investigation for for any offense, without regard to
cemented edge of the road; (d) the point of impact; the warrants of arrest on the ground that it should the limits of punishment and may release or commit
(e) the visible tire marks, and (f) the extent of the have been the City Fiscal who conducted the any person charged with such offense to secure his
damage caused upon each of the two vehicles, ruled preliminary investigation. appearance before the proper court.
that it was the driver of the jeep and not the accused - After the warrants were issued (with bail pegged at Dispositive WHEREFORE, these petitions for
driver of the car who was negligent and accordingly P600), Callanta posted the required bail bonds and certiorari are dismissed. The restraining order issued
acquitted the latter. was granted her provisional liberty. by this Court is lifted and set aside. Costs against
- Negligence, being the source and foundation of - The City Fiscal had manifested his intent to petitioner.
actions of quasi-delict, is the basis for the recovery of prosecute the case.
damages. In the case at bar, the CA found that - February 25, 1965 – After the Court had conducted SEPARATE OPINION
collision was not due to the negligence of Rosario but preliminary investigation and had acquired
rather it was Castillo's own act of driving the jeep to jurisdiction over the case, the Court referred the case
AQUINO [concurring]
the shoulder of the road where the car was, which to the Fiscal.
- Sec. 77 of the Dagupan City charter expressly
was actually the proximate cause of the collision. - March 4, 1965 – The arraignment was postponed
empowers its city court (formerly municipal court) to
With this finding, the CA exonerated Rosario from because the Fiscal was still doing his investigation.
conduct preliminary investigation for any offense,
civil liability on the ground that the alleged - In the proceedings of April 20, 1965, the Fiscal
without regard to the limits of punishment.
negligence did not exist. entered his appearance for the government and
- Every justice of the peace, municipal judge
- During the trial of the case before the CFI, manifested that he was ready for trial.
(meaning city judge), city or provincial fiscal, shall
respondents were not present because they were
have authority to conduct preliminary examination or
abroad. Their counsel introduced as part of their ISSUE
investigation in accordance with these rules of all
evidence, the records in the criminal case, in WON Callanta can contest the validity of his arrest
offenses alleged to have been committed within his
accordance with Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of
municipality, city or province, cognizable by the
Court. These records, mostly composed of transcripts HELD
Court of First Instance (Sec. 87 of the Judiciary Law
of the hearing in the criminal case, were attached to NO
and Sec. 2, Rule 112).
their "Request for Admission" and were substantially Ratio Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of
admitted by petitioners. Petitioners raised, as one of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person and
their objections, the propriety and correctness of estops him from discussing the validity of his arrest. RODRIGUEZ v VILLAMIEL
admitting and adopting these transcripts as part of Reasoning 65 Phil 230
the record in the civil case. According to them, this is - In the case of Luna vs. Plaza, the Court held that IMPERIAL; DEC 23, 1937
a violation of Section 41, Rule 130, on the ground where petitioner has filed an application for bail and
that petitioners were not given the opportunity to waived the preliminary investigation proper, he FACTS
cross-examine. We disagree. A careful reading of the waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the -Victor Villamiel, special agent for the Anti-Usury
transcripts would reveal that counsel for petitioners preliminary examination conducted, prior to the Board, made two affidavits for the purpose of
actively participated during the proceedings of the issuance of a warrant of arrest. obtaining search warrants against Rodriguez and
criminal case. He raised various objections, in the - This doctrine has been upheld in a number of cases Evangelista. The text of both affidavits reads as
course of the trial. Petitioners, therefore, thru counsel including People vs. Olandar, Zacarias vs. Cruz, follows: "Victor D. Villamiel… having taken the oath
had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Bermejo vs. Barrios, People vs. La Caste, Manzano vs prescribed by law, appears and states: that he has
Dispositive Petition denied Villa and People vs. Obngayan which stated that and there is just and probable cause to believe and
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 78 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

he does believe that the books, lists, chits, receipts, ISSUE evidence against the petitioners in the criminal cases
documents, and other papers relating to the WON the search warrant and the seizure were illegal that may be brought against them. The seizure of
activities of Juan Evangelista, as usurer, are being books and documents by means of a search
kept and concealed in the house of said Juan HELD warrant, for the purpose of using them as
Evangelista situated at Lucena, Tayabas, all of which YES evidence in a criminal case against the person
is contrary to the statute of law." -Reason 1: it appears that the affidavits, which in whose possession they were found, is
-The justice of the peace of the provincial capital served as the exclusive basis of the search warrants, unconstitutional because it makes the warrant
issued the two search warrants against the are insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a
petitioners (see original for the wording of the manner in which the oaths were made and, violation of the constitutional provision
warrant) therefore, it is hereby held that the search warrants prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to
-Villamiel, with other agents and a constabulary in question and the subsequent seizure of the testify against himself Therefore, it appearing
soldier, executed the warrants, went to the documents and papers are illegal and do not in any that the documents and papers were seized for the
residences of the petitioners, searched them and way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioners purpose of fishing for evidence to be used against
seized documents and papers belonging to were subjected. the petitioners in the criminal proceedings for
petitioners. Villamiel issued a receipt to each of the -The oath required must refer to the truth of violation of the Anti-Usury Law which might be
petitioners, without specifying the documents and the facts within the personal knowledge of the instituted against them, this court holds that the
papers seized by him, which were taken to his office petitioner or his witnesses, because the search warrants issued are illegal and that the
in Manila, keeping them there until he was ordered purpose thereof is to convince the committing documents and papers should be returned to them.
by the CFI to deposit them in the office of the clerk of magistrate, not the individual making the - Definition and rationale of search warrant:
court. affidavit and seeking the issuance of the A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the
-Petitioners filed a petition praying that the search warrant, of the existence of probable cause. name of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed
warrants be declared null and void and illegal; that The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to by a judge or a justice of the peace, and directed to a
Villamiel be punished for contempt of court for warrant issuance of a search warrant is peace officer, commanding him to search for
having conducted the searches and for having seized whether it has been drawn in such a manner personal property and bring it before the court.
the documents and papers without issuing detailed that perjury could be charged thereon and Of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater
receipts and for not having turned them over to the affiant be held liable for damages caused. importance or more essential to his peace and
court, and that said documents and papers be -Sec 1, par 3, of Art III, Constitution: "The right of the happiness than the right of personal security, and
ordered returned to the petitioners. people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, that involves the exemption of his private affairs,
-the CFI found Villamiel guilty of contempt of court and effects against unreasonable searches and books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny
and fined him P10. The court declared the search seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall of others. While the power to search and seize is
warrants and the seizure of the documents and issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by necessary to the public welfare, still it must be
papers VALID, authorizing the agents of the Anti- the judge after examination under oath or affirmation exercised and the law enforced without transgressing
Usury Board to examine them and retain those that of the complainant and the witnesses he may the constitutional rights of citizens, for the
are necessary and material to whatever criminal produce, and particularly describing the place to be enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance
action they may wish to bring against the petitioners. searched, and the persons or things to be seized." to justify indifference to the basic principles of
-Petitioners appealed. They contend that the search Sec 97 of General Orders No. 58: "A search warrant government.
warrants issued by the court are illegal because they shall not issue except for probable cause and upon
have been based on the affidavits of special agent application supported by oath particularly describing BURGOS SR v CHIEF OF STAFF
Villamiel wherein he affirmed and stated that he the place to be searched and the person or thing to
133 SCRA 800
had no personal knowledge of the facts that be seized."
were to serve as basis for the issuance of the - Both provisions require that there be not only ESCOLIN; December 26, 1984
search warrants, but merely confined himself probable cause before the issuance of a search
to asserting that he believed and there was warrant but that the search warrant must be based NATURE
probable cause to believe that the documents upon an application supported by oath of the Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
and papers were related to the activities of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. In its preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction
petitioners as usurers. As has been seen, the broadest sense, an oath includes any form of
special agent's affirmation in this respect consisted attestation by which a party signifies that he is FACTS
merely in the following: "that he has and there is just bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and - December 7, 1982 Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño CFI Rizal
and probable cause to believe and he does believe truthfully. [Quezon City], issued two search warrants under
that the books (etc) relating to the activities of . . . as -Reason 2: At the hearing of the case, it was shown which the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project
usurer, are being kept and concealed in the house. . . that the documents and papers had really been 6, Quezon City, business address of Metropolitan Mail
all of which is contrary to the statute of law." seized to enable the Anti-Usury Board to conduct an newspaper, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building,
investigation and later use all or some of them as
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 79 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business address of two search warrants pinpointed only one place where - Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court,
the "We Forum" newspaper were searched. petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly keeping and enumerates the personal properties that may be
- office and printing machines, equipment, concealing the articles listed therein, i.e., No. 19, seized under a search warrant. The rule does not
paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City. require that the property to be seized should be
in the printing, publication and distribution of the > although the warrants were directed against Jose owned by the person against whom the search
said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, Burgos, Jr. alone, articles belonging to his co- warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by
documents, books and other written literature petitioners Jose Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and the J. him. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and
alleged to be in the possession and control of Burgos Media Services, Inc. were seized. it is sufficient that the person against whom the
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We > real properties were seized under the disputed warrant is directed has control or possession of the
Forum" newspaper, were seized. warrants. property sought to be seized.
- The questioned search warrants were issued by > that documents relied on by respondents could not 3. NO
respondent judge upon application of Col. Rolando N. have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a - Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code , "machinery,
Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C. Metrocom. probable cause upon which a warrant may validly receptables, instruments or implements intended by
The application was accompanied by the Joint issue in accordance with Section 3, Article IV of the the owner of the tenement for an industry or works
Affidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. 1973 Constitution which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of
Tango, members of the Metrocom Intelligence and land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the
Security Group under Col. Abadilla which conducted a ISSUES said industry or works" are considered immovable
surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the WON the two search warrants are: property. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of
application for the search warrants on December 7, 1. defective for stating only one and the same place the land and/or building on which the machineries
1982. to be searched were placed. This being the case, the machineries in
- Respondents aver that the case should be 2. null and void for including properties not owned by question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain
dismissed on the ground that petitioners had come to the person named in the warrants movable property susceptible to seizure under a
SC without having previously sought the quashal of 3. null and void for including real properties search warrant.
the search warrants before the issuing judge. But this 4. null and void for being violative of the constitution, 4. YES
procedural flaw notwithstanding, SC took cognizance thus encroaching on petitioners' fundamental rights - Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts
of this petition in view of the seriousness and and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
urgency of the constitutional issues raised, not to discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
mention the public interest generated by the search. HELD has been committed and that the objects sought in
- Respondents likewise urge dismissal of the petition 1. NO connection with the offense are in the place sought
on ground of laches, since said search warrants were - The defect pointed out is a typographical error. Two to be searched. And when the search warrant applied
issued on December 7, 1982, but the instant petition search warrants were applied for and issued because for is directed against a newspaper publisher or
impugning the same was filed only on June 16, 1983. the purpose and intent were to search two distinct editor in connection with the publication of
However, SC found that the extrajudicial efforts premises. The addresses of the places sought to be subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the
exerted by petitioners quite evidently negate the searched were specifically set forth in the application and/or its supporting affidavits must
presumption that they had abandoned their right to application, and since it was Col. Abadilla himself contain a specification, stating with particularity the
the possession of the seized property, thereby who headed the team which executed the search alleged subversive material he has published or is
refuting the charge of laches against them. warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by intending to publish. Mere generalization will not
Petitioners' Claims reason of the typographical error is more apparent suffice.
> Petitioners fault respondent judge for his alleged than real. - In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except
failure to conduct an examination under oath or - In the determination of whether a search warrant upon probable cause to be determined by the
affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, as describes the premises to be searched with sufficient judge, . . . after examination under oath or
mandated by the constitution as well as Sec. 4, Rule particularity, it has been held "that the executing affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
126 of the Rules of Court. However, SC found that as officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in may produce” the Constitution requires no less than
petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing the warrant is relevant. This would seem to be personal knowledge by the complainant or his
on August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeed especially true where the executing officer is the witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a
been conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadilla affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued, search warrant may be justified. In Alvarez v. CFI, SC
and his witnesses, this issue is moot and academic. and when he knows that the judge who issued the ruled that "the oath required must refer to the truth
> Search Warrants No. 20-82[a] and No. 20-82[b] warrant intended the building described in the of the facts within the personal knowledge of the
were used to search two distinct places: No. 19, Road affidavit. And it has also been said that the executing petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose
3, Project 6, Quezon City and 784 Units C & D, RMS officer may look to the affidavit in the official court thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not
Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. Objection is file to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the the individual making the affidavit and seeking the
interposed to the execution of Search Warrant No. place to be searched." issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable
20-82[b] at the latter address on the ground that the 2. NO cause."
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 80 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- the search warrants are in the nature of general he encouraged the group to overthrow the warrant, it is unlawful and therefore, the fruit of the
warrants. government. To prove illegal possession, a person in poisonous tree doctrine applies.
- As a consequence of the search and seizure, the charge of firearms and explosives of the PC HQ in Reasoning Under Sec.6 (a) of Rule 113, the officer
premises were padlocked and sealed, with the Davao testified that accused was not among the list arresting a person who has just committed, is
further result that the printing and publication of said of firearm holders committing, or is about to commit an offense must
newspapers were discontinued. Such closure is in the - On the other hand, accused-appellants claims that have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense
nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent he was taken to the PC barracks and when he denied must also be committed in his presence or within his
to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the ownership of the gun, he was beaten, tortured, view. There is no such personal knowledge in this
fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of mauled and subjected to physical agony. He was case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the
petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print. forced to admit possession or ownership of the gun. arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the
Dispositive Search Warrants Nos. 20-82[a] and 20- 2 witnesses as well as Ruben’s wife Urbana, were information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The
82[b] issued by respondent judge on December 7, presented by the defense in support of the accused’s location of the firearm was given by Burgos’ wife. At
1982 are null and void. All articles seized denial of the charge against him. Urbana claimed the time of arrest, Burgos was not in actual
thereunder are ordered released to petitioners. that it was Masamlok who left the firearm there. possession of any firearm or subversive document.
- The RTC after considering the evidences presented Neither was he committing any act which could be
PEOPLE v BURGOS by both prosecution and defense convicted accused described as subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his
Ruben Burgos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the field at the time.
144 SCRA 1
crime of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance - The SolGen believes that the arrest may still be
GUTIERREZ; Sept.4, 1986 of subversion. The RTC justified the warrantless considered lawful under Sec.6(b) using the test of
arrest as falling under one of the circumstances when reasonableness. The SolGen submits that the info
NATURE arrests may be validly made without a warrant, given by Masamlok was sufficient to induce a
Appeal from RTC decision convicting Ruben Burgos of under Rule 113 Sec.6 of the Rules of Court. It stated reasonable ground that a crime has been committed
the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms in that even if there was no warrant for the arrest of and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. In
Furtherance of Subversion Burgos, the fact that “the authorities received an arrests without a warrant under Sec.6(b), however, it
urgent report of accused's involvement in subversive is not enough that there is reasonable ground to
FACTS activities from a reliable source (report of Cesar believe that the person to be arrested has committed
- Prosecution version: Upon obtaining information Masamlok) the circumstances of his arrest, even a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been
from one Cesar Masamlok, who personally and without judicial warrant, is lawfully within the ambit committed first. That a crime has actually been
voluntarily surrendered to the Davao del Sur police of Sec. 6(a) of Rule 113 and applicable jurisprudence committed is an essential precondition. It is not
HQ stating that accused Ruben Burgos forcibly on the matter.” If the arrest is valid, the consequent enough to suspect that a crime may have been
recruited him to join the NPA with the use of a search and seizure of the firearm and the alleged committed. The fact of the commission of the offense
firearm against his life, a team was dispatched the subversive documents would become an incident to must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground
following day to arrest Burgos. Through the help of a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126, Sec. 12. “A applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. In this
Pedro Burgos, the brother of accused, the team was person charged with an offense may be searched for case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of
able to locate Ruben Burgos, who was plowing his dangerous weapons or anything which may be used Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the
field at the time. as proof of the commission of the offense.” authorities to suspect that the accused had
- When asked about the firearm, the accused denied committed a crime. They were still fishing for
possession of it, but after questioning the accused’s ISSUES evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The
wife, the police were able to locate and retrieve the 1. WON the arrest was lawful and WON the search of subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the
said firearm, a .38 caliber S & W, buried in the his house and the subsequent confiscation of a basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife
ground below their house. The police, after accused firearm and documents conducted in a lawful cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without
pointed them to the location, were also able to manner. warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made,
retrieve alleged subversive documents (a notebook 2. WON there is enough evidence to prove his guilt generally nothing that happened or is discovered
and a pamphlet) hidden underground a few meters beyond reasonable doubt. afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned
away from the house. tree is necessarily also tainted. More important, We
- To prove accused’s subversive activities, Masamlok HELD find no compelling reason for the haste with which
testified that accused came to his house and told him 1. NO the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused.
to join the NPA or his family will be killed along with Art.III Sec.2 of the Constitution safeguards against We fail to see why they failed to first go through the
him. The threat to his life and family forced wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed
Masamlok to join the NPA. He later attended an NPA and liberty of a citizen as to his person, papers and they had reasonable ground to believe that the
seminar where Burgos, the first speaker, said very effects. In this case, the arrest was made without accused had truly committed a crime. There is no
distinctly that he is an NPA together with his warrant and since it does not fall within the showing that there was a real apprehension that the
companions, to assure the unity of the civilian. That exceptions of arrests that can be made without a accused was on the verge of flight or escape.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 81 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts interested witness. His testimony cannot be said to finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as
of the accused were unknown. be free from the opportunity and temptation to be violative of their right against self-incrimination.
- The basis for the action taken by the arresting exaggerated and even fabricated for it was intended - The petitioners demand the return of the arms and
officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok who to secure his freedom. Moreover, despite the fact ammunition on the ground that they were taken
was not required to subscribe his allegations under that there were other persons present during the without a search warrant as required by the Bill of
oath. There was no compulsion for him to state alleged NPA seminar who could have corroborated Rights. This is confirmed by the said report and in
truthfully his charges under pain of criminal Masamlok's testimony that the accused used the gun fact admitted by the respondents, "but with
prosecution. Consequently, the need to go through in furtherance of subversive activities or actually avoidance.
the process of securing a search warrant and a engaged in subversive acts, the prosecution never
warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. The presented any other witness. ISSUE
arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is Dispositive Judgment of conviction is REVERSED WON the search of petitioners’ premises was illegal.
illegal. The arrest being unlawful, the search and and SET ASIDE. Accused Burgos is ACQUITTED on
seizure which transpired afterwards could not grounds of reasonable doubt. HELD
likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to YES.
a valid arrest. Neither can it be presumed that there ALIH v CASTRO Ratio Even if were assumed for the sake of
was a waiver, or that consent was given by the argument that they were guilty, they would not have
151 SCRA 279
accused to be searched simply because he failed to been any less entitled to the protection of the
object. To constitute a waiver, it must appear first CRUZ; June 23, 1987 Constitution, which covers both the innocent and the
that the right exists; secondly, that the person guilty.
involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of NATURE Reasoning
the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said Petition for prohibition and mandamus with Article IV, Section 3, of the 1973 Constitution: The
person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. preliminary injunction and restraining order right of the people to be secure in their persons,
The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
into his house does not amount to a permission to FACTS searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
make a search therein. - On November 25, 1984, a contingent of more than purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant
2. NO. two hundred Philippine marines and elements of the or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
Since the extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and home defense forces raided the compound occupied cause to be determined by the judge, or such other
the alleged subversive documents are inadmissible in by the petitioners at Gov. Alvarez street, Zamboanga responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after
evidence, the only remaining proof to sustain the City, in search of loose firearms, ammunition and examination under oath or affirmation of the
charge is the testimony of Masamlok, which is other explosives. complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable - The military operation was commonly known and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
doubt. dreaded as a "zona," which was like the feared the persons or things to be seized.
Reasoning Although it is true that the trial court practice of the kempeitai during the Japanese Article IV, Section 4(2): Any evidence obtained in
found Masamlok’s testimony credible and convincing, Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality, violation of this or the preceding section shall be
the SC is not necessarily bound by the credibility arresting the persons fingered by a hooded informer, inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. and executing them outright (although the last part -The respondents, while admitting the absence of the
As stated in People v Cabrera (100 SCRA 424): When is not included in the modern refinement). required such warrant, sought to justify their act on
it comes to question of credibility the findings of the - The initial reaction of the people inside the the ground that they were acting under superior
trial court are entitled to great respect upon appeal compound was to resist the invasion with a burst of orders. There was also the suggestion that the
for the obvious reason that it was able to observe gunfire. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody measure was necessary because of the aggravation
the demeanor, actuations and deportment of the shoot-out ensued, resulting in a number of of the peace and order problem generated by the
witnesses during the trial. But We have also said that casualties. assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco.
this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be - 16 male occupants were arrested, later to be finger- - Superior orders" cannot, of course, countermand
no reversals of convictions upon appeal. We must printed, paraffin-tested and photographed over their the Constitution. The fact that the petitioners were
reject the findings of the trial court where the record objection. The military also inventoried and suspected of the Climaco killing did not excuse the
discloses circumstances of weight and substance confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle constitutional short-cuts the respondents took.
which were not properly appreciated by the trial grenades, and several rounds of ammunition found in - Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly
court. In the instant case, Masamlok’s testimony was the premises. did not excuse the non-observance of the
totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok - On December 21, 1984, the petitioners came to this constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
surrendered to the military, certainly his fate Court. Their purpose was to recover the articles searches and seizures. There was no state of
depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the seized from them, to prevent these from being used hostilities in the area to justify, assuming it could, the
authorities. Otherwise, he would also be charged as evidence against them, and to challenge their repressions committed therein against the
with subversion. Masamlok may be considered as an petitioners.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 82 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The record does not disclose that the petitioners pending the outcome of the criminal cases that have government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby
were wanted criminals or fugitives from justice. At been or may later be filed against the petitioners. directed to turn over said items to the Chief, Davao
the time of the "zona," they were merely suspected Metrodiscom, Davao City.)
of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even been POSADAS v CA (PEOPLE) - The petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of
investigated for it. As mere suspects, they were Appeals wherein in due course a decision was
188 SCRA 288
presumed innocent and not guilty as summarily rendered on February 23, 1989 affirming the
pronounced by the military. GANCAYCO; August 2, 1990 appealed decision with costs against the petitioner.
- lacking the shield of innocence, the guilty need the Hence, this petition for review, the main thrust of
armor of the Constitution, to protect them, not from a NATURE which is that there being no lawful arrest or search
deserved sentence, but from arbitrary punishment. Petition for review and seizure, the items which were confiscated from
Every person is entitled to due process. It is no the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in
exaggeration that the basest criminal, ranged FACTS evidence against him.
against the rest of the people who would condemn - Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both
him outright, is still, under the Bill of Rights, a members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of ISSUE
majority of one. the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the WON the warrantless search imposed on the
- The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of Intelligence Task Force, were conducting a petitioner is valid
the raid because it was in fact not urgent. They knew surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City on
where the petitioners were. They had every October 16, 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the HELD
opportunity to get a search warrant before making morning. They spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" NO
the raid. If they were worried that the weapons inside bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously Ratio
the compound would be spirited away, they could while they were within the premises of the Rizal - The argument of the Solicitor General that when the
have surrounded the premises in the meantime, as a Memorial Colleges two policemen approached the petitioner, he was
preventive measure. They approached the petitioner and identified actually committing or had just committed the
- Conceding that the search was truly themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner offense of illegal possession of firearms and
warrantless, might not the search and seizure attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was ammunitions in the presence of the police officers
be nonetheless considered valid because it was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. and consequently the search and seizure of the
incidental to a legal arrest? Surely not. If all the They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in
law enforcement authorities have to do is force their where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the 1985
way into any house and then pick up anything they revolver with Serial No. 770196 two (2) rounds of Rules on Criminal Procedure is untenable. At the time
see there on the ground that the occupants are live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun a smoke (tear the peace officers in this case identified themselves
resisting arrest, then we might as well delete the Bill gas) grenade, and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to
of Rights as a fussy redundancy. caliber gun. They brought the petitioner to the police flee they did not know that he had committed, or was
- If the arrest was made under Rule 113, station for further investigation. In the course of the actually committing the offense of illegal possession
Section 5, of the Rules of Court in connection same, the petitioner was asked to show the of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected
with a crime about to be committed, being necessary license or authority to possess firearms that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They
committed, or just committed, what was that and ammunitions found in his possession but he did now know what its contents were. The said
crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a failed to do so. circumstances did not justify an arrest without a
justification. Parenthetically, it may be observed that - He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office warrant.
under the Revised Rule 113, Section 5(b), the officer and the prohibited articles recovered from him were However, there are many instances where a warrant
making the arrest must have personal knowledge of indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the officer then on duty. He and seizure can be effected without necessarily
the ground therefor. was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and being preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the
- It follows that as the search of the petitioners' ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City "stop and search" without a search warrant at
premises was violative of the Constitution, all the wherein after a plea of not guilty and trial on the military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or
firearms and ammunition taken from the raided merits a decision was rendered on October 8, 1987 validity of which has been upheld by this Court in
compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the finding petitioner guilty of the offense. (It appearing Valmonte vs. de Villa (to quote: Not all searches and
proceedings against the petitioners. These articles that the accused was below eighteen (18) years old seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are "fruits of the poisonous tree. at the time of the commission of the offense (Art. 68, are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the search of the par. 2), he was sentenced to an indeterminate determined by any fixed formula but is to be
petitioners' premises on November 25, 1984, is penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) resolved according to the facts of each case. Where,
hereby declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized DAY of prision mayor to TWELVE (12) Years, FIVE (5) for example, the officer merely draws aside the
as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence months and Eleven (11) days of Reclusion Temporal, curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the
against the petitioners in any proceedings. However, and to pay the costs. The firearm, ammunitions and public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle or
the said articles shall remain in custodia legis smoke grenade are forfeited in favor of the flashes a light therein, these do not constitute
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 83 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

unreasonable search. True, the manning of search in the case at bar can be sustained under the - On September 21, 1990, the respondent Quezon
checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by exceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the City Judge issued the challenged order, consolidating
the men in uniform in the same manner that all constitutional guarantee against unreasonable subject cases but denying the prayer for the quashal
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at searches and seizures has not been violated. of the search warrant under attack, the validity of
the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and Dispositive The petition is denied which warrant was upheld; opining that the same
even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during falls under the category of Writs and Processes,
these abnormal times, when conducted within ALLADO v DIOKNO within the contemplation of paragraphs 3(b) of the
reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an Interim Rules and Guidelines, and can be serve not
[supra, page 48]
orderly society and a peaceful community. only within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing
Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to court but anywhere in the judicial region of the
thwart plots to destabilize the government in the MALALOAN v CA (FINEZA) issuing court (National Capital Judicial Region).
interest of public security. In this connection, the 232 SCRA 249 - Respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment,
Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban REGALADO; May 6, 1994 in effect affirming that of the trial court, by denying
centers and their suburbs of the insurgency due course to the petition for certiorari and lifting the
movement, so clearly reflected in the increased NATURE temporary restraining order it had issued on
killings in cities of police and military men by NPA Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA. November 29, 1990 in connection therewith. This
"sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of judgment of respondent court is now impugned in
unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in FACTS and sought to be reversed through the present
lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not - 1st Lt. Absalon V. Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern recourse before us.
all of which are reported in media, most likely Sector (now Central Sector) filed with the Regional
brought about by deteriorating economic Trial Court of Kalookan City an application for search ISSUE
conditions ? which all sum up to what one can rightly warrant. The search warrant was sought for in WON a court may take cognizance of an application
consider, at the very least, as abnormal times.) connection with an alleged violation of P.D. 1866 for a search warrant in connection with an offense
- In this case, the warrantless search and seizure is (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions) committed outside its territorial jurisdiction and to
more reasonable considering that unlike in the perpetrated at No. 25 Newport St., corner Marlboro issue a warrant to conduct a search on a place
former, it was effected on the basis of a probable St., Fairview, QUEZON CITY. On March 23, 1990, likewise outside its territorial jurisdiction.
cause. The probable cause is that when the respondent RTC Judge of KALOOKAN CITY issued
petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee Search Warrant No. 95-90. HELD
with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he - On the same day, at around 2:30 p.m., members of YES
was concealing something illegal in the bag and it the CAPCOM, armed with subject search warrant, - No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search
was the right and duty of the police officers to proceeded to the situs of the offense alluded to, warrants, in the same manner that no such
inspect the same. It is too much indeed to require the where a labor seminar of the Ecumenical Institute for restriction is provided for warrants of arrest. The
police officers to search the bag in the possession of Labor Education and Research (EILER) was then arguments of petitioners are not inferable by
the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a taking place. According to CAPCOM's 'Inventory of necessary implication from the statutory provisions
search warrant for the purpose. Such an exercise Property Seized,' firearms, explosive materials and which are presumed to be complete and expressive
may prove to be useless, futile and much too late. subversive documents, among others, were seized of the intendment of the framers. A contrary
- In People vs. CFI of Rizal, the Court held as follows: and taken during the search. And all the sixty-one interpretation on whatever pretext should not be
. . . In the ordinary cases where warrant is (61) persons found within the premises searched countenanced.
indispensably necessary, the mechanics prescribed were brought to Camp Karingal, Quezon City but - A bit of legal history on his contestation will be
by the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of most of them were later released, with the exception helpful. The jurisdictional rule heretofore was that
Court must be followed and satisfied. But We need of the herein petitioners, EILER Instructors, who were writs and process of the so-called inferior courts
not argue that there are exceptions. Thus in the indicted for violation of P.D. 1866 in Criminal Case could be enforced outside the province only with the
extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary No. Q-90-11757 before Branch 88 of the Regional approval of the former court of first instance. Under
to effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter Trial Court of Quezon City, presided over by the Judiciary Reorganization Act, the enforcement of
cannot be performed except without warrant, what respondent Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco. such writs and processes no longer needs the
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or - On July 10, 1990, petitioners presented a 'Motion for approval of the regional trial court. On the other
seizure becomes purely a judicial question, Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and For the hand, while, formerly, writs and processes of the
determinable from the uniqueness of the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence' before then courts of first instance were enforceable
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the the Quezon City court; and a 'Supplemental Motion to throughout the Philippines, under the Interim or
search or seizure, the presence or absence of the Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search Transitional Rules and Guidelines, certain specified
probable cause, the manner in which the search and Warrant and Exclusion of evidence Illegally writs issued by a regional trial court are now
seizure was made, the place or thing searched and Obtained'. enforceable only within its judicial region.
the character of the articles procured. Clearly, the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 84 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Court cannot experience and verifiable data, is articulated by the to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress
be blind to the fact that it is extremely difficult, as it court a quo, as quoted by respondent court: evidence are alternative and not cumulative
undeniably is, to detect or elicit information "This court is of the further belief that the possible remedies. In order to prevent forum shopping, a
regarding the existence and location of illegally leakage of information which is of utmost motion to quash shall consequently be governed by
possessed or prohibited articles. The Court is importance in the issuance of a search warrant is the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that
accordingly convinced that it should not make the secured (against) where the issuing magistrate objections not available, existent or known during
requisites for the apprehension of the culprits and within the region does not hold court sessions in the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may
the confiscation of such illicit items, once detected, the city or municipality, within the region, where be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress.
more onerous if not impossible by imposing further the place to be searched is located." The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress
niceties of procedure or substantive rules of - The foregoing situations may also have obtained shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the
jurisdiction through decisional dicta. For that matter, and were taken into account in the foreign judicial appropriate higher court.
we are unaware of any instance wherein a search pronouncement that, in the absence of statutory 4. Where the court which issued the search warrant
warrant was struck down on objections based on restrictions, a justice of the peace in one district of denies the motion to quash the same and is not
territorial jurisdiction. the county may issue a search warrant to be served otherwise prevented from further proceeding
- We do not believe that the enforcement of a search in another district of the county and made returnable thereon, all personal property seized under the
warrant issued by a court outside the territorial before the justice of still another district or another warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the
jurisdiction wherein the place to be searched is court having jurisdiction to deal with the matters court wherein the criminal case is pending, with the
located would create a constitutional question. Nor involved. In the present state of our law on the necessary safeguards and documentation therefor.
are we swayed by the professed apprehension that matter, we find no such statutory restrictions both 5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where
the law enforcement authorities may resort to what with respect to the court which can issue the search the same criminal offense is charged in different
could be a permutation of forum shopping, by filing warrant and the enforcement thereof anywhere in informations or complaints and filed in two or more
an application for the warrant with a "friendly" court. the Philippines. courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the
It need merely be recalled that a search warrant is - NONETHELESS, TO PUT DOUBTS TO REST, THE criminal action. When the issue of which court will try
only a process, not an action. Furthermore, the SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING the case shall have been resolved, such court shall
constitutional mandate is translated into specifically POLICY GUIDELINES; be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to
enumerated safeguards in Rule 126 of the 1985 1. The Court wherein the criminal case is pending act on applications for search warrants incident to
Rules on Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search the criminal case.
search warrant, and all these have to be observed warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said Dispositive WHEREFORE, on the foregoing
regardless of whatever court in whichever region is case. An application for a search warrant may be premises, the instant petition is DENIED and the
importuned for or actually issues a search warrant. filed with another court only under extreme and assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals in
Said requirements, together with the ten-day lifetime compelling circumstances that the applicant must CA-G.R. SP No. 23533 is hereby AFFIRMED.
of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which
another judicial region, not only because of the may or may not give due course to the application SEPARATE OPINION
distance but also the contingencies of travel and the depending on the validity of the justification offered
danger involved, unless there are really compelling for not filing the same in the court with primary
DAVIDE [concurring and dissenting]
reasons for the authorities to do so. Besides, it does jurisdiction thereover.
- The absence of any express statutory provision
seem odd that such constitutional protests have not 2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a
prohibiting a court from issuing a search warrant in
been made against warrants of arrest which are motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall
connection with a crime committed outside its
enforceable indefinitely and anywhere although they be resolved by said court, without prejudice to any
territorial jurisdiction should not be construed as a
involve, not only property and privacy, but persons proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by
grant of blanket authority to any court of justice in
and liberty. the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing
the country to issue a search warrant in connection
- On the other hand, it is a matter of judicial court. All grounds and objections then available,
with a crime committed outside its territorial
knowledge that the authorities have to contend now existent or known shall be raised in the original or
jurisdiction. The majority view suggests or implies
and then with local and national criminal syndicates subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the
that a municipal trial court in Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, or
of considerable power and influence, political or warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed waived.
Batanes can validly entertain an application for a
financial in nature, and so pervasive as to render 3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was
search warrant and issue one in connection with a
foolhardy any attempt to obtain a search warrant in filed in or resolved by the issuing court, the
crime committed in Manila. Elsewise stated, all
the very locale under their sphere of control. Nor interested party may move in the court where the
courts in the Philippines, including the municipal trial
should we overlook the fact that to do so will criminal case is pending for the suppression as
courts, can validly issue a search warrant in
necessitate the transportation of applicant's evidence of the personal property seized under the
connection with a crime committed anywhere in the
witnesses to and their examination in said places, warrant if the same is offered therein for said
Philippines. Simply put, all courts of justice in the
with the attendant risk, danger and expense. Also, a purpose. Since two separate courts with different
Philippines have, for purposes of issuing a search
further well-founded precaution, obviously born of participations are involved in this situation, a motion
warrant, jurisdiction over the entire archipelago.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 85 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- I cannot subscribe to this view since, in the first extreme and compelling circumstances, issue a
place, a search warrant is but an incident to a main search warrant in connection with a criminal case NATURE
case and involves the exercise of an ancillary pending in an appropriate court. To illustrate this Petition for Review under Rule 45.
jurisdiction therefore, the authority to issue it must exception, the Municipal Trial Court of Argao, Cebu,
necessarily be co-extensive with the court's territorial may validly issue a warrant for the search of a house FACTS
jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would be to add an in Davao City and the seizure of any property therein - Rosalinda Dy was shot at pointblank range by
exception to the statutory provisions defining the that may have been used in committing an offense in Jonathan Cerbo in the presence and at the office of
territorial jurisdiction of the various courts of the Manila already the subject of an information filed his father, Billy Cerbo
country, which would amount to judicial legislation. with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. I submit - Elsa B. Gumban (eyewitness) identified Jonathan
The territorial jurisdiction of the courts is determined that the exception violates the settled principle that Cerbo as the assailant.
by law, and a reading of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the first - The 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Nabunturan-
discloses that the territorial jurisdiction of regional court which acquires jurisdiction over the case Mawab, Davao, after a preliminary investigation,
trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial acquires it to the exclusion of the other. (People vs. found "sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
courts and municipal circuit trial courts are confined Fernando, 23 SCRA 867, 870 [1968]). This being so, it belief" that the crime of murder has been committed
to specific territories. In the second place, the is with more reason that a court which does not have by private respondent Jonathan Cerbo and resolved
majority view may legitimize abuses that would concurrent jurisdiction with the first which had taken to forward the entire records of the case to the
result in the violation the civil rights of an accused or cognizance of the case does not also have the provincial prosecutor at Tagum, Davao.
the infliction upon him of undue and unwarranted authority to issue writs or processes, including search - After an information for murder was filed against
burdens and inconvenience as when, for instance, an warrants, in connection with the pending case. Jonathan Cerbo, petitioner Alynn Plezette Dy,
accused who is a resident of Basco, Batanes, has to Moreover, since the issuance of a search warrants is daughter of the victim Rosalinda Dy, executed an
file a motion to quash a search warrant issued by the an incident to a main case or is an exercise of the affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with ancillary jurisdiction of a court, the court where the Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing , supported by a
an offense he allegedly committed in Itbayat, main case is filed has exclusive jurisdiction over all supplemental affidavit of Elsa B. Gumban, alleging
Batanes. incidents thereto and in the issuance of all writs and that the shooting was done in the office and in the
- Nor can Stonehill vs. Diokno (20 SCRA 383) be an processes in connection therewith. Furthermore, presence of Billy Cerbo who after the shooting did
authoritative confirmation of the unlimited or instead of serving the ends of justice, the exception nothing (did not apply first aid nor bring the victim to
unrestricted power of any court to issue search may provide room for unwarranted abuse of the the hospital) After a reinvestigation the prosecution
warrants in connection with crimes committed judicial process, wreak judicial havoc and procedural filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in
outside its territorial jurisdiction. While it may be true complexities which effective law enforcement the murder case. A warrant for his arrest was later
that the forty-two search warrants involved therein apparently cannot justify. I cannot conceive of any issued.
were issued by several Judges ---- specifically Judges extreme and compelling circumstance which the - Private respondent Billy Cerbo then filed a motion
(a) Amado Roan of the City Court of Manila, (b) court that first acquired jurisdiction over the case to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was
Roman Cansino of the City Court of Manila, (c) cannot adequately meet within its broad powers and issued without probable cause.
Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of First Instance of authority. Respondent Judge issued the first assailed order
Rizal (Quezon City Branch), (d) Eulogio Mencias of - In the light of the foregoing, and after re-examining dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo for lack of
the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig Branch), my original view in this case, I respectfully submit probable cause and recalling the warrant for his
and (e) Damian Jimenez of the City Court of Quezon that: arrest and ordered the withdrawal of the amended
City (Footnote 2, page 387) ---- there is no definite 1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a information and the filing of a new one charging
showing that the forty-two search warrants were for crime was committed may validly entertain an Jonathan Cerbo only.
the searches and seizures of properties outside the application for and issue a search warrant in - Private Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration
territorial jurisdiction of their respective courts. The connection with said crime. However, in the National which was denied by the respondent judge.
warrants were issued against the petitioners and Capital Judicial Region, Administrative Circulars No. - The Court of Appeals held that Judge Eugenio Valles
corporations of which they were officers and some of 13 of 1 October 1985, and No. 19 of 4 August 1987 did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling
the corporations enumerated in Footnote 7 have must be observed. the warrant of arrest issued against Private
addressed in Manila and Makati. (pp. 388-89). Rizal 2. After the criminal complaint or information is filed Respondent Billy Cerbo and subsequently dismissing
(which includes Makati) and Quezon City both with the appropriate court, search warrants in the Information for murder filed against the private
belonged to the Seventh Judicial District. That connection with the crime charged may only be respondent, because the evidence presented thus far
nobody challenged on jurisdictional ground the issued by said court. did not substantiate such charge.
issuance of these search warrants is no argument in
favor of the unlimited power of a court to issue PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) ISSUE
search warrants. WON the Trial Court had the authority to reverse the
301 SCRA 475
- I have serious misgivings on the majority decision public prosecutor's finding of probable cause to
on the matter where another court may, because of PANGANIBAN; January 21, 1999 prosecute accused and thus dismiss the case filed by
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 86 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the latter on the basis of a motion to quash warrant upon the filing of the information against him by the judge is not yet tasked to review in detail the
of arrest public prosecutor, to preempt trial by filing a motion evidence submitted during the preliminary
with the Trial Court praying for the quash or dismissal investigation. It is sufficient that he personally
HELD of the indictment on the ground that the evidence evaluates such evidence in determining probable
NO upon which the same is based is inadequate. Nor is it cause.
Ratio The determination of probable cause permitted, on the antipodal theory that the evidence - As held in Inting, the determination of probable
during a preliminary investigation is a function is in truth inadequate, for the complaining party to cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different
that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an present a petition before the Court praying that the from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether
executive function, the correctness of the public prosecutor be compelled to file the there is reasonable ground to believe that the
exercise of which is matter that the trial court corresponding information against the accused. accused is guilty of the offense charged and should
itself does not and may not be compelled to xxx xxx xxx be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon.
pass upon. - Indeed, the public prosecutor has broad discretion The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a
- If the information is valid on its face and there is no to determine whether probable cause exists and to warrant of arrest should be issued against the
showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion charge those whom he or she believes to have accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity for placing
or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, committed the crime as defined by law. Otherwise him under immediate custody in order not to
courts should not dismiss it for 'want of evidence,' stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to frustrate the ends of justice.
because evidentiary matters should be presented determine whether or not a criminal case list be filed - Verily, a judge cannot be compelled to issue a
and heard during the trial. The functions and duties in court. warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no
of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in - Crespo v. Mogul: probable cause for doing so. Corollary to this
"the proper scheme of things" in our criminal justice It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions principle, the judge should not override the public
system should be clearly understood. either commenced by complaint or by information prosecutor's determination of probable cause to hold
Reasoning: shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of an accused for trial on the ground that the evidence
Executive Determination of Probable Cause the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest
- The Separate (Concurring) Opinion of former Chief upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or warrant was insufficient, as in the present case.
Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Roberts v. Court of may not file the complaint or information, follow or Inapplicabilty of Allado and Salonga
Appeals : not follow that presented by the offended party, - Allado and Salonga constitute exceptions to the
xxxthe Court is being asked to examine and assess according to whether the evidence, in his opinion, is general rule and may be invoked only if similar
such evidence as has thus far been submitted by the sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused circumstances are clearly shown to exist. However,
parties and, on the basis thereof, make a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the the present case is not on all fours with Allado and
as to whether or not it suffices "to engender a well criminal prosecution under the direction and control Salonga. First, Elsa Gumban, the principal eyewitness
founded belief that a crime has been committed and of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded to the killing of Rosalinda Dy, was not a participation
that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and prosecutions by private persons. or conspirator in the commission of the said crime. In
should be held for trial." Judicial Determination of Probable Cause Allado and Salonga, however, the main witnesses
- It is a function that this Court should not be called - The determination of probable cause to hold a were the confessed perpetrators of the crimes,
upon to perform. It is a function that properly person for trial must be distinguished from the whose testimonies the court deemed 'tainted'.
pertains to the public prosecutor., one that, as far as determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of Second, in the case at bar, the private respondent
crimes cognizable by a Regional Trial Court are arrest, which is a judicial function. The judicial was accorded due process, and no precipitate haste
concerned, and notwithstanding that it involves an determination of probable cause in the issuance of or bias during the investigation of the case can be
adjudicative process of a sort, exclusively pertains, arrest warrants has been emphasized in numerous imputed to the public prosecutor. On the other hand,
by law, to said executive officer, the public cases. the Court noted in Allado the "undue haste in the
prosecutor. It is moreover a function that in the - The rulings in Soliven, Inting and Lim, Sr. were filing of the Information and in the inordinate interest
established scheme of things, is supposed to be iterated in Allado v. Diokno, where we explained of the government" in pursuing the case; and in
performed at the very genesis of, indeed, prefatorily again what probable cause means. Probable cause Salonga, " . . . the failure of the prosecution to show
to, the formal commencement of a criminal action. for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the that the petitioner was probably guilty of conspiring
The proceedings before a public prosecutor, it may existence of such facts and circumstances that would to commit the crime, the initial disregard of
well be stressed, are essentially preliminary, lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to petitioner's constitutioner rights and the massive and
prefatory and cannot lead to a final, definite and believe that an offense has been committed by the damaging publicity against him." The rulings in the
authoritative adjudgment of the guilt or innocence of person sought to be arrested. Hence, the judge, two aforementioned cases cannot apply to it.
the persons charged with a felony or crime. Whether before issuing a warrant of arrest, "must satisfy
or not that function has been correctly discharged by himself that based on the evidence submitted, there PEOPLE v USANA and LOPEZ
the public prosecutor is a matter that the trial court is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed
323 SCRA 754
itself does not and may not be compelled to pass and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty
upon. It is not for instance permitted for an accused, thereof." At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the DAVIDE; January 28, 2000
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 87 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

1. NO - Escano consented to the search and consented

NATURE - Not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warrantless search is one of the exceptions from the
Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court warranted by the exigencies of public order and are warrant requirement.
convicting the two accused together with Julian D. conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are Ratio Jurisprudence recognizes six generally
Escano for the violation of R.A. 6425, as amended allowed. accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1)
Ratio This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of moving
FACTS are illegal. Those which are warranted by the vehicles; (3) evidence in plain view; (4) customs
- On the 5th of April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun exigencies of public order and are conducted in a searches; (5) consented warrantless search; and (6)
ban, some law enforcers of the Makati Police were way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, stop-and-frisk situations.
manning a checkpoint at the corner of Senator Gil admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a - Even though there was ample opportunity to obtain
Puyat Ave. and the South Luzon Expressway. They certain extent, on motorists’ right to "free passage a search warrant, we cannot invalidate the search of
were checking the cars going to Pasay City, stopping without interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as the vehicle, for there are indications that the search
those they found suspicious, and imposing merely a a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers done on the car of Escaño was consented to by him.
running stop on the others. At about past midnight, during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to 3. NO
they stopped a Kia Pride car with Plate No. TBH 493. answer a brief question or two. For as long as the - No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the
One of the policemen saw a long firearm on the lap vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants hashish found in the trunk of the car and there was
of the person seated at the passenger seat, who was subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the
later identified as Virgilio Usana. They asked the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that
driver, identified as Escaño, to open the door. PO3 checks cannot be regarded as violative of an they saw the same before it was seized.
Suba seized the long firearm, an M-1 US Carbine, individual’s right against unreasonable search. In Ratio Despite the validity of the search, we cannot
from Usana. When Escaño, upon order of the police, fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed affirm the conviction of Usana and Lopez for violation
parked along Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., the other area, are even less intrusive. of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The following facts
passengers were search for more weapons. Their - The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance militate against a finding of conviction: (1) the car
search yielded a .45 caliber firearm which they of the gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. The belonged to Escaño; (2) the trunk of the car was not
seized from Escaño. COMELEC would be hard put to implement the ban if opened soon after it was stopped and after the
- The three passengers were thereafter brought to its deputized agents were limited to a visual search accused were searched for firearms; (3) the car was
the police station Block 5 in the Kia Pride driven by of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for driven by a policeman from the place where it was
PO3 Nonato. Upon reaching the precinct, Nonato which such ban was instituted. Those who intend to stopped until the police station; (4) the car’s trunk
turned over the key to the desk officer. Since SPO4 bring a gun during said period would know that they was opened, with the permission of Escaño, without
de los Santos was suspicious of the vehicle, he only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their the presence of Usana and Lopez; and (5) after
requested Escaño to open the trunk. Escaño readily malicious designs. arrival at the police station and until the opening of
agreed and opened the trunk himself using his key. - The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a the car’s trunk, the car was in the possession and
They noticed a blue bag inside it, which they asked violation of the constitutional rights of the accused control of the police authorities. No fact was adduced
Escaño to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped against illegal search and seizure. PO3 Suba to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the
in tape, which, upon examination by National Bureau admitted that they were merely stopping cars they trunk of the car. Their having been with Escaño in the
of Investigation, was found positive for hashish. deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows latter’s car before the "finding" of the hashish
- An information for violation of RA 6425 thereafter are heavily tinted just to see if the passengers sometime after the lapse of an appreciable time and
was filed against them. The trial court found the thereof were carrying guns. At best they would without their presence left much to be desired to
three accused guilty of the said crime. merely direct their flashlights inside the cars they implicate them to the offense of selling, distributing,
- Accused-appellants assail the manner by which the would stop, without opening the car’s doors or or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact, there was
checkpoint in question was conducted. They contend subjecting its passengers to a body search. There is no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the
that the checkpoint manned by elements of the nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that
Makati Police should have been announced. They situation demands. they saw the same before it was seized.
also complain of its having been conducted in an We see no need for checkpoints to be announced, as Dispositive Accused – appellants are hereby
arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Also, they the accused have invoked. Not only would it be acquitted.
question the validity of the search. impractical, it would also forewarn those who intend
to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of PEOPLE v DORIA
ISSUES checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed
301 SCRA 668
1. WON the check point was illegal location and the regularized manner in which they
2. WON the search was valid are operated. PUNO; January 22, 1999
3. WON the accused are guilty of violation of RA 6425 2. YES
FACTS
HELD
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 88 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command - Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may must follow these requisites: (a) the law enforcement
(Narcom), received information from two (2) civilian be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, officer in search of the evidence has a prior
informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
drug activities in Mandaluyong City. They decided to offense." which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery
entrap him via a buy-bust operation. - In the case, Doria was caught in the act of of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
-The poseur-buyer, PO2 Manlangit set aside 1600 committing an offense. When an accused is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
pesos as marked money for the entrapment apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy- observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
operation, which was then handed to Jun upon bust operation, the police are not only authorized but otherwise subject to seizure.
transaction. Jun returned an hour later bringing duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. - However, if it is not plain view of the police officers,
marijuana where he and his associates subsequently - However, the warrantless arrest, search and seizure it may not be seized without a warrant except if the
arrested Jun but did not find the marked bills on of Gaddao is invalid package proclaims its contents, whether by its
him. Jun said he left the bills to his associate - Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red- distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
“Neneth”. Jun led the police to Neneth’s house. handed during the buy-bust operation to give contents are obvious to an observer, then the
- The police went to Neneth’s house. Standing by the ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule contents are in plain view and may be seized.
door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary - The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos
dining table. He saw that one of the box's flaps was to the finding of the trial court, there was no of marijuana 137 was found in the house of accused-
open and inside the box was something wrapped in occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she
plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." herself is guilty of the crime charged.
appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to 114 In fact, she was going about her daily chores Dispositive the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit when the policemen pounced on her. Branch 156, Pasig City acting as a Special Court in
entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. - Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified
He peeked inside the box and found that it contained justified under the second instance of Rule 113. as follows:
ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without 1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is
marijuana leaves. They also found the marked bills. warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
They arrested Jun and Neneth and brought them to based upon "probable cause" which means an and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos
headquarters. It was only then that the police "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." (P500,000.00).
learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while In case, there was no reasonable suspicion 2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is
"Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. especially as she was arrested solely on the basis acquitted.
- The trial court found them guilty. of the alleged identification made by her co-
accused PEOPLE v ELAMPARO
ISSUES - Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his
329 SCRA 404
1. WON the warrantless arrest of Doria and Gaddao, associate in the drug business, but as the person
the search of the latter’s person and house, and the with whom he left the marked bills. This QUISUMBING; March 31, 2000
admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained identification does not necessarily lead to the
therefrom is valid conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with NATURE
2. WON the marijuana was seized validly for being in her co-accused in pushing drugs as Doria may Appeal from judgment of RTC.
plain view of the police officers have left the money in her house, with or without
her knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. FACTS
HELD Save for accused-appellant Doria 's word, the - Acting on a report by an informant, police officers
1. YES Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to conducted a buy-bust operation (of marijuana) in
- We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused- believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. Caloocan. They arrested the person who sold them
appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests - As the arrest was illegal, the search and seizure the marijuana (Spencer), but the same was able to
are allowed in three instances as provided by Section is not incidental to the arrest escape. Then: “the ‘buy-bust’ team pursued Spencer,
5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal 2. NO who ran inside a bungalow-type house. Having
Procedure, to wit: - The marijuana was not in plain view of the police trapped Spencer inside the house, the police officers
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A officers and its seizure without the requisite search frisked him and recovered the marked money. The
peace officer or a private person may, warrant was in violation of the law and the officers also found Elamparo repacking 5 bricks of
without a warrant, arrest a person: Constitution as the contents of the box where the marijuana inside the house’s sala Elamparo was then
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be marijuana was partially hidden was not readily arrested and … were taken to a precinct … and
arrested has committed, is actually apparent to PO Manlangit, one of the arresting delivered to an inquest fiscal for further
committing, or is attempting to commit an officers. investigation.” The buy-bust operation and arrest
offense; - As a general rule, objects in plain view of arresting happened on the same day (12 Feb 1995), while the
officers may be seized without a search warrant but
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 89 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

information for illegal possession of drugs was filed are presumed to have regularly performed their duty that view are subject to seizure even without a
on 15 Feb 1995. in the absence of proof to the contrary. search warrant and may be introduced in evidence.
- Arraignment: plea of not guilty. -in many cases, drug pushers did sell their prohibited The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following
- Trial: prosecution presented the ff witnesses: police articles to prospective customers, be they strangers requisites concur: (a) law enforcement officer in
officer who was also poseur-buyer, another officer or not, in private as well as in public places, even in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
who took part in buy-bust, and NBI chemist who the daytime. Indeed, some drug pushers appear to intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
examined and confirmed the confiscated drugs to be have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of particular area; (b) discovery of the evidence in plain
marijuana. the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing view is inadvertent; (c) immediately apparent to the
Defense presented as witnesses boarders of familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of
Elamparo’s house, saying that Elamparo “was at their time and venue of the sale, but the fact of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
house when somebody knocked at their door. His agreement as well as the act constituting sale and The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
father opened the same and was informed that delivery of prohibited drugs initial intrusion or properly be in a position from
somebody was looking for him. He went out and saw 2. YES which he can particularly view the area. In the course
Spencer with handcuffs and being held by an Ratio: The arrest was within the purview of Sec5 (a), of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently
arresting officer. When Elamparo persistently Rule 113, Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.
questioned Spencer as to why he was arrested, the Arrest without warrant, when lawful. – A peace officer The object must be open to eye and hand and its
arresting officers got mad at him prompting them to or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a discovery inadvertent.”
likewise bring him to the police station where he was person: - members of the buy-bust team were justified in
detained. The officers demanded P15,000.00 for his (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested running after Spencer (when he escaped) and
release which he did not give. On the other hand, has committed, is actually committing, or is entering the house without a search warrant for they
Spencer gave the sum and was released.” attempting to commit an offense; were hot in the heels of a fleeing criminal. Once
- RTC: Guilty, under RA 6425. penalty of reclusion Reasoning: inside the house, the police officers cornered Spencer
perpetua and fine of P9million. Elamparo appealed. -Elamparo assails the legality of his arrest for failure and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They
of the apprehending officers to secure a search also caught Elamparo in flagrante delicto repacking
ISSUE: warrant. the marijuana bricks which were in full view
1. WON RTC was correct in the assessment of - for warrantless arrests, 2 elements must concur: (1) 3. YES
credibility of witnesses the person to be arrested must execute an overt act Ratio: Minority serves as a privileged mitigating
2. WON the arrest of Elamparo was valid indicating the he has just committed, is actually circumstance to a crime, thus entitling the accused
3. WON the penalty imposed was correct committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and to a reduction of penalty one degree lower than that
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within imposable (by virtue of art.13 (2) RPC)
HELD: the view of the arresting officer. Thus, when he was Reasoning:
1. YES seen repacking the marijuana, the police officers - contends that if found guilty, the privileged
Ratio: Unless the trial court overlooked substantial were not only authorized but also duty-bound to mitigating circumstance of minority should be
facts which would affect the outcome of the case, we arrest him even without a warrant. appreciated in his favor.
accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. Re: warrantless seizures: - In drug cases, the quantity of prohibited drugs
Reasoning: -However, not being absolute, the right against involved is determinative of the imposable penalty.
-Elamparo contends that it is highly unusual for unreasonable searches and seizures is subject to Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section
arresting officers to act on an ‘information’ of an exceptions. Thus, for example, Sec.12, Rule 126, 17 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that when the quantity
unknown source without confirming the veracity of Rules on CrimPro, provides that a person lawfully of indian hemp or marijuana is 750 grams or more,
the report, and that it is incredible that a peddler of arrested may be searched for “dangerous weapons as in this case, the penalty shall be reclusion
marijuana would be so brazen as to approach total or anything which may be used as proof of the perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred
strangers and offer to sell them marijuana. He insists commission of an offense, without a search warrant.” thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos
that he was charged with illegal possession of -5 generally accepted exceptions to the right against (P10,000,000.00).
marijuana because he failed to pay the police officers warrantless searches and seizures have also been - Appellant having been born on January 9, 1978, was
P15,000.00 for his release. judicially formulated, viz: (1) search incidental to a only 17 years, 1 month, and 3 days old, at the time
- it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) of the commission of the crime on February 12, 1995.
witnesses is within the province of the trial court seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) - being a minor over 15 and under 18 at the time of
which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses waiver by the accused themselves of their right the commission, he is entitled to a reduced penalty
and their demeanor during their testimonies. As against unreasonable search and seizure. due to the privileged mitigating circumstance
compared to the baseless claims of Elamparo, the - this case falls squarely under the plain view - Thus, penalty should be reduced to reclusion
version of the prosecution witnesses appears worthy doctrine temporal. No fine is imposable in this case, for it is
of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who People v Doria: “Objects falling in plain view of an imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty
officer who has a right to be in the position to have is reclusion perpetua to death.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 90 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Dispositive Petition AFFIRMED with modification. - February 10, 1995 - both accused appealed to SC > While on his way to the basketball court, Ramil
where accused questioned TC’s failure fired a warning shot to prevent Nicanor from stabbing
PEOPLE v MANES (a) to hear the petition for bail his brother Sergon. Nicanor persisted in the pursuit of
(b) to consider defense of relative in favor of Ramil Sergon, with a knife in his hand. Sergon was about
303 SCRA 231
Manes and three meters ahead of Nicanor who was about ten
PARDO; February 17, 1999 (c) to take note that Sergon Manes was a mere victim meters ahead of the pursuing Ramil. Ramil fired
of Tamorite's unlawful aggression another shot that hit Nicanor who,, fell to the ground.
NATURE According to the prosecution Meanwhile, Sergon managed to flee. Ramil also fled
An appeal taken by accused Sergon Manes and Ramil > June 23, 1991 – 5 in the afternoon, ALAN to the direction of the sugarcane field as soon as he
Manes from the judgment of RTC Iloilo City, Catequista with NICANOR Tamorite and JOSE Cubita, fired the second shot because he saw the group of
convicting them of murder and sentencing them to went to see a basketball game at the barangay Alan approaching,, armed with guns .12 Ramil and
each "suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with plaza. When the game was over, Alan approached his brother Sergon went into hiding and only surfaced
the accessory penalties as provided in Article 41 of and invited Nicanor to go home; at that time, he was a year later when they were arrested in Romblon.
the Revised Penal Code" and "to indemnify the family still seated. Accused RAMIL Manes approached - prosecution’s set of facts was favored by the court
of their victim in the amount of P50,000.00 plus Nicanor and pointed a 38 caliber revolver at him,
P21,250.00 as expenses for the burial, wake and saying "It is a bad luck you did not kill me during the ISSUE
other related matter and to pay the costs.” fiesta in Barangay Cabayugan. Now I will be the one WON petitioner has a right to bail
to kill you." Nicanor ran to Alan and used him as a
FACTS shield from Ramil. At that point, Alan heard a thud HELD
- July 12, 1991, Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo Province and as he looked back, he saw accused SERGON NO
filed with RTC Iloilo City, an INFORMATION charging Manes with a gory knife and he also saw Nicanor Ratio When an accused is charged with a capital
the accused with MURDER: running away, with blood on his back. Ramil Manes offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
"That on or about the 23rd of June, 1991, in the pursued Nicanor and shot him hitting him at the perpetua, or life imprisonment or death, and
Municipality of Badiangan, Province of Iloilo, back, just above the waistline. Both accused evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied, as it
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this continued to chase Nicanor who ran towards the is neither a matter of right nor of discretion
Honorable court, the above-named accused, premises of the house of ADING Ablado. Ramil Manes Reasoning
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one fired two more shots. It could not be determined - In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, life
another to better realize their purpose armed with a whether those shots hit Nicanor as he and the imprisonment or death, the accused has no right to
knife and a .38 caliber revolver respectively, with accused were already inside the premises of the bail when evidence of guilt is strong. The court must
treachery and/or evident premeditation, did then and fence of Ading. Jose who was near Nicanor when the hear a petition for bail to determine whether the
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault, two accused chased him did not render assistance to evidence of guilt is strong before deciding to grant or
attack, stab and shot Nicanor Tamorite with the knife him. After Alan heard the two shots, he and Jose ran deny bail to the accused. While the accused can
and .38 caliber revolver with which they were then home. Alan told his father and uncle that Sergon apply for bail and have the court hear his application
provided, inflicting upon the said Nicanor Tamorite stabbed Nicanor and that Ramil shot him. Alan, his summarily and promptly, such right may be waived
stab wounds and gun shot wounds on the different father, uncle, Jose and the mother of Nicanor then expressly or impliedly. In this case, the trial court
parts of his body which caused his death went to where the body of Nicanor was in the proceeded to try the case without resolving the
immediately thereafter." downhill portion of the premises of the house of petition for bail that appellants filed. However, the
- prosecution recommended NO BAIL for the Ading. Nicanor was lying on his back, with 2 wounds latter did not call the attention of the trial court to
provisional liberty of the accused. on the breast, 1 gunshot wound and 1 stab wound. their unresolved application for bail. It was only in
- July 22, 1991 - TC issued a WARRANT OF ARREST According to the accused(Ramil) the appeal that they raised this issue. Thus, for
against the accused > June 23, 1991 – in the afternoon, he was at home failure to bring to the attention of the trial Court at
- October 18, 1991 – TC ordered the case ARCHIVED cooking. At around 5:00 to 5:30, he heard shouts the earliest opportune time, appellants are deemed
for failure to locate the two accused coming from the direction of the barangay basketball to have waived their right to bail.
- June 24, 1992 - Sergon and Ramil Manes were court, which was about ten (10) meters away from - defense of relative: FAILED TO PROSPER because
ARRESTED in Romblon, Romblon his house. He went to the window to check what it 1) unlawful aggression, the essential element to
- September 17, 1992 - Upon ARRAIGNMENT, both was. He saw his younger brother Sergon lying on the defense of relative is absent because if it were true
accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to the information concrete pavement and several persons were that Sergon was being attacked, he would have
- August 25, 1992 - accused filed a PETITION FOR ganging up on him, three of whom he identified as suffered injuries.
BAIL which was opposed by the prosecution. TC did Nicanor, Alan and Jose. They kept on boxing and 2) if indeed he acted in defense of his younger
not hear the petition for bail. Neither did the accused kicking his brother prompting him to come to the brother Sergon who was then under attack, he would
invoke the right to bail at any stage of the trial. latter's aid. On his way out, he saw a gun on top of not harbor any fear in presenting himself to the
- January 13, 1995 - TC convicted the accused of the table and brought it with him to the basketball proper authorities.
murder court.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 91 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- even though prosecution failed to show evident - WON the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a
premeditation, trial court correctly considered despite a showing by the prosecutor that there is great presumption of guilt.
treachery as qualifying the killing of the victim to strong evidence proving respondent’s guilt for the - In the case of an application for bail, the duties of
murder. crime charged. the judge are as follows:
Dispositive we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial 1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
court convicting accused-appellants Sergon Manes HELD application for bail or require him to submit his
and Ramil Manes of murder and sentencing each of YES recommendation;
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with - The SC held that the CA and the lower court failed 2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail
the accessory penalties of the law and to indemnify to mention and include some facts which are regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses
the heirs of the deceased Nicanor Tamorite in the significant factors and circumstances which are to present evidence to show that the guilt of the
amount of P50,000.00, plus P21,250.00, as actual strong, clear, and convincing. Consideration of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the
damages. said factors and circumstances would have resulted court to exercise its discretion
in the denial of bail. 3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the
PEOPLE v CABRAL Reasoning accused is strong based on the summary of evidence
- Article III, Section 13 of the Bill of Rights of the prosecution
303 SCRA 361
provides: 4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
ROMERO; February 18, 1999 “All persons, except those charged with discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua bond. Otherwise the petition should be denied.
NATURE when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before - Based on the duties, the court’s order granting or
Special Civil Action conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, denying bail must contain a summary of the
or be released on recognizance as may be evidence for the prosecution. A summary is defined
FACTS provided by law. the right to bail shall not be as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or
- Roderick Odiamar was charged with the rape of 15 impaired even when the privilege of the writ digest of a test or statement. HENCE, THE SUMMARY
year old Cecille Buenafe. In a bid to secure of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive SHOULD NECESSARILY BE A COMPLETE COMPILATION
temporary liberty, the accused filed a motion for bail bail shall not be required.” OR RESTATEMENT OF ALL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE
which was opposed by the petitioner. - Section 7 Rule 4 of the Rules of court provides: PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING PROPER. The
- The lower court grated the motion on the ground “No person charged with a capital offense, or an Lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to
that despite the crime alleged to have been offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life what pieces of evidence should be included in the
committed is punishable by reclusion perpetua, the imprisonment, when the evidence of guilt is strong, summary. Otherwise, the same will be considered
evidence thus far presented is not strong enough to shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of defective in form and substance which cannot be
warrant denial of the bail. The judge in concluding criminal prosecution.” sustained or be given a semblance of validity.
thus cited the fact that the girl went with the - In the case at bar, bail is discretionary and not a Dispositive Grant of bail is declared void. The court
offender voluntarily and did not resist during the matter of right considering that the punishment for should issue a warrant of arrest of Odiamar if his bail
commission of the rape. In addition, the judge quoted the offense is reclusion perpetua. the grant of the bond has been approved.
the medico legal report as not conclusion that rape bail is dependent on the evidence of the guilt which
was in fact committed consideration that the should which should be strong to justify denial. this SEPARATE OPINION
lacerations on the victim may have been weeks or determination is a matter of judicial discretion.
months old when the medical examination was - By judicial discretion, the law mandates the
performed six days after the offense occurred. VITUG [dissenting]
determination of whether proof is evident or the
- The CA affirmed the decision saying that there was - The extraordinary remedies under Rule 65 of the
presumption of guilt is strong. Proof evident or
no abuse of discretion in this case. “There is grave rules of Court are not open when the question is
evident proof is this connection, has been held to
abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in whether the trial judge has erred in the exercise of
mean clear, strong evidence which leads a well
an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, sound discretion. These special reliefs are available
guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion
prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an only when the judge has committed grave abuse of
that an offense has been committed as charged, that
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
the accused is the guilty agent, and that he will
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in in his decision or order such as by arbitrarily ignoring
probably be punished capitally if the law is
contemplation of the law.” The People filed the the evidence or completely acting on bias and whim.
administered. Presumption great exists when the
appeal on the ground that while the judge had circumstances testified to are such that the inference
discretion on the grant of bail, he had abused this of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, LAVIDES v CA (PISON and PEOPLE)
discretion. clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and 324 SCRA 321
excludes all reasonable probability of any other MENDOZA; February 1, 2000
ISSUE conclusion. In other words, the test is not whether
the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable FACTS
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 92 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R.A. d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after for certiorari before it, but what he must do was to go
7610. His arrest was made without a warrant as a the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately to trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion to
result of an entrapment conducted by the police. acquire jurisdiction over the accused; quash on appeal should the decision be adverse to
- Parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported - Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations him.
to the police that their daughter, then 16 years old, against him. Pending resolution of his motion, he
had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment ISSUE
that night at petitioner’s room at the Metropolitan scheduled. He then filed a motion in which he prayed WON CA erred in not determining the validity of the
Hotel. This was not the first time the police received that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May
reports of petitioner’s activities. An entrapment P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done 16, 1997 for the grant of bail..
operation was therefore set in motion. The police saw prior to his arraignment.
him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a shirt and an - Trial court denied petitioner’s motions to reduce bail HELD
underwear, whereupon they arrested him. Based on bonds, to quash the informations, and to suspend YES
the sworn statement of complainant and the arraignment. - CA should have determined the validity of the
affidavits of the arresting officers, which were - Petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded conditions imposed in the trial court’s order of May
submitted at the inquest, an information for violation not guilty to the charges against him and then 16, 1997 for the grant of bail because petitioner’s
of Art. III, §5(b) of R.A. 7610 was filed. ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the contention is that his arraignment was held in
- Petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial total amount of P800,000.00, subject to the pursuance of these conditions for bail.
Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the conditions and the "hold-departure" order. The pre- - Bail should be granted before arraignment,
Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully trial conference was set. otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a
Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) - Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in CA, motion to quash. For if the information is quashed
In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above assailing the trial court’s orders. and the case is dismissed, there would then be no
Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a - While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, need for the arraignment of the accused. In the
Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is two more informations were filed against petitioner, second place, the trial court could ensure the
Charged." bringing the total number of cases against him to 12, presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely
- Nine more informations for child abuse were filed which were all consolidated. by granting bail and ordering his presence at any
against petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie - CA: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment.
San Miguel, and by three other minor children, Mary of appearance during the trial of these cases. He Under Rule 114, §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal
Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer Catarman, and Annalyn shall and must always be present at the hearings of Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that "the
Talingting. In all the cases, it was alleged that, on these cases; accused shall appear before the proper court
various dates mentioned in the informations, b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his whenever so required by the court or these Rules,"
petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and while under Rule 116, §1(b) the presence of the
who had been "exploited in prostitution and . . . given forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately accused at the arraignment is required.
money [by petitioner] as payment for the said [acts issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in - On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to
of] sexual intercourse." absentia;] an accused on his arraignment would be to place him
- No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner - CA invalidated the first two conditions imposed in in a position where he has to choose between (1)
filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases. the May 16, 1997 order for the grant of bail to filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on
- Trial court granted the right to post bail in the petitioner but ruled that the issue concerning the bail because until his motion to quash can be
amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of validity of the condition making arraignment a resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2)
P800,000.00 for all the cases under the following prerequisite for the approval of petitioner’s bail foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he
conditions: bonds to be moot and academic. It noted "that can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released
a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of petitioner has posted the cash bonds; that when on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the
appearance during the trial of these cases. He shall arraigned, represented by lawyers, he pleaded not accused’s constitutional right not to be put on trial
and must always be present at the hearings of these guilty to each offense; and that he has already been except upon valid complaint or information sufficient
cases; released from detention." CA thought that the to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.
b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his aforesaid conditions in the May 16, 1997 order were [Under Art. III, §5 of R.A. 7610, the offenses with
bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and contrary to Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution which which petitioner is charged are punishable by
forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately provides that "[a]fter arraignment, trial may proceed reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided perpetua.]
absentia; that he has been duly notified and his failure to - It is the condition in the May 16, 1997 order of the
c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April appear is unjustifiable." trial court that "approval of the bail bonds shall be
10, 1997 stands; and - With respect to the denial of petitioner’s motion to made only after arraignment," which CA should
quash the informations against him, CA held that instead have declared void. The condition imposed in
petitioner could not question the same in a petition the trial court’s order of May 16, 1997 that the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 93 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but PEOPLE v MARK JIMENEZ required the parties to submit their respective
that he must be present at the hearings of the case memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an
G.R. No. 148571
is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114. For alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should
another condition of bail under Rule 114, §2(c) is that PANGANIBAN; September 24, 2002 issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of
"The failure of the accused to appear at the trial P100,000. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was
without justification despite due notice to him or his NATURE also set for hearing. Thereafter, the court below
bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his Petition for certiorari praying for the lifting of the bail issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing
right to be present on the date specified in the Order, the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail
notice. In such case, trial shall proceed in absentia." Jimenez into legal custody for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.
- Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials After he had surrendered his passport and posted the
in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the FACTS required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional
trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to - The US gov’t through diplomatic channels sent to liberty. Hence, this Petition.
wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of the Phil. gov’t a note requesting the extradition of
innocence or of guilt,9 [Rule 116, §1(b)] (b) during Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan ISSUE
trial whenever necessary for identification purposes, Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, WON he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty
and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted while the extradition proceedings are pending
for a light offense, in which case the accused may them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate
appear by counsel or representative.11 [Rule 120, action, pursuant to Section 5 of the Extradition Law. HELD
§6.] At such stages of the proceedings, his presence NO
is required and cannot be waived. - Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Ratio. After being taken into custody, potential
- Although this condition is invalid, it does not follow Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of extraditees may apply for bail. Since the applicants
that the arraignment of petitioner on May 23, 1997 Manila, which prohibited the DOJ from filing with the have a history of absconding, they have the burden
was also invalid. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, RTC a petition for his extradition. The TRO was of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no
the arraignment did not emanate from the invalid assailed byt the Sec. of Justice. Initially, the court danger to the community; and (b) there exist special,
condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be dismissed the petition but after acting upon the humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The
made only after the arraignment." Even without such motion for reconsideration, it reversed its earlier grounds used by the highest court in the requesting
a condition, the arraignment of petitioner could not decision. It held that Jimenez was bereft of the right state for the grant of bail therein may be considered,
be omitted. In sum, although the condition for the to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of under the principle of reciprocity as a special
grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment the extradition process. circumstance. In extradition cases, bail is not a
and the subsequent proceedings against him are - Finding no more legal obstacle, the US gov’t, matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in
valid. represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC the context of the peculiar facts of each case.
- Petitioner concedes that the rule is that the remedy the appropriate Petition for Extradition. The Petition Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded
of an accused whose motion to quash is denied is not alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest as follows:
to file a petition for certiorari but to proceed to trial warrant issued by the US District Court for the Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged
without prejudice to his right to reiterate the grounds Southern District of Florida on April 15, 1999. The with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
invoked in his motion to quash during trial on the warrant had been issued in connection with the when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
merits or on appeal if an adverse judgment is following charges: (1) conspiracy to defraud the conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
rendered against him. However, he argues that this United States and to commit certain offenses; (2) tax released on recognizance as may be provided by
case should be treated as an exception. He contends evasion; (3) wire fraud (4) false statements, and (5) law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
that the Court of Appeals should not have evaded the illegal campaign contributions. when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
issue of whether he should be charged under several - In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required."
informations corresponding to the number of acts of prayed for the issuance of an order for his - the constitutional right to bail "flows from the
child abuse allegedly committed by him against each "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. presumption of innocence in favor of every accused
of the complainants. 1069 who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom
Dispositive The decision of the Court of Appeals is - Before the RTC could act on the Petition, as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless
SET ASIDE and another one is RENDERED declaring Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt." It
the orders dated May 16, 1997 and May 23, 1997 of Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,"which prayed that follows that the constitutional provision on bail will
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City to application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. not apply to a case like extradition, where the
be valid, with the exception of condition (d) in the RTC grantes the motion of Jimenez. In that hearing, presumption of innocence is not at issue.
second paragraph of the order of May 16, 1997 he manifested its reservations on the procedure - That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be
(making arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradited are bailable in the United States is not an
bail to petitioner), which is hereby declared void. extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a argument to grant him one in the present case. To
warrant of arrest. After the hearing, the court a quo stress, extradition proceedings are separate and
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 94 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is Art.III Sec 5, par (a), subpar (5) of RA 7610 8 stating - RTC ordered Fitzgerald’s temporary release upon
charged. He should apply for bail before the courts that, “…said Fitzgerald, actuated by lust, and by the filing a cash bond of P100 000.00.
trying the criminal cases against him, not before the use of drugs willfully, unlawfully and feloniously Petitioner’s Claim
extradition court. induced complainant “AAA”, a minor, 13 years of age, > People filed this petition to annul the CA Resolution
- Also, we cannot allow our country to be a haven for to engage in prostitution by then and there arguing that the CA erred in granting the Motion for
fugitives, cowards and weaklings who, instead of showering said “AAA” with gifts, clothes and food and Bail despite the crime charged was punishable by
facing the consequences of their actions, choose to thereafter having carnal knowledge of her in violation reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is
run and hide. Hence, it would not be good policy to of the aforesaid law and to her damage and strong.
increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if, prejudice.” Plaintiff’s Claim
through overprotection or excessively liberal - RTC rendered a decision finding respondent Guilty > the grant for new trail negated the previous
treatment, persons sought to be extradited are able of Sec 5, par (a), subpar (5) of RA 7610 and findings of the existence of strong evidence of guilt.
to evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the sentenced to an indeterminate term of prision mayor The justification for provisional release is on
absence of any provision -- in the Constitution, the min (8Y 1D) to prision temporal max (17Y 4M 1D). humanitarian grounds, citing his deteriorating health
law or the treaty -- expressly guaranteeing the right Upon completion of his sentence, he shall be and old age.
to bail in extradition proceedings, adopting the deported immediately and forever barred from entry
practice of not granting them bail, as a general rule, to the Philippines. He was acquitted on the case of ISSUES
would be a step towards deterring fugitives from rape. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the 1. WON CA had jurisdiction over the motion to post
coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their court considered the view that the the circumstances bail after issuing the resolution granting new trial
prosecutors. > of the accused indicate a probability of flight and that 2. WON CA erred in allowing bail
- The denial of bail as a matter of course in there is undue risk that the accused may commit a
extradition cases falls into place with and gives life similar offense, if released on bail pending appeal. HELD
to Article 14 of the Treaty, since this practice would - On appeal, CA affirmed the conviction, modifying 1. (the ruling on this matter is limited to this specific
encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the penalty to imprisonment of prision temporal (14Y case) When the SC grants new trial, it vacates the
the requesting state to cut short their detention 8M 1D) to reclusion perpetua (20Y 1D) judgment of the TC convicting the accused and
here. Likewise, their detention pending the resolution - Fitzgerald filed for a Motion for a New Trial and a remands the case to the TC for reception of newly-
of extradition proceedings would fall into place with supplemental appeal to the motion on the ground discovered evidence and promulgation of a new
the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary that new material of evidence not previously judgment.
nature of extradition cases and the need for their available has surfaced. CA granted the motion for - However, when CA grants new trial,
speedy disposition. new trial. The original records of the case were notwithstanding Sec1 Rule 125 ROC providing for the
Dispositive the Petition is GRANTED. The bail bond remanded to the RTC, which was also directed to uniformity of the procedure between the SC and CA,
posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. The receive new evidence. The motion to transfer the CA may decide questions of fact and of law. When it
Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct respondent to the National Penitentiary was denied. grants a new trial pursuant to Sec14 Rule 124 ROC, it
the extradition proceedings before it, with all - The people file a MFR, while Fitzgerald filed a may either a) receive the new evidence under Sec 12
deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter Motion to fix bail with Manifestation. Both motions or b) refer the case to the court of origin for
of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as were denied by CA. The bail application was denied reception of such evidence under Sec 15. in either
well as our Extradition Law. pursuant to Sec.7 Rule 114 ROC. The maximum case, it does not relinquish to the TC jurisdiction over
penalty imposable in accordance with RA 7610 is the case. It retains sufficient authority to resolve the
PEOPLE v FITZGERALD reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is incidents in the case and decide its merits.
strong. - Even when CA remanded the case to the TC, CA
505 SCRA 573
- The people filed a petition fro review on certiorari. It retained appellate jurisdiction. CA retained its
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; October 27, 2006 was dismissed which became final and executory. authority to act on the respondent’s bail application.
- Fitzgerald filed with CA a Motion for Early 2. The right to bail emanates from the right to be
NATURE Transmittal of the Records and for the Re- presumed innocent. It is accorded to a person in the
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Examination of the Penalty Imposed and a Motion for custody of law who may by reason of the
resolution of CA which granted the Motion for bail of Bail. CA issued the assailed resolution granting bail. presumption of innocence he enjoys, be allowed
accused-appellant and herein respondent Victor Keith It stated that although the evidence of guilt is strong, provisional liberty upon filing of a security to
Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is of old age and not in the best of health. guarantee his appearance before any court, as
Bail was granted premised not on the grounds stated required under specific conditions.
FACTS in the motion for bail, but on substantial justice and - Bail is a matter of right to an accused person in
- An information was filed in the RTC charging considering new trial was granted in the case. custody for an offense not punishable by death,
Fitzgerald, an Australian citizen, with the violation of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, but a matter
8
of discretion on the part of the court, concerning one
Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and facing an accusation for an offense punishable by
Discrimination Act
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 95 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when witnesses for the prosecution; all of the other denying the fact in itself, contends that the record
evidence of guilt is strong. 9 defendants were present, were duly arraigned, does not show when, where or how he was arraigned.
- RTC and CA were unanimous in their findings of the pleaded not guilty, and were represented by a
existence of strong evidence of guilt. Under Sec 6(b) lawyer; that after the prosecution had closed its case ISSUE
Rule 121, the grant of a new trial allows for reception against all of the said defendants except Rufino WON the statement in the judgment that the accused
of newly discovered evidence, but maintains Lavarias, the court discovered that Rufino Lavarias has been arraigned and pleaded guilty is sufficient
evidence already presented or on record. In the was outside the court room. Upon discovering this
present case, no new evidence had been introduced fact the court ordered the said defendant Rufino HELD
negating the earlier findings of the RTC and CA. Bail Lavarias to appear in the court room, and then and YES
was not a matter of right but a mere privilege subject there recalled one of the witnesses for the - The statement is in compliance with the provisions
to the discretion of CA. prosecution, Regino Maminta, and proceeded to of section 16&25 of Gen. Order No. 58, inasmuch as
- However, the CA admitted that the bail was based examine him with reference to the part Rufino it may be presumed from said statement that the law
on health reasons disregarding the substantive and Lavarias took in the said robbery charged in the has been obeyed by causing the accused to appear
procedural requirements on bail. complaint, without arraigning the said Rufino before the court, and it is shown thereby that he has
- CA made no specific findings that the respondent Lavarias, reading to him the complaint, or informing really been arraigned, his plea entered personally
suffered from an ailment of such gravity that his him that he had the right to be represented by an being that of guilty. All this is not a mere conclusion
continued confinement during trial will permanently attorney during the trial, in accordance with the as appellant contends, because the court is of the
impair his health or put his life in danger. provisions of sections 16, 17, and 18 of General opinion that generally a conclusion is the averment
- Moreover, there is finding on the record on the Orders, No. 58. or denial of a fact deduced from some evidence, or
potential risk of respondent committing a similar the averment or denial of a point of view of law
offense. ISSUE derived from a law or a principle of law. In this case,
Dispositive petition is granted and the CA WON the court did not comply with the provisions of however, the court’s averment that the accused was
resolution annulled and set aside. The bail bond sections 16, 17, and 18 of General Order No. 58 arraigned and that he pleaded guilty, is not a
posted is cancelled. Let an order of arrest issue deduction or consequence of an evidence, legal
against the person of the accused. HELD provision or principle of law, but a positive statement
YES. Rufino Lavarias was not arraigned. of facts.
US v PALISOC Dispositive The judgment of the court with - It does not make a difference if the court, after
reference to Rufino Lavarias is reversed, and the hearing the accused plead guilty upon arraignment,
4 Phil 207
cause is remanded to the CFI Pangasinan for the stated such facts in the judgment rendered
JOHNSON; February 13, 1905 purpose of a new trial. The court is affirmed as to the immediately, in open court and in the presence of
sentence of Fabiano Diadib and Inocencio Valerio on the accused, or caused said arraignment and plea to
FACTS the ground of sufficiency of evidence. be stated in the minutes. What is important is that
The defendants were charged with the crime of the accused be arraigned and that he enters his plea.
robbery for entering the house of one Regino
PEOPLE v AMBROSIO It is immaterial how or in what manner such facts are
Maminta, all being armed with talibones took and stated. For legal purposes, it makes no difference
carried carried away the sum of 20 pesos, Mexican, 56 Phil 801
whether they appear in the minutes or in the
and various pieces of jewelry, all of the value of 120 judgment itself.
pesos, Mexican. PEOPLE v CARIAGA
The said defendants were tried and each of the 64 Phil 1057 PEOPLE v SERNA
defendants, Paulino Palisoc, Fabiano Diadib,
CONCEPCION; June 29, 1937 130 SCRA 550
Inocencio Valerio, and Domingo Torres, was
sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of five CONCEPCION, July 25, 1984
NATURE
years of presidio correccional; and Rufino Lavarias,
Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Manila
because the court found that he was the leader of NATURE
the said band of robbers, was sentenced to a period Automatic review to the Supreme Court
FACTS
of six years of presidio correccional.
- Appellant Deogracias Cariaga was convicted of the
From this sentence Fabiano Diadib, Inocencio FACTS
crime of theft and sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of
Valerio, and Rufino Lavarias appealed to this court. -In Samar during the night of November 28, 1970,
arresto mayor and to indemnify the offended party in
The record shows that at the beginning of the trial Rafael Serna and Antonio Cipriano took away P80
the sum of P1.50.
Rufino Lavarias was not present and did not appear from Romualdo Villones and Leonardo Carlos. The
- Cariaga alleges that the court erred in having found
in court until after the fiscal had presented all of the latter were paying for the fish that they bought from
him guilty of the crime based of the fact that the
a fisherman when the former stole their P80 and on
appealed judgment states: “Upon arraignment, he
the occasion killed the 2 victims.
9
Sec 4 and 5 Rule 114 ROC, and Sec 13 Art III 1987 Consti entered a plea of guilty.” The appellant without
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 96 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

-the 2 were charged with Robbery with Double Dispositive. WHEREFORE, the judgment under ISSUES
Homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of use automatic review is hereby SET ASIDE and the case 1. WON a plea of guilt is always binding upon the
of motorized banca as a means for flight or REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. accused for all the contents of the information
concealment, plus recidivism as regards Serna since SO ORDERED. 2. WON the killing was qualified by treachery
he was previously convicted by final judgment in CFI 3. WON there were aggravating circumstances
of Manila, and was sentenced to an imprisonment SEPARATE OPINION present
from 10 to 17 years in 1958.
-upon arraignment, both pleaded guilty, invoking the HELD
AQUINO [dissenting]
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. Immediately, 1. NO.
-Serna should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua
CFI of Samar found the 2 guilty, considering the Ratio It may be true that a judicial confession of
because: (1) recidivism not aggravating, the
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and the guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the
information not alleging the prior crime for which
aggravating circumstance cited above. Cipriano was information, including the aggravating circumstances
Serna was convicted; (2) use of motorized banca not
sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua (MC offset AC) while listed therein, as stated by the trial judge, yet where
aggravating, it was a means of flight and not for the
Serna was sentenced to death (1MC to 2AC), there has been a hearing and such circumstances are
commission of the crime; (3) treachery generic
therefore sent to SC for automatic review. disproven by the evidence, they should be disallowed
aggravating but offset by plea of guilt; (4) fact of
-the information was read to the appellants in English in the judgment.
more than 1 homicide not aggravating, not
and translated in Samar dialect, thereafter, the 2 Reasoning The norm that should be followed where
enumerated under Art14, RPC.
pleaded guilty. After the plea, the Fiscal asked the a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant,
-Serna understood his plea because there was no
plea of guilty to be considered mitigating then asked especially in cases where the capital penalty may be
improvident plea
the court to consider the 2 aggravating circumstance imposed, is that the court should be sure that
-don’t need to remand, 14 years already passed
against Serna. The court did not explain the import of defendant fully understands the nature of the
the plea to the 2 accused, did not even bother to ask charges preferred against him and the character of
if they understood their plea, and just imposed on PEOPLE v TIONGSON the punishment provided by law before it is imposed.
Serna the death penalty. 130 SCRA 614 For this reason, the Court requires that in every case
CONCEPCION; July 25, 1984 under a plea of guilty, where the penalty may be
ISSUE death, the trial court should call witnesses for the
WON the trial court erred in automatically rendering NATURE purpose of establishing the guilt and degree of
the penalty of death to Serna Mandatory review for imposition of death penalty culpability of the defendant and not only to satisfy
the trial judge but to aid the Supreme Court in
HELD FACTS determining whether accuse understood and
NO. - Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of comprehended the meaning, full significance and
Ratio. Considering that the appellant was charged Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with de la Cruz consequences of his plea. In the instant case, the
with an offense punishable by death, the trial court and Santiago, where they were detained under the trial judge required the taking of testimony as to the
should have required the prosecution to present its charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of circumstances under which the crime was committed
evidence to prove the extent of his culpability. The escaping, Tiongson killed a member of the police before passing judgment so that the resulting verdict
taking of such testimony is the prudent and proper force who was guarding them and a PC Constable cannot in any way be branded as deficient.
course to follow for the purpose of establishing not who went in pursuit. 2. NO.
only the guilt but also the precise culpability of the - By reason thereof, Tiongson was then charged with Reasoning The circumstances qualifying or
defendant. Murder, in two separate informations, alleging that aggravating the act of killing a human being must be
Where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant, in the commission of the offense was qualified by the proved in an evident and incontestable manner,
cases where the capital penalty may be imposed, the circumstance of treachery, and aggravated by the mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical
court should make certain that defendant fully circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt facts not being sufficient to consider them justified.
understands the nature of the charge preferred of or with insult to the public authorities, nocturnity, - According to the RPC, "there is treachery when the
against him and the character of the punishment committed in an uninhabited place and with abuse of offender commits any of the crimes against the
provided by law before it is imposed. The trial court superior strength. person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
should therefore call witnesses for the purposes of - Upon arraignment, the said accused, assisted by execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
defendant, not only to satisfy the trial judge, but also informations. The trial court did not render judgment from the defense which the offended party might
to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the outright, but ordered the prosecution to present its make."
accused really and truly understood and evidence, after which, it sentenced the said accused - It does not appear how and in what position the
comprehended the meaning, full significance and to suffer the death penalty in each case, and to victim was when he was killed so that it cannot be
consequences of his plea. indemnify the heirs of the victims. said for certain that the accused had adopted a
mode or means of attack tending directly to insure or
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 97 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

facilitate the commission of the offense without risk Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial -Under this Rule, three things are enjoined
to himself arising from the defense or retaliation Court of Oriental Mindoro upon the trial court when a plea of guilty to a
which the victim might put up. capital offense is entered: (1) the court must
- Pat. Garcia of the Bulalacao police force merely FACTS conduct a searching inquiry into the
declared that he was in his house, about 15 meters -On April 28, 1996, Oleby and Maricris, assisted by a voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full
away from the municipal building when the accused neighbor, Lita Macalalad, told their mother that they comprehension of the consequences thereof;
Rudy Tiongson and his companions escaped from had been raped by their father, herein accused- (2) the court must require the prosecution to
prison, and he did not see the accused shoot Pat. appellant. Thereupon, they went to the police present evidence to prove the guilt of the
Gelera. Pat. Gelera was already dead when the other authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against accused and the precise degree of his
witness saw him. accused-appellant culpability; and, (3) the court must ask the
- Treachery is also not present in the killing of PC -After preliminary examination, on June 6, 1996, four accused if he desires to present evidence on
Constable since the deceased was actually warned informations charging accused-appellant with rape his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.
by another PC not to remain standing but seek cover on various dates were filed in the Regional Trial- -As explained in People v. Alicando, a searching
because of the known presence of the accused in the Court, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. inquiry must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the
vicinity, but that the said deceased disregarded the -The record shows that at his arraignment on July 23, plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the
warning. 1996, accused-appellant, assisted by Atty. Manolo A. consequences of the plea.
- Since treachery, which would qualify the killing of Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not -In the case at bar, the record does not show what
Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder, was guilty to the charges filed against him. exactly transpired at the re-arraignment of accused-
not present, the crimes may only be punished as -However, on August 5, 1997, after the prosecution appellant, for what reason he changed his plea from
Homicide. had presented Dr. Cynthia S. Fesalbon, accused- "not guilty" to "guilty," and whether he fully
3. NO. appellant pleaded guilty to the crime charged in all understood the consequences of his guilty plea.
Reasoning (a) Evident premeditation must be ruled the informations. -In its decision, the trial court described the manner
out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a -On August 12, 1997, the prosecution formally in which the accused pleaded guilty, thus:
plan to kill the victims existed, the execution of which offered its documentary evidence and rested its case Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by Atty. Manolo
was preceded by deliberate thought and reflection. thereafter. A. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded
(b) That the crimes were committed in contempt of -Accused-appellant did not present any evidence in not guilty to the crime charged. However, when
or with insult to the public authorities cannot be his defense. these cases were called for pre-trial and trial, counsel
appreciated since they are not persons in authority, -On August 27, 1997, the trial court rendered for the accused manifested that the accused,
but merely agents of a person in authority. (c) In judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of four realizing the futility of entering into trial and
order that commission of a crime in an uninhabited counts of rape against his daughters. considering that he actually committed the acts
place may be considered, it is necessary that the -Nadera appealed complained of, intimated his intention to enter a plea
place of occurrence be where there are no houses at of guilty to the above-mentioned charges. The
all, a considerable distance from the village or town, ISSUES accused was then asked by this Court if he was
or where the houses are a great distance apart. (d) 1. WON the trial court erred when it accepted his aware of the consequences of a plea of guilty to a
Abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out plea of guilty to a capital offense without making a capital offense: that for the rape he committed on
since there is no direct evidence that the accused searching inquiry to determine whether he May 17, 1992 against his daughter, Oleby Nadera,
employed it. Dispositive Petition is affirmed with the understood the consequences of his plea who was 9 years old at the time, he would be
modification that the accused Rudy Tiongson should 2. WON the conviction must be set aside sentenced to reclusion perpetua and for the three
be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of eight (8) other counts of rape committed on April 17 and 24,
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, HELD 1995 [both against Oleby Nadera] and on March 3,
to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of 1. YES 1996 [against Maricris Nadera, 11 years old at the
reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each homicide - Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure time], he would be sentenced to death by lethal
committed by him. The indemnity to be paid to the provides: injection. After having been informed of this, he
heirs of the victims is hereby increased to Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; insisted that he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to
P30,000.00 in each case. reception of evidence. When the accused the crimes charged and is ready to face the
pleads guilty to a capital offense, the Court consequences thereof.
PEOPLE v NADERA shall conduct a searching inquiry into the -The warnings given by the trial court in this
voluntariness and full comprehension of the case fall short of the requirement that it must
324 SCRA 490
consequences of his plea and require the make a searching inquiry to determine whether
MENDOZA; February 2, 2000 prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise accused-appellant understood fully the import
degree of culpability. The accused may also of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere
NATURE present evidence on his behalf. warning that the accused faces the supreme
penalty of death is insufficient. For more often
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 98 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad Dr. Cynthia Fesalbon. Certain circumstances defendants' counsel lost no time in filing a motion
advice or because he hopes for a lenient present in this case, however, persuade us that to quash, upon the ground that the facts charged
treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial judge a remand of this case is necessary. did not constitute a criminal offense.
must erase such mistaken impressions. He -First, a perusal of the decision of the court reveals - The judge dismissed the cases.
must be completely convinced that the guilty that the trial judge failed to state the factual and
plea made by the accused was not made under legal reasons on which he based accused-appellant's ISSUE
duress or promise of reward. The judge must conviction. Except for the narration of the WON the motion to quash on the ground that “the
ask the accused the manner the latter was prosecution's evidence and a bare recital of R.A. No. facts charged do not constitute and offense” must be
arrested or detained, and whether he was 7659, amending Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, restricted to the facts charged in the informations
assisted by counsel during the custodial and there is nothing else to indicate the reason for the
preliminary investigations. In addition, the decision. There is no evaluation of the evidence and HELD
defense counsel should also be asked whether no reason given why the court found the testimonies NO
he conferred with the accused and completely of the witnesses credible. - The section of the rule permitting a motion to quash
explained to him the meaning and the -Second, the cavalier attitude of accused-appellant's on the ground that "the facts charged do not
consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, counsel, Atty. Manolo A. Brotonel of the Public constitute an offense" omits reference to the facts
since the age, educational attainment and Attorney's Office, cannot go unnoticed. It is detailed "in the information." Other sections of the
socio-economic status of the accused may discernible in (a) his refusal to cross examine Oleby same rule would imply that the issue is restricted to
reveal insights for a proper verdict in the case, Nadera; (b) the manner in which he conducted those alleged in the information.
the trial court must ask questions concerning Maricris Nadera's cross examination; and, (c) his - Prima facie, the "facts charged" are those described
them. failure not only to present evidence for the accused in the complaint, but they may be amplified or
-In this case, absent any showing that these but also to inform the accused of his right to do so, if qualified by others appearing to be additional
questions were put to accused-appellant, a he desires. circumstances, upon admissions made by the
searching inquiry cannot be said to have been Dispositive The appealed decision is set aside. people's representative, which admissions could
undertaken by the trial court. anyway be submitted by him as amendments to the
-In People v. Sevillano, this Court held that: PEOPLE v NAVARRO same information.
…In every case where the accused enters a plea of - It would seem to be pure technicality to hold that in
75 Phil 516
guilty to a capital offense, especially where he is an the consideration of the motion, the parties and the
ignorant person with a little or no education, the BENGZON; December 4, 1945 judge were precluded from considering facts which
proper and prudent course to follow is to take such the fiscal admitted to be true, simply because they
evidence as are available and necessary in support FACTS were not described in the complaint. Of course, it
of the material allegations of the information, - Information for arbitrary detention: may be added that upon similar motions the court
including the aggravating circumstances therein "That from January 27, 1945, and for several days and the fiscal are not required to go beyond the
enumerated, not only to satisfy the trial judge thereafter, in the municipality of Calapan, Province averments of the information, nor is the latter to be
himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in of Mindoro, Commonwealth of the Philippines, and inveigled into a premature and risky revelation of his
determining whether the accused really and truly within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said evidence.
understood and comprehended the meaning, full defendants Juan Navarro and Anacleto Atienza, - But the Court sees no reason to prohibit the fiscal
significance and consequences of his plea. Acting Provincial Governor and Provincial Warden, from making, in all candor, admissions of undeniable
-Clearly, the plea of guilty of accused-appellant in respectively, both being public officials to whom facts, because the principle can never be sufficiently
this case was made improvidently. the custody and responsibility of prisoners were reiterated that such official's role is to see that
2. Yes. entrusted for proper action, without any lawful or justice is done; not that all accused are convicted,
-Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt justifiable cause and without legal grounds but that the guilty are justly punished. Less reason
are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of therefor, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and can there be to prohibit the court from considering
judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and feloniously detain Esteban P. Beloncio in the those admissions, and deciding accordingly, in the
credible evidence to convict the accused, the Provincial Jail of Mindoro which continued for more interest of a speedy administration of justice.
conviction must be sustained, because then it is than fifteen days but less than six months." - The Beloncios were thus deprived of their liberty by
predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the - A pre-trial was held, the Judge asking the parties or order of the military authorities, a few days after the
accused but on evidence proving his commission of their attorneys some questions, which the latter liberations of Mindoro. Judicial notice may be taken of
the offense charged. answered, with the result that admissions were made the fact, that upon military occupation and before
-The prosecution evidence consisted of the to the effect that Esteban P. Beloncio and Juan G. the establishment of the normal processes of civil
testimonies of Oleby and Maricris Nadera, the results Beloncio II had been detained for several days after government the liberties and rights of citizens are
of their medical examinations, and the testimonies of January 27, 1945, in the provincial jail of Mindoro by likely to suffer temporary restrictions, what with the
their mother, Daisy, and the physician who order of the Commanding General, Western Visayan exigencies of military strategy, or the confusion
conducted the medical examination of the two girls, Task Force, United States Army. Whereupon, usually resulting from the situation. While the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 99 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

infringement of constitutional precepts and privileges to said Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of
is not to be tolerated, war necessities and the crime of bribery." FACTS
consequences cannot be overlooked. At any rate, no -defendants filed a motion to quash saying that (1) Petitioner alleges that he was arrested for vagrancy
reasons are shown why the irregularity, if any, the facts charged in the information do not constitute without a warrant of arrest. Thereafter, he was
committed by others, should be visited upon an offense (because the two crimes cannot be brought to Precinct 2, Manila where he was booked
defendants-appellees. The acts imputed to them, do complexed); and (2) the court trying the case has no for vagrancy and then detained therein together with
not, of themselves, constitute a punishable offense. jurisdiction over the offense charged several others. The next day, five detainees,
Dispositive Appealed decision affirmed. -CFI granted motion to dismiss agreeing with including petitioner, complainant Bernal pointed to
defendants petitioner and said, “that one is a companion.” After
PEOPLE v ALAGAO -MFR was denied the identification, the other detainees were brought
-appeal by fiscal before SC back to their cell but petitioner was ordered to stay
16 SCRA 879
on. While the complainant was being interrogated by
ZALDIVAR; April 30, 1966 ISSUE the police investigator, petitioner was told to sit
WON the CFI erred in granting motion to quash down in front of her. Subsquently, an information for
NATURE robbery was filed against petitioner. He was
This is an appeal by the City Fiscal of Manila from an HELD arraigned and thereafter hearings were held. The
order of the Court of First Instance of Manila YES prosecution formally offered its evidence and then
sustaining the motion to quash the information - It is very apparent that by the use of the phrase rested its case. Petitioner, by counsel, instead of
"thru unlawful arrest" in the information an idea is presenting his defense, manifested in open court that
FACTS conveyed that the unlawful arrest was resorted to as he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to
-City Fiscal of Manila filed an information against the a necessary means to plant evidence in the person of Evidence. Petitioner filed said motion on the ground
defendants-appellees charging them of the complex the offended party, thereby incriminating him. From that the conduct of the line-up without notice to, and
crime of incriminatory machinations thru unlawful a reading of the info the SC finds a close connection in the absence of, his counsel violated his
arrest, as follows: between the act of the accused in first unlawfully constitutional rights to counsel and to due process.
"That on or about the 28th day of February, 1961, in arresting the offended party and then investigating The respondent court issued an order denying the
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, him; and it was during that investigation that they Motion to Acquit. Hence, the instant petition.
being then members of the Manila Police plated incriminatory evidence against him. SC agrees
Department, conspiring and confederating together with the Solicitor General in his contention that the ISSUE
and helping one another, did then and there willfully, accused first had to resort to unlawful arrest in order WON the respondent judge acted in excess of
unlawfully and feloniously incriminate or impute to to be able to plant the P1.00 bill among the money jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in
one Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the taken from the offended party. Also the court a quo issuing the assailed order
crime by bribery thru unlawful arrest, in the following has jurisdiction to try the accused of the offense
manner, to wit: the said accused, on the aforesaid charged in the information. The crime of unlawful HELD
date, without reasonable ground therefor and for the arrest is punishable with arresto mayor or NO
purpose of delivering said Marcial Apolonio y Santos imprisonment of from one month and one day to six If a defendant does not move to quash the complaint
to the proper authorities, did then and there willfully, months, and a fine not exceeding P500.00; 5 and the or information before pleading, defendant is deemed
unlawfully and feloniously arrest said Marcial crime of incriminatory machinations is punishable to have waived all objections which are grounds for a
Apolonio y Santos; that after the said Marcial with arresto mayor, or imprisonment of from one motion to quash, except where the complaint or
Apolonio y Santos had been arrested in the manner month and one day to six months. information does not charge an offense, or the court
aforestated, and while the latter was supposedly Dispositive The order appealed from is reversed is without jurisdiction of the same. Here, petitioner
being investigated by the said accused, the said and set aside filed a Motion to Acquit only after the the prosecution
accused did then and there place on commingle a presented its evidence and rested its case. Since the
marked P1.00 bill together with the money taken
LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE exceptions above-stated, are not applicable,
from said Marcial Apolonio y Santos, supposedly petitioner is deemed to have waived objections
given to the latter by one Emerita Calupas de Aresa, [supra, page 41]
which are grounds for a motion to quash. Besides,
so that he (Marcial Apolonio y Santos), then an the grounds relied upon by petitioner in his Motion to
employee of the Local Civil Registrar's Office of GAMBOA v CRUZ Acquit are not among the grounds provided in Sec. 2,
Manila, would appear to have agreed to perform an 162 SCRA 642 Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for quashing a
act not constituting a crime, in connection with the complaint or information. Consequently, the lower
PADILLA; June 27, 1988
performance of his (Marcial Apolonio y Santos) court did not err in denying petitioner's Motion to
duties, which was to expedite the issuance of a birth Acquit.
NATURE
certificate, thereby directly incriminating or imputing Dispositive Petition dismissed.
Peition for certiorari and prohibition to review the
order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Br. 29
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 100 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v ASUNCION -that illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is unlicensed firearms and ammunition may surrender
still penalized under PD No. 1866 which was not the same to the proper authorities without incurring
161 SCRA 490
repealed by said EO NO. 107 and 222. criminal liability, had ruled that a criminal liability
PADILLA; May 24, 1988 was temporarily LIFTED for mere possession' of
ISSUES unlicensed firearms and ammunition during the
NATURE 1. WON J. Asuncion erred in holding that the period covered, although such person is not exempt
Certiorari possession of loose firearms and explosives is not from criminal liability filing within the period
illegal per se during the period covered by EO Nos. provided, he carries the firearm and ammunition
FACTS: 107 and 222 (unless it is for the purpose of surrendering the
-Rolando Abadilla, a former colonel of the Armed 2. WON it was not necessary for the prosecution to same) or he commits any other offense with the use
Forces of the Philippines, was charged before the QC allege in the information that the firearms and of such unlicensed firearm and ammunition.
RTC with the offense of Violation of PD No. 1866 ammunition, subject matter of this case, were -People vs. Lopez~ It will be seen that sec 2 (of RA
[ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND brought out of the residence of the accused or were NO 4) excluded from the operation of sec 1 up to
AMMUNITION) --The Information read that he used by him in the commission or another offense, August 31, 1946, possession of firearms and
“willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his since these circumstances are not essential ammunition so long as they were not used for any
possession and under his custody and control” rifles, ingredients of the crime of illegal possession of purpose other than self-defense or carried for any
pistons, ammunitions and magazines (see orig case firearms and ammunition purpose other than of surrendering them to the
for the list) “without first securing the necessary 3. WON under the allegation in the information, proper authorities. The Government does not dispute
license and/or permit from the lawful authority.” prosecution may prove that the accused earned the this interpretation. Although the law does not
-Upon motion of the accused, Asuncion dismissed firearms and ammunition outside of his residence categorically state that criminal liability was
the Information on the ground that it did not allege temporarily lifted for mere possession of filing
sufficient facts to constitute an offense, since the HELD firegems and ammunition, that is the only
possession of loose firearms and explosives is not 1. EO NO. 107, as amended by EO No. 222, is similar construction compatible with the spirit and purposes
illegal per se, in view of Executive Order No. 107 to RA Nos. 4 and 482. SC did NOT give it a different of the enactment as revealed by its context.
which gives holders or possessors of unlicensed meaning because there is no basis for such a -People vs. Feliciano~ SC ruled that RA No. 482
firearms and ammunition a period of six months difference. legalized mere unlicensed possession of firearms and
from its effectivity, extended to 31 December 1987 2. NO. IT IS NECESSARY TO ALLEGE IT IN THE INFO. ammunition for the limited period specified in said
by EO No. 222, within which to surrender the 3. NO. The information, in this particular charge law, and punished only (1) the use of unlicensed
same to the proper authorities, without against Abadilla, is fatally defective. It would be firearm or ammunition, or (2) the carrying of such
incurring any criminal liability therefor, except fatally defective against any other accused charged firearm or ammunition on the person, except to
if the unlicensed firearm or ammunition is with the same offense. J. Asunction, in dismissing the surrender them. The Court said:
carried outside of one's residence, not for the information, committed no reversible error or -Feliciano ruling was reiterated in People vs.
purpose of surrendering the same, or used in grave abuse of discretion. Tabunares: RA No. 482, in effect legalized mere
the commission of any other offense, and there Ratio (citing People vs. Austria) the presentation of unlicensed on within one year from said date, and
is no allegation in said information that the evidence "cannot have the effect of validating a void punished only (1) the use of a or ammunition or (2)
firearms and ammunition enumerated therein information, or proving an offense which does not the carriage thereof on the person except for
were carried outside the accused's residence legally exist. ... The information was not merely purpose of surrender. Appellant's conviction cannot
or used in the commission of some other crime. defective but it does not charge any offense at all. stand, since it is rested solely on unlicensed
- In support thereof, the respondent judge cited the Technically speaking, that information does not exist possession on or about November 6, 1950.
decision in People vs. Lopez, 79 Phil 658. in contemplation of law." 2. People vs. Lopez~ the Court already ruled that,
-The prosecution filed a MR of said Resolution, but -Abadilla is regarded with unusual ease and facility as under RA No. 4, the use or the carrying of firearms
the motion was denied the "hit man" of the Marcos regime. But the Court and/or ammunition was an ingredient, if not the sole
-Hence, the present recourse by the prosecution. cannot be swayed by appellations for it has a duty, ingredient, of the offense; i.e. the very acts which
Petitioner’s Claims as a temple of justice, to accord to every man who were punished, subject to certain conditions, and
-nothing is contained in said EOs which legalizes the comes before it in appropriate proceedings the right hence, should be alleged and proved.
possession of firearms and ammunition without a to due process and the equal protection of the laws. -People vs. Austria~ the Court also ruled that in order
permit; Reasoning that an information charging illegal possession of
-that said EOs merely authorized holders or 1. It may be true that there is nothing in EO Nos. 107 firearm and ammunition, under RA No. 482, may be
possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition to and 222 that expressly legalizes the unlicensed deemed suffident, it must allege that the accused
surrender the same within a specified filing period possession of firearms and ammunition, but this was using the unlicensed firearm or carrying it in his
without incurring criminal liability; Court, applying statutes similar to the executive person at the time he was apprehended by the
orders in question, and which also provided for a authorities with said firearm.
period within which a holder or possessor of Dispositive Petition is DENIED.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 101 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

and replaced as collector of customs. Office of State against Francisco Gapay y Mallares, driver of the
LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE Prosecutors sustained filing of information against truck. On the same day, the victim Diolito de la Cruz
Layosa. died.
[supra, page 41]
- Layosa did not submit memorandum. Respondent - October 20, 1972: Gapay was arraigned on the
fiscal alleged that petitioner had abandoned charge of serious physical injuries thru reckless
LAYOSA v RODRIGUEZ contention as to lack of jurisdiction. Fiscal stressed imprudence. He pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 1
86 SCRA 300 that case had been scheduled for trial at instance of month and 1 day of arresto mayor, and commenced
AQUINO; November 10, 1978 petitioner and that latter manifested his willingness serving sentence.
to proceed. - October 24, 1972: An information for homicide thru
NATURE reckless imprudence was filed against Gapay
Certiorari from order of CA ISSUE - November 17, 1972: the City Court of Manila, upon
WON trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion motion of private respondent, issued an order
FACTS in ordering suspension dismissing the homicide thru reckless imprudence
- This is about suspension of Layosa, collector of case on the ground of double jeopardy.
customs, who was charged by city fiscal in CFI w/ HELD
having violated AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Law NO ISSUES
(Republic Act No. 3019). Information was based on - Lower court acquired jurisdiction upon filing of WON a person who has been prosecuted for serious
complaint filed by assistant director of District Anti- information. Petitioner was notified of pre- physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and
Smuggling Action Center. It was one of 5 cases filed suspension hearing. His counsel participated. convicted thereof may be prosecuted subsequently
against Layosa, aside from malversation case. Requirements of due process were observed. Public for homicide thru reckless imprudence if the offended
- Gravamen is that he demanded and received from interest demands a speedy determination of that party dies as a result of the same injuries he had
M/V Lady Angelita I 2 to 3 cases of beer & soft drinks question. suffered
as consideration for giving preferential berthing - It is true that petitioner was not yet arrested or
facilities. taken into custody when pre-suspension hearing was HELD
- Fiscal, pursuant to sec 13 of RA No. 3019, filed held. However, voluntary appearance through NO
motion for Layosa's suspension. Respondent Judge counsel was submission to lower court's jurisdiction. Ratio One who has been charged with an offense
granted motion. He found that a valid information (Note that in civil cases, defendant's voluntary cannot be charged again with the same or identical
had been filed against Layosa. appearance is equivalent to service of summons.) offense though the latter be lesser or greater than
- Layosa filed instant petition for certiorari. He - "Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or the former. However, where after the first
prayed that suspension be set aside. He contended subject matter, the objection that it has no prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the
that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his jurisdiction of the person of the accused may be defendant is responsible, which changes the
person because no warrant of arrest had as yet been waived. One who desires to object to the jurisdiction character of the offense and, together with the facts
issued when hearing on his suspension was held and of the court over his person must appear in court for existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct
the case was not raffled to respondent Judge, that that purpose only, and if he raises other questions, offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second
the Chief State Prosecutor in a telegram to the fiscal he waives the objection." Layosa waived the jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.
directed that the record of the case be elevated for objection based on lack of jurisdiction over his person Reasoning
review, and that respondent Judge gravely abused when, as already noted, he appeared at the pre- - Respondent court held that above rule does not
his discretion. suspension hearing and his counsel cross-examined apply in this case. It based its decision on the ruling
- Because Layosa defied suspension, lower court the prosecution witness. in People v Buan, which held that Article 365 of the
adjudged him in contempt of court and penalized him Penal Code punishes the negligent state of mind and
by imprisonment for 3 mos and fine of P500. Layosa PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA not the resulting injury. The trial court concluded that
once prosecuted for and convicted of negligence, the
appealed to CA. 121 SCRA 637
- Respondent Judge explained that, to avoid delay, he accused cannot again be prosecuted for the same
RELOVA; April 27, 1983 negligence although for a different resulting injury.
acted on motion for suspension because case was
filed after raffling between 2 branches of court had - In his memorandum, the Solicitor General made
been terminated. He was scheduled to hold sessions NATURE mention of the fact that on October 21, 1972, the
and the other Judge was to begin one-month Petition to review the order of the City Court of City Fiscal filed an Urgent Motion asking that the
vacation. Judge pointed out that his action was Manila, Branch XI "hearing and arraignment of this case be held in
sanctioned by Administrative Order No. 6 of SC which abeyance for there is information that the victim,
empowers Executive Judge to act on interlocutory FACTS Diolito dela Cruz died, and the information would
matters prior to raffling. - October 17, 1971: The incident occurred. have to be amended."
Case was eventually raffled to sala of respondent - October 18, 1971: An information for serious - Be that as it may, the fact remains that the victim
Judge. Layosa posted bail bond. He was arraigned physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed Diolito dela Cruz died on October 18 "one (1) day
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 102 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

after the accident and the arrest of the respondent a military viewpoint, it was technically impossible to citizens of the community, filed the present action
Gapay" and that on October 20, 1972, the accused get inside such a cordon." The military investigators alleging that respondents Tanodbayan and
was arraigned, pleaded guilty and sentenced reported within a span of three hours that the man Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities
accordingly. Thus, jeopardy had attached and no new who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of
fact supervened after the arraignment and conviction to be unknown and was revealed only days later as justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights
of the accused. Rolando Galman, although he was the personal friend of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the
Dispositive Order of dismissal of lower court of accused Col. Arturo Custodio who picked him up Philippines to due process of law. They asserted that
affirmed. from his house on August 17, 1983) was a the Tanodbayan did not represent the interest of the
communist-hired gunman, and that the military people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest
SEPARATE OPINION escorts gunned him down in turn. efforts to present vital and important testimonial and
- Marcos was constrained to create a Fact Finding documentary evidence for the prosecution and that
Board to investigate. Both majority and minority the Sandiganbayan Justices were biased, prejudiced
GUTIERREZ [concurring]
reports were one in rejecting the military version as and partial in favor of the accused, and that their
- Knowing the volume of the caseload in the City
propounded by the chief investigator, respondent acts "clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of
Court of Manila and the inevitably slow pace of work,
Gen. Olivas, that Rolando Galman was the NPA-hired government to find out the truth about the Aquino
it is most surprising that the accused could have
assassin, stating that "the evidence shows [to the assassination." Petitioners prayed for the immediate
been arraigned for the charge of serious physical
contrary] that Rolando Galman had no subversive issuance of a temporary restraining order restraining
injuries only 3 days after the incident, 2 days after
affiliations." They were in agreement that "only the the respondent Sandiganbayan from rendering a
the filing of the information and the death of the
soldiers in the staircase with Sen. Aquino could have decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases
victim. The accused does not appear to have been a
shot him;" that Galman, the military's "fall guy" was which it had scheduled on November 20, 1985 and
detention prisoner necessitating his immediate
"not the assassin of Sen. Aquino" and that "the SWAT that judgment be rendered declaring a mistrial and
arraignment right after the filing of the information.
troopers who gunned down Galman and the soldiers nullifying the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan
The only sensible conclusion is that the accused was
who escorted Sen. Aquino down the service stairs, and ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal by
hastily made to plead guilty to serious physical
deliberately and in conspiracy with one another, an unbiased prosecutor.
injuries to foreclose a charge for homicide even
gave a perjured story to us regarding the alleged - The Supreme Court resolved by nine-to-two votes to
before it could be filed. In such a case, there would
shooting by Galman of Sen. Aquino and the mowing issue the restraining order prayed for. But ten days
be a trifling with the processes of justice and a
down, in turn, of Galman himself;" in short, that later on November 28, 1985, the Court by the same
collusive effort amounting to fraud or deceit to
Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse, resolved to dismiss
deprive the State of its authority to prosecute an
conspiracy, not a communist plot. The only difference the petition and to lift the temporary restraining
accused for the correct offense.
between the two reports is that the majority report order issued ten days earlier enjoining the
- However, records are inadequate to show that the
found all the 26 private respondents headed by then Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision.
arraignment, while hasty and surrounded by
AFP Chief General Fabian Ver involved in the military [Hmmm… tsk]
seemingly suspicious circumstances, was tainted by
conspiracy while the chairman's minority report - Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
fraud, collusion, or other form of chicanery sufficient
would exclude 19 of them and limit as plotters "the 6 alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal
to sustain a finding that the State was denied due
persons who were on the service stairs while Senator ground for such action and urging that the case be
process
Aquino was descending" and "General Luther set for a full hearing on the merits because if the
- At any rate, I concur in the affirmance of the order
Custodio because the criminal plot could not have charge of partiality and bias against the respondents
of dismissal in line with the many protections that
been planned and implemented without his and suppression of vital evidence by the prosecution
the Constitution and the laws give to the accused in
intervention." are proven, the petitioners would be entitled to the
criminal prosecutions.
- As the accused were tried in the Sandiganbayan, relief demanded: The People are entitled to due
Marcos through all his recorded public acts and process which requires an impartial tribunal and an
GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN statements from the beginning disdained and unbiased prosecutor. If the State is deprived of a fair
144 SCRA 43 rejected his own Board's findings and insisted on the opportunity to prosecute and convict because certain
TEEHANKEE; September 12, 1986 military version of Galman being Ninoy's assassin. material evidence is suppressed by the prosecution
[Note: His private acts in trying to control the and the tribunal is not impartial, then the entire
FACTS outcome of the case were to be known much later proceedings would be null and void. Petitioners
- Ninoy Aquino was cold-bloodedly killed while under after he was already deposed.] prayed that the Sandiganbayan be restrained from
escort from his plane that had just landed at the - Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman, mother promulgating their decision as scheduled anew on
Manila International Airport on August 21, 1983. His and son, respectively, of the late Rolando Galman, December 2, 1985.
brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into and 29 other petitioners, composed of three former - On December 5, 1985, the Court required the
the back of his head by a murderous assassin, Justices of this Court, five incumbent and former respondents to comment on the motion for
notwithstanding that the airport was ringed by university presidents, a former AFP Chief of Staff, reconsideration but issued no restraining order. Thus,
airtight security of close to 2,000 soldiers and "from outstanding members of the Philippine Bar and solid on December 2, 1985, as scheduled, respondent
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 103 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the remedy is a direct action to annul the judgment prejudice. More so, in the case at bar where the
accused of the crime charged, declaring them where the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff to people and the world are entitled to know the truth
innocent and totally absolving them of any civil establish by clear, competent and convincing and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. In
liability. [Note: the word used by the Sandiganbayan evidence the cause of the nullity. life, as an accused before the military tribunal Ninoy
was “innocent” instead of “not guilty”!] - The Supreme Court appointed a three-member had pleaded in vain that as a civilian he was entitled
- Respondents submitted that with the commission composed of retired SC Justice Conrado to due process of law and trial in the regular civil
Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case Vasquez, chairman, and retired IAC Justices Milagros courts before an impartial court with an unbiased
had become moot and academic. On February 4, German and Eduardo Caguioa as members, to hear prosecutor. In death, Ninoy is the victim of the
1986, the same Court majority denied petitioners' and receive evidence, testimonial and documentary, "treacherous and vicious assassination" and the
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. [Note of the charges of collusion and pressures and relatives and sovereign people as the aggrieved
that EDSA I happened before the month ended.] relevant matters, upon prior notice to all parties, and parties plead once more for due process of law and a
- On March 20, 1986, petitioners filed their motion to to submit their findings to this Court for proper retrial before an impartial court with an unbiased
admit their second motion for reconsideration. disposition. The Commission submitted the following prosecutor. The Court is constrained to declare the
The thrust of the second motion for reconsideration recommendation: “Considering the existence of sham trial a mock trial - the non-trial of the century -
was the startling and therefore unknown revelations adequate credible evidence showing that the and that the predetermined judgment of acquittal
of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera as reported in prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the was unlawful and void ab initio.
the March 6, 1986 issue of the Manila Times entitled Justices who tried and decided the same acted under 2. NO
"Aquino Trial a Sham," that the then President had the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be Ratio Double jeopardy cannot be invoked against
ordered the respondents Sandiganbayan and beyond their capacity to resist, and which not only this Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment
Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez and the prosecution prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which
panel headed by Herrera to whitewash the criminal position and to offer all the evidences which it could represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is
cases against the 26 respondents accused and have otherwise presented, but also predetermined denied due process. Where the prosecution is
produce a verdict of acquittal. the final outcome of the case, the Commission is of deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove
- Tanodbayan Fernandez claimed he never the considered thinking and belief, subject to the its case, its right to due process is thereby violated.
succumbed to any alleged attempts to influence his better opinion and judgment of this Honorable Court, The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation
actuations in the premises, having instead that the proceedings in the said case have been of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of
successfully resisted perceived attempts to exert vitiated by lack of due process, and hereby their jurisdiction. Thus, the violation of the State's
pressure to drop the case after preliminary respectfully recommends that the prayer in the right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional
investigation and actually ordered the filing and petition for a declaration of a mistrial in issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at
prosecution of the two murder cases against private- Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 entitled will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of due
party respondents. Respondents Justices of the 'People vs. Luther Custodio, et al.,' be granted." process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard
Sandiganbayan First Division in their collective of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.
comment of April 9, 1986 stated that the trial of the ISSUES Reasoning
criminal cases by them was valid and regular and 1. WON the petition for a declaration of a mistrial in - Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid
decided on the basis of evidence presented and the Sandiganbayan Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 entitled indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after
law applicable, but manifested that "if it is true that 'People vs. Luther Custodio, et al.,' be granted arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered;
the former Tanodbayan and the Deputy Tanodbayan, 2. WON a retrial would constitute double jeopardy and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise
Chief of the Prosecution Panel, were pressured into terminated without the express consent of the
suppressing vital evidence which would probably HELD accused. The lower court was not competent as it
alter the result of the trial, Answering Respondents 1. YES was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the
would not interpose any objection to the reopening Reasoning right of the prosecution to due process. In effect, the
of those cases, if only to allow justice to take its - The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial first jeopardy was never terminated, and the remand
course." and verdict and travesty of justice to stand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial
- Respondents-accused opposed the second motion unrectified. The courts of the land under its aegis are before the lower courts amounts merely to a
for reconsideration and prayed for its denial. The courts of law and justice and equity. They would have continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not
accused-respondents raised the issue of double no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as expose the accused to a second jeopardy.
jeopardy, and invoked that the issues had become mere tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to - More so does the rule against the invoking of
moot and academic because of the rendition of the subvert and suppress the truth, instead of double jeopardy hold in the cases at bar where as we
Sandiganbayan's judgment of acquittal of all repositories of judicial power whose judges are sworn have held, the sham trial was but a mock trial where
respondents-accused on December 2, 1985, with and committed to render impartial justice to all alike the authoritarian president ordered respondents
counsels for respondents Ver and Tigas, as well as who seek the enforcement or protection of a right or Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and
Olivas, further arguing that assuming that the the prevention or redress of a wrong, without fear or closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure
judgment of acquittal is void for any reason, the favor and removed from the pressures of politics and the predetermined final outcome of acquittal and
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 104 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

total absolution as innocent of all the respondents- thereof, judgment is hereby rendered nullifying the granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of
accused. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of proceedings in respondent Sandiganbayan and its prescription, it appearing that the offense charged
Justice Herrera which saw him near the end judgment of acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 was a light felony which prescribes two months from
"deactivating" himself from the case, as it was his and 10011 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Gen. the time of discovery thereof, and it appearing
belief that its eventual resolution was already a Luther Custodio, et al." and ordering a re-trial of the further that the information was filed by the fiscal
foregone conclusion, they could not cope with the said cases which should be conducted with more than nine months after discovery of the offense
misuse and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the charged in February 1975.
authoritarian President to weaken the case of the requirements of due process, so that the truth may - Fourteen (14) days later, another information
prosecution, to suppress its evidence, harass, be finally known and justice done to all. against Manuel Opulencia, this time for theft of
intimidate and threaten its witnesses, secure their electric power under Article 308 in relation to
recantation or prevent them from testifying. Fully PEOPLE V. RELOVA Article 309, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal
aware of the prosecution's difficulties in locating Code. Before he could be arraigned thereon, Manuel
148 SCRA 292
witnesses and overcoming their natural fear and Opulencia filed a Motion to Quash, alleging that
reluctance to appear and testify, respondent FELICIANO; March 6, 1987 he had been previously acquitted of the
Sandiganbayan maintained a "dizzying tempo" of the NATURE offense charged in the second information and
proceedings and announced its intention to Petition for certiorari and mandamus, the People that the filing thereof was violative of his
terminate the proceedings in about 6 months time or seek to set aside the orders of the respondent Judge constitutional right against double jeopardy.
less than a year, pursuant to the scripted scenario. of the CFI of Batangas in a criminal case, quashing an -Respondent Judge granted the accused's Motion to
The prosecution complained of "the Presiding information for theft filed against private respondent Quash and ordered the case dismissed. An MOR was
Justice's seemingly hostile attitude towards (it)" and Manuel Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy denied.
their being the subject of warnings, reprimand and and denying the petitioner's motion for - On 1 December 1976, the present Petition for
contempt proceedings as compared to the nil reconsideration. certiorari and mandamus was filed in this Court by
situation for the defense. Herrera likewise FACTS the Acting City Fiscal of Batangas City on behalf of
complained of being "cajoled into producing - CIRCUMSTANCES: On 1 February 1975, members of the People.
witnesses and pressed on making assurances that if the Batangas City Police together with personnel of ISSUE
given a certain period, they will be able to produce the Batangas Electric Light System, equipped with a WON the defense of double jeopardy applies in this
their witnesses," Herrera pleaded for "a reasonable search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas case. (Yes)
period of preparation of its evidence" and cited other City, searched and examined the premises of the HELD
pending cases before respondent court that were Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned RATIO: Where one offense is charged under a
pending trial for a much longer time where the and operated by the private respondent Manuel municipal ordinance while the other is
"dizzying tempo" and "fast pace" were not Opulencia. The police discovered that electric wiring, penalized by a statute, the critical inquiry is to
maintained by the court. Manifestly, the prosecution devices and contraptions had been installed, without the identity of the acts which the accused is said
and the sovereign people were denied due process of the necessary authority from the city government, to have committed and which are alleged to have
law with a partial court and biased Tanodbayan under and "architecturally concealed inside the walls of the given rise to the two offenses: the constitutional
the constant and pervasive monitoring and pressure building" owned by the private respondent. These protection against double jeopardy is available so
exerted by the authoritarian President to assure the electric devices and contraptions were, in the long as the acts which constitute or have given rise
carrying out of his instructions. A dictated, coerced allegation of the petitioner "designed purposely to to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are
and scripted verdict of acquittal such as that in the lower or decrease the readings of electric current the same acts which constitute or have given rise to
case at bar is a void judgment. In legal consumption in the electric meter of the said electric the offense charged under a statute.
contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It neither [ice and cold storage] plant." During the subsequent REASONING: Constitutional provision on double
binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment is "a lawless investigation, Manuel Opulencia admitted in a written jeopardy reads:
thing which can be treated as an outlaw". It is a statement that he had caused the installation of the No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and electrical devices "in order to lower or decrease the punishment for the same offense. If an act is
the people. To paraphrase Brandeis: If the readings of his electric meter. punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
authoritarian head of the government becomes the - CASE: On 24 November 1975, an information acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
lawbreaker, he breeds contempt for the law, he against Manuel Opulencia for violation of Ordinance another prosecution for the same act. (Article IV
invites every man to become a law unto himself, he No. 1, Series of 1974, Batangas City. Manuel (22), 1973 Constitution)
invites anarchy. Opulencia pleaded not guilty. On 2 February 1976, he This case must be examined, not under the terms of
Dispositive Petitioners' second motion for filed a motion to dismiss the information upon the the first sentence of Article IV (22) of the 1973
reconsideration is granted. The resolutions of grounds that the crime there charged had already Constitution, but rather under the second sentence
November 28, 1985 dismissing the petition and of prescribed and that the civil indemnity there sought of the same section. The first sentence of Article IV
February 4, 1986 denying petitioners' motion for to be recovered was beyond the jurisdiction of the (22) sets forth the general rule: the constitutional
reconsideration are hereby set aside and in lieu Batangas City Court to award. Batangas City Court protection against double jeopardy is not available
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 105 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

where the second prosecution is for an offense that is Petition for certiorari and mandamus is DENIED. Let Reasoning
different from the offense charged in the first or prior the civil action for related civil liability be remanded - 5 years, 4 months, and 16 days had elapsed
prosecution, although both the first and second to the CFI of Batangas City for further proceedings. between November 5, 1968 (the date of commission
offenses may be based upon the same act or set of of the alleged offense) and March 20 1974 (date of
acts. The second sentence of Article IV (22) PEOPLE v GROSPE filing the first information); 4 years, 2 months and 12
embodies an exception to the general days had elapsed between April 3, 1975 (date of
proposition: the constitutional protection, against [supra, page 43] denial by the trial court of the Fiscal’s motion for
double jeopardy is available although the prior reconsideration) and June 13, 1979 (date of filing of
offense charged under an ordinance be different from CANIZA v PEOPLE (AGLORO) the second information). A total of 9 years, 6 months
the offense charged subsequently under a national 159 SCRA 16 and 28 days had been consumed by the time the
statute such as the Revised Penal Code, provided FELICIANO; March 18, 1988 second Information was filed in court.
that both offenses spring from the same act or set of - Under Article 90, in relation with Article 172 of the
acts. NATURE Revised Penal Code, the crime of falsification of
Put a little differently, where the offenses charged Petition for Prohibition and certiorari directed at 1) public document committed by a private individual -
are penalized either by different sections of the CFI Order of Nov. 27, 1979 issued by Branch 23 the offense with which petitioner Cañiza is presently
the same statute or by different statutes, the of CFI of Manila in Criminal Case 46768 and 2) said charged - prescribes in ten (10) years. In this respect,
important inquiry relates to the identity of court’s Order of March 20, 1980 in the same case Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code states further:
offenses charged: the constitutional protection denying Caniza’s Motion for Reconsideration - Computation of prescription of offenses. � The
against double jeopardy is available only where an period of prescription shall commence to run from
Identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the FACTS the day on which the crime is discovered by the
subsequent offenses charged. In contrast, where - March 20, 1974: Assistant City Fiscal of Manila filed offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
one offense is charged under a municipal an Information for falsification of public documents shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
ordinance while the other is penalized by a allegedly committed on Nov. 5, 1968 by Caniza. information, and shall commence to run again when
statute, the critical inquiry is to the identity of - May 24, 1974: Caniza filed Motion to Quash saying such proceedings terminate without the accused
the acts which the accused is said to have that allegations in the information did not constitute being convicted or acquitted, or are justifiably
committed and which are alleged to have given rise an offense, and that the information contained stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
to the two offenses: the constitutional protection averments which, if true, would constitute a legal 2. NO
against double jeopardy is available so long as the excuse or justification Reasoning
acts which constitute or have given rise to the first - trial court granted Motion to Quash, dismissed case - Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court 6 lists
offense under a municipal ordinance are the same against Caniza the following requisites in order that the defense of
acts which constitute or have given rise to the - Fiscal’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Order was double jeopardy may be successfully invoked by an
offense charged under a statute. denied accused person:
The question of Identity or lack of Identity of offenses - June 13, 1979: a second Information (docketed as a. a valid Complaint or Information or other formal
is addressed by examining the essential elements of Criminal Case 46768) was filed charging Caniza with charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
each of the two offenses charged, as such elements substantially the same offense as that charged under conviction;
are set out in the respective legislative definitions of the previous information b. a Court of competent jurisdiction;
the offenses involved. The question of Identity of the - Caniza moved to quash this second information on c. that the accused had pleaded to the charge
acts which are claimed to have generated liability the grounds that 1) the offense charged had already against him;
both under a municipal ordinance and a national prescribed, 2)quashal of the first Information had d. that the accused had been convicted, or acquitted,
statute must be addressed, in the first instance, by been on the merits, 3)the allegations of the second or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
examining the location of such acts in time and Information did not constitute and offense terminated without his express consent; and
space. When the acts of the accused as set out in the - Respondent judge issued an order denying the e. that the second offense charged is the same as
two informations are so related to each other in time motion to quash the first, or an attempt to commit the same or a
and space as to be reasonably regarded as having - He also denied Caniza’s motion for reconsideration petition thereof, or that the second offense
taken place on the same occasion and where those necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
acts have been moved by one and the same, or a ISSUES first offense charged.
continuing, intent or voluntary design or negligence, 1. WON the offense charged had already prescribed - Criminal Case No. 16879 was ordered dismissed by
such acts may be appropriately characterized as an 2. WON the filing of the second Information has the trial court with the express consent of the
integral whole capable of giving rise to penal liability placed the accused in jeopardy of punishment for the accused � i.e., upon Motion to Quash filed by
simultaneously under different legal enactments (a same offense a second time petitioner Cañiza. Generally, a dismissal under such
municipal ordinance and a national statute). circumstance win not bar another prosecution for the
HELD same offense; the defendant, in having the case
DISPOSITION 1. NO against him dismissed, thereby waives his
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 106 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

constitutional right against double jeopardy for the - During the trial for the estafa case, Atty. Rodriguez - G.R. No. 81861 - the accused Bernabe Que and
reason that he effectively prevents the trial court Dadivas, counsel for the accused Devera and Amelia Que filed a petition for certiorari directly with
from proceeding to trial on the merits and rendering Machado, orally moved for the inhibition of the this court seeking to declare Judge Cosico's orders
a judgment of conviction against him presiding Judge Suplico on the ground that he had dated May 22, 1987 and November 27, 1987 as null
- Application of the aforestated doctrine of waiver, some doubts as to the impartiality of the judge and void and to prohibit respondent from further
however, is subject to two (2) sine qua non against whom he and some nineteen (19) other proceeding with the criminal case.
conditions: first, dismissal must have been sought or practicing lawyers had filed serious administrative
induced by the defendant, either personally or charges with the President of the Philippines, the ISSUE
through counsel; and second, such dismissal must Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Minister WON the reinstatement of the criminal case placed
not have been on the merits and must not of Justice. Following Atty. Dadivas, Atty. Roberto the accused in double jeopardy.
necessarily amount to an acquittal. In this respect, Barrios, former private prosecutor, also moved for
the record shows that petitioner Cañiza moved to the inhibition of the judge for the same reason HELD
quash the first Information (Criminal Case No. 16879) alleged by Atty. Dadivas. The presiding judge, Ratio the requisites that must concur for legal
on grounds that the allegations made therein did not however, ruled Attys. Dadivas and Barrios out of jeopardy to attach are, to wit: 1) a valid complaint or
constitute an offense and/or that the first Information order and asked the City Fiscal to present the information; 2) a court of competent jurisdiction; 3)
contained allegations which, if true, constituted a evidence for the prosecution. Thereupon, the City the accused has pleaded to the charge and 4) the
legal excuse or justification. These grounds, upon Fiscal manifested that he was authorizing the private accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case
which the trial court anchored its 27 November 1974 prosecutor to actively handle the prosecution of the dismissed or terminated without the express consent
Order of dismissal, are clearly directed at the case. Atty. Roberto Barrios, however, insisted that of the accused.
sufficiency of said information to sustain the the presiding judge should first rule on their previous Reasoning The fourth requisite is lacking in the
conviction of petitioner Caniza and, hence, indicate motion for inhibition. Instead of resolving the motion instant case. The case was dismissed upon motion
the absence of the first requisite in double-jeopardy. for inhibition, the presiding judge asked the and with the express consent of the accused. The
Furthermore, and more importantly, dismissal of a comments of Atty. Lorenzo E. Coloso, counsel for the accused Bernabe Que, Amelia Que and Paz Martelino
criminal action on this basis is not properly accused Bernabe Que and Amelia Que, and Atty. invoked their constitutional right to a speedy trial
considered as amounting to an acquittal on the Alberto Villarruz, counsel for the accused Paz L. when the prosecution refused to present evidence
merits; from a legal standpoint, the defendant is Martelino, who both invoked the constitutional right until the court had ruled on the motion for inhibition.
deemed as not having been charged with the of their clients to a speedy trial. The presiding judge It was on their oral motion that the lower court
commission of any offense whatsoever under the asked again the prosecution to present its evidence ordered the case to be dismissed.
deficient information. Consequently, petitioner but the private prosecutor insisted that a ruling be There were no oppressive delays on the part of the
Cañizas plea of second jeopardy cannot be made by the presiding judge with regard to the prosecution. The prosecution's insistence that Judge
sustained: he effectively waived his right to assert pending motion for inhibition. As a result, the Suplico rule on the motion to inhibit before further
that plea when he moved to quash the first presiding judge issued the order dated November 10, proceedings in the case was not dilatory. There is no
Information filed against him. 1986 dismissing this case. reason apparent from the records why Suplico should
Dispositive Petition for Prohibition and certiorari is - On November 21, 1986, the prosecution filed a vacillate or show anger on a matter that affects the
DISMISSED. The 8 December 1980 Resolution of this motion for reconsideration from the order of subsequent course of the trial. He could have easily
Court giving due course to the Petition is withdrawn dismissal. This was opposed by the defense. granted or denied the motion, giving sound reasons
and the disputed Orders dated 27 November 1979 - In the meantime, the case was re-raffled to Judge for his ruling. He could have required that the motion
and 20 March 1980 issued by respondent judge in Rodrigo Cosico. Judge Cosico in an order dated May be submitted formally. The subsequent behavior of
Criminal Case No. 46768 are hereby AFFIRMED. This 22, 1987, granted the prosecution's motion for the former Judge, especially his precipitate dismissal
case is remanded to the court a quo for trial on the reconsideration and caused the case to be reopened. of the case shows that his reaction was not mere
merits. The subsequent motion for reconsideration flied by impetuousness or pique. It bears the earmarks of
the defense was denied in an order dated November bias and prejudice. As noted by Judge Cosico in his
QUE v COSICO 27, 1987. order dated November 27, 1987:
- G.R. No. 83114 - accused Martelino filed before the ... A closed scrutiny of the foregoing chronology of
177 SCRA 410
CA a petition for certiorari praying that the order of facts that transpired at the Regional Trial Court does
GUTIERREZ, JR.; September 8, 1989 Judge Cosico reinstating the case be declared null not show that the prosecution deliberately delayed
and void on the ground of double jeopardy. CA found the prosecution of this case nor does it appear that
FACTS merit in the petition and set aside Judge Cosico's the prosecution was unprepared to present its
- Petitioners in G.R. No. 81861 and private order as "it amounts to double jeopardy on the part evidence. The two (2) postponements requested by
respondent in G.R. No. 83114 all stand as the of the petitioner." The decision of the appellate court the prosecution appear to be reasonable. Moreover,
accused in Criminal Case No. C-2152 for estafa thru is based on precedents which discuss the failure of it appears that on November 10, 1986, Mr. Angel Yu,
falsification of commercial documents which case the prosecution to appear for trial, produce its principal witness for the prosecution, was then
was dismissed but subsequently reinstated. witnesses, or present its evidence. present and ready to testify. On the other hand, it
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 107 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

appears that Atty. Lorenzo Coloso also asked for at with the complex crime of estafa through falsification intent to do an unlawful act is inconsistent with the
least two (2) postponements. In invoking the right of of two checks of the Philippine National Bank and idea of negligence.
the accused to speedy trial, Atty. Coloso is not were found guilty. Sentence for each of the three - The rule regarding variance between allegation and
therefore coming to this court with clean hands. defendants to suffer in each case a penalty of not proof in a criminal case, is: "When there is variance
Considering the two (2) postponements requested by less than 6 years and 1 day and not more than 9 between the offense charged in the complaint or
Atty. Coloso, the accused in effect waived their right years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, to pay a information, and that proved or established by the
to speedy trial." fine of P2,500 and the costs. In addition, they were evidence, and the offense as charged, is included in
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition docketed as sentenced to indemnify the Philip-pine Ryukyus or necessarily includes the offense proved, the
G.R. 81861 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Command, the payee of the checks, in the sum of defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved
The petition docketed as G. R. No. 83114 is GRANTED P5,417.11 in each of the two cases included in that which is charged, or of the offense
and the questioned orders of Judge Cosico dated May - On appeal before the CA, Cruz and Vergara were charged included in that which is proved" (Section 4,
22, 1987 and November 27, 1978 are AFFIRMED. The given reduced penalties. Smason was only found Rule 116 now rule 120. Rules of Court).
decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22, 1988 guilty of committing the crime through gross -"An offense charged necessarily includes that which
is SET ASIDE. imprudence and was accordingly sentenced to 4 is proved, when some of the essential elements or
months of arresto mayor in each of the two cases. ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the
SAMSON v CA complaint or information, constitute the latter. And
ISSUES the offense charged is necessarily included in the
103 PHIL 277
1. WON the acts done by him, as found by the Court offense proves, when the essential ingredients of the
BAUTISTA ANGELO; MARCH 31, 1958 of Appeals constitute gross imprudence former constitute or form a part of those constituting
2. WON he was correctly found guilty of the offense the latter" (Section 5, Rule 116, now rule 120)
NATURE estafa through (falsification by) negligence - conviction for a criminal negligent act can be had
Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the under an information exclusively charging the
Court of Appeals HELD commission of a willful offense, upon the theory that
1. YES the greater includes the lesser offense
FACTS - Appellant was, or must have been aware that the - appellant did not act with criminal intent but merely
- On October 2, 1948 Amado L. Cruz asked the help claim was for a sizeable amount, totalling over failed to take proper and adequate means to assure
of his former classmate Rufino T. Samson in getting twelve thousand pesos, and ordinary prudence himself of the identity of the real claimants as an
the checks of the two claimants who were with him required that he should satisfy himself by all proper ordinary prudent man would do. In other words, the
at Camp Murphy. After being assured twice of the and adequate means of the identity of the persons information alleges acts which charge willful,
identity of the supposed claimants and after claiming said amounts, since they we personally falsification but which turned out to be not willful but
examining their residence certificates attached to the unknown to him. The mere assurance of a former negligent. This is a case covered by the rule when
claim papers, Samson accompanied by Cruz and the class, mate would certainly not be a satisfactory there is a variance between the allegation and proof
supposed claimants went to talk to Lt. Manuel identification to justify disbursement of such a large - Moreover, Section 5, Rule 116 now 120, of the Rules
Valencia and requested him to act as guarantor to amount of Court does not require that all the essential
secure the claimants check. - appellant as a Lieutenant of the Army is sufficiently elements of the offense charged in the information
- acting on the assurance of Samson, Valencia intelligent and educated to foresee the possibility be proved, it being sufficient that some of said
helped them secure checks in the name of Rosalinda that the certificates could be forged or stolen essential elements or ingredients thereof be
Perez and Espiridion Lascano. Hese were encashed - appellant cooperated in the commission of the established to constitute the crime proved. This
by Mallari again believing Samson. complex offense of estafa through falsification by conclusion is strengthened by the provisions of
- Paras didn’t know how to write so she instead reckless imprudence by acts without which it could Section 9, Ruled 113, (I think sec 7 rule 117 na) of
placed her thumbmark at the back of the check while not have been accomplished, and this being a fact, the Rules of Court under which appellant could no
Samson signed as witness. Lascano placed his there would be no reason to exculpate him from longer be prosecuted for estafa through falsification
signature while Samson signed as last endorser. liability of commercial documents by reckless negligence
- they then proceeded to Aristocrat to eat lunch. Here 2. YES were we to acquit him in the cases at bar on the
Samson received P300 supposedly to pay the officers - counsel contends that: Samson cannot be convicted obviously technical theory of the dissenters
who helped them and P10 for taxi money. of the crime of estafa through falsification by
- two days after, Samson was informed of the imprudence for the reason that the information filed SEPARATE OPINION
possibility that the people who claimed the checks against him charges only a willful act of falsification
weren’t the real people who they claimed to be. This and contains no reference to any act of imprudence
he was able to verify. Upon knowing of this, Samson REYES JBL [dissent]
on his part; the alleged imprudent act does not
reported the incident to an officer. - Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor (97 Phil.,
include or is not necessarily included in the offense
- Samson, Cruz and Vergara and two others whose 342), July 28, 1955, that criminal negligence is not a
charged in the information because a deliberate
names are unknown in two separate informations mere variant of the intentional misdeed; that it is a
distinct and separate in itself. We also pointed out in
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 108 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

that case that while willful crimes are punished “People of the Philippines v. Panfilo Lacson, et al.” investigation of the murder charges. On October 20,
according to their result in crimes of negligence, pending before Branch 81 of the RTC of Quezon City. 1995, the panel issued a resolution recommending
what the law punishes is the carelessness itself, the - On May 18, 1995, then PNP Director-General the dismissal of the charges for lack of probable
failure to take the precautions that society has a Recaredo Sarmiento II announced, in a press cause.
right to expect will be taken under the circumstances conference, the killing of eleven (11) members of the - Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for
of each case Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a shootout with review. On November 20, 1995, the review panel
- that intentional falsification and falsification by police elements near the fly-over along reversed the resolution and found probable cause for
negligence not only differ in seriousness, but in Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City at about 4:00 the prosecution of multiple murder charges against
essence; they are, by their nature, two different A.M. that day. twenty-six (26) officers and personnel of ABRITFG.
offenses altogether. Wherefore, an offender who is - On May 22, 1995, morning papers carried the news - On November 2, 1995, the Ombudsman filed before
accused of intentional falsification cannot be held to that SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes had claimed that the the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for
answer for falsification by negligence, because the killing of the eleven (11) gang members was a “rub- MURDER, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to
essential element of the latter offense, the ingredient out” or summary execution and not a shootout. 23057, against respondent Panfilo M. Lacson and
that characterizes it and separates it from all other - In an affidavit he executed the following day, delos twenty-five (25) other accused. All twenty-six (26) of
offenses, to wit, the criminal negligence or Reyes stated that he was part of a composite police them were charged as principals.
carelessness, is not involved in the elements of the team called the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence - Upon motion of the respondent, the criminal cases
crime charged. Not only is it not included: it is Task Force Group (ABRITFG) composed of elements of were remanded to the Ombudsman for
excluded by incompatibility, because malice or intent the National Capital Region Commandand headed by reinvestigation. On March 1, 1996, Amended
cannot co-exist with negligence Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson; Traffic Informations were filed against the same twenty-six
- On the procedural side, the objections to appellant's Management Command, headed by Senior (26) suspects but the participation of respondent
conviction of estafa by falsification through Superintendent Francisco Subia, Jr.; Presidential Anti- Lacson was downgraded from principal to accessory.
negligence are much more serious. Crime Commission (PACC), headed by Chief Arraignment then followed and respondent entered a
Section 5, Rule 116 (now 120), upon which the Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police plea of not guilty.
majority relies as justifying the conviction, expresses District Command, headed by Chief Superintendent - With the downgrading of charges against him,
the following rule: Ricardo de Leon; and Criminal Investigation respondent Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the
An offense charged necessarily includes that which Command (CIC), headed by Chief Superintendent Sandiganbayan to hear the criminal cases as none of
is proved, when some of the essential elements or Romeo Acop the “principal” accused in the Amended Informations
ingredients of the former, as this alleged in the - Delos Reyes claimed that the police team arrested was a government official with a Salary Grade (SG)
complaint or information, constitute the latter. the eleven (11) gang members in early morning of 27 or higher, citing Section 2 of R. A. No. 7975 then
(Italic mine) May 18, 1995 at the gang’s safe house in Superville prevailing. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ordered
It is not enough, therefore, that the elements of Subdivision, Parañaque; that after their arrest, the the cases transferred to the Regional Trial Court
the crime for which an accused is convicted should gang members were made to board two vans, their - The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion
be proved, but then must also be charged or hands tied behind their backs, and brought initially to for reconsideration of the transfer. Pending resolution
alleged Camp Crame where a decision to summarily execute of the motion, R. A. No. 8249 took effect on February
them was made, and later to Commonwealth Avenue 23, 1997, amending R. A. No. 7975. In particular, the
PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON where they were shot to death by elements of the amendatory law deleted the word “principal” in
Anti-Bank Roberry Intelligence Task Force Group Section 2 of R. A. No. 7975, thereby expanding the
G.R. No. 149453
- On May 26, 1995, SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz, another jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all cases
RESOLUTION: May 28, 2002 CIC investigator, executed an affidavit corroborating where at least one of the accused, whether principal,
the material allegations of delos Reyes accomplice or accessory, is a government official of
NATURE - On May 31, 1995, Armando Capili, a reporter of Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. The amendment is
Petition for review on certiorari Remate, executed an affidavit stating that he was made applicable to all cases pending in any court in
present when the KBG members were arrested in which trial has not yet begun as of the date of its
FACTS Superville Subdivision approval.
- The assailed Decision of the appellate court - On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job A. Mayo, - In Lacson v. Executive Secretary, respondent Lacson
granted respondent Lacson’s Second Amended PNP Director for Investigation, filed murder charges challenged the constitutionality of the amendment
Petition for Prohibition with application for the with the Office of the Ombudsman against ninety- and contended that the Sandiganbayan had no
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, (1) seven (97) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. The jurisdiction over the criminal cases. This Court, while
assailing the Order issued by Judge Herminia next-of-kin of the slain KBG members also filed dismissing the constitutional challenge, nonetheless
Pasamba of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, murder charges against the same officers and ordered the transfer of the criminal cases to the
Branch 40, that allowed the continuation of the re- personnel. Regional Trial Court on the ground that the Amended
investigation of the Kuratong Baleleng cases; and (2) - Ombudsman Aniano Desierto then created a panel Informations for murder failed to indicate that the
praying for the dismissal of Criminal Cases entitled of investigators to conduct a preliminary offenses charged therein were committed in relation
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 109 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

to, or in discharge of, the official functions of the - On May 28, 2001, respondent Lacson, et al., Kuratong Baleleng gang.
respondent, as required by R. A. No. 8249. invoking, among others, their constitutional right
- The Criminal Cases were raffled off to Branch 81 of against double jeopardy, filed a petition for HELD
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, then presided prohibition with application for temporary restraining - This rule which took effect on December 1, 2000
by Judge, now Associate Justice of the Court of order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the provides:
Appeals, Wenceslao Agnir, Jr. Regional Trial Court of Manila, primarily to enjoin the “SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.- A case shall not be
- Before the accused could be arraigned, prosecution State prosecutors from conducting the preliminary provisionally dismissed except with the express
witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes, Corazon de la Cruz, investigation. consent of the accused and with notice to the
Armando Capili and Jane Gomez recanted their - The plea for temporary restraining order was denied offended party.
affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson in the - On June 6, 2001, eleven (11) Informations for The provisional dismissal of offenses
murder of the KBG members. murder involving the killing of the same members of punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
- On the other hand, private complainants also the Kuratong Baleleng gang were filed before the years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall
executed their respective affidavits of desistance Regional Trial Court of Quezon City become permanent one (1) year after issuance of
declaring that they were no longer interested to - The new Informations charged as principals thirty- the order without the case having been revived.
prosecute these cases. four (34) people, including respondent Lacson and With respect to offenses punishable by
- Due to these developments, the twenty-six (26) his twenty-five (25) other co-accused in the original imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their
accused, including respondent Lacson, filed five informations. The criminal cases were assigned to provisional dismissal shall become permanent two
separate but identical motions to: Judge Ma. Theresa L. Yadao. (2) years after issuance of the order without the
(1) make a judicial determination of the existence - On the same day, respondent Lacson filed before case having been revived.”
of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari against - Like any other favorable procedural rule, this new
arrest Judge Pasamba, the Secretary of Justice, the PNP rule can be given retroactive effect. However, the
(2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants Chief, State Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias, 2nd Court cannot rule on this issue due to the lack of
(3) dismiss the cases should the trial court find Assistant City Prosecutor Jamolin, and the People of sufficient factual bases. Thus, there is need of proof
lack of probable cause. the Philippines. The said petition was amended to of the following facts: (1) whether the provisional
- The records of the case before us are not clear implead as additional party-respondents State dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the
whether the private offended parties were notified of Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC, Quezon City, accused; (2) whether it was ordered by the court
the hearing on March 22, 1999 held by Judge Agnir to Branch 81 after notice to the offended party, (3) whether the 2-
resolve the motions filed by respondent Lacson and - In the meantime, on June 8, 2001, respondent year period to revive has already lapsed, and (4)
the other accused. Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC Branch 81 whether there is any justification for the filing of the
- During the said hearing, the private offended (presided by Judge Ma. Theresa Yadao), a Motion for cases beyond the 2-year period.
parties who desisted do not appear to have been Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in the - There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that
presented on the witness stand. In their stead, Atty. absence thereof, to dismiss the cases outright. the provisional dismissal of the cases against
Godwin Valdez testified that he assisted them in Respondent Lacson, however, filed a Manifestation respondent Lacson bears his express consent. It was
preparing their affidavits of desistance and that he and Motion dated June 13, 2001 seeking the respondent Lacson himself who moved to dismiss the
signed said affidavits as witness. On the other hand, suspension of the proceedings before the trial court. subject cases for lack of probable cause before then
Atty. Aurora Bautista of the Philippine Lawyer’s - The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining Judge Agnir, hence, it is beyond argument that their
League presented the affidavits of recantation of order enjoining Judge Yadao from issuing a warrant of dismissal bears his express consent.
prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes, arrest or conducting any proceeding or hearing in - The records of the case, however, do not reveal
Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. Only prosecution Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112. with equal clarity and conclusiveness whether
witness Corazon de la Cruz testified to affirm her - On August 24, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered notices to the offended parties were given before the
affidavit. the now assailed Decision. It characterized the cases against the respondent Lacson were dismissed
- On March 29, 1999, Judge Agnir issued a Resolution termination of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q- by then Judge Agnir. It appears from the resolution of
dismissing the Criminal Cases 99-81689 as “provisional dismissal,” and considered then Judge Agnir that the relatives of the victims who
- On March 27, 2001, PNP Director Leandro R. Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as desisted did not appear during the hearing to affirm
Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice the mere revivals of the same. Applying Section 8, Rule their affidavits. Their affidavits of desistance were
new affidavits of P/Insp. Ysmael S. Yu and P/S Insp. 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, only presented by Atty. Godwin Valdez who testified
Abelardo Ramos regarding the Kuratong Baleleng it dismissed the criminal cases against the that he assisted the private complainants in
incident for preliminary investigation. On the respondent preparing their affidavits and he signed them as a
strength of this indorsement, Secretary of Justice witness. It also appears that only seven (7) persons
Hernando B. Perez formed a panel to investigate the ISSUE submitted their affidavits of desistance. From the
matter. WON Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven records of the case before us, it cannot be
- On April 17, 2001, the respondent was subpoenaed (11) informations against the respondent Lacson determined whether there were affidavits of
to attend the investigation of said Criminal Cases involving the killing of some members of the desistance executed by the relatives of the three
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 110 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

other victims. The same records do not show - In light of the lack of or the conflicting offended parties were given before the cases of
whether they were notified of the hearing or had evidence on the various requirements to respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge
knowledge thereof. To be sure, it is not fair to expect determine the applicability of Section 8, Rule Agnir; (6) whether there were affidavits of
the element of notice to be litigated before then 117, this Court is not in a position to rule desistance executed by the relatives of the three
Judge Agnir for Section 8, Rule 117 was yet inexistent whether or not the re-filing of the cases for (3) other victims; (7) whether the multiple murder
at that time. multiple murder against respondent Lacson cases against respondent Lacson are being revived
- The fact of notice to the offended parties was not should be enjoined. Fundamental fairness within or beyond the 2-year bar.
raised either in the petition for prohibition with requires that both the prosecution and the - The Court further held that the reckoning date of
application for temporary restraining order or writ of respondent Lacson should be afforded the the two-year bar had to be first determined whether
preliminary injunction filed by respondent Lacson in opportunity to be heard and to adduce it shall be from the date of the order of then Judge
the RTC of Manila, to enjoin the prosecutors from evidence on the presence or absence of the Agnir, Jr. dismissing the cases, or from the dates of
reinvestigating the said cases against him. The only predicate facts upon which the application of receipt thereof by the various offended parties, or
question raised in said petition is whether the the new rule depends. They involve disputed from the date of effectivity of the new rule. According
reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent facts and arguable questions of law. The to the Court, if the cases were revived only after the
Lacson against double jeopardy. Thus, the issue of reception of evidence on these various issues two-year bar, the State must be given the
whether or not the reinvestigation is barred by cannot be done in this Court but before the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with the
Section 8, Rule 117 was not tackled by the litigants. trial court. said time-bar. It emphasized that the new rule fixes a
- Nor was the fact of notice to the offended parties Dispositive Case remanded time-bar to penalize the State for its inexcusable
the subject of proof after the eleven (11) delay in prosecuting cases already filed in court.
informations for murder against respondent Lacson PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON However, the State is not precluded from presenting
and company were revived in the RTC of Quezon City compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases
G.R. No. 149453
presided by Judge Yadao. There was hardly any beyond the two-year bar.
proceeding conducted in the case for respondent April 3, 2003 - The petitioners aver that Section 8, Rule 117 of the
Lacson immediately filed a petition for certiorari in Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is not applicable
the appellate court challenging, among others, the NATURE to the Criminal Cases because the essential
authority of Judge Yadao to entertain the revived Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated requirements for its application were not present
informations for multiple murder against him. May 28, 2002 when Judge Agnir, Jr., issued his resolution of March
- The applicability of Section 8, Rule 117 was never 29, 1999. The petitioners maintain that the
considered in the trial court. It was in the Court of FACTS respondent did not give his express consent to the
Appeals where respondent Lacson raised for the first - Respondent and his co-accused were charged with dismissal by Judge Agnir, Jr. of the Criminal Cases.
time the argument that Section 8, Rule 117 bars the multiple murder for the shooting and killing of eleven The respondent allegedly admitted in his pleadings
revival of the multiple murder cases against him. But male persons identified as members of the Kuratong filed with the Court of Appeals and during the
even then, the appellate court did not require the Baleleng Gang. hearing thereat that he did not file any motion to
parties to elucidate the crucial issue of whether - The Court ruled in the Resolution sought to be dismiss said cases, or even agree to a provisional
notices were given to the offended parties before reconsidered that the provisional dismissal of dismissal thereof. Moreover, the heirs of the victims
Judge Agnir ordered the dismissal of the cases Criminal Cases against the accused were with the were allegedly not given prior notices of the
against respondent Lacson and company. express consent of the respondent as he himself dismissal of the said cases by Judge Agnir, Jr.
- Indeed, the records of this case are inconclusive on moved for said provisional dismissal when he filed his According to the petitioners, the respondent’s
the factual issue of whether the multiple murder motion for judicial determination of probable cause express consent to the provisional dismissal of the
cases against respondent Lacson are being revived and for examination of witnesses. The Court also held cases and the notice to all the heirs of the victims of
within or beyond the 2-year bar. The reckoning date therein that although Section 8, Rule 117 of the the respondent’s motion and the hearing thereon are
of the 2-year bar has to be first determined - - - Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure could be given conditions sine qua non to the application of the
whether it is from the date of the Order of then Judge retroactive effect, there is still a need to determine time-bar in the second paragraph of the new rule.
Agnir dismissing the cases or from the dates the whether the requirements for its application are - The petitioners further contend that even on the
Order were received by the various offended parties attendant. The trial court was thus directed to assumption that the respondent expressly consented
or from the date of the effectivity of the new rule. resolve the following: to a provisional dismissal of the Criminal Cases and
- If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, ... (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the all the heirs of the victims were notified of the
the State must be given the opportunity to justify its cases had the express consent of the accused; (2) respondent’s motion before the hearing thereon and
failure to comply with said timeline. The new rule whether it was ordered by the court after notice to were served with copies of the resolution of Judge
fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its the offended party; (3) whether the 2-year period Agnir, Jr. dismissing the eleven cases, the two-year
inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed to revive it has already lapsed; (4) whether there is bar in Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
in courts. It can therefore present compelling reasons any justification for the filing of the cases beyond Criminal Procedure should be applied prospectively
to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year bar. the 2-year period; (5) whether notices to the and not retroactively against the State. To apply the
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 111 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

time limit retroactively to the criminal cases against included therein. Although the second paragraph of in crimes involving private interests, the new rule
the respondent and his co-accused would violate the the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall requires that the offended party or parties or the
right of the People to due process, and unduly impair, become permanent one year after the issuance heirs of the victims must be given adequate a priori
reduce, and diminish the State’s substantive right to thereof without the case having been revived, the notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal of
prosecute the accused for multiple murder. provision should be construed to mean that the order the criminal case. Such notice may be served on the
of dismissal shall become permanent one year after offended party or the heirs of the victim through the
ISSUES service of the order of dismissal on the public private prosecutor, if there is one, or through the
1. WON Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without public prosecutor who in turn must relay the notice to
Criminal Procedure is applicable to the Criminal the criminal case having been revived. The public the offended party or the heirs of the victim to
Cases prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the enable them to confer with him before the hearing or
2. WON the time-bar in said rule should be applied timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order appear in court during the hearing.
retroactively of dismissal. - In the case at bar, even if the respondent’s motion
- Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given for a determination of probable cause and
HELD either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, examination of witnesses may be considered for the
1. YES unequivocal consent requiring no inference or nonce as his motion for a provisional dismissal of the
- Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal implication to supply its meaning. Where the accused Criminal Cases, however, the heirs of the victims
Procedure reads: writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional were not notified thereof prior to the hearing on said
Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be dismissal of the case No objection or With my motion on March 22, 1999. It must be stressed that
provisionally dismissed except with the express conformity, the writing amounts to express consent the respondent filed his motion only on March 17,
consent of the accused and with notice to the of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case. 1999 and set it for hearing on March 22, 1999 or
offended party. The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a barely five days from the filing thereof. Although the
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his public prosecutor was served with a copy of the
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine failure to object to a provisional dismissal does not motion, the records do not show that notices thereof
of any amount, or both, shall become permanent amount to express consent. A motion of the accused were separately given to the heirs of the victims or
one (1) year after issuance of the order without the for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express that subpoenas were issued to and received by them
case having been revived. With respect to offenses consent to such provisional dismissal. If a criminal - Since the conditions sine qua non for the
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) case is provisionally dismissed with the express application of the new rule were not present when
years, their provisional dismissal shall become consent of the accused, the case may be revived Judge Agnir, Jr. issued his resolution, the State is not
permanent two (2) years after issuance of the only within the periods provided in the new rule. On barred by the time limit set forth in the second
order without the case having been revived. the other hand, if a criminal case is provisionally paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised
Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel dismissed without the express consent of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State can thus
of prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals, the accused or over his objection, the new rule would not revive or refile the Criminal Cases or file new
respondent is burdened to establish the essential apply. The case may be revived or refiled even Informations for multiple murder against the
requisites of the first paragraph thereof, namely: beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of respondent.
1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused to oppose the same on the ground of 2. NO
the accused or the accused moves for a provisional double jeopardy or that such revival or refiling is - The Court agrees with the petitioners that to apply
(sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the barred by the statute of limitations. the time-bar retroactively so that the two-year period
prosecution and the accused move for a - In this case, the respondent has failed to prove that commenced to run on March 31, 1999 when the
provisional dismissal of the case; the first and second requisites of the first paragraph public prosecutor received his copy of the resolution
2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a of the new rule were present when Judge Agnir, Jr. of Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissing the criminal cases is
provisional dismissal of the case; dismissed the Criminal Cases. Irrefragably, the inconsistent with the intendment of the new rule.
3. the court issues an order granting the motion prosecution did not file any motion for the provisional Instead of giving the State two years to revive
and dismissing the case provisionally; dismissal of the said criminal cases. The respondent provisionally dismissed cases, the State had
4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of did not pray for the dismissal, provisional or considerably less than two years to do so. Thus,
the order of provisional dismissal of the case. otherwise of the Criminal Cases. Neither did he ever Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissed the Criminal Cases on
- The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua agree, impliedly or expressly, to a mere provisional March 29, 1999. The new rule took effect on
non to the application of the time-bar in the second dismissal of the cases. December 1, 2000. If the Court applied the new time-
paragraph of the new rule. The raison d’ etre for the - The Court also agrees with the petitioners’ bar retroactively, the State would have only one year
requirement of the express consent of the accused to contention that no notice of any motion for the and three months or until March 31, 2001 within
a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar provisional dismissal or of the hearing thereon was which to revive these criminal cases. The period is
him from subsequently asserting that the revival of served on the heirs of the victims at least three days short of the two-year period fixed under the new rule.
the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy before said hearing as mandated by Rule 15, Section - On the other hand, if the time limit is applied
for the same offense or for an offense necessarily 4 of the Rules of Court. It must be borne in mind that prospectively, the State would have two years from
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 112 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

December 1, 2000 or until December 1, 2002 within and the defendants filed their affidavit and counter- plead, which means that trial must proceed. If, after
which to revive the cases. This is in consonance with affidavits respectively. trial on the merits, judgment is rendered adversely to
the intendment of the new rule in fixing the time-bar - In Jan. 1985, petitioners Bulaong and his counsel de the movant in the MTQ, he can appeal the judgment
and thus prevent injustice to the State and avoid Guzman submitted to City Fiscal of Pasay a reply- and raise the same defenses or objections earlier
absurd, unreasonable, oppressive, injurious, and affidavit containing statements which are alleged to raised in his MTQ which would then be subject to
wrongful results in the administration of justice. The be libelous. Hence, Vistan and Buenaventura filed a review by the appellate court. [b] An order denying a
period from April 1, 1999 to November 30, 1999 complaint for libel against Bulaong and his counsel MTQ, like an order denying a motion to acquit, is
should be excluded in the computation of the two- de Guzman with the City Fiscal. The latter conducted interlocutory and not a final order, and thus, not
year period because the rule prescribing it was not an investigation, and thereafter, filed an information appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition
yet in effect at the time and the State could not be for libel against petitioners. The said information was for certiorari. Such order of denial may only be
expected to comply with the time-bar. It cannot even later amended on. reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an appeal
be argued that the State waived its right to revive - Petitioners moved to quash the Information on the from the judgment, after trial. [c] In Collins vs. Wolfe
the criminal cases against respondent or that it was ff. grounds: (1) that the facts charged do not and reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, the accused, after the
negligent for not reviving them within the two-year constitute an offense; and 2) that the fiscal has no denial of his MTQ, should have proceeded with the
period under the new rule. To require the State to authority to file the Information. They further argue trial of the case in the court below, and if final
give a valid justification as a condition sine qua non that the reply-affidavit was submitted and sworn to judgment is rendered against him, he could then
to the revival of a case provisionally dismissed with by petitioner Bulaong not only because he was appeal, and upon such appeal, present the questions
the express consent of the accused before the required to do so by the investigating fiscal but also which he sought to be decided by the appellate court
effective date of the new rule is to assume that the because it was in compliance with his legal and in a petition for certiorari.[d] Whether or not the
State is obliged to comply with the time-bar under moral duty as complainant in the case for estafa alleged libelous statements in the reply-affidavit are
the new rule before it took effect. This would be a against Vistan and Buenaventura and hence, the covered within the mantle of absolutely privileged
rank denial of justice. The State must be given a reply-affidavit belongs to the class of absolutely communications, is a defense which petitioners could
period of one year or two years as the case may be privileged communications raise upon the trial on the merits, and, if that defense
from December 1, 2000 to revive the criminal case - The assistant city fiscal filed an opposition to the should fail, they could still raise the same on appeal.
without requiring the State to make a valid motion to quash filed by petitioners. RTC of Pasay The MTQ the information for libel on the ground of
justification for not reviving the case before the City denied the motion to quash. Petitioners filed qualified privilege, duly opposed by the prosecution,
effective date of the new rule. Although in criminal MFR but was denied. Petitioners filed with CA a is properly denied, as the prosecution is entitled to
cases, the accused is entitled to justice and fairness, petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, with prove at the trial that there was malice in fact on the
so is the State. preliminary injunction. CA dismissed petition for lack part of the petitioners
Dispositive Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED of merit. Hence, the instant petition for review on Dispositive Petition is DENIED. CA decision is
certiorari was filed AFFIRMED.
PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON
October 2003 ISSUE FULE v CA
WON the procedure availed by petitioners after
162 SCRA 446
denial by the RTC of the motion to quash (MTQ) was
BULAONG v CA (PEOPLE) MELENCIO-HERRERA ; June 22, 1988
correct
181 SCRA 618
MEDIALDEA; January 30, 1990 HELD NATURE
NO Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the
NATURE Ratio: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are not CA
Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA the correct remedies against an order denying a
motion to quash. The defendant should instead, go to FACTS
FACTS trial without prejudice on his part to present the -Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the RTC of
- In March 1984, petitioner Bulaong filed with the RTC special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if Lucena City that convicted Fule of Violation of BP 22
of Zambales an action for sum of money against after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is (The Bouncing Checks Law) on the basis of the
Vistan, Buenaventura and Sta. Maria. Later, Vistan rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner Stipulation of Facts entered into between the
also filed a complaint against Bulaong for rescission authorized by law prosecution and the defense during the pre-trial
of contract with damages. The said cases were Reasoning: [a] Sec. 1, Rule 117 of the ROC provides conference in the Trial Court.
consolidated and are pending trial. that, upon arraignment, defendant shall immediately -Only the prosecution presented its evidence.
- In Nov. 1984, Bulaong filed a criminal complaint for either move to quash the complaint or information or Petitioner-appellant waived the right to present
estafa with the City Fiscal of Pasay against Vicente plead thereto, or do both and that, if the defendant evidence and submitted a Memorandum confirming
Vistan and Leonardo Buenaventura. The complainant moves to quash, without pleading, and the motion is the Stipulation of Facts. The Trial Court convicted
withdrawn or overruled, he should immediately petitioner-appellant.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 113 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

-On appeal, respondent Appellate Court upheld the -Consequently, under the circumstances obtaining in witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving
Stipulation of Facts and affirmed the judgment of this case, the ends of justice require that evidence be and uncorroborated claim of having been framed
conviction. 1 presented to determine the culpability of the - Moreover, the defense of denial or frame-up, like
accused. When a judgment has been entered by alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for
ISSUE consent of an attorney without special authority, it it can just as easily be concocted and is a common
WON CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC will sometimes be set aside or reopened (Natividad and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for
convicting the petitioner of the offense charged, vs. Natividad). violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
despite the cold fact that the basis of the conviction Dispositive WHEREFORE, the judgment of 2. NO.
was based solely on the stipulation of facts made respondent Appellate Court is REVERSED and this - Uy’s premise is that at the pre-trial he did not waive
during the pre-trial on August 8, 1985, which was not case is hereby ordered RE-OPENED and REMANDED the Forensic Chemist’s testimony but only "stipulated
signed by the petitioner, nor by his counsel to the appropriate Branch of the Regional Trial Court on the markings of the prosecution’s evidence."
of Lucena City, for further reception of evidence. SO Indeed, the records disclose that during the pre-trial,
HELD ORDERED. conducted immediately after the arraignment on 21
YES. The CA committed a mistake. November 1995, Uy, duly represented by counsel de
-The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which PEOPLE v UY parte Atty. Gerardo Alberto, and the prosecution
became effective on January 1, 1985, applicable to stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s
327 SCRA 335
this case since the pre-trial was held on August 8, exhibits, and agreed to dispense with the testimony
1985, provides: DAVIDE; March 7, 2000 of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo.
"SEC. 4. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No - During the pre-trial, prosecution and defense
agreement or admission made or entered during the FACTS agreed to stipulate on the markings of the following
pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against - Ramon Uy was caught by the PNP in a buy bust prosecution’s exhibits, thereby dispensing will the
the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by operation. 3 informations was filed against him for testimony of Forensic chemist Loreto E. Bravo.
him and his counsel." (Rule 118) the illegal sale of 5.8564 grams of - It may at once be noted that neither Uy nor his
The Rule is mandatory. Under the rule of statutory methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," and counsel made express admission that the contents of
construction, negative words and phrases are to be possession of 401 grams of the same drug. the plastic bags to "be marked" contain shabu. That
regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative - When arraigned, RAMON pleaded not guilty in each Uy agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic
are merely directory (McGee vs. Republic). The use of case. During the pre-trial, the parties agreed on a Chemist Bravo may not be considered an admission
the term "shall" further emphasizes its mandatory joint trial and to dispense with the testimony of of the findings of Bravo on the contents of the plastic
character and means that it is imperative, operating Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. They also agreed bag. Strictly, from the tenor of the aforequoted
to impose a duty which may be enforced (Bersabal on the marking of the exhibits for the prosecution. portion of the Joint Order, it is clear that Uy and his
vs. Salvador). And more importantly, penal statutes - During the trial, Uy claimed that he was merely counsel merely agreed to the marking of the exhibits,
whether substantive and remedial or procedural are, framed. and the clause "thereby dispensing with the
by consecrated rule, to be strictly applied against the - The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s testimony of forensic Chemist Loreto E. Bravo" must
government and liberally in favor of the accused story of a legitimate buy bust and convicted him of 2 be understood in that context.
(People vs. Terrado). of the 3 charges against him. - Even granting for the sake of argument that Uy
-The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that admitted during the pre-trial that the plastic bags
the omission of the signature of the accused ISSUE contained shabu , the admission cannot be used in
and his counsel, as mandatorily required by 1. WON there was a legitimate buy bust evidence against him because the Joint Order was
the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts 2. WON Uy agreed to waive the testimony of the not signed by Uy and his counsel. Section 4 of Rule
inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the lawyer Forensic Chemist during the pre-trial 118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides:
of the accused, in his memorandum, confirmed the SEC. 40. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No
Stipulation of Facts does not cure the defect because HELD agreement or admission made or entered during
Rule 118 requires both the accused and his counsel 1. YES. the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence
to sign the Stipulation of Facts. What the prosecution - As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be against the accused unless reduced to writing and
should have done, upon discovering that the accused given to the narration of the incident by the signed and his counsel.
did not sign the Stipulation of Facts, as required by prosecution witnesses especially when they are - The purpose of this requirement is to further
Rule 118, was to submit evidence to establish the police officers who are presumed to have performed safeguard the rights of the accused against
elements of the crime, instead of relying solely on their duties in a regular manner, unless there be improvident or unauthorized agreements or
the supposed admission of the accused in the evidence to the contrary; moreover in the absence of admissions which his counsel may have entered into
Stipulation of Facts. Without said evidence proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious without his knowledge, as he may have waived his
independent of the admission, the guilt of the crime against appellant, the presumption of presence at the pre-trial conference; eliminate any
accused cannot be deemed established beyond regularity in the performance of official duty, as well doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts
reasonable doubt. as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of agreed upon.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 114 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Nevertheless, Uy cannot take advantage of the the imposable penalty on James Andrew, by reason could visit her at home. Virginia said that instead
absence of his and his counsel’s signatures on the of his minority, is 1 degree lower than the statutory they could meet in the public market of San Jose City.
pre trial order. They did not object when the penalty. - Two days thereafter they met. Quiazon brought
prosecution presented the plastic bags and said that Reasoning Virginia home and introduced her to his parents,
it contained shabu. Uy cannot now raise it for the - The penalty for the special complex crime of announcing that she was going to be their daughter-
first time on appeal. Objection to evidence cannot be kidnapping and serious illegal detention with in-law. That same day they had sexual intercourse in
raised for the first time on appeal. homicide and rape being death, one degree lower the house of Quiazon.
Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto therefrom is reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, - After that day, it was not unexpected for such
the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal intimacies to be repeated. Every time Virginia visited
PEOPLE v LARRAÑAGA detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One degree Quiazon they had sexual intercourse.
lower therefrom is reclusion temporal. There being - May 1973: the accused was eating in the public
PER CURIAM; January 31, 2006
no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the market with his friend Rogelio Vigilia and the
penalty to be imposed on James Andrew is reclusion complainant Virginia. Suddenly Virginia stood up and
NATURE temporal in its medium period. Applying the left them because she saw her husband. The
MFR filed by brothers James Anthony and James Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be following morning, when Rogelio went to visit his
Andrew, both surnamed Uy, praying for the reduction sentenced to suffer the penalty of 12 years of prision brother-in-law, who is a neighbor of the complainant
of the penalties imposed upon the latter on the mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to 17 in Barrio Abar, he saw Virginia with contusions and a
ground that he was a minor at the time the crimes years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as swollen face. He asked his brother-in-law what had
were committed. maximum. happened, and was told that complainant's husband
Dispositive The MFR is GRANTED. For the crime of had beaten her.
FACTS kidnapping and serious illegal detention with - Quiazon and Virgina seldom saw each other after
- The Uy brothers were convicted of the crimes of homicide and rape, James Andrew Uy is sentenced to the former learned of the latter’s marriage. However,
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious reclusion perpetua; For the crime of simple they wrote each other letters, and even saw each
illegal detention with homicide and rape; and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the penalty other on countless occasions after the knowledge
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The Uy of 12 years of prision mayor in its maximum period, regarding the marriage surfaced.
brothers claim that James Andrew was only 17 years as minimum, to 17 years of reclusion temporal in its - Manifestation: "The complainant had earlier
and 262 days old at the time the crimes were medium period, as maximum. introduced herself to the accused as a widow.
committed. He begs leave and pleads that we admit Antonio did not know that Virginia was in fact
at this stage of the proceedings his Certificate of Live
PEOPLE v QUIAZON married, until sometime during the first week of May,
Birth issued by the NSO, and Baptismal Certificate. 1973 when they were eating at the restaurant. When
He prays that his penalty be reduced, as in the case 78 SCRA 513
he learned that she was married, he told her to avoid
of his brother James Anthony. FERNANDO; August 31, 1977 him, but she answered that she could not, because
- Since the entry in the birth certificate was not she loved him. Antonio did not also try to avoid her
legible, the court required the SolGen to secure a NATURE because he loved her xxx” Even Quiazon’s parents
clear and legible copy from the Civil Registrar of Plea of Acting Solicitor Vicente Mendoza to acquit the objected to the relationship, but to no avail.
Cotabato as well as the NSO, and thereafter to file a accused. - To avoid being found out, Quiazon and Virginia
comment on the issue of James Andrew's minority. traveled from barrio to barrio until they reached
The documents showed that James Andrew was FACTS Barrio Armenia in Tarlac, where they stayed for more
indeed a minor when the crimes were committed. - Judgment of lower court convicted Antonio Quiazon than a week. While on their way to the voting
The SolGen recommended that the penalty imposed of abduction with rape. Acting Solicitor General precinct which was near a P.C. Detachment, a P. C.
be reduced. Vicente V. Mendoza, instead of filing a brief for soldier, Sgt. Daton, stopped them because he
appellee, submitted a Manifestation recommending noticed that they were new in the place. The P. C.
ISSUE that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and Officer asked her whether Antonio Quiazon was her
WON James Anthony's penalty should be reduced another be entered acquitting him, the need for a husband, and she answered in the negative. At the
because he was a minor at the time the crime was thorough study of the record became evident. P.C. Headquarters, Virginia was asked who her
committed - Events started in a chance encounter between husband was, and she answer that her husband is
complainant, Virginia Salazar de la Cruz (Virginia), Sgt. Gaudencio de la Cruz, an army man. It was then
HELD and appellant while they were passengers in a when the P.C. soldiers became interested in asking
YES Baliuag Transit bus, both of them being residents her why she was in Tarlac. The complainant
Ratio Article 68 of the RPC provides: Upon a person thereof and bound for San Jose City, Nueva Ecija. answered that she was brought there by the accused
over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the Virginia was quite friendly, and during the trip was and that Antonio abducted and raped her.
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall leaning on Quiazon. Encouraged, Quiazon asked if he - In Cabanatuan City the accused Antonio was
be imposed, but always in the proper period. Thus, detained in jail, by virtue of the complaint brought by
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 115 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Virginia against him. When he was in jail, Virginia Dispositive Decision is reversed, and the accused is accordance with par. 4 of the "Return to Work
visited him. She apologized to him and told him that acquitted. Agreement?”
she did not want what had happened to him, but she -Case was submitted for decision on the bases of the
had to do it because she was afraid of her husband. CASTILLO v FILTEX parties’ memoranda and stipulation of facts. CFI Rizal
dismissed Castillo’s complaint, and ordered him to
124 SCRA 900
ISSUE pay FILTEX P1thou as attorney's fees, plus costs.
WON Quiazon is guity of abduction with rape. ESCOLIN; September 30, 1983 Reasoning: CFI Rizal’s dismissal of the case was only
because of the failure of the complainant to appear
HELD NATURE at the scheduled trial. The agreement to reinstate an
NO, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable Appeal from CFI Rizal decision employee expressly states that there must be a
doubt, and according to the Manifestation of the finding of innocence by the courts. It did not stipulate
Acting Solicitor General, the evidence supports FACTS that the case should be dismissed.
Quiazon’s innocence. -Artemio Castillo, an employee of FILTEX and a -Hence, this appeal.
Ratio Only if the judge below and the appellate member of the Samahan ng Malaya Manggagawa sa
tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime Filtex (FFW), was charged together with others in the ISSUE
has been committed precisely by the person on trial MTC Makati with the offense of slight physical WON Castillo is entitled to reinstatement and
under such an exacting test should the sentence be injuries, for his alleged involvement in a mauling and backwages
one of conviction. It is thus required that every shining incident which occurred sometime in July
circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken 1964 at the height of a strike called by the HELD
into account. The proof against him must survive the SAMAHAN. During the pendency of the case, Castillo YES. Since the criminal case was ultimately
test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be was suspended from his job. dismissed, the constitutional presumption of
permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be -July 8, 1964: FILTEX and SAMAHAN entered into a innocence in favor of the appellant should be
satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the “Return Work Agreement”: applied. Castillo’s innocence need no longer be
responsibility for the offense charged; that not only >par. 3: company employees against whom court proved, since under the fundamental law his
did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a cases are filed or to be filed, shall be suspended by innocence is presumed.
crime. Moral certainty is required. the company upon filing of such cases by the fiscal -While it is true that Castillo was convicted of the
Reasoning with the proper courts for as long as the said cases offense of slight physical injuries by MTC Makati, it is
- Art. 3, Section 14 (2) (Constitution) shall remain pending in court undisputed that on appeal, CFI Rizal dismissed the
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused >par. 4: in the event said employees are found case for failure of the prosecution witnesses to
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary innocent by the courts, the COMPANY agrees to appear.
is proved xxx” reinstate them to their respective jobs with back -ROC Rule 123, Sec 7: Trial de novo on appeal. An
- It is precisely because of such notorious lack of any wages minus whatever earnings they earned during appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in
persuasive force in the testimony of complainant that the period of suspension; otherwise, if found guilty the courts of first instance as if it had been originally
the Manifestation asserted most emphatically that they shall remain dismissed; instituted in that court.
appellant could rely on the constitutional -After trial, the MTC Makati found Castillo guilty of -Applying this rule, the judgment of conviction
presumption of innocence, one of the most valuable slight physical injuries. rendered by MTC Makati was vacated upon perfection
rights of an accused person -CFI Rizal dismissed the case (November 28, 1966) of the appeal, to be tried de novo in the CFI as if it
- The complainant alleges that on July 3, 1973 the because complainant failed to appear at the were originally instituted therein. The phrase "to
accused, whom the complainant had never met scheduled trial. vacate" applied to a judgment means "to annul, to
before, suddenly grabbed her while she was in the -Castillo asked for reinstatement and back wages. render void."
public market of San Jose City and forced her to When FILTEX paid no head to his demands, he -People vs. Dramayo: The starting point is the
board a tricycle. Then he took her to the house of his instituted action in CFI Rizal, claiming that dismissal constitutional presumption of innocence - a right
parents where he ravished her. The abduction of the criminal case justified his reinstatement and safeguarded the accused. Accusation is not,
occurred in broad daylight, or at about 10:00 in the payment of back wages, pursuant to paragraph 4 of according to the fundamental law, synonymous with
morning. The improbability of the complainant's the “Return to Work Agreement.” guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to
charge is immediately visible from the time and locus -FILTEX filed motion to dismiss; grounds: lack of demonstrate that culpability lies. Guilt must be
where the crime was supposed to have been cause of action and want of jurisdiction, the case shown beyond reasonable doubt. To such a standard
committed. The market, being a public place, was at being allegedly within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court has always been committed.
its busiest at 10 in the morning. Virginia was also CIR. This motion was denied. -There is need for the most careful scrutiny of the
with a niece at the time. Any commotion would easily -Pre-trial: the parties defined the principal issue “Is testimony of the state, both oral and documentary,
attract attention. In addition, there was a police Castillo entitled to reinstatement and back wages independently of whatever defense is offered by the
outpost near the market. after the dismissal of the charge against him in accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate
tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 116 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

had been committed precisely by person on trial Petitioner’s Claim It is the contention of petitioner - It is the constitutional right of the accused to be
under such an exacting test could sentence be one of that the failure to arraign him is violative of his heard in his defense before sentence is pronounced
conviction. constitutional right to procedural due process, more on him. Such "constitutional right is inviolate." There
-It is thus required that every circumstance favoring specifically of his right to be informed of the nature is no doubt that it could be waived, but here there
his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof and cause of the accusation against him and of his was no such waiver, whether express or implied.
against him must survive the test of reason; the right to be heard by himself and counsel. - The provision in the present Constitution allowing
strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway - The Solicitor General, when asked to comment, trial to be held in absentia is unavailing. It cannot
judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on agreed that the procedural defect was of such justify the actuation of respondent Judge Senining. Its
the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the gravity as to render void the decision of the City language is clear and explicit. What is more, it is
offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the Court affirmed by the Court of First Instance. The mandatory. Thus: "However, after arraignment, trial
act but that it amounted to a crime. So it has been comment was considered as answer, with the case may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
held from the 1903 decision of United States v. being submitted for decision. accused provided that he has been duly notified and
Reyes. his failure to appear is unjustified." As pointed out
Interpretation of par. 4 of Return to Work ISSUE then by the Solicitor General, the indispensable
Agreement WON the accused’s constitutional right to procedural requisite for trial in absentia is that it should come
-FILTEX: said paragraph requires an express finding of due process was violated. "after arraignment."
innocence by the court in order to entitle an - Without the accused having been arraigned, it
employee to reinstatement and back wages; no such HELD becomes academic to discuss the applicability of this
finding of innocence had been made because the YES. exception to the basic constitutional right that the
criminal case was dismissed on a mere technicality; The Constitution requires that the accused be accused should be heard by himself and counsel.
interpretation of said agreement should not be arraigned so that he may be informed as to why be - The appeal to the Court of First Instance presided
stretched to include a "mere presumption of was indicted and what penal offense he has to face, by respondent Judge Mendoza did not possess any
innocence under the law." to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is curative aspect. Respondent considered the appeal
-SC: Constitutional provision on protection to labor shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity taken by the petitioner as waiver of the defects in the
constrains courts to interpret the agreement in to disprove the evidence against him. proceedings in the respondent City Court.
question in favor of the claim of the laborer and - It is at that stage of arraignment where in the mode - Precisely, the appeal itself is tantamount to
against that of management. Those who are less and manner required by the Rules, an accused, for questioning those defects. In fact, the Memorandum
fortunate in terms of economic well-being should be the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the in support of the appeal unmistakably raised as error
given preferential attention. State’s obligation to precise charge that confronts him. It is imperative the absence of petitioner at the arraignment and
protect labor is welfare state concept vitalized. (Art. that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of cited jurisprudence, commentaries and the rules to
4, Labor Code. Art. 1700, NCC. ^_^ hehe! ) freedom, even of his life depending on the nature of bolster his position. Specifically, the absence of an
Dispositive CFI Rizal decision set aside. Remand to the crime imputed to him. At the very least then, he arraignment can be invoked at anytime in view of the
Labor Arbiter of NLRC for determination of the must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of requirements of due process to ensure a fair and
amount of back wages. the state is mobilized against him. It is a vital aspect impartial trial.
of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. It is not Dispositive The petition was granted.
BORJA v MENDOZA useless formality, much less an idle ceremony.
77 SCRA 422 - Petitioner was not arraigned at all and was not PEOPLE v ALICANDO
represented by counsel throughout the whole
FERNANDO; June 20, 1977 251 SCRA 293
proceedings in the respondent City Court. It is
indisputable then that there was a denial of PUNO; December 12, 1995
FACTS petitioner's constitutional right to be heard by
- Notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment of himself and counsel. NATURE
petitioner Manuel Borja, accused of slight physical - An equally fatal defect in the proceeding had before Automatic review
injuries, respondent Judge Romulo R. Senining respondent Judge Senining was that notwithstanding
proceeded with the trial in absentia and found the its being conducted in the absence of petitioner, he FACTS
accused guilty of such offense. was convicted. It was shown that after one - Alicando was charged of rape with homicide for the
- An appeal was filed in the CFI of Cebu presided by postponement due to his failure to appear, the case death of Khazie Penecilla on June 12, 1994 in Iloilo
respondent Judge Rafael T. Mendoza. was reset for hearing. When that date came, without City. In the process of raping Khazie, he choked her
- It was then alleged that without any notice to petitioner being present, although his bondsman thus causing her death.
petitioner and without requiring him to submit his were notified, respondent Judge, as set forth in the > Khazie’s father Romeo was having a drink with
memorandum, a decision on the appealed case was comment of the Solicitor General, "allowed the two friends in Romeo’s house. Alicando eventually
rendered affirming the judgment of the City Court. prosecution to present its evidence. Thereupon, joined them. At around 4:30 PM, Romeo’s friends
respondent City Court promulgated thedecision. left.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 117 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

> At around 5:30 PM, Rebada, one of Penecilla’s - This rule is a restatement of the doctrine laid down - The Court admitted as evidence the things seized in
neighbors, spotted Khazie by the window of in People vs. Apduhan. The searching inquiry of the Alicando’s house. These are inadmissible evidence
Alicando’s house. Khazie offered to buy yemas trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness for they were gathered by PO3 Tan of as a result of
from Rebada but Alicando closed the window. of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the custodial interrogation where appellant verbally
Rebada then heard Khazie crying so she consequences of the plea. confessed to the crime without the benefit of
approached the house and saw through an opening - The questions of the trial court failed to show the counsel.
between the floor and the door that Khazie was voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the appellant nor - This is in violation of Art. 3, Sec. 12 of the 1987
being raped. did the questions demonstrate appellant's full Constitution which requires the assistance of counsel
> Khazie did not come home so Romeo and his comprehension of the consequences of his plea. for the accused as well as provides for the right of
wife looked for her. Rebada did not tell them what > The records do not clearly illustrate the the accused to remain silent and to be informed of
she saw. personality profile of the accused. the nature of the accusation against him and that
> In the morning, Khazie’s corpse was found under > The age, socio-economic status and educational these rights cannot be waived subject to exceptions.
the house of Santiago, another neighbor. Rebada background of the accused were not examined. A violation of this provision renders the evidence
then told the Penecillas what she knew. > With regard to voluntariness, questions gathered inadmissible.
> Alicando was arrested and her verbally regarding the presence or absence of - Even if the evidence gathered were admissible,
confessed his guilt to PO3 Tan without the maltreatment of the accused are deemed they are still insufficient as evidence.
assistance of counsel. Based on his confession insufficient when a record of events in the penal > The alleged bloodstains on the pillow and shirt
and follow-up interrogations, Khazie’s slippers were facility indicate that Alicando suffered a hematoma were never proven with laboratory tests.
recovered from Alicando’s home along with a from being locked up in a cell with violent inmates > There was no testimony that the shirt in
stained T-shirt and pillow. upon his arrest. question was worn by the accused when he
- June 29, 1994 – Alicando was arraigned and pleaded > With regard to comprehension, the trial court committed the crime. It was not unnatural for him
guilty. After the plea of guilt, the trial court ordered inadequately warned Alicando that a plea of guilt to have a shirt with bloodstains because he was a
the prosecution to present its evidence. would result to a mandatory of penalty of death butcher.
- July 20, 1994 – The trial court sentenced Alicando to without explaining to him what mandatory meant. - The burden to prove that an accused waived his
death by electric chair or, if the penal facilities would - The rule requires that after a free and intelligent right to remain silent and the right to counsel before
be available by then, by gas poisoning. plea of guilt the trial court must require the making a confession under custodial interrogation
prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant and rests with the prosecution. It is also the burden of the
ISSUE the precise degree of his culpability beyond prosecution to show that the evidence derived from
WON the accused was properly meted the sentence reasonable doubt. Rule 116, Sec. 3 modifies priorituis confession is not tainted as "fruit of the poisonous
of death prudence that a plea of guilt even in capital offenses tree."
is sufficient to sustain a conviction charged in the Dispositive The Decision convicting accused of the
HELD information without need of further proof. crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to
NO 3. Some prosecution evidence, offered independently suffer the penalty of death is annulled and set aside
1. Arraignment of the accused was null and void of the plea of guilt of the appellant, were and the case is remanded to the trial court for further
Ratio During arraignment, the complaint or the inadmissible, yet were considered by the trial court proceedings.
information should be read in a language or dialect convicting the appellant.
which the accused understands. Ratio “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: once SEPARATE OPINION
Reasoning the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have
- The trial judge failed to follow the procedure been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
KAPUNAN [dissent]
outlined in Rule 116 of the RoC. derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is
- There was substantial compliance with the
- The information was written in English and it was also inadmissible. In other words, illegally seized
requirements for arraignment and plea.
unknown whether or not the accused could evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal
> There is nothing on the record which would
understand English well. It could not be said with act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the
warrant a finding that the information was not read
certainty that the accused was informed of the indirect result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the
in the language or dialect known to the appellant.
nature and cause of the accusation against him. poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the
> The rule on arraignment and plea does not
2. The plea of guilt was null and void. illegally seized evidence, but it is equally
absolutely require that the same be indicated in
Ratio Rule 116, Sec. 3 provides that in a plea of inadmissible.
the record of every criminal case
guilt, the court should ascertain that the accused Reasoning
> Rule 116 contains nothing requiring trial courts,
voluntarily entered into the plea and fully - The rule is based on the principle that evidence
to indicate in the record the fact that the
comprehends the ramifications of such a plea and, in illegally obtained by the State should not be used to
information was read in the language or dialect
addition, the prosecution should also be required to gain other evidence because the originally illegally
known to the defendant even if the same was in
prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
fact actually complied with by the lower court.
Reasoning obtained.
And yet, even in Metro Manila alone, one observes
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 118 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

that the bulk of proceedings in our trial courts, the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of - SC issued a writ of habeas corpus and heard the
including the process of arraignment is conducted his culpability. Nowhere in the rules does it state case. SC dismissed the petition and upheld the
in the vernacular that an extra-judicial confession is a prerequisite validity of martial law and the arrest and detention of
> Three things which need to be accomplished for a conviction based on a plea of guilty. petitioner.
after the accused in a criminal case enters a plea - The physical evidence objected to falls under the - In the present case, petitioner challenges the
of guilty to a capital offense, which have all been exclusionary rule. jurisdiction of military commissions to try him, alone
complied with in this case: > The 1987 Constitution's exclusionary rules or together with others, for illegal possession of
1. the court should conduct a searching absolutely forbid evidence obtained from illegal firearms, ammunition and explosives, for violation of
inquiry into the voluntariness and full searches and seizures or evidence resulting from the Anti-Subversion Act and for murder.
comprehension of the consequences of the uncounseled custodial investigations of accused - When the proceedings before the Military
accused's plea. There is no rule on conducting individuals. Commission opened, petitioner questioned the
inquiry except that in People vs. Dayot, it was > The doctrine is not without its exceptions, and fairness of the trial and announced that he did not
held that “a searching inquiry ... compels the the evidence in dispute in the instant case falls wish to participate in the proceedings even as he
judge to content himself reasonably that the within those exceptions. discharged both his defense counsel of choice and
accused has not been coerced or placed under + The discovery of the victim's body near the his military defense counsel.
a state of duress - and that his guilty plea has house of the accused would have naturally led - For the petitioner's assurance, a Special Committee
not therefore been given improvidently - other authorities to undertake a more thorough was created to reinvestigate the charges against
by actual threats of physical harm from investigation of the site, particularly in those petitioner. Petitioner filed supplemental petition
malevolent quarters or simply because of his, areas where the victim was last seen. questioning the legality of the creation of the Special
the Judge's, intimidating robes.” + Under one of the recognized exceptions of Committee.
2. the lower court should require the the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, the - On March 24, 1975, petitioner filed an "Urgent
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused more appropriate question in such cases is Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and the precise degree of his culpability whether the evidence to which the objection is Against Military Commission No. 2"; praying that said
3. the court should inquire whether or not the made would not have been discovered at all Commission be prohibited from proceeding with the
accused wishes to present evidence on his but for the illegality or would have been perpetuation of testimony under its Order dated
behalf and should allow him to do so if he so discovered anyway by sources or procedures March 10, 1975, the same being illegal, until further
desires independent of the illegality. orders from the Supreme Court.
- The plea of guilt was not improvident. + Another exception refuses to treat the - On April 14, 1975, this Court also issued a
> When the appellant pleaded guilty in open court, doctrine as absolutely sacred if the evidence restraining order against respondent Military
the appellant was clearly assisted by counsel. in question would have been inevitably Commission No. 2, restraining it from further
discovered under normal conditions. proceeding with the perpetuation of testimony under
- There is adequate legal evidence to sustain the trial its Order dated March 10, 1975 until the matter is
> The trial court, on its own, in fact went out of its
court’s conviction with moral certainty. The heard thereto.
way to repeatedly inform the defendant of the
testimony of a lone witness, free from signs of - When this case was called for hearing, petitioner's
nature of his plea and the implications of the plea
impropriety or falsehood, is sufficient to convict an counsel presented to this Court a Motion to Withdraw
he was making. He was asked a number of times if
accused even if uncorroborated. the petition and all other pending matters and/or
he was sure of the plea he was making.
incidents in connection therewith.
> The records fail to indicate that appellant
questioned his plea of guilty at any stage of the AQUINO v MILITARY COMMISSION 2
ISSUES
trial. He did not put up any defense with regard to 63 SCRA 546
1. WON the court has jurisdiction despite petitioner’s
the evidence and the testimonies and even ANTONIO; May 9, 1975 motion to withdraw
directed the police to the location of the evidence.
2. WON Military Commission No. 2 has been lawfully
> The accused’s silence can counter the assertion FACTS constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to
of the Court that the plea of guilt was improvident. - After Martial Law was proclaimed, Benigno Aquino hear the cases against civilians, including the
Silence is assent as well as consent, and may, Jr. was arrested (on Sept 22, 1972), pursuant to petitioner.
where a direct and specific accusation of crime is General Order No. 2-A of the President for complicity 3. WON Administrative Order No. 355, creating the
made, be regarded under some circumstances as a in a conspiracy to seize political and state power in Special Committee strips the petitioner of his right to
quasi-confession. An innocent person will defend the country and to take over the Government. due process
himself so silence can be understood as a person - On September 25, 1972, he sued for a writ of 4. WON the denial to an accused of an opportunity to
deferring to do just that. habeas corpus in which he questioned the legality of cross-examine the witnesses against him in the
> The absence of an extra-judicial confession does the proclamation of martial law and his arrest and preliminary investigation constitutes an infringement
not detract from the efficacy or validity of detention. of his right to due process,
appellant's plea of guilty. It does not affect the
requirement compelling the prosecution to prove
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 119 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

5. WON the taking of testimonies and depositions of, incident to or in connection with the commission charged were in fact committed and the accused is
were void of said crimes" which were pending in the civil courts probably guilty thereof." Petitioner, however,
6. WON petitioner may validly waive his right to be were ordered transferred to the military tribunals. objected by challenging in his supplemental petition
present at his trial This jurisdiction of the tribunal, therefore, operates before this Court the validity of Administrative Order
equally on all persons in like circumstances. No. 355, on the pretense that by submitting to the
HELD - The guarantee of due process is not a guarantee of jurisdiction of the Special Committee he would be
1. YES any particular form of tribunal in criminal cases. A waiving his right to cross-examination because
- The court denied the motion, since all matters in military tribunal of competent jurisdiction, accusation Presidential Decree No. 77, which applies to the
issue in this case have already been submitted for in due form, notice and opportunity to defend and proceedings of the Special Committee, has done
resolution, and they are of paramount public interest, trial before an impartial tribunal, adequately meet away with cross-examination in preliminary
it is imperative that the questions raised by the due process requirement. Due process of law investigation.
petitioner on the constitutionality and legality of does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding in 4. NO
proceedings against civilians in the military the regular courts. The procedure before the Military - The Constitution "does not require the holding of
commissions, pursuant to pertinent General Orders, Commission, as prescribed in PD No. 39, assures preliminary investigations. The right exists only, if
Presidential Decrees and Letters of Instruction, observance of the fundamental requisites of and when created by statute." It is "not an essential
should be definitely resolved. procedural due process, due notice, an essentially part of due process of law." The absence thereof does
2. YES fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for not impair the validity of a criminal information or
- Military Commission No. 2 has been lawfully the preparation of the defense. affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case. As a
constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to - It is asserted that petitioner's trial before the creation of the statute it can, therefore, be modified
hear the cases against civilians, including the military commission will not be fair and impartial, or amended by law.
petitioner. since the President had already prejudged - It is also evident that there is no curtailment of the
Reasoning petitioner's cases and the military tribunal is a mere constitutional right of an accused person when he is
- The Court has previously declared that the creation of the President, and "subject to his control not given the opportunity to "cross-examine the
proclamation of Martial Law is valid and and direction." We cannot, however, indulge in witnesses presented against him in the preliminary
constitutional and that its continuance is justified by unjustified assumptions. Prejudice cannot be investigation before his arrest, this being a matter
the danger posed to the public safety. presumed, especially if weighed against the great that depends on the sound discretion of the Judge or
- To preserve the safety of the nation in times of confidence and trust reposed by the people upon the investigating officer concerned."
national peril, the President of the Philippines President and the latter's legal obligation under his 5. NO,
necessarily possesses broad authority compatible oath to "do justice to every man". Nor is it justifiable the taking of the testimony or deposition was proper
with the imperative requirements of the emergency. to conceive, much less presume, that the members and valid.
On the basis of this, he has authorized in GO No. 8 of the military commission, the Chief of Staff of the - Petitioner does not dispute respondents' claim that
the Chief of Staff of the AFP, to create military AFP, the Board of Review and the Secretary of on March 14, 1975, he knew of the order allowing the
tribunals & try and decide cases "of military National Defense, with their corresponding staff taking of the deposition of prosecution witnesses on
personnel and such other cases as may be referred judge advocates, as reviewing authorities, through March 31, to continue through April 1 to 4, 1975.
to them." In GO No. 12, the military tribunals were whom petitioner's hypothetical conviction would be - The provisions of PD No. 328, dated October 31,
vested with jurisdiction "exclusive of the civil courts", reviewed before reaching the President, would all be 1973, for the conditional examination of prosecution
among others, over crimes against public order, insensitive to the great principles of justice and witnesses before trial, is similar to the provisions of
violations of the Anti-Subversion Act, violations of the violate their respective obligations to act fairly and Section 7 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.
laws on firearms, and other crimes which, in the face impartially in the premises. - In Elago,the court said that the order of the court
of the emergency, are directly related to the quelling This assumption must be made because innocence, authorizing the taking of the deposition of the
of the rebellion and preservation of the safety and not wrongdoing, is to be presumed. witnesses of the prosecution and fixing the date and
security of the Republic. 3. NO time thereof is the one that must be served on the
- Petitioner is charged with having conspired with - It was precisely because of petitioner's complaint accused within a reasonable time prior to that fixed
certain military leaders of the communist rebellion to that he was denied the opportunity to be heard in the for the examination of the witnesses so that the
overthrow the government, furnishing them arms preliminary investigation of his charges .The accused may be present and cross-examine the
and other instruments to further the uprising. Under President created a Special Committee to witness.
GO No. 12, jurisdiction over this offense has been reinvestigate the charges filed against him in the - 'The opportunity of cross-examination involves two
vested exclusively upon military tribunals. It cannot military commission. It is intended that the elements:
be said that petitioner has been singled out for trial Committee should conduct the investigation with "(1) Notice to the opponent that the deposition is to
for this offense before the military commission. "utmost fairness, impartiality and objectivity" be taken at the time and place specified, and
Pursuant to GO No. 12, all "criminal cases involving ensuring to the accused his constitutional right to "(2) A sufficient interval of time to prepare for
subversion, sedition, insurrection or rebellion or due process, to determine whether "there is examination and to reach the place,
those committed in furtherance of, on the occasion reasonable ground to believe that the offenses
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 120 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

"(2) The requirements as to the interval of time are at all stages of his trial, there appears, therefore, no accused's presence in criminal proceedings was
now everywhere regulated by statute * * *; the logical reason why petitioner, although he is charged generally recognized save in capital cases (leading to
rulings in regard to the sufficiency of time are thus so with a capital offense, should be precluded from the suspension of trial whenever the accused was at
dependent on the interpretation of the detailed waiving his right to be present in the proceedings for large) or where the accused was in custody although
prescriptions of the local statutes that it would be the perpetuation of testimony, since this right, like for a non-capital offense, the 1973 Constitution now
impracticable to examine them here. But whether or the others aforestated, was conferred upon him for unqualifiedly permits trial in absentia even of capital
not the time allowed was supposedly insufficient or his protection and benefit. cases, and provides that "after arraignment, trial
was precisely the time required by statute, the actual - It is also important to note that under Section 7 of may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
attendance of the party obviate any objection upon Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court (Deposition of accused provided that he has been duly notified and
the ground of insufficiency, because then the party witness for the prosecution) the "Failure or refusal on his failure to appear is unjustified," thus recognizing
has actually had that opportunity of cross- the part of the defendant to attend the examination the right of an accused to waive his presence. P.D.
examination for the sole sake of which the notice was or the taking of the deposition after notice No. 328 under which the perpetuation proceedings
required." hereinbefore provided, shall be considered a waiver" are being conducted in military commissions (as the
6. YES - Presidential Decree No. 328 expressly provides that counterpart rule for similar proceedings before the
- Under the present Constitution, trial even of a the failure or refusal to attend the examination or the regular civil courts, as provided in Rule 119, section 7
capital offense may proceed notwithstanding the taking of the deposition shall be considered a waiver. of the Rules of Court) explicitly provides that after
absence of the accused. It is now provided that "after " reasonable notice to an accused to attend the
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the perpetuation proceedings, the deposition by question
absence of the accused provided that he has been and answer of the witness may proceed in the
SEPARATE OPINION
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified." accused's absence and "the failure or refusal to
- On the basis of the aforecited provision of the (on waiver of presence only) attend the examination or the taking of the
Constitution which allows trial of an accused in deposition shall be considered a waiver." Thus, an
absentia, the issue has been raised whether or not CASTRO [concur and dissent] accused's right of total waiver of his presence either
petitioner could waive his right to be present at the - My understanding of the provisions of the new expressly or impliedly by unjustified failure or refusal
perpetuation of testimony proceedings before Constitution on waiver of presence in criminal to attend the proceedings is now explicitly
respondent Commission. proceedings is that such waiver may be validly recognized and he cannot be compelled to be
- As a general rule , subject to certain exceptions, implied principally in cases where the accused has present as against his express waiver.
any constitutional or statutory right may be waived if jumped bail or has escaped, but certainly may not be
such waiver is not against public policy. The personal asserted as a matter of absolute right in cases where
BARREDO [concur]
presence of the accused from the beginning to the the accused is in custody and his identification is
- Petitioner has the right to waive his presence at the
end of a trial for felony, involving his life and liberty, needed in the course of the proceedings.
perpetuation proceedings before the respondent
has been considered necessary and vital to the - Thus, I voted for qualified waiver.- the accused
Commission.I find eminent merit in the contention of
proper conduct of his defense. The "trend of modern may waive his presence in the criminal proceedings
petitioner that even for identification purposes he
authority is in favor of the doctrine that a party in a except at the stages where identification of his
cannot be made to be present at the trial against his
criminal case may waive irregularities and rights, person by the prosecution witnesses is necessary. I
will. Since under the Constitution, trial of criminal
whether constitutional or statutory, very much the might agree to the proposition of "total" waiver in
cases in the absence of the accused is allowed, when
same as in a civil case." any case where the accused agrees explicitly and
after the arraignment and in spite of due notice he
- There are, certain rights secured to the individual unequivocally in writing signed by him or personally
fails to appear without justification, pursuant to
by the fundamental charter which may be the manifests clearly and indubitably in open court and
Section 19 of the Bill of Rights or Article IV.
subject of waiver. The rights of an accused to defend such manifestation is recorded, that whenever a
- I can understand why an accused has to be present
himself in person and by attorney, to be informed of prosecution witness mentions a name by which the
at the arraignment and at the reading of the
the nature and cause of the accusation, to a speedy accused is known the witness is referring to him and
sentence. In the former, it has to be known to the
and public trial, and to meet the witnesses face to to no one else.
court that he is indeed the person charged and that
face, as well as the right against unreasonable
he personally understands the accusation against
searches and seizures, are rights guaranteed by the
TEEHANKEE [dissent] him. More importantly, the plea must be entered by
Constitution. They are rights necessary either
- Petitioner’s presence at the proceedings could not him personally to avoid any misconstruction or
because of the requirements of due process to
be compelled by virtue of his express waiver thereof misrepresentation, innocent or otherwise. In the
ensure a fair and impartial trial, or of the need of
as explicitly allowed by the Constitution and by P.D. latter, it is essential that the accused himself, should
protecting the individual from the exercise of
No. 328 itself. be aware from personal knowledge what is the
arbitrary power. And yet, there is no question that all
- Petitioner's submittal that he cannot be compelled verdict of the court, and if it be conviction, what is
of these rights may be waived. Considering the
to be present at the proceedings even against his will the penalty to be served by him. These are matters
aforecited provisions of the Constitution and the
by virtue of his express waiver is meritorious. too personal to permit delegation. At the same time,
absence of any law specifically requiring his presence
Whereas previously such right of waiver of the his presence makes it simpler in the public interest
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 121 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

for the authorities to enforce execution of any Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2 and held that "he - Furthermore, it is possible that a witness may not
adverse judgment. But I cannot see why an accused cannot be validly compelled to appear and be know the name of the culprit but can Identify him if
should be compelled to be present at the trial when present during the trial of this case." he sees him again, in which case the latter's
he prefers perhaps the solitude of his cell to pray - Petitioner prays that the order of respondent judge presence in court is necessary.
either for forgiveness, if he knows he is guilty, or, if be annulled and set aside and that private Dispositive petition granted and the assailed order
he is innocent, for God to illumine the court so there respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. be compelled to of respondent judge is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE
would be unerring justice in his case. (hehehe) appear during the trial of the criminal case whenever
- My understanding is that the problem of required to do so by the trial court. PEOPLE v MACARAEG
identification of an accused may be adequately - Private respondent claims that Sec 19, Article IV of
141 SCRA 37
solved without violating the justified wishes of the the 1973 Constitution grants him absolute right to
accused to be left alone. To start with, if he is absent himself from the trial of the case filed against CONCEPCION; January 14, 1986
referred to by the witnesses of the prosecution by him despite the condition of his bail bond that he
name, the court may presume that the amused who "will at all times hold himself amenable to the orders NATURE
has acknowledged his true name at the arraignment and processes of the Court." Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary
is the one indicated. injunction to review order of CFI of Pangasinan
ISSUE
FACTS
BORJA v MENDOZA WON the judge erred in granting private
respondent’s manifestation to waive his right to be - Private Respondent Vasco Valdez was charged with
[SUPRA, PAGE 78] Homicide before the CFI of Pangasinan for the death
present during trial
of one Severs Paulo and posted bail for his
PEOPLE v PRESIDING JUDGE OF HELD provisional release. Attached to the bail bond was a
URDANETA YES waiver stipulating that the trial may proceed in his
- Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, Section 19 absence.
125 SCRA 269
thereof provides: - When the case was called for trial, the prosecution
RELOVA; October 26, 1983 presented Welino Paulo, as its 1st witness, who when
SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is asked if he could identify the accused, answered in
NATURE the affirmative. Since the accused was not present in
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
Petition for certiorari court, the prosecution asked the court to order the
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a presence of the accused so that he could be
FACTS identified. Counsel for accused objected to the
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
- Private respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. is charged motion by invoking the waiver in the bail bond and
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
with murder before the RTC of Pangasinan, in contended that the absence of the accused is part of
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
Urdaneta. He is out on a P30,000.00 bail bond which his defense.
the production of evidence in his behalf. However,
contains the following conditions: - Respondent Judge Daniel Macaraeg of the CFI,
after arraignment, trial may proceed
The aforenamed, as bondsmen, hereby jointly and invoking the case of Aquino v Military Commission
notwithstanding the absence of the accused
severally undertake that the above-mentioned No.2, denied the motion:
provided that he has been duly notified and his
defendant, as principal therein will appear and “The issue at bar was one of those squarely raised
failure to appear is unjustified.
answer the charge above-mentioned in whatever in the Aquino case where six out of ten Justices
- The 1973 Constitution now unqualifiedly permits
Court it may be tried, and will at all times hold voted that the accused may not be compelled to
trial in absentia even of capital offenses, provided
himself amenable to the orders and processes of be present during the trial when he is to be
that after arraignment he may be compelled to
the Court, and if convicted, will appear for identified by the witnesses of the prosecution
appear for the purpose of Identification by the
judgment, and render himself to the execution while four voted that the accused may be
witnesses of the prosecution, or provided he
thereof; or that if he fails to perform any of these compelled in this instance. The reason of the
unqualifiedly admits in open court after his
conditions will pay to the Republic of the majority is that the accused must not be
arraignment that he is the person named as the
Philippines the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos compelled to assist the prosecution in proving its
defendant in the case on trial.
(P30,000.00) ... case.”
- The reason for requiring the presence of the
- After his arraignment, Valdez, thru his counsel, - The prosecution moved for reconsideration but
accused, despite his waiver, is, if allowed to be
manifested orally in open court that he was waiving respondent Judge denied the motion. Prosecution
absent in all the stages of the proceedings without
his right to be present during the trial. The then filed this petition with prayer for a TRO. The SC
giving the People's witnesses the opportunity to
prosecuting fiscal moved that Valdez be compelled to granted the petition and issued a TRO, restraining
Identify him in court, he may in his defense say that
appear and be present at the trial so that he could be the respondent Court from further proceeding with
he was never Identified as the person charged in the
identified by prosecution witnesses. the criminal case.
information and, therefore, is entitled to an acquittal.
Respondent judge sustained the position of private
respondent who cited the majority opinion in Aquino,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 122 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

ISSUE prosecution moved that the hearing continue in Dispositive the order of the trial court denying the
WON the accused, despite having waived his accordance with the constitutional provision motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set
presence at the trial, may still be compelled to be authorizing trial in absentia under certain aside.
present in the same trial when he is to be identified circumstances. The respondent judge denied the
motion, however, and suspended all proceedings GIMENEZ v NAZARENO
HELD until the return of the accused.
160 SCRA 1
YES. Stare Decisis.
Reasoning ISSUE GANCAYCO; April 15 1988
- The rule adopted by the Court in the case of Aquino WON the judge erred in suspending the proceedings
vs. Military Commission No. 2 (supra) is that while NATURE
the accused may waive his presence at the trial of HELD Petition for certiorari and mandamus
the case, his presence may be compelled when he is YES
to be identified. The Court said: “Since only 6 Justices Ratio Under Art.IV Sec.19, the prisoner cannot by FACTS
are of the view that petitioner may waive his right to simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution - Accused Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula,
be present at all stages of the proceedings while five and possibly eventual conviction provided only that: Fernando Cargando, Rogelio Baguio and the herein
5 Justices are in agreement that he may so waive a) he has been arraigned; b) he has been duly private respondent Teodoro de la Vega Jr., were
such right, except when he is to he identified, the notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is charged with the crime of murder on August 3, 1973.
result is that the respondent Commission's Order unjustified. On August 22, 1973 all the above-named. accused
requiring his presence at all times during the Reasoning were arraigned and each of them pleaded not guilty
proceedings before it should be modified, in the - The rule is found in the last sentence of Article IV, to the crime charged. Following the arraignment, the
sense that petitioners presence shall be required only Section 19, of the 1973 Constitution: In all criminal respondent judge, Hon. Ramon E. Nazareno, set the
in the instance just indicated. prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent hearing of the case for September 18, 1973 at 1:00
Dispositive Petition GRANTED, orders of respondent until the contrary is proved and shall enjoy the right o'clock in the afternoon. All the acused including
Judge ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Judge is ordered to to be heard by himself and counsel, to he informed of private respondent, were duly informed of this.
issue the necessary process to compel the the nature and cause of the accusation against him, - Before the scheduled date of the first hearing the
attendance of the accused at the hearing of the to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet private respondent escaped from his detention
criminal case for purposes of identification. the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory center and on the said date, failed to appear in court.
Temporary TRO lifted and set aside. process to secure the attendance of witnesses and This prompted the fiscals handling the case (the
the production of evidence in his behalf. However, petitioners herein) to file a motion with the lower
court to proceed with the hearing of the case against
PEOPLE v SALAS (ABONG, DE LEON, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused provided that he has all the accused praying that private respondent de la
ET AL) Vega, Jr. be tried in absentia invoking the application
been duly notified and his failure to appear is
143 SCRA 163 unjustified. of Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution
CRUZ; July 29, 1986 - The purpose of this rule is to speed up the which provides:
disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecution, the accused
NATURE the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
Certiorari and Mandamus completely abandoned, because of the defendant's proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
escape. himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
FACTS - the fugitive is now deemed to have waived such and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
- Mario Abong was originally charged with homicide notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
in the CFI of Cebu but before he could be arraigned also this escape that makes his failure to appear at witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
the case was reinvestigated on motion of the his trial unjustified. Escape can never be a legal process to the attendance of witnesses and the
prosecution. As a result of the reinvestigation, an justification. production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
amended information was filed, with no bail - The right to be present at one's trial may now be arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the
recommended, to which he pleaded not guilty. waived except only at that stage where the absence of the accused provided that he has been
- While trial was in progress, the prisoner, taking prosecution intends to present witnesses who will duly notified and his failure to appear is
advantage of the first information for homicide, Identify the accused. unjustified.
succeeded in deceiving the city court of Cebu into - the defendant's escape will be considered a waiver - Pursuant to the above-written provision, the lower
granting him bail and ordering his release; and so he of this right and the inability of the court to notify court proceeded with the trial of the case but
escaped. him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it nevertheless gave the private respondent the
- Respondent judge Salas, learning later of the from continuing with his trial. He will be deemed to opportunity to take the witness stand the moment he
trickery, cancelled the illegal bail bond and ordered have received due notice. shows up in court. After due trial, or on November
Abong's re-arrest. But he was gone. Nonetheless, the 6,1973, the lower court rendered a decision
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 123 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

dismissing the case against the five accused while August 22, 1973 and in the said arraignment he respondent Teodoro de la Vega, Jr. is reversed and set
holding in abeyance the proceedings against the pleaded not guilty. He was also informed of the aside. The respondent judge is hereby directed to
private respondent. On November 16,1973 the scheduled hearings set on September 18 and 19, render judgment upon the innocence or guilt of the
petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 1973 and this is evidenced by his signature on the herein private respondent Teodoro de la Vega, Jr. in
questioning the above-quoted dispositive portion on notice issued by the lower Court. It was also proved accordance with the evidence adduced and the
the ground that it will render nugatory the by a certified copy of the Police Blotter that private applicable law.
constitutional provision on "trial in absentia" cited respondent escaped from his detention center. No
earlier. However, this was denied by the lower court explanation for his failure to appear in court in any of PEOPLE v SALAS
in an Order dated November 22, 1973. Hence, this the scheduled hearings was given. Even the trial
CRUZ; July 29, 1986
petition. court considered his absence unjustified
- The contention of the respondent judge that the
NATURE
ISSUES right of the accused to be presumed innocent will be
Special civil actions, certiorari and mandamus.
1. WON a court loses jurisdiction over an accused violated if a judgment is rendered as to him is
who after being arraigned, escapes from the custody untenable. He is still presumed innocent. A judgment
FACTS
of the law of conviction must still be based upon the evidence
- ABONG was originally charged with homicide in CFI
2. WON trial in absentia is warranted presented in court. Such evidence must prove him
Cebu but before he could be arraigned the case was
3. WON under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also, there can be
reinvestigated. An amended information was filed as
Constitution, an accused who has been duly tried in no violation of due process since the accused was
a result, with no bail recommended, to which ABONG
absentia retains his right to present evidence on his given the opportunity to be heard.
pleaded not guilty. During the trial, ABONG, taking
own behalf and to confront and cross-examine INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE:
advantage of the first information for homicide,
witnesses who testified against him . . . The Constitutional Convention felt the need for
succeeded in deceiving the court into granting him
such a provision as there were quite a number of
bail and ordering his release; and so he escaped.
HELD reported instances where the proceedings against
Judge SALAS, learning later of the trickery, cancelled
1. NO a defendant had to be stayed indefinitely because
the illegal bail bond and ordered ABONG's re-arrest.
- It is not disputed that the lower court acquired of his non- appearance. What the Constitution
Meanwhile, the prosecution moved that the hearing
jurisdiction over the person of the accused-private guarantees him is a fair trial, not continued
continue in accordance with the constitutional
respondent when he appeared during the enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt could be
provision authorizing trial in absentia. SALAS denied
arraignment on August 22,1973 and pleaded not proved. With the categorical statement in the
the motion, however, and suspended all proceedings
guilty to the crime charged. In cases criminal, fundamental law that his absence cannot justify a
until the return of ABONG. Hence, the present
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is delay provided that he has been duly notified and
petitions.
acquired either by his arrest for voluntary his failure to appear is unjustified, such an abuse
appearance in court. Such voluntary appearance is could be remedied. That is the way it should be, for
ISSUE
accomplished by appearing for arraignment as what both society and the offended party have a
WON J. SALAS is correct in disallowing trial in
accused-private respondent did in this case. legitimate interest in seeing to it that crime should
absentia of ABONG’s case
Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the not go unpunished.
instance of parties but continues until the case is 3. NO
HELD
terminated. To capsulize the foregoing discussion, - The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly
NO
suffice it to say that where the accused appears at Section 1 (c) of Rule 115 clearly reflects the intention
- The purpose of the constitutional rule that “after
the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime of the framers of our Constitution, to wit:
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
charged, jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his ... The absence of the accused without any justifiable
absence of the accused provided that he has been
person and this continues until the termination of the cause at the trial on a particular date of which he had
duly notified and his failure to appear is
case, notwithstanding his escape from the custody of notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
unjustified,”10 is to speed up the disposition of
the law. present during that trial. When an accused under
criminal cases, trial of which could in the past be
2. YES custody had been notified of the date of the trail and
indefinitely deferred, and many times completely
- Going to the second part of Section 19, Article IV of escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right
abandoned, because of the defendant's escape. Now,
the 1973 Constitution aforecited a "trial in to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial
the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his
absentia"may be had when the following requisites dates until custody in regained....
continued prosecution provided only that: a) he has
are present: (1) that there has been an arraignment; - An escapee who has been duly tried in absentia
been arraigned; b) he has been duly notified of the
(2) that the accused has been notified; and (3) that waives his right to present evidence on his own
trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified.
he fails to appear and his failure to do so is behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses
- J. SALAS was probably still thinking of the old
unjustified.In this case, all the above conditions were who testified against him.
doctrine when he ruled that trial in absentia of the
attendant calling for a trial in absentia. As the facts Dispositive The judgment of the trial court in so far
show, the private respondent was arraigned on as it suspends the proceedings against the private 10
1973 Const, ART. IV, Sec.19. Now, ART. III, Sec.14(2), 1987 Const.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 124 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

escapee could not be held because he could not be The defendant was found guilty on count 4 as well as - Petitioner and one Bridwell were arrested in
duly notified. He forgets that the fugitive is now counts 1, 2, 3 and 7 and was sentenced to death and Charleston, S.C., November 21, 1934, charged with
deemed to have waived such notice precisely to pay a fine of P20,000. feloniously uttering and passing four counterfeit
because he has escaped, and it is also this escape twenty-dollar Federal Reserve notes and possessing
that makes his failure to appear at his trial ISSUE twenty-one such notes. Both were then enlisted men
unjustified. The right to be present at one's trial may WON the judgment must be reversed because of the in the United States Marine Corps, on leave. They
now be waived except only at that stage where the trial court's failure to appoint "another attorney de were bound over to await action of the United States
prosecution intends to present witnesses who will oficio for the accused in spite of the manifestation of Grand July, but were kept in jail due to inability to
identify the accused.11 Under [Sec.14(2), 1987 the attorney de oficio (who defended the accused at give bail. January 21, 1935, they were indicted;
Const.], the defendant's escape will be considered a the trial) that he would like to be relieved for obvious January 23, 1935, they were taken to court and there
waiver of this right and the inability of the court to reasons." first give notice of the indictment; immediately were
notify him of the subsequent hearings will not arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced that day
prevent it from continuing with his trial. He will be HELD to four and one-half years in the penitentiary; and
deemed to have received due notice. The same fact NO January 25, were transported to the Federal
of his escape will make his failure to appear - The appellate tribunal will indulge reasonable Penitentiary in Atlanta. While counsel had
unjustified because he has, by escaping, placed presumptions, in favor of the legality and regularity represented them in the preliminary hearings before
himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law. of all the proceedings of the trial court, including the the commissioner in which they-some two months
- ABONG should be prepared to bear the presumption that the accused was not denied the before their trial-were bound over to the Grand Jury,
consequences of his escape, including forfeiture of right to have counsel. (U. S. vs. Labial, 27 Phil., 82.) It the accused were unable to employ counsel for their
the right to be notified of the subsequent is presumed that the procedure prescribed by law trial. Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty, said
proceedings and of the right to adduce evidence on has been observed unless it is made to appear that they had no lawyer, and-in response to an
his behalf and refute the evidence of the prosecution, expressly to the contrary. (U. S. vs. Escalante, 36 inquiry of the court-stated that they were ready for
not to mention a possible or even probable Phil., 743.) The fact that the attorney appointed by trial. They were then tried, convicted, and sentenced,
conviction. the trial court to aid the defendant in his defense without assistance of counsel.
Dispositive Order of J. SALAS was SET ASIDE, and expressed reluctance to accept the designation - It appears from the opinion of the District Judge
he was directed to continue hearing ABONG’s case in because, as the present counsel assumes, he did not denying habeas corpus that he believed petitioner
absentia as long as he has not reappeared, until it is sympathize with the defendant's cause, is not was deprived, in the trial court, of his constitutional
terminated. sufficient to overcome this presumption. The right under the provision of the Sixth Amendment,
statement of the counsel in the court below did no that, 'In all criminal prosecutions,the accused shall
PEOPLE v PRIETO (alias EDDIE necessarily imply that he did not perform his duty to enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel
protect the interest of the accused. As a matter of for his defense.' However, he held that proceedings
VALENCIA)
fact, the present counsel "sincerely believes that the depriving petitioner of his constitutional right to
80 Phil 138 said Attorney Carin did his best, although it was not assistance of counsel were not sufficient 'to make the
TUASON: January 29, 1948 the best of a willing worker." We do not discern in the trial void and justify its annulment in a habeas corpus
record any indication that the former counsel did not proceeding, but that they constituted trial errors or
NATURE conduct the defense to the best of his ability. If irregularities which could only be corrected on
APPEAL from a judgment of the People's Court Attorney Carin did his best as a sworn member of the appeal.'
bar, as the present attorney admits, that was - The Court of Appeals affirmed
FACTS enough; his sentiments did not cut any influence in
- The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court the result of the case and did not imperil the rights of ISSUE
for treason on 7 counts. After pleading not guilty he the appellant. WON the remedy of habeas corpus render the
entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, and conviction of the petitioner void when there is a
maintained the original plea as to counts 4, 5 and 6. JOHNSON v ZERBST violation of the right to counsel, the sixth
The special prosecutor introduced evidence only on amendment
304 US 458
count 4, stating with reference to counts 5 and 6 that
he did not have sufficient evidence to sustain them. BLACK; May 23, 1938 HELD
- The attorney de officio manifested that he would YES
like to be relieved from his assignment. NATURE - Compliance with this constitutional mandate is an
Appeal from the decision of the District Court essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal
denying the petition for habeas corpus which the court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or
Court of Appeals affirmed liberty. When this right is properly waived, the
11
assistance of counsel is no longer a necessary
Citing Aquino v. Mil. Commission No. 2 and People v. Presiding FACTS element of the court's jurisdiction to proceed to
Judge. See p.9 of outline.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 125 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

conviction and sentence. If the accused, however, is his conviction to a sufficient extent to test the - During the trial, he plead guilty as he was without a
not represented by counsel and has not competently jurisdiction of the state court to proceed to judgment lawyer, and that a certain Numeriano Ocampo told
and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the against him. ... Holgado to plead guilty. The Court reserved the
Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a '... it is open to the courts of the United States, upon sentence for a two days despite the fiscal’s
valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to look assurances that the certain Numeriano Ocampo has
life or his liberty. beyond forms and inquiry into the very substance of been investigated and found without evidence to link
Ratio The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of a the matter ....' him to the crime
right to counsel is to protect an accused from - If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not - It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as
conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to it appears in the judgment above quoted, the offense
legal and constitutional rights, and the guaranty proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by charged is named SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION while
would be nullified by a determination that an a court without jurisdiction is void, and one in the body of the judgment if is said that the
accused's ignorant failure to claim his rights removes imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas accused "stands charged with the crime of
the protection of the Constitution. True, habeas corpus. A judge of the United States-to whom a kidnapping and serious illegal detention." In the
corpus cannot be used as a means of reviewing petition for habeas corpus is addressed-should be formation filed by the provincial fiscal it is said that
errors of law and irregularities-not involving the alert to examine 'the facts for himself when if true as he "accuses Frisco Holgado of the crime of slight
question of jurisdiction-occurring during the course of alleged they make the trial absolutely void.' illegal detention." The facts alleged in said
trial; and the 'writ of habeas corpus cannot be used - It must be remembered, however, that a judgment information are not clear as to whether the offense is
as a writ of error.' These principles, however, must cannot be lightly set aside by collateral attack, even named therein or capital offense of "kidnapping and
be construed and applied so as to preserve-not on habeas corpus. When collaterally attacked, the serious illegal detention" as found by the trial judge
destroy-constitutional safeguards of human life and judgment of a court carries with it a presumption of in his judgment. Since the accused-appellant pleaded
liberty. The scope of inquiry in habeas corpus regularity. Where a defendant, without counsel, guilty and no evidence appears to have been
proceedings has been broadened-not narrowed-since acquiesces in a trial resulting in his conviction and presented by either party, the trial judge must have
the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. In such a later seeks release by the extraordinary remedy of deduced the capital offense from the facts pleaded in
proceeding, 'it would be clearly erroneous to confine habeas corpus, the burden of proof rests upon him to the information.
the inquiry to the proceedings and judgment of the establish that he did not competently and
trial court' and the petitioned court has 'power to intelligently waive his constitutional right to ISSUE
inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior assistance of Counsel. If in a habeas corpus hearing, WON the conviction of the lower court is valid
court, either in respect to the subject-matter or to he does meet this burden and convinces the court by
the person, even if such inquiry involves an a preponderance of evidence that he neither had HELD
examination of facts outside of, but not inconsistent counsel nor properly waived his constitutional right NO. It is invalid.
with, the record.' Congress has expanded the rights to counsel, it is the duty of the court to grant the - Under the circumstances, particularly the qualified
of a petitioner for habeas corpus and the '... effect is writ. plea given by the accused who was unaided by
to substitute for the bare legal review that seems to Dispositive The cause is reversed and remanded to counsel, it was not prudent, to say the least, for the
have been the limit of judicial authority under the the District Court for determination whether trial court to render such a serious judgment finding
common-law practice, and under the act of 31 Car. II, petitioner did not competently and intelligently waive the accused guilty of a capital offense, and imposing
chap. 2, a more searching investigation, in which the his right to counsel. If court finds for petitioner the upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and one
applicant is put upon his oath to set forth the truth of decision of the district court convicting petitioner day of prision mayor to twenty years, without
the matter respecting the causes of his detention, must be declared void. absolute any evidence to determine and clarify the
and the court, upon determining the actual facts, is true facts of the case.
to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require.' PEOPLE v HOLGADO - rules of Court, Rule 112, section 3, that –
- 'There being no doubt of the authority of the If the defendant appears without attorney, he must
85 PHIL 752
Congress to thus liberalize the common-law be informed by the court that it is his right to have
procedure on habeas corpus in order to safeguard MORAN; March 22, 1950 attorney being arraigned., and must be asked if he
the liberty of all persons within the jurisdiction of the desires the aid of attorney, the Court must assign
United States against infringement through any FACTS attorney de oficio to defend him. A reasonable
violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty - Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court time must be allowed for procuring attorney.
established thereunder, it results that under the of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal - the court has four important duties to comply with:
sections cited a prisoner in custody pursuant to the detention because according to the information, 1 — It must inform the defendant that it is his right to
final judgment of a state court of criminal jurisdiction being a private person, he did "feloniously and have attorney before being arraigned; 2 — After
may have a judicial inquiry in a court of the United without justifiable motive, kidnap and detain one giving him such information the court must ask him if
States into the very truth and substance of the Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for he desires the aid of an attorney; 3 — If he desires
causes of his detention, although it may become about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia and is unable to employ attorney, the court must
necessary to look behind and beyond the record of Fabreag of her personal liberty." assign attorney de oficio to defend him; and 4 — If
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 126 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. No at the same time we identified ourselves as police
the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor. investigation was opened by the court on this matter officers.”
- IN THE CASE, Not one of these duties had been in the presence of the accused and there is now no - When asked how he conducted the investigation,
complied with by the trial court. The record discloses way of determining whether the supposed instruction Pat. Joves testified that “the first thing I did was I
that said court did not inform the accused of his right is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of informed the accused of her constitutional rights,
to have an attorney nor did it ask him if he desired the confession. Apparently the court became then I questioned her about the marijuana that were
the aid of one. The trial court failed to inquire satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had confiscated xxx and she verbally admitted that she
whether or not the accused was to employ an investigated Mr. Ocampo and found that the same sold the 4 sticks and possessed and owned the other
attorney, to grant him reasonable time to procure or had nothing to do with this case. Such attitude of the marijuana leaves.” CFI convicted her, relying mostly
assign an attorney de oficio. court was wrong for the simple reason that a mere on Nicandro’s confession as stated in the Joves’
- The question asked by the court to the accused statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to testimony. She appealed.
was "Do you have an attorney or are you going to overcome a qualified plea of the accused. But above
plead guilty?" Not only did such a question fail to all, the court should have seen to it that the accused ISSUES
inform the accused that it was his right to have an be assisted by counsel specially because of the 1. WON court erred in giving probative value to the
attorney before arraignment, but, what is worse, qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of testimony of the officer
the question was so framed that it could have been the offense found to be capital by the court. 2. WON rights of accused (vs self-incrimination and to
construed by the accused as a suggestion from the Dispositive The judgment appealed from is confront witness vs her) were violated, thus any
court that he plead guilt if he had no attorney. And reversed and the case is remanded to the Court evidence obtained therefrom are inadmissible
this is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the below for a new arraignment and a new trial after the
due process clause contained in our Constitution. accused is apprised of his right to have and to be HELD
- One of the great principles of justice guaranteed by assisted by counsel. So ordered. 1. YES
our Constitution is that "no person shall be held to Ratio The prosecution evidence leaves much to be
answer for a criminal offense without due process of PEOPLE v NICANDRO desired. It is at best uncertain whether any
law", and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be prosecution witness really saw the alleged sale of
141 SCRA 295
heard by himself and counsel." In criminal cases marijuana.
there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be PLANA; February 11, 1986 Reasoning
given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. The - The court found the testimony of Pat. Joves
right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not NATURE unreliable as it appears that he himself was unsure of
include the right to be heard by counsel. Even the Appeal from judgment of CFI Manila what he saw, first saying that he saw the marijuana
most intelligent or educated man may have no skill being sold openly, but when the improbability of
in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of FACTS illegal drugs being sold openly was pointed out, he
procedure, and, without counsel, he may be - Pursuant to information regarding the illegal sale of qualified his story by saying that the sale took place
convicted not because he is guilty but because he prohibited drugs by Nicandro, the WPD conducted secretly.
does not know how to establish his innocence. And surveillance and organized an “entrapment with the -it is probable that Joves did not really see either the
this can happen more easily to persons who are confidential informant acting as the buyer of alleged delivery of marijuana or the supposed
ignorant or uneducated. marijuana.” With marked money, the informant payment therefor. With his testimony seriously
- It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by asked to buy marijuana from Nicandro, and upon placed in doubt, there is not much left of the
counsel is deemed so important that it has become a delivery of 4 sticks of marijuana cigarettes, the police prosecution evidence.
constitutional right and it is so implemented that nabbed Nicandro. The marked bills were recovered 2. YES
under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the from her pockets, as well as marijuana flowering top. Ratio the right of a person under interrogation “to be
Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an - Allegedly, upon being investigated and after having informed” implies a correlative obligation on the part
attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he been duly apprised of her constitutional rights, of the investigator to explain, and contemplates an
desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that Nicandro orally admitted having sold the marijuana, effective communication that results in
the court should assign one de oficio if he so desires but refused to reduce her confession to writing. understanding what is conveyed. Short of this, there
and he is poor grant him a reasonable time to The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be said that
procure an attorney of his own. Patrolman Joves, one of the officers who conducted the person has been “informed” of his rights.
- in the instant case, that the accused who was the entrapment. His testimony said “when we saw Reasoning
unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the the accused handed the 4 sticks of suspected - reliance on oral admission is assailed as violative of
following qualification: "but I was instructed by one marijuana cigarettes to our confidential informant Sec20, Art.IV, 1973 Consti (No person shall be compelled
Mr. Ocampo." The trial court failed to inquire as to and after a prearranged signal was given by the to be a witness vs himself. Any person under investigation
the true import of this qualification. the record does informant that the accused had already sold her the for the commission of an offense shall have right to remain
not show whether the supposed instructions was real marijuana, we immediately nabbed said suspect and silent and to counsel, and to be in. formed of each right. No
force, violation, threat, intimidation, or any other means
and whether it had reference to the commission of which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 127 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be constitutional rights when he answered the 2) annul the sequestration order dated April 14,
inadmissible in evidence). questions, it is idle to talk of waiver of rights. 1986, and all other orders subsequently issued and
- above provision is an expanded version of the right - in this case, Joves did not say what specific rights acts done on the basis thereof, inclusive of the
vs self-incrimination, formally incorporating the he mentioned to Nicandro, neither did he state the takeover order of July 14, 1986 and the termination
doctrine in Miranda v Arizona: “the prosecution may manner he advised her of her rights so as to make of the services of the BASECO executives.
not use statements, whether exculpatory or her understand them. This is particularly impt
inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of because Nicandro was illiterate and can’t be ISSUES
the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of expected to be able to grasp the significance of her 1. WON Executive No s 1, 2 and 14 are
procedural safeguards effective to secure the rights merely by hearing an abstract statement unconstitutional
privilege against self- incrimination. xxx As for the thereof. 2. WON right against self-incrimination can be
procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other - As it is the obligation of the investigator to inform a invoked by BASECO
fully effective means are devised to inform accused person under investigation of his rights, so is it the
persons of their right of silence and to assure a duty of the prosecution to affirmatively establish HELD
continuous opportunity to exercise it, the ff measures compliance by the investigator with his said 1. NO
are required. Prior to any questioning, the person obligation. Absent such affirmative showing, Executive Order No. 1
must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, admission or confession made by a person under > stresses the "urgent need to recover all ill-gotten
that any statement he does make may be used as investigation cannot be admitted in evidence. wealth," and postulates that "vast resources of the
evidence against him, and that he has a right to the - Miranda v Arizona: “we will not presume that government have been amassed by former President
presence of an atty, either retained or appointed. The defendant has been effectively apprised of his rights Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,
defendant may waive those rights, provided such is and that his privilege vs self incrimination has been and close associates both here and abroad." Upon
made voluntarily, knowingly & intelligently. If, adequately safeguarded on a record that doesn’t these premises, the Presidential Commission on Good
however, he indicates in any manner & at any stage show that any warnings have been given or any Government was created, "charged with the task of
of the process that he wishes to consult with an atty effective alternative has been employed. Nor can a assisting the President in regard to (certain specified)
before speaking, there can be no questioning. waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record” matters, - among which was precisely
Likewise, if the individual is alone & indicates in any Dispositive decision SET ASIDE. Acquitted for > In relation to the takeover or sequestration that it
manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the reasonable doubt was authorized to undertake in the fulfillment of its
police may not question him. The mere fact that he mission, the PCGG was granted "power and
may have answered some questions or volunteered BATAAN SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING authority" to do the following particular acts, to wit:
some statements on his own does not deprive him of 1. "To sequester or place or cause to be placed
the right to refrain from answering any further CO INC (BASECO) v PCGG
under its control or possession any building or
inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney & 150 SCRA 181 office wherein any ill-gotten wealth or properties may
thereafter consents to be questioned.” (the court NARVASA; May 27, 1987 be found, and any records pertaining thereto, in
points out that the Miranda doctrine rests on the order to prevent their destruction, concealment or
constitutional guarantee that no person shall be NATURE disappearance which would frustrate or hamper the
compelled to be a witness vs himself) SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari and prohibition to investigation or otherwise prevent the Commission
- since right “to be informed” implies comprehension, review the order of the Presidential Commission on from accomplishing its task.
degree of explanation required will necessary vary, Good Government 2. "To provisionally take over in the public
depending upon the education, intelligence & other interest or to prevent the disposal or
relevant personal circumstances of the person under FACTS dissipation, business enterprises and properties
investigation. A simpler & more lucid explanation is - Challenged in this special civil action of certiorari taken over by the government of the Marcos
needed where the subject is unlettered and prohibition by a private corporation known as the Administration or by entities or persons close to
- Like other constitutional rights, the right vs self- Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. are: former President Marcos, until the transactions
incrimination, including the right of a person under (1) Executive Orders Numbered 1 and 2, promulgated leading to such acquisition by the latter can be
investigation to remain silent & to counsel, and to be by President Aquino on February 28, 1986 and March disposed of by the appropriate authorities."
informed of such right, may be waived. To be valid, 12, 1986 3. "To enjoin or restrain any actual or
however, a waiver must not only be voluntary; it (2) the sequestration, takeover, and other orders threatened commission of acts by any person
must be made knowingly & intelligently, which issued, and acts done, in accordance with said or entity that may render moot and academic, or
presupposes an awareness or understanding of what executive orders by the Presidential Commission on frustrate or otherwise make ineffectual the efforts of
is being waived. It stands to reason that where the Good Government and/or its Commissioners and the Commission to carry out its task under this order.
right has not been adequately explained and there agents, affecting said corporation. "
are serious doubts as to whether the person - BASECO prays that this Court > So that it might ascertain the facts germane to its
interrogated knew and understood his relevant 1) declare unconstitutional and void Executive Orders objectives, it was granted power to conduct
Numbered 1 and 2; investigations, require submission of evidence by
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 128 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

subpoenae ad testification and duces tecum; Philippines or abroad, in their names as nominees, - Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling
administer oaths; punish for contempt. It was given agents or trustees, to make full disclosure of the > corporations are not entitled to all of the
power also to promulgate such rules and regulations same to the Commission on Good Government within constitutional protections which private individuals
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of (its thirty (30) days from publication of * (the) Executive have. They are not at all within the privilege against
creation). " Order, " self-incriminatior, although this court more than once
Executive Order No. 2 Executive Order No. 14 has said that the privilege runs very closely with the
> gives additional and more specific data and > PCGG is empowered, "with the assistance of the 4th Amendment's Search and Seizure provisions. It is
directions respecting "the recovery of ill-gotten Office of the Solicitor General and other government also settled that an officer of the company cannot
properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of agencies, * * to file and prosecute all cases refuse to produce its records in its possession, upon
the previous regime." It declares that: investigated by it * * as may be warranted by its the plea that they will either incriminate him or may
1) "* * the Government of the Philippines is in findings.'"34 All such cases, whether civil or criminal, incriminate it.
possession of evidence showing that there are assets are to be filed "with the Sandiganbayan, which shall - Wilson v. United States
and properties purportedly pertaining to former have exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof." > The corporation is a creature of the state. It is
Ferdinand E. Marcos, and/or his wife Mrs. Imelda > "(c)ivil suits for restitution, reparation of damages, presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the
Romualdez Marcos, their close relatives, or indemnification for consequential damages, public. It received certain special privileges and
subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents forfeiture proceedings provided for under Republic franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the
or nominees which had been or were acquired by Act No. 1379, or any other civil actions under the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are
them directly or indirectly, through or as a result of Civil Code or other existing laws, in connection with * limited by law. It can make no contract not
the improper or illegal use of funds or properties * (said Executive Orders Numbered I and 2) may be authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a
owned by the government of the Philippines or any of filed separately from and proceed independently of corporation are only preserved to it so long as it
its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or any criminal proceedings and may be proved by a obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserve right
financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage preponderance of evidence;" and that, moreover, the in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find
of their office, authority, influence, connections or "technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a
relationship, resulting in their unjust enrichment and be strictly applied to* *(said) civil cases." strange anomaly to hold that a state, having
causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino 2. NO, there is No Violation of Right against Self- chartered a corporation to make use of certain
people and the Republic of the Philippines; and Incrimination franchises, could not, in the exercise of sovereignty,
2) " * said assets and properties are in the form of Ratio It is elementary that the right against self- inquire how these franchises had been employed,
bank accounts, deposits, trust accounts, shares of incrimination has no application to juridical persons. and whether they had been abused, and demand the
stocks, buildings, shopping centers, condominiums, Reasoning production of the corporate books and papers for
mansions, residences, estates, and other kinds of - BASECO contends that its right against self- that purpose. The defense amounts to this, that an
real and personal properties in the Philippines and in incrimination and unreasonable searches and officer of the corporation which is charged with a
various countries of the world." seizures had been transgressed by the Order of April criminal violation of the statute may plead the
Upon these premises, the President 18, 1986 which required it "to produce corporate criminality of such corporation as a refusal to
1) froze "all assets and properties in the records from 1973 to 1986 under pain of contempt of produce its books. To state this proposition is to
Philippines in which former President Marcos and/or the Commission if it fails to do so." The order was answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to
his wife, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close issued upon the authority of Section 3 (e) of answer incriminating questions unless protected by
relatives, subordinates, business associates, Executive Order No. 1, treating of the PCGG's power an immunity statute, it does not follow that a
dummies, agents, or nominees have any interest or to "issue subpoenas requiring the production of such corporation, vested with special privileges and
participation" books, papers,contracts, records, statements of franchises may refuse to show its hand when
2) prohibited former President Ferdinand Marcos accounts and other documents as may be material to charged with an abuse of such privileges.
and/or his wife * *, their close relatives, subordinates, the investigation conducted by the Commission," and - At any rate, Executive Order No. 14-A, amending
business associates, dummies, agents, or nominees paragraph (3), Executive Order No. 2 dealing with its Section 4 of Executive Order No. 14 assures
from transferring, conveying, encumbering, power to "(r)equire all persons in the Philippines protection to individuals required to produce
concealing or dissipating said assets or holding * *(alleged "ill-gotten") assets or properties, evidence before the PCGG against any possible
properties in the Philippines and abroad whether located in the Philippines or abroad, in their violation of his right against self-incrimination. It
3) prohibited "any person from transferring names as nominees, agents or trustees, to make full gives them immunity from prosecution on the basis
conveying, encumbering or otherwise depleting or disclosure of the same **. " of testimony or information he is compelled to
concealing such assets and properties or from - While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer present. As amended, said Section 4 now provides
assisting or taking part in their transfer, incriminating questions unless protected by an that
encumbrance. concealment or dissipation under pain immunity statute, it does not follow that a "The witness may not refuse to comply with the
of such penalties as are prescribed by law;" and corporation, vested with special privileges and order on the basis of his privilege against self-
4) required "all persons in the Philippines holding franchises, may refuse to show its hand when incrimination; but no testimony or other
such assets or properties, whether located in the charged with an abuse of such privileges information compelled under the order (or any
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 129 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

information directly or indirectly derived from such YES Solicitor General only commented at the insistence of
testimony, or other information) may be used - Sections 1 and 2, Rule 13212 of the rules of Court the Supreme Court.
against the witness in any criminal case, except a clearly require that the testimony of a witness shall - While concurring with the opinion of the court,
prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, be given orally in open court. Barredo felt that the approach is novel as this may
or otherwise failing to comply with the order." Reasoning be a solution to speeding up trials in the lower
Dispositive petition is dismissed - The main and essential purpose of the rule is to courts. He nevertheless stated that the procedure
Voting Yap, Fernan, Paras, Gancayco and Sarmiento secure for the adverse party the opportunity to cross- could probably work only for civil cases.
concur examine the witness presented. The “opponent” - Barredo anchored his approbation of the procedure
Teehankee, concurs in a separate opinion. demands confrontation for the purpose of cross on the fact that cross examination may be had even
Melencio-Herrera, concurs with qualifications in a examination which cannot be had except by the if direct examination is dispensed with. Hence the
separation opinion. direct and personal putting of questions and Constitutional requirement that the opponent be
Gutierrez, Jr. see concurring and dissenting opinion. obtaining immediate answers. given the opportunity to confront the witness is met.
Cruz dissents in a separate opinion. - There is also the advantage obtained in the - Barredo suggested certain improvements prior to
Feliciano joins M. Herrera's qualified concurring personal appearance of the witness in open court as the adoption of the procedure. Among these are the
opinion. it affords the judge to assess the weight and value need for the testimony to be submitted to the
Padilla see concurring opinion. that can be given to any of the testimony based on prosecution for vetting as to materiality and
Bidin joins Gutierrez in his concurring and dissenting his perception of the witness’ countenance, manner, relevance. Same should be submitted to the judge
opinion. and expression. In deed, the great weight given the for his own examination as to materiality and
Cortes joins Gutierrez in his concurring and findings of fact of the trial judge in the appellate relevance.
dissenting opinion. court is based precisely upon the judge having had
the opportunity and the assumption that he took PEOPLE v LIWANAG
PEOPLE v ESTENSO advantage of it to ascertain the credibility of the
73 SCRA 473
witness.
72 SCRA 473 CONCEPCION; October 19, 1976
- Rules governing the examination of witnesses are
ANTONIO; August 27, 1976 intended to protect the rights of the litigants and to
secure orderly dispatch of the business of the courts. NATURE
NATURE Hence only questions directed to the eliciting of Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First
Original Action for Certiorari and prohibition testimony which, under the general rules of Instance of Bataan, finding the accused guilty of
evidence, is relevant to and competent to prove, the violating the provisions of Republic Act No. 1700,
issues of the case, may be propounded to the otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Act, and
FACTS witness. sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
- In Criminal Case No. 2891, entitled People of the Dispositive Petition granted. The order of the judge perpetua with the accessories of the law, and to pay
Philippines vs Gregorio Ojoy, of the CFI of Iloilo, the is set aside. the costs.
counsel for the accused, after the accused himself
had already testified in his own trial, manifested to FACTS
SEPARATE OPINION
the Court that he was filing only affidavits for his - Liwanag was charged for violating the provisions of
subsequent witnesses subject to cross-examination RA 1700, otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion
by the prosecution on matters stated in the said BARREDO [concur] Act, in an information filed before the Court of First
affidavits and on all matters pertinent and material - Barredo noted that it was the private prosecutor Instance of Bataan, for having unlawfully and wilfully
to the case. who objected to the procedure adapted and the continued and remained as officer and/or ranking
- The private prosecutor objected to the leader of the outlawed CPP and its military arm, the
manifestation as the same is a violation of Sections 1 HMB, until his apprehension, without having
and 2 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, 12
Section 1. Testimony to be given in open court.- the testimony of renounced his aforementioned leadership and/or
which require that testimony of the witnesses should witnesses shall be given orally in open court and under oath or membership therein within the period prescribed by
be given orally in open court. affirmation. law, and, while remaining as such leader or high-
Section 2. Testimony in Superior Courts to be reduced in writing.- In
- The CFI judge granted the motion of the defense. superior courts, the testimony of each witness shall be taken in ranking member, has taken up arms against the
Hence this appeal. shorthand or stenotype, the name, residence, and occupation of the Government by making and conducting raids,
witness being stated, and all the questions put the witness and his ambuscades and armed attacks against civilians,
answers thereto being included. If a question put is objected to and the
ISSUE objection is ruled on, the nature of the objection and the ground on Philippine Constabulary, and local police forces.
WON the CFI judge erred in allowing the just the which it was sustained or overruled must be stated, or if the witness - Preliminary investigation was conducted by the CFI
submission of affidavits in lieu of oral testimony declines to answer a question out, the fact and the proceedings taken of Bataan. Finding a prima facie case against the
thereon shall be entered in the record. A transcript of the record made
by the official stenographer so stenotypist and certified as correct by
appellant, the Court issued the corresponding
HELD him shall be prima facie a correct statement of such testimony and
proceedings.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 130 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

warrant for the arrest and thereafter set the case for he had already been convicted of rebellion, he his men had with the Philippine Constabulary and
trial. cannot now be prosecuted for subversion police forces. There is also the testimony as to the
- Upon being arraigned, Liwanag, assisted by his 4. WON the decision should have been promulgated gun battle between a PC patrol and a group of HMB
counsel, waived the reading of the information and in the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, considering men led by the appellant in Bataan, where the
entered a plea of not guilty. In view of the desire of that he was then detained or confined at Camp appellant was captured along with his wife. Besides,
his counsel to file a motion to quash, the court Crame, Quezon City, and not in the Pasig Branch of appellant admitted in court that he was a member of
granted Liwanag twenty (20) days within which to do said Court the "Hukbalahap" and the HMB and fought against
so. the government.
- Liwanag filed a motion to quash the information HELD 3. NO
upon the grounds that he has been previously 1. NO - Violation of Republic Act No. 1700, or subversion, is
convicted of rebellion based upon the same overt - The Constitution guarantees an accused person the a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion.
acts as in the instant case, and that Republic Act No. right to meet the witnesses against him face to face. - The crime of rebellion is committed by rising
1700 is an ex post pacto law (bill of attainder) in that This provision "intends to secure the accused in the publicly and taking up arms against the Government
it changes the punishment and inflicts a greater right to be tried, so far as facts provable by for any of the purposes specified in Article 134 of the
punishment or penalty than that annexed to the witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as Revised Penal Code; while the Anti-Subversion Act
crime when committed. The court denied the meet him face to face at the trial, who give their punishes affiliation or membership in a subversive
motion. testimony in his presence, and give to the accused organization as defined therein. In rebellion, there
- The case was subsequently set for trial, the an opportunity of cross-examination. It was intended must be a public uprising and the taking of arms
prosecution moved that the testimony of the to prevent the conviction of the accused upon against the Government; whereas, in subversion,
witnesses presented during the preliminary depositions or ex-parte affidavits, and particularly to mere membership in a subversive association is
investigation of this case be adopted as part of the preserve the right of the accused to test the sufficient, and the taking up of arms by a member of
evidence in chief of the prosecution. The trial court recollection of the witnesses in the exercise of the a subversive organization against the Government is
granted the motion subject to the condition that the right of cross-examination." but a circumstance which raises the penalty to be
witnesses be further cross-examined by counsel for - Here, the testimony sought to be made part of the imposed upon the offender.
the accused. evidence in chief are not ex-parte affidavits, but - In the rebellion case, the appellant and several
- At the trial, the witnesses for the prosecution who testimony of witnesses taken down by question and others were charged and convicted of rebellion for
testified at the preliminary investigation were answer during the preliminary investigation in the having risen publicly and taken up arms against the
recalled and were again cross-examined by counsel presence of the accused and his counsel who Government for the purpose of removing the
for the appellant. To bolster their case, the subjected the said witnesses to a rigid and close allegiance of the Republic of the Philippines or its
prosecution presented three additional witnesses. cross-examination. The inclusion of said testimony laws, the territory of the Philippines, and in
The defense, presented the appellant himself who was made subject to the right of the defendant to furtherance thereof, engaged in combat against the
stated that after his apprehension, he was charged further cross-examine the witnesses whose forces of the Government, destroyed property, and
with rebellion before the CFI of Pampanga and found testimony are sought to be reproduced and, pursuant committed serious violence during the period from
guilty thereof; and he was also charged with murder to said order, the witnesses were recalled to the May 28, 1946 to June 19, 1957.
before the CFI of Tarlac and acquitted; and that he stand during the trial and again examined in the - The accused is prosecuted under RA 1700 for
surrendered to the PC patrol. However, he admitted presence of the appellant. Upon the facts, there was having remained a high ranking member of the CPP
membership in the Hukbalahap, and later in the no curtailment of the constitutional right of the and its military arm, the HMB, from January, 1946 to
HMB, from 1948 to 1960, and did not take advantage accused to meet the witnesses face to face. June 21, 1960, without having renounced his
of the amnesty offered in 1948. 2. NO membership in said organizations; and, being a
- The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime - Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1700, provides that member or officer of said subversive association, has
of subversion, as charged. "No person shall be convicted of any of the offenses taken up arms against the Government.
penalized herein with prision mayor to death unless - Although the information charges the appellant with
ISSUES on the testimony of at least two witnesses to the having taken up arms against the Government, the
1. WON Liwanag was deprived of his fundamental same overt act or on confession of the accused in same is not specific as to the period covered by it.
right to confront the witnesses against him when the open court." But, since the appellant is prosecuted for violation of
trial court granted the motion of the Fiscal that the - Appellant's being an officer or ranking leader of the Republic Act No. 1700 it is deducible that the period
testimony of the witnesses presented during the CPP and its military arm, the HMB, is borne out by covered is that from June 20, 1957, when the Act
preliminary investigation be adopted and made part the testimony of former associates of the appellant in took effect, up to June 21, 1960, when the appellant
of the evidence for the prosecution the CPP and the HMB. There is his sworn statement was captured. Inasmuch as the rebellion case
2. WON trial court erred in finding Liwanag guilty wherein the appellant admitted membership in the covered the period up to June 19, 1957 and the
3. WON having been charged with rebellion and Central Committee of the CPP and recounted his period covered in the instant case is from June 20,
subversion based upon the same overt act, and since prismatic rise in the "Hukbalahap" and later in the 1957 to June 21, 1960, the claim of having been put
HMB, as well as the numerous armed clashes he and
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 131 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

twice in jeopardy for the same act cannot be because Basilio, Talino and Macadangdang were was the Solicitor General's analysis. As far as the
sustained. granted separate trials and they did not cross Sandiganbayan was concerned, the said testimony
4. NO examine Ulat because, as a matter of fact, they was inadmissible against the petitioner because he
- The records show that he had been confined at Fort were not even required to be present when the "did not cross examine Ulat and was not even
Bonifacio (then known as Fort William Mckinley), other accused were presenting their defenses, the required to be present when the latter was testifying.
Makati, Rizal, since November 20, 1962 and latter's testimonies can not now be considered In fact, the respondent court even expressed the
continued to be detained therein during the against said three accused. wish that Ulat had been presented as rebuttal
continuation of the trial, up to its termination. - The grant of a separate trial rests in the sound witness in the separate trial of the petitioner as there
Dispositive UPON THE FOREGOING, the decision discretion of the court and is not a matter of right to would then have been "no impediment to the use of
appealed from should be, as it is, hereby affirmed, the accused, especially where, as in this case, it is his testimony against the other accused. " As it was
with costs. sought after the presentation of the evidence of the not done, the trial court could not and did not
prosecution. The rule in every case is that the trial consider Ulat's testimony in determining the
TALINO v SANDIGANBAYAN court should exercise the utmost circumspection in petitioner's part in the offenses.
granting a motion for separate trial, allowing the Dispositive judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED,
148 SCRA 598
same only after a thorough study of the claimed with costs against the petitioner.
CRUZ; March 16, 1987 justification therefor, if only to avoid the serious
difficulties that may arise, such as the one PEOPLE v BAGANO
FACTS encountered and regretted by the respondent court,
- Talino, along with several others, were charged in 181 SCRA 747
in according the accused the right of confrontation.
four separate informations with estafa through - The right of confrontation is one of the fundamental BIDIN; February 5, 1990
falsification of public documents for having allegedly rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the person
conspired to defraud the government in the total facing criminal prosecution who should know, in NATURE
amount of P26,523.00, representing the cost of fairness, who his accusers are and must be given a Appeal on the decision of RTC convicting the accused
repairs claimed to have been undertaken, but chance to cross-examine them on their charges. No of the violation of RA6426 as amended, otherwise
actually not needed and never made, on four accusation is permitted to be made against his back known as the Dangerous Drugs Act and imposing the
government vehicles, through falsification of the or in his absence nor is any derogatory information penalty of P20K.
supporting papers to authorize the illegal payments. accepted if it is made anonymously, as in poison pen
The cases were tried jointly for all the accused until letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their FACTS
Genaro Basilio, Alejandro Macadangdang and libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy. In - A buy-bust operation was conducted by NBI on a
petitioner Talino asked for separate trials, which were United States v. Javier  confrontation is essential suspected narcotics dealer. Bostick, a special agent
allowed. At one of the proceedings, Pio Ulat gave because cross-examination is essential. A second of the US Air Force was introduced to Doming Bagano
damaging testimony against Talino. The reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal may have by an informer, Clayton Emateo.
Sandiganbayan rendered its decision in all the four before it the deportment and appearance of the - An information for the violation of RA6425, also
cases finding Talino, Basilio, Macadangdang Ulat and witness while testifying. known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, was filed against
Renato Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the the accused. It stated that the accused “willfully,
crimes charged while absolving the other defendants ISSUE unlawfully and feloniously attempt to sell to another
for insufficient evidence. This decision is now WON the decision of the court violates Talino’s right ten (10) kilos, more or less, of dried marijuana
challenged by Talino on the ground that it violates his of confrontation as guaranteed by the Constitution leaves, a dangerous drug, for P800.00 per kilo”.
right of confrontation as guaranteed by the - Upon arraignment, Bagano pleaded not guilty. His
Constitution. HELD motion to admit bail was deferred and later denied.
- In its decision, the court made the ff remarks: NO - After trial on the merits, TC judge rendered decision
The peculiarity of the trial of these cases is the fact - The court have carefully studied the decision under sentencing Bagano with reclusion perpetua.
that We allowed, upon their petition, separate trials challenge and find that the respondent court did not Solicitor General’s Claims
for the accused Basilio and Talino and consider the testimony given by Ulat in convicting - Bostic and Emateo went to the residence of the
Macadangdang. This being the case, We can only Talino. The part of that decision finding Talino guilty latter in Baguio City to meet the appellant. Emateo
consider, in deciding these cases as against them, made no mention of Ulat at all but confined itself to introduced Bagano and an unnamed friend to
the evidence for the, prosecution as wen as their the petitioner's own acts in approving the questioned Bostick. Negotiations for the purchase of 10kilos of
own evidence. Evidence offered by the other vouchers as proof of his complicity in the plot to marijuana between Bostick and Bagano was done,
accused can not be taken up. It would really have swindle the government. Talino makes much of the Emateo being the interpreter. After agreeing for the
been simpler had there been no separate trial statement in the Comment that the petitioner's guilt price of P800/kg, the group proceeded to Bagano’s
because the accused Pio Ulat said so many could be deduced "from the evidence for the house in Irisan Benguet where he kept the marijuana.
incriminatory things against the other accused prosecution and from the testimony of Pio Ulat," but At Irisan, Bagano left Bostick and Emateo in the car,
when he took the stand in his own defense. But that was not the respondent court speaking. That returning 15mins later carrying a nylon sack. Bostick
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 132 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

told appellant that he will pay for the marijuana after such a case is from the interpretation thereof which Dispositive challenged judgment is REVERSED and
weighing it in the hotel, to which the appellant is given by another person. appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of
agreed. On the way back to the hotel in Baguio, the - The prosecution should have presented Emateo reasonable doubt.
NBI was signaled that the transaction took place. The himself to testify on what actually transpired. The
NBI team blocked Bostick’s car and arrested the lower court ignored the right of the accused to meet US v GARCIA
appellant and Emateo. the witness face to face.
11 PHIL 384
- Prosecution claims that according to Emateo, - Prosecution revealed not to know anything about
appellant would only sell to a foreigner, preferably an the informant’s background. Although there is a July 24, 1908
American. policy of non-disclosure of an informant’s identity, it
cannot be invoked in this case. The informant’s THEFT; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF.-From the Court of
failure to take the witness to stand to confirm the First Instance of Ambos Camarines. The
Suspect’s Claim correctness of his interpretations not only rendered uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness
- He went to the house of Emateo to collect P4000, the testimonies as hearsay and inadmissible, but also held insufficient to prove that the accused was guilty
which the latter borrowed him. Emateo told him to deprived the appellant of his right to cross-examine of taking money from a trunk, as alleged, while
wait for Emateo’s visitor, from whom he would get him. searching the house of the witness for another
the money to pay for his debt. After being introduced - Non-presentation of an informer is a privilege that person. Judgment reversed and defendant acquitted.
to Bostick, they proceeded to Irisan to get the bag has its own inherent limitation. Where in the Note: The case is really this short only. I did not omit
Emateo would five the American as gift. Emateo disclosure of an informer’s identity is relevant and a single word.
asked Bagano to get the bag because Emateo did not helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential
want to get wet. On the way back to Baguio, the NBI to the proper disposition of the case, the privilege PEOPLE v AYSON
team came out and made the arrests. must give way. G.R. No. 85215
- He claims that the court erred: - Although the identity of the informer was disclosed,
NARVASA; July 7, 1989
in finding that he agreed to sell 10kgs of marijuana prosecution failed to present him as witness on the
when he had no knowledge of the alleged sale. assertion that his whereabouts are unknown. No
FACTS
In not holding as hearsay the alleged conversation subpoena has been issued by the prosecution to
- Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket flight
between Bolstick and the appellant when Emateo, Emateo, the presumption that evidence willfully
clerk of PAL’s Baguio station. PAL management
the informant who interpreted the conversation suppressed would be adverse if produced (Sec 5(e),
notified him of an investigation due to his alleged
was never presented to testify Rule 131) arises.
involvement in irregularities in the sales of plane
In appreciating the ‘bag’ and not the sack against - The appellant’s claim that the ownership of the sack
tickets. On the day before the investigation, Ramos
the appellant that which Emateo owned and of marijuana was previously deposited by Emateo
gave his superiors a handwritten note (exhibit K)
deposited in the quarter of the appellant at irisan was never contradicted by prosecution. Bare
expressing his willingness to settle the irregularities
earlier the same day of the alleged buy-bust assertion of Bagano’s delivery of the bag does not,
(in the amount of P76k). At the investigation, Ramos
operation. by itself indicate ownership nor even illegal
admitted his non-disclosure of the tickets mentioned,
In not appreciating the defense that it was Emateo possession absent any other evidence.
that the proceeds had been “misused” by him, and
who owns the Marijuana in question - Apellant’s signature appearing on the sack and
that although he planned on paying back the money,
individual bundles containing marijuana do not
he had been prevented from doing so out of shame.
ISSUE signify, much less evidence, guilt for they are mere
He also stated his willingness to settle the obligation
WON the Bolstick testimonies were hearsay procedural steps undertaken after arrest.
on a staggered basis, the amount of which would be
Furthermore, it appearing that appellant was not
known at the next investigation which he desired to
HELD informed of his right to counsel at the time he affixed
be held at Baguio CTO, that he be represented by
YES his signature, the same has been obtained in
Nieves Blanco, and that he was willing to sign his
- From Bolstick’s testimonies as principal witness for violation of his right as a person under custodial
statement (exhibit A).
the prosecution, such were mere translations and/or investigation for the commission of an offense and is
- 2 months later, an information was filed against
interpretations of what Bagano supposedly said in therefore inadmissible.
Ramos charging him with estafa against PAL. On
the dialect and interpreted by Emateo. The only - It is a cardinal rule that in order to merit conviction,
arraignment he pleaded not guilty. At the close of the
exception is the testimony on what Bolstick saw. the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own
case, private prosecutors presented Ramos’ (above
- Where a witness is offered to testify to statements evidence and not on the weakness of evidence
mentioned) statement, including his handwritten
of another person, spoken in a language not presented by the defense. An accused must always
admission as evidence. Defendant’s attorneys
understood by him, but translated to his by an be deemed innocent until the contrary is proved
objected, particularly as regards the handwritten
interpreter, such witness is not qualified, because he beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the
confession as it was taken without Ramos having
does not speak from personal knowledge. All that he prosecution failed to so establish the guilt of herein
counsel. Respondent Judge declared exhibits A and K
can know as to the testimony which is in fact given in appellant.
inadmissible as evidence as it appears he was not
reminded of his constitutional rights to remains silent
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 133 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

and have counsel. The private prosecutors filed an must be claimed. Failure to claim it is an implied excluded as the so-called Miranda rights had not
MFR, but respondent Judge justified his order citing waiver of said right. been accorded to Ramos.
the constitutional precept that the rights in custodial - The second right, or rather, group of rights, are a Dispositive the writ of certiorari is granted
investigation cannot be waived except in writing and person’s rights in custodial interrogation, which annulling and setting aside the Orders of respondent
in the presence of counsel. means questioning initiated by law enforcement Judge, and he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence
- Said orders are now assailed in this petition for officers after a person has been taken into custody or exhibits A and K
certiorari and prohibition. The Court required otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
respondent Judge Ayson and Ramos to comment, and significant way. These section can be broken down GARCIA v DOMINGO
directed the issuance of a TRO enjoining respondents into 3 rights: (1) the right to remain silent and to
52 SCRA 143
from further proceeding with the trial/hearing. The counsel and to be informed of such right (2) no force,
Solgen, who was also required to comment, sided violence, threat, intimidation or any other means FERNANDO; July 25, 1973
with petitioner, praying that respondent judge’s which vitiates the free will shall be used against him
orders be set aside and further ordering the (3) any confession obtained in violation of this shall NATURE
admittance of exhibits A and K of the prosecution. be inadmissible in evidence. Petition for certiorari and prohibition
- The accused must be informed of these rights prior
ISSUE to any questioning, after which the individual may FACTS
WON it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and - On January 16, 1968, in the City Court of Manila
judge to exclude exhibits A and K agree to answer or make a statement. Statements presided over by petitioner Judge Gregorio Garcia, 8
not made under custodial interrogation are not informations were filed against respondents Edgardo
HELD protected. Calo, and Simeon Carbonnel and Francisco
YES - It is important now to inquire whether the rights Lorenzana, for slight physical injuries, maltreatment,
- At the core of the controversy is Sec. 20, Art. IV of mentioned apply to persons under preliminary for violation of Sec. 887 of the Revised Ordinances of
the 1973 Constitution which provides: “No person investigation or already charged in court for a crime. Manila (resisting an officer); and for slander. The trial
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is evident that a defendant under preliminary of the aforementioned cases was jointly held on
Any person under investigation for the commission of investigation is not under custodial interrogation, and March 4, 18, 23, 30, 1968; April 17, & 20, 1968, May
an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to there is thus no occasion to speak of such rights 4 & 11, 1968, June 1, 15, 22 & 29, 1968, August 3 &
counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, under custodial interrogation; however, the accused 10, 1968. All the 14 trial dates except March 4 and
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means still possesses the right against self-incrimination. 18, and April 17, 1968 fell on a Saturday. This was
which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. - Under the Rules of Court, the accused occupies a arranged by the parties and the Court upon the
Any confession obtained in violation of this section different tier of protection from an ordinary witness insistence of respondents Calo and Carbonnel who,
shall be inadmissible in evidence.” and is entitled, among others: (1) not be a witness as police officers under suspension because of the
- There are 2 rights dealt with in the section: the right against himself (2) to testify as a witness on his own cases, desired the same to be terminated as soon as
against self-incrimination (now embodied in Sec. 17 behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness, he may possible and as there were many cases scheduled for
Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution) and the rights of a be cross-examined as any other witness; his neglect trial on the usual criminal trial days (Monday,
person in custodial interrogation (Sec 12 Art. 3). of refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner Wednesday and Friday), Saturday was agreed upon
- The first right, against self-incrimination, is NOT to prejudice or be used against him. Thus, unlike an as the invariable trial day for said eight (8) criminal
“be compelled to be a witness against himself” and ordinary witness, the accused may refuse to take the cases. The trial of the cases in question was held,
applies to any person testifying in any proceeding, witness stand, be sworn, or answer any question with the conformity of the accused and their counsel,
civil, criminal or administrative. It prescribes an altogether. The accused, if he chooses to testify, may in the chambers of Judge Garcia. During all the 14
option of refusal to answer incriminating questions refuse to answer only questions which could days of trial, spanning a period of several months,
and not a prohibition of inquiry. However, it can only incriminate him of a crime for which he isn’t charged. the accused were at all times represented by their
be claimed when the specific question, incriminatory - It appears that respondent Judge mistakenly applied respective counsel, who acted not only in defense of
in character, is actually put to the witness and the rights set forth in Sec 20 Art. IV of the 1973 their clients, but as prosecutors of the accusations
cannot be claimed at any other time. The witness Constitution. It is clear from the undisputed facts that filed at their clients' instance. There was only 1 day
thus may not disregard a subpoena or refuse to Ramos was not in any sense under custodial (April 20) when Atty. Consengco, representing
testify altogether. interrogation, and thus his constitutional rights in respondent Calo and Carbonnel, was absent. But at
- The provision of the 1973 Constitution does not relation thereto don’t apply. Also, Ramos had the insistence of Carbonnel, the trial proceeded, and
impose on the judge or any other presiding officer, voluntary answered the questions posed to him on said respondent cross-examined one of the witnesses
any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of this the first day of the administrative investigation and presented by the adverse party. In any case, no
right, which the witness should know, as ignorance of agreed that the proceedings be recorded and filed as pretense has been made by the respondents that this
the law excuses no one. The right against self- exhibits A and K, spontaneously offering to constituted an irregularity correctible on certiorari. At
incrimination is not automatically operational but compromise his liability. Said exhibits may not be the conclusion of the hearings the accused, thru
counsel, asked for and were granted time to submit
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 134 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

memoranda. Respondents Calo and Carbonnel, thru minded being excluded from the premises. It is thus problem arises. It the usual course of events that
counsel, Atty. Rafael Consengco, submitted a 14- evident that what took place in the chambers of the individuals desirous of being present are free to do
page memorandum in support of their prayer for city court judge was devoid of haste or intentional so. There is the well recognized exception though
exoneration, and conviction of petitioner Lorenzana secrecy. that warrants the exclusion of the public where the
in respect of their countercharges against the latter. - The 1935 Constitution which was in force at the evidence may be characterized as "offensive to
It is worthy of note that up to this late date, said time of this petition explicitly enumerated the right decency or public morals."
respondents Calo and Carbonnel had not objected to to a public trial to which an accused was entitled. As - What did occasion difficulty in this suit was that for
or pointed out any supposed irregularity in the a matter of fact, that was one constitutional provision the convenience of the parties, and of the city court
proceedings thus far; the memorandum submitted in that needed only a single, terse summation from Judge, it was in the latter's air-conditioned chambers
their behalf is confined to a discussion of the Justice Jose P. Laurel, to gain acceptance. As was that the trial was held. There is no showing that the
evidence adduced in, and the merits of the cases. stressed by him: "Trial should also be public in order public was thereby excluded. It is to be admitted that
- The promulgation of judgment scheduled on Sep to offset any danger of conducting it in an illegal and the size of the room allotted the Judge would reduce
23, 1968 was postponed to Sep 28, 1968 at the unjust manner." It would have been surprising if its the number of those who could be our present. Such
instance of Atty. Consengco, , and again to Oct 1, proposed inclusion in the Bill of Rights had provoked a fact though is not indicative of any transgression of
1968. The applications for postponement were not any discussion, much less a debate. It was merely a this right. Courtrooms are not of uniform dimensions.
grounded upon any supposed defect or irregularity of reiteration what appeared in the Philippine Autonomy Some are smaller than others. Moreover, as admitted
the proceedings. Act of 1916, popularly known as the Jones Law. by Justice Black in his masterly In re Oliver opinion, it
- However, on October 1, 1968, Calo and Carbonnel, Earlier, such a right found expression in the suffices to satisfy the requirement of a trial being
thru their counsel, filed with the CFI of Manila a Philippine Bill of 1902, likewise an organic act of the public if the accused could "have his friends,
petition for certiorari and prohibition, with application then government of this country as an relatives and counsel present, no matter with what
for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction unincorporated territory of the United States. offense he may be charged."
alleging jurisdictional defects. Respondent Judge Felix Historically as was pointed out by Justice Black, in - It is an undisputed fact that at least fourteen
Domingo issued a restraining order thus causing the the leading case of In re Oliver: This nation's hearings had been held in chambers of the city court
deferment of the promulgation of the judgment. After accepted practice of guaranteeing a public trial to an Judge, without objection on the part of respondent
proceedings duly had, there was an order from him accused has its roots in the English common law policemen.
declaring that 'the constitutional and statutory rights heritage, but it likely evolved long before the - There is much to be said of course for the concern
of the accused' had been violated, adversely settlement of the US as an accompaniment of the displayed by respondent Judge to assure the reality
affecting their 'right to a free and impartial trial, ancient institution of jury trial. The guarantee to an as against the mere possibility of a trial being truly
noting 'that the trial of these cases lasting several accused of the right to a public trial appeared in a public. If it were otherwise, such a right could be
weeks held exclusively in chambers and not in the state constitution in 1776. Later it was embodied in reduced to a barren form of words. To the extent then
court room open the public';" and ordering the city the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution that the conclusion reached by him was motivated by
court Judge Garcia, "to desist from reading or causing ratified in 1791. Today almost without exception an apprehension that there was an evasion of a
to be read or promulgated the decisions he may have every state by constitution, statute, or judicial constitutional command, he certainly lived up to
rendered already in the criminal cases pending in his decision, requires that all criminal trials be open to what is expected of a man of the robe. Further
Court, until further orders of this Court.” the public. reflection ought to have convinced him though that
- The MR was denied. Hence, on January 28, 1969, - The Constitution guarantees an accused the right to such a fear was unjustified. An objective appraisal of
the matter was elevated to the SC by means of the a public trial. There is no ambiguity in the words conditions in municipal or city courts would have
present suit for certiorari and prohibition. employed. The trial must be public. It possesses that gone far in dispelling such misgivings. The crowded
character when anyone interested in observing the daily calendar, the nature of the cases handled, civil
ISSUE manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his as well as criminal, the relaxed attitude on
WON respondent Judge commit a grave abuse of courtroom may do so. There is to be no ban on such procedural rules not being strictly adhered to all
discretion in ruling that the holding of the trial of the attendance. His being a stranger to the litigants is of make for a less tense atmosphere. As a result the
accused inside the chambers of petitioner ,city court no moment. No relationship to the parties need be attendance of the general public is much more in
Judge Gregorio Garcia, as violative of the shown. The thought that lies behind this safeguard is evidence; nor is its presence unwelcome. When it is
constitutional right to public trial the belief that thereby the accused is afforded remembered further that the occupants of such
further protection, that his trial is likely to be courts are not chosen primarily for their legal
HELD conducted with regularity and not tainted with any acumen, but taken from that portion of the bar more
YES impropriety. Accdg to J. Laurel, the importance of this considerably attuned to the pulse of public life, it is
- The procedure had been agreed to beforehand by right is its being a deterrence to arbitrariness. It is not to be rationally expected that an accused would
accused. The hearings have been thus conducted on thus understandable why such a right is deemed be denied whatever solace and comfort may come
fourteen separate occasions without objection on embraced in procedural due process. Where a trial from the knowledge that a judge, with the eyes of
their part, and without an iota of evidence to takes place, as is quite usual, in the courtroom and a the alert court alert to his demeanor and his rulings,
substantiate any claim as to any other person so calendar of what cases are to be heard is posted, no would run the risk of being unjust, unfair, or arbitrary.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 135 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

Nor does it change matters, just because, as did NO *the procedural issue on the CA not being made the
happen here, it was in the air-conditioned chambers Ratio. The constitutional right to a speedy trial party respondent, Court considered the substantial
of a city court judge rather than in the usual place means one free from vexatious, capricious and issues over this technicality.
that the trial took place. oppressive delays [Acebedo v. Sarmiento, Conde v. Dispositive petition for certiorari is granted, and
Dispositive Writ of certiorari is granted. Rivera]. Thus, if the person accused were innocent, the order of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No.
he may within the shortest time possible be spared 16641-R entitled, People v. Francisco Flores, et al., of
FLORES v PEOPLE from anxiety and apprehension arising from a September 28, 1965 denying the motion to dismiss
prosecution, and if culpable, he will not be kept long as well as its order of January 8, 1966 denying the
61 SCRA 331
in suspense as to the fate in store for him, within a motion for reconsideration, and the order of January
FERNANDO, December 10, 1974 period of course compatible with his opportunity to 28, 1966 denying the second motion for
present any valid defense. reconsideration are hereby set aside, nullified, and
NATURE -"The Government should be the last to set an considered of no force and effect. The criminal case
Petition for certiorari example of delay and oppression in the against petitioners in the aforesaid CA-GR No. 16641-
administration of justice and it is the moral and legal R are ordered dismissed.
FACTS obligation of this court to see that the criminal
- December 1951: Francisco Flores and Francisco proceedings against the accused come to an end and MARTELINO v ALEJANDRO
Angel were accused for robbery that they be immediately discharged from the
- November 1955: TC found them guilty of robbery 32 SCRA 106
custody of the law." [People v. Castañeda]
- December 1955: the 2 petitioners filed a notice of - An accused person is entitled to a trial at the CASTRO; March 25, 1970
appeal earliest opportunity. . . . He cannot be oppressed by
- February 1958: CA issued a resolution remanding delaying the commencement of trial for an NATURE
the records of the case to the lower court for a unreasonable length of time. If the proceedings Petition for certiorari and prohibition, to nullify the
rehearing of the testimony of a certain witness pending trial are deferred, the trial itself is orders of the court-martial denying their challenges,
deemed material for the disposition of the case. necessarily delayed. xxx The Constitution does not both peremptory and for cause
- August 1959: CA granted motion of petitioners to say that the right to a speedy trial may be availed of
set aside the TC decision so that evidence for the only where the prosecution for crime is commenced FACTS
defense on certain new facts or matters may be and undertaken by the fiscal. It does not exclude - There are ongoing court-martial proceedings
received, and that a new decision be rendered. Case from its operation cases commenced by private against the petitioner, Major Eduardo Martelino, alias
was returned to TC but for about a year nothing individuals. Where once a person is prosecuted Abdul Latif Martelino, of the AFP, and the officers and
happened because the offended party failed to criminally, he is entitled to a speedy trial, men under him, for violation of the 94th and 97th
appear for about 6 or 7 times. And when the irrespective of the nature of the offense or the Articles of War, as a result of the alleged shooting of
offended party took the witness stand, he could no manner in which it is authorized to be commenced. some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando
longer remember the details of the crime, even failed [Mercado v. Santos] training on the island of Corregidor.
to identify the 2 petitioners. TC just sent back the - remedies available to the accused: The remedy - Initially there was a question of jurisdiction: WON
records to CA in the event of a non-observance of this right is by the general court-martial, convened to try the case,
- May 1965: petitioners sought the dismissal of their habeas corpus if the accused were restrained of his acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the fact
case due to the inordinate delay in their disposition liberty, or by certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus for that about a month earlier, a complaint for frustrated
(for almost 10 yrs), invoking constitutional right to a the final dismissal of the case. [Acebedo v. murder had been filed in the fiscal's office of Cavite
speedy trial Sarmiento] City. Proceedings had to be suspended until SC finally
- January 1966: CA denied motion for reconsideration Reasoning ruled in favor of the jurisdiction of the military court.
Respondent’s defense: - In the absence of any valid decision, the stage of - After that, Martelino sought the disqualification of
(1) case was not properly captioned, the CA not trial has not been completed. Thus, when they the President of the general court-martial, following
being made a party to the petition moved to dismiss in the CA, they could contend that the latter's admission that he read newspaper stories
(2) it was not adequately shown that the right to a they had not been accorded their right to be tried as of the Corregidor incident. He contended that the
speedy trial had been violated, CA taking all the promptly as circumstances permit. It was not the case had received such an amount of publicity in the
steps necessary to complete the transcript of pendency in the Court of Appeals of their cases that press and was being exploited for political purposes
stenographic notes of the original trial. should be deemed material. It is at times in connection with the upcoming 1969 presidential
unavoidable that appellate tribunals cannot, even elections as to imperil his right to a fair trial.
ISSUE with due diligence, put an end to suits elevated to - They then raised peremptory challenges against
WON the right of the petitioners to a speedy trial has them. What is decisive is that with the setting aside Col. Alejandro, as president of the court-martial, and
been accorded of the previous decision in the resolution of August 5, Col. Olfindo, Lt. Col. Camagay, Lt. Col. Valones, Lt.
1959, petitioners could validly premise their plea for Col. Blanco and Col. Malig, as members. There was
HELD dismissal on this constitutional safeguard.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 136 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

also an issue as to the number of peremptory imperative decencies of procedure which have come defense, should be construed to mean each accused
challenges that can be raised by each accused. to be identified with due process. person.
- SC then restrained court-martial from proceeding - Even granting the existence of "massive" and Dispositive Subject to our pronouncement that each
with the case. Respondents asserted that despite the "prejudicial" publicity, since the petitioners here do of the 23 petitioners is entitled to one separate
publicity which the case had received, no proof has not contend that the respondents have been unduly peremptory challenge, the present petition is
been presented showing that the court-martial's influenced but simply that they might be by the DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued by
president's fairness and impartiality have been "barrage" of publicity. this Court is hereby lifted.
impaired. As a preliminary consideration, the 2. YES
respondents urge this Court to throw out the petition Ratio Each of the 23 petitioners (accused before the PEOPLE v ORSAL
on the ground that it has no power to review the general court-martial) is entitled to one peremptory
113 SCRA 226
proceedings of the court-martial, "except for the challenge, irrespective of the number of
purpose of ascertaining whether the military court specifications and/or charges and regardless of PER CURIAM; March 29, 1982
had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, whether they are tried jointly or in common. “The
and whether, though having such jurisdiction, it had right to challenge is in quintessence the right to NATURE
exceeded its powers in the sentence pronounced." reject, not to select. If from the officers who remain Automatic review
an impartial military court is obtained, the
ISSUES constitutional right of the accused to a fair trial is FACTS
1. WON the publicity given to the case against the maintained.” - Vicente Orsal is one of four accused in four separate
petitioners was such as to prejudice their right to a Reasoning cases filed in the Court of First Instance of
fair trial - It is the submission of the petitioners that "for Zamboanga City
2. WON each accused was entitled to one every charge, each side may exercise one - The three (3) other accused are Ramon Gutierrez,
peremptory challenge peremptory challenge," and therefore because there Generoso Abapo and Romeo Flores, but the two (2)
are eleven charges they are entitled to eleven last named accused having gone at large, only
HELD separate peremptory challenges. The respondents appellant Vicente Orsal and Ramon Gutierrez stood
1. NO argue that although there are actually a total of trial
Reasoning eleven specifications against the petitioners, three of - The cases stemmed from the ff acts:
- The trial courts must take strong measures to these should be considered as merged with two other *On April 13, 1974 appellant, together with Generoso
ensure that the balance is never weighed against the specifications, "since in fact they allege the same Abapo, Ramon Gutierrez and Romeo Flores, killed
accused. And appellate tribunals have the duty to offenses committed in conspiracy, thus leaving a Crisanto Bejic, his wife Eduarda, as well as his
make an independent evaluation of the balance of eight specifications." The general court- grandchildren Atanacia Legazpi and Roberto Bejic,
circumstances. Where there is a reasonable martial thereof takes the position that all the 23 and burned his house
likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will petitioners are entitled to a total of only eight *On April 14, 1974, the same accused ransacked the
prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the peremptory challenges. (a) A peremptory challenge house of Jesus Limen, taking his shoes and clothes,
case until the threat abates, or transfer it to another is afforded to an accused who, whether rightly or one paltik revolver, two paltik shotguns and a hand
county not so permeated with publicity. If publicity wrongly, honestly feels that the member of the court grenade, killed Jesus Limen, and burned his house
during the proceeding threatens the fairness of the peremptorily challenged by him cannot sit in - The court found Orsal and Gutierrez guilty beyond
trial, a new trial should be ordered. judgment over him, impartially. Every accused reasonable doubt as principals of the crimes,
- The spate of publicity in this case before us did not person is entitled to a fair trial. It is not enough that attended by two (2) aggravating circumstances,
focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the objectively the members of the court may be fair and namely, that the crimes were committed at nighttime
responsibility of the Government for what was impartial. It is likewise necessary that subjectively and by a band, without any mitigating circumstances
claimed to be a "massacre" of Muslim trainees. If the accused must feel that he is being tried by a fair to offset the same, and sentenced them accordingly:
there was a "trial by newspaper" at all, it was not of and impartial body of officers. Because the (1) Criminal Case No. 471 (1183) for Arson-penalty
the petitioners but of the Government. Absent here is petitioners may entertain grave doubts as to the of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as
a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect fairness or impartiality of distinct, separate and the minimum to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4)
the accused from massive publicity encouraged by different individual members of the court-martial, it months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the
those connected with the conduct of the trial either follows necessarily that each of the accused is maximum, to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount
by a failure to control the release of information or to entitled to one peremptory challenge. (b) Article of of P8,000.00, and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit
remove the trial to another venue or to postpone it War 18 does not distinguish between common trials (2) Criminal Case No. 472 (1184) for Arson- penalty
until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have and joint trials, nor does it make the nature or of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor as
subsided. Indeed we cannot say that the trial of the number of specifications and/or charges a the minimum to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4)
petitioners was being held under circumstances determinant. (c) A perceptive analysis of the months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as the
which did not permit the observance of those companion articles convinces us that the word, "each maximum, to indemnify Francisco Limen the amount
side," as used in the said article in reference to the of P8,000.00, and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 137 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

(3) Criminal Case No. 473 (1185) for Robbery in herein charged. He would then argue that such have accused Ramon Jimenez of theft would,
Band with Multiple Homicide- four separate and weakness of the state evidence would therefore, not serve as motive to induce the two (2)
distinct imprisonment's of Ten (10) years and One (1) commensurately strengthen his defense of alibi aforenamed witnesses to give the testimony that
day of Prision Mayor as the minimum to Seventeen which, as he claims, the trial court erroneously named and pointed to not only appellant but three
(17) years and Five (5) months of Reclusion Temporal rejected. (3) other persons including Ramon Gutierrez who
as the maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the - What is indubitably clear is that the state witnesses stood trial with appellant, as the malefactors. Even
deceased Cristino Bejic, Eduarda Bejic, Roberto Bejic who pointed to appellant as among the culprits are as to Ramon Jimenez alone, the alleged motive is
and Atanasia Legazpi the total amount of P48,000.00 the ones with no motive sufficient to urge them to assuredly not enough for him to charge falsely
and to pay ¼ of the costs of this suit in each of these testify falsely against appellant who would be appellant, who is his cousin, with such grievous
four cases punished with no less than death in consequence of offenses as the killing of four (4) persons, burning
(4) Criminal Case No. 432 (1157) for Robbery in their perjured testimony. down of two (2) houses and stealing of valuable
Band with Homicide- Supreme penalty of 'DEATH', - First to Identify appellant was Antonio Bejic the lone personal belongings.
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jesus Limen survivor in the carnage against the Bejic family and - From how appellant's identity as one of the
the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay one fourth of household. He Categorically stated that he perpetrators of the four (4) crimes just mentioned
the costs in each of these four cases recognized the voice that shouted: "Hoy", to be that has been established, his defense of alibi is futile.
- In the case of Gutierrez, owing to the fact that he is of appellant whom he had known very well because The barrio captain of New Sagay,Jesus Agabon, with
a youthful offender, as he is only 18 years old, the appellant used to sleep in Antonio's grandfather with whom appellant claimed to be with when the crimes
Court ordered his commitment to the Department of whom he was residing. Moreover, Antonio also were being committed, was presented to corroborate
Social Services and Development, Region IX, testified having seen appellant stab his cousin, appellant's alibi by testifying that in accordance with
Zamboanga City Roberto Bejic He was however candid enough to the regulation in his place, he registered appellant's
- The sentence of death having been imposed in admit that he did not see who actually killed the rest name in a notebook as a transient therein. His
Criminal Case No. 432 (1157), which was heard of his relatives, nor who actually burned the house. testimony became worthless when despite sufficient
jointly with the other three (3) cases, the single This fact would tend to negate appellant's claims that opportunity given him to produce the notebook in
decision rendered for all the four (4) cases is before the testimony of the state witnesses were scripted Court, by postponing the hearing not just once but
the SC for automatic review. and merely rehearsed. twice, the defense witness never again appeared in
- That the appellant and his companions were the Court. If his salvation hanged on the credibility of this
ISSUES perpetrators of the killing of Jesus Limen and also the witness, appellant should have done everything and
1. WON the appellant has been denied his burning of his house was positively established by resorted to even the coercive process of the Court to
constitutional right to a speedy trial the testimony of Ramon Jimenez. Ramon was with make said witness go to Court and present the
2. WON the evidence is sufficient to establish his Jesus Limen when the latter was killed and his house desired document, or explain his inability to do so.
guilt beyond reasonable doubt burned. That he was taken along by appellant Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto.
apparently as a hostage to prevent him from
HELD reporting to the authorities, and so he was arrested PEOPLE v JARDIN
1. NO with appellant together is, undeniably, one
124 SCRA 167
- Appellant first contends that he has been denied his circumstance strongly lending credence to all that
constitutional right of speedy trial because the Ramon Jimenez testified to, particularly on GUTIERREZ JR; August 17, 1983
information was filed only about nine (9) months appellant's complicity in the commission of the four
after his arrest and investigation. (4) crimes. NATURE
- There was no such denial. As correctly set forth by - The testimony of Ramon Jimenez of course did not Petition for certiorari on decision of CFI Quezon
the Solicitor General, the test of violation of the right escape the very keenly scrutinizing examination to dismissing the criminal cases against accused
to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the which appellant's counsel subjected the testimonies Demetrio Jardin because his constitutional right to
delay from the time the information is filed, not of all the other state witnesses, in a zealous effort to speedy trial was allegedly violated.
before the filing. The delay in the filing of the show their want of credibility with the
information, which in the instant case has not been inconsistencies, improbabilities and contradictions FACTS
without reasonable cause, is, therefore, not to be they supposedly contained. Suffice it to say that the - The criminal prosecutions originated from a letter-
reckoned with in determining whether there has been alleged contradictions and inconsistencies were on complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon
a denial of the right to speedy trial. minor and inconsequential details that would not in requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary
2. YES any way affect Ramon's credibility. criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
- In the main, appellant's contention in this appeal is - As earlier stated, no sufficient motive was shown Code against Demetrio Jardin for malversation of
that the evidence of the prosecution is weak and why the two (2) eyewitnesses, Antonio Bejic and public funds thru falsification of public documents on
insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable Ramon Jimenez, would perjure themselves in pointing six counts. (1967)
doubt, particularly in the manner he was Identified as to appellant as one of the perpetrators of very grave - {This case is full of delaying tactics}
one of the alleged perpetrators of the four (4) crimes and heinous crimes. That appellant's mother may
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 138 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- PI 1: accused moved to postpone 4 times, and having his guilt determined within the shortest - All attempts to arrest him proved futile. He was,
failed to appear everytime. possible time compatible with the presentation and however, finally arrested after nearly thirteen
- PI was nevertheless conducted. And the six criminal consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may years from the date fixed for the reading of the
informations were filed in CFI. interpose. sentence. He was subsequently brought before the
- AR 1: accused moved to postpone 4 time, never - The delays in the prosecution of the offenses were court and the sentence was read to him, from which
appeared; counsel asked for reinvestigation on the all caused by the accused so he cannot invoke he appealed to the Court of Appeals where, against
ground that the accused was not given the constitutional right to speedy trial. By his own the objection of the Solicitor General, he was allowed
opportunity to present his defense during the deliberate acts, he is deemed to have waived or to file a bond for his temporary release.
preliminary investigation. Court granted motion. abandoned his right to a speedy trial - In perfecting the record on appeal it was found that
- PI 2: accused moved to postpone many times, 2. NO the stenographic notes taken during the trial were
failed still to appear. When he finally appeared with - The dismissal of the criminal cases against the not transcribed and that the two stenographers who
his counsel, they asked for 15 days to file accused by the respondent court on the ground that took the notes were already dead. The matter was
memorandum. The memorandum was never filed, so his right to speedy trial had been violated was devoid referred to several stenographers who stated that
the investigating fiscal filed a manifestation before of factual and legal basis. they could not transcribe the notes because the
the court that the records of these cases be returned - In order that the protection against double jeopardy deceased had used systems known only to
and the trial on the merits of the same be set. may inure to the benefit of an accused, the following themselves. In this situation, Ang Gioc petitioned the
- The court transferred the case to new branch of CFI requisites must be present in the first prosecution: Court of Appeals to remand the cause to the court
Quezon without acting on manifestation. Arraignment (a) a valid complaint or information; below for a new trial.
date was set. (b) a competent court; - CA remanded for new trial
- AR 2: more postponements at instance of accused; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and
moved for reinvestigation again. Court granted. (d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the ISSUE
- PI 3: reset because no show. Counsel then asked case against him was dismissed or otherwise WON the CA acquired jurisdiction of the appeal filed
for 5 days to file written sworn statement of accused terminated without his express consent. by him
as defense. No statement was submitted so the - The last requisite is not present because the order
records of the case were returned to court. A date of the CFI judge was null and void. HELD
was set for arraignment. Dispositive Petition granted. The criminal cases are NO
- AR 3: accused asked for postponement. reinstated and the proper regional trial court is - The accused has rights, one of which is the right of
- Arraignment finally happened on Sept 8, ordered to proceed with all deliberate speed in these appeal; but this is a purely statutory, not a
1970. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY and asked for cases. constitutional, right and this is not one of those
trial to be postponed. On postponed date, accused fundamental rights which cannot be waived. This
asked for another postponement. PEOPLE v ANG GIOC right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused.
- Oct 1970, accused and counsel were at trial; but no He may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may
73 PHIL 336
one appeared for prosecution, except for a state waive it either expressly or by implication. When the
witness. Counsel moved (orally) for dismissal, ABAD SANTOS; October 31, 1941 accused flees after the case has been submitted to
invoking accused right to a speedy trial. Court the court for decision, he will be deemed to have
granted motion and dismissed the cases. NATURE waived his right to appeal from the judgment
Petition for a writ of certiorari rendered against him. Such was the situation with
ISSUES reference to the the respondent Ang Gioc. He was
1. WON accused can invoke right to speedy trial FACTS duly notified to appear before the trial court for the
2. WON this appeal places the accused in double - Ang Gioc, together with Sio Go, Gang Kan, Kee Ya reading of the sentence, but failed to do so; and
jeopardy and Chua Chui, was charged with the crime of when an order was issued for his arrest, the warrant
frustrated murder in the Court of First Instance of could not be served on him because he could not be
HELD Manila. He was released on bail. After a protracted found. Whether or not he escaped to China is
1. NO trial, which lasted several months, Ang Gioc and one immaterial for our present purpose. The fact remains
- The respondent court committed a grave abuse of of his co-accused, Sio Go, were found guilty and that he succeeded in evading arrest for nearly
discretion in dismissing the cases and in basing the sentenced to twelve years and one day of cadena thirteen years. The record shows that upon his failure
dismissal on the constitutional right of the accused to temporal. Ang Gioc and his sureties were duly to appear for the reading of the sentence, the trial
speedy trial. notified to appear before the court for the reading of court declared the confiscation of the bond filed by
- The right to a speedy trial means that the accused the sentence, but the former failed to appear and Ang Gioc, and later issued the corresponding order of
is free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive thereupon the trial judge ordered his arrest and the execution. This action of the court amounted to a
delays, its salutary objective being to assure that an confiscation of the bond furnished for his temporary judicial declaration that Ang Gioc was a fugitive from
innocent person may be free from anxiety and release. justice, and such declaration cannot after the lapse
expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of of nearly thirteen years be controverted by proof
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 139 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

aliunde. A contrary view would encourage accused the State should not be given the license to kill - Nov 15, 1982: the trial was again postponed for
persons to trifle with the administration of justice, without the final determination of this Highest reasons that do not appear in the record.
and provide means for guilty parties to escape Tribunal whose collective wisdom is the last, effective - Dec 20, 1982: the trial was again postponed
punishment. We reject it without the least hesitation hedge against an erroneous judgment of a one-judge because the prosecution witnesses were absent.
by declaring that Ang Gioc had waived his right to trial court. This enlightened policy ought to continue - Jan 19, 1983: the third resetting of the case was
appeal from the judgment rendered against him. The as our beacon light for the taking of life ends all also canceled, no reason appearing in the record.
law will not allow a person to take advantage of his rights, a matter of societal value that transcends the - Feb 21, 1983: no trial could be held again, because
own wrong. personal interest of a convict. The importance of this witnesses being absent.
- Ang Gioc has waived his right of appeal. Court of societal value should not be blurred by the escape of - March 21, 1983: the trial was reset once more,
Appeals acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal filed by a convict which is a problem of law enforcement. again because the prosecution witnesses were
him, except to dismiss it; and that court acted in Neither should this Court be moved alone by the absent.
excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered the cause to outrage of the public for the rise in statistics of - April 19, 1983: the trial of the case had not yet
be remanded to the court of origin for a new trial heinous crimes for our decisions should not be started. It was reset because the prosecution
Dispositive remanding order must be set aside, and directed by the changing winds of the social witnesses were again absent.
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila weather. Let us not for a moment forget that an - June 3, 1983, a sheriffs return informed the trial
declared final and executory. accused does not cease to have rights just because court that the prosecution witnesses, namely, Capt.
of his conviction. This principle is implicit in our Carlos Dacanay and Sgt. Bonifacio Lustado had been
PEOPLE v ESPARAS Constitution which recognizes that an accused, to be personally served with subpoena to appear and
right, while the majority, even if overwhelming, has testify at the hearing scheduled on June 6, 1983.
260 SCRA 539
no right to be wrong. - June 6, 1983: the trial was again postponed, this
PUNO; August 20, 1996 time because there was no trial fiscal.
SAMSON v CA - July 12, 1983: trial was reset for lack of material
FACTS time.
- Accused Esparas was charged with violation of RA [SUPRA, PAGE 84]
- Sept 6, 1983: The trial was once more reset by
No. 6425 as amended by RA No. 759 for importing agree-judgment of the parties.
into the country 20 kilograms of "shabu" in Criminal PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA - Oct 19, 1983: the trial was reset to November 14,
Case No. 94-5897 before the RTC of Pasay City, Br. 1983.
[SUPRA, PAGE 72]
114. After arraignment, the accused escaped from - Nov 14, 1983: the prosecution moved for the
jail and was tried in absentia. On March 13, 1995, provisional dismissal of the case because its
the trial court found her guilty as charged GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN witnesses had not appeared.
and imposed on her the death penalty. The accused [SUPRA, PAGE 82] - On the same date, Judge Gorgonio ordered the case
remains at large up to the present time. Provisionally Dismissed
- Jan 9, 1984: a motion to revive the cases was filed
ISSUE CAES v IAC by Maj. Dacanay (he had been promoted in the
WON the Court will proceed to automatically review 179 SCRA 54 meantime) and Sgt. Lustado who alleged that they
her death sentence CRUZ; November 6, 1989 could not attend the hearing scheduled on November
14, 1983, for lack of notice.
HELD FACTS - Copy of the motion was furnished the City Fiscal of
YES - Joel Caes was charged in 2 separate informations Caloocan City but not the petitioner. Said motion was
- The power of this Court to review a decision with ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND granted by J. Gorgonio
imposing the death penalty cannot be waived either ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA before the CFI -Caes filed a MR but was denied and the revived
by the accused or by the courts. Ours is not only the of Rizal. (SHORT version: this guy stayed in prison for cases were set from hearing on Nov. 19, 1984.
power but the duty to review all death penalty 3 yrs coz nothing was happening with his case-trial - Caes questioned the judge's order on certiorari with
cases. No litigant can repudiate this power which is was postponed 11 times-the court then decided to this Court, which referred his petition to the IAC.
bestowed by the Constitution. The power is more of dismiss it provisionally but was later on revived. - IAC dismissed it for lack of merit on May 20, 1986,
a sacred duty which we have to discharge to assure ***But if ma’am wants details, read on!) and reconsideration was denied on June 17, 1986.
the People that the innocence of a citizen is our - The cases were consolidated on Dec 10, 1981.
concern not only in crimes that slight but even more, - Arraignment was originally scheduled on January ISSUES
in crimes that shock the conscience. This concern 11, 1982, but was for some reason postponed. 1. WON the motion to revive the cases was invalid
cannot be diluted. - August 31, 1982, Caes was arraigned and pleaded because it was not filed by the proper party nor was
- We have always reviewed the imposition of the not guilty. a copy served to CAES
death penalty regardless of the will of the convict. - Trial was scheduled for October 13, 1982, but this
Our unyielding stance is dictated by the policy that was reset upon agreement of the parties.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 140 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

2. WON the revival of the cases would place the - Fittingly described as "res judicata in prison grey," - The circumstance that the dismissal of the cases
petitioner double jeopardy in violation of the Bill of the right against double jeopardy prohibits the against the petitioner was described by the trial
Rights prosecution of a person for a crime of which he has judge as "provisional" did not change the nature of
been previously acquitted or convicted. The purpose that dismissal. As it was based on the "lack of
HELD is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at interest" of the prosecutor and the consequent delay
1. YES rest, assuring the accused that he shall not in the trial of the cases, it was final and operated as
- The trial judge erred in ordering the revival of the thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of an acquittal of the accused on the merits.
cases against Caes and that CFI also erred in a second charge against him for the same offense. - No less importantly, there is no proof that Caes
affirming that order. Caes having been denied his - People v. Ylagan, Mendoza v. Almeda Lopez, People expressly concurred in the provisional dismissal.
constitutional right to a speedy trial, and not having v. Obsania ~ To constitute double jeopardy, there Implied consent, as we have repeatedly held, is not
expressly consented to the "provisional" dismissal of must be: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) enough; neither may it be lightly inferred from the
the cases against him, he was entitled to their final filed before a competent court; (c) to which the presumption of regularity, for “we are dealing here
dismissal under the constitutional prohibition against defendant had pleaded; and (d) of which he had with the alleged waiver of a constitutional right. Any
double jeopardy. been previously acquitted or convicted or which was doubt on this matter must be resolved in favor of the
Reasoning dismissed or otherwise terminated without his accused.”
- Rule 110, See. 5, par.1: It is axiomatic that the express consent. - Who’s fault was it then? The responsibility clearly
prosecution of a criminal case is the responsibility of - There is no question that the first three requisites lies with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan
the gov’t prosecutor and must always be under his are present in the case at bar. City for its negligence and ineptitude.
control. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE PROV. DISMISSAL? Dispositive PETITION IS GRANTED. DISMISSAL OF
- Herrero v. Diaz: This is true even if a private - People v Ylagan: It is settled that a case may be THE CRIMINAL CASES declared as FINAL.
prosecutor is allowed to assist him and actually dismissed if the dismissal is made on motion of the
handles the examination of the witnesses and the accused himself or on motion of the prosecution with PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON
introduction of other evidence. the express consent of the accused. Such a dismissal
[SUPRA, PAGE 74]
- The witnesses, even if they are the complaining is correctly denominated provisional. But a dismissal
witnesses, cannot act for the prosecutor in the is not provisional even if so designated if it is shown
handling of the case. Although they may ask for the that it was made without the express consent of the GODOY v CA
filing of the case, they have no personality to move accused. This consent cannot be presumed nor may MELENCIO-HERRERA; August 30, 1988
for its dismissal or revival as they are not even it be merely implied from the defendant's silence or
parties thereto nor do they represent the parties to his failure to object. NATURE
the action. Their only function is to testify. - Pendatum v. Aragon, People v. Hinaut, Solis v. Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA
- In a criminal prosecution, the plaintiff is represented Agloro: Such consent must be express, so as to leave
by the government prosecutor, or one acting under no doubt as to the defendant's conformity. FACTS
his authority, and by no one else. Otherwise, the dismissal will be regarded as final, - Godoy is one of 6 accused of homicide. All pleaded
- It follows that the motion for the revival of the cases i.e., with prejudice to the refiling of the case. not guilty. Trial proceeded until prosecution
filed by prosecution witnesses (who never even - There are instances in fact when the dismissal will concluded presentation of evidence after which
testified) should have been summarily dismissed by be held to be final and to dispose of the case once prosecution formally offered documentary exhibits.
the trial judge. and for all even if the dismissal was made on motion Before defense submitted objections to offer,
- The mere fact that the government prosecutor was of the accused himself. - The first is where the petitioner filed Motion to Acquit on ground of lack of
furnished a copy of the motion and he did not dismissal is based on a demurrer to the evidence evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
interpose any objection was not enough to justify the filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested. - TC denied Motion to Acquit and admitted Formal
action of these witnesses. Such dismissal has the effect of a judgment on the Offer of Documentary Exhibits for prosecution.
-The prosecutor should have initiated the motion merits and operates as an acquittal. - Prosecution moved for disqualification of Godoy
himself if he thought it proper. The presumption that - The other exception is where the dismissal is from presenting evidence as well as his exclusion
he approved of the motion is not enough, especially made, also on motion of the accused, because of the from proceedings on ground that the Motion to Acquit
since we are dealing here with the liberty of a person denial of his right to a speedy trial. This is in effect a is equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence so he had
who had a right at least to be notified of the move to failure to prosecute. already waived his right to present evidence. TC
prosecute him again. - SC said that this case is similar to Conde v. Rivera denied the disqualification and allowed Godoy to
- The fact that he was not so informed made the (so this doctrine applies in this case too) where a present evidence. Prosecution filed MFR but this was
irregularity even more serious. It is curious that the prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures denied.
motion was granted just the same, and ex parte at postponements of the trial of a defendant against his - Father of victim filed Petition for Certiorari before
that and without hearing, and the petitioner's protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this CA. CA nullified the orders of TC and held that
subsequent objection was brushed aside. instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled Godoy’s Motion to Acquit was a demurrer to
2. YES to relief ... evidence.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 141 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

petitioner’s former counsel, Atty. Benjamin C. court when the records show no such manifestation
ISSUE Belarmino, Jr., informed the court that they have not was made. On the contrary, the records show that
WON the Motion to Acquit is the same as a motion to yet received the resolution on the prosecution’s Atty. Belarmino asked for leave of court to file a
dismiss on demurrer to evidence Formal Offer of Exhibits, further manifesting that demurrer to evidence and for time to discuss the
upon receipt of the resolution, they will ask for leave same with his co-counsel but was instead ordered by
HELD of court to file demurrer to evidence. the court to file the same without leave of court
NO - The court directed Atty. Belarmino to file a demurrer within ten days.
- Section 15 Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Crim Pro to evidence even without leave of court but the latter - Atty. Belarmino did not cite any ground when he
is relevant. The rule is explicit that in filing a Motion manifested that he would still discuss the matter with moved for leave of court to file demurrer to
to Dismiss on ground of insufficiency of evidence, an his collaborating counsel. However, in the order evidence; neither did the Sandiganbayan make any
accused waives the right to present evidence. There issued by the Sandiganbayan, it was stated that inquiry thereon before issuing the order, directing the
is no material difference between the Motion to petitioner, through counsel, manifested that he petitioner to file a demurrer to evidence even without
Acquit by Godoy and a demurrer to evidence. A would be filing a demurrer to evidence without leave leave of court. This is contrary to the provisions of
different label doesn’t change the true nature of of court within 10 days. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
pleading. - October 20, 2003: Demurrer to Evidence was filed Procedure which specifically instructs that “the
- The rationale is that when accused moves for without leave of court motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence
dismissal on ground of insufficiency of evidence, he - October 27, 2003: Prosecution filed its Opposition. shall specifically state its grounds.”
does so in belief that evidence is insufficient to - Pursuant to Section 23, Rule 119 of The Revised - Petitioner was not consulted nor did his counsel
convict and any need for him to present evidence is Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Sandiganbayan confer with him and ask whether he understood the
negated. Accused cannot be allowed to wager on considered the right of petitioner to present evidence significance of filing a demurrer to evidence. Atty.
outcome of judicial proceedings by espousing waived and deemed the case submitted for judgment Belarmino was not given the opportunity to discuss
inconsistent viewpoints. on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. with petitioner the consequences of filing a demurrer
- HOWEVER, in this case, this rule is inapplicable. - May 3, 2004: the Sandiganbayan found petitioner to evidence without leave of court.
First, because the prosecution has not yet rested its guilty in all 13 cases. - People v. Bodoso: Henceforth, to protect the
case. The documentary exhibits are still in issue. - May 17, 2004: Petitioner moved for reconsideration constitutional right to due process of every accused
Second, the TC lost no time in denying Motion to of the decision and further moved that he be allowed in a capital offense and to avoid any confusion about
Acquit and Godoy was ready to present evidence but to present evidence. the proper steps to be taken when a trial court comes
prosecution moved to disqualify him. The practice - June 10, 2004: MFR denied face to face with an accused or his counsel who
sought to be avoided by the rule is inexistent. wants to waive his client’s right to present evidence
ISSUE and be heard, it shall be the unequivocal duty of the
RIVERA v PEOPLE WON the decision and resolution of the trial court to observe, as a prerequisite to the validity
Sandiganbayan should be set aside to allow of such waiver, a procedure akin to a “searching
YNARES-SANTIAGO; June 9, 2005
petitioner to present evidence despite the demurrer inquiry” as specified in People v. Aranzado when an
to evidence filed accused pleads guilty, particularly –
NATURE
1. The trial court shall hear both the prosecution
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
and the accused with their respective counsel on
Rules of Court
the desire or manifestation of the accused to waive
HELD the right to present evidence and be heard.
FACTS
YES 2. The trial court shall ensure the attendance of
- Juan G. Rivera and Eric O. Garcia, municipal mayor
- A demurrer to evidence is defined as “an objection the prosecution and especially the accused with
and disbursement officer, respectively, of
by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that their respective counsel in the hearing which must
Guinobatan, Albay, were charged before the
the evidence which his adversary produced is be recorded. Their presence must be duly entered
Sandiganbayan with 12 counts of falsification of
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to in the minutes of the proceedings.
public documents and 1 count of malversation of
make out a case or sustain the issue”. The party 3. During the hearing, it shall be the task of the
public funds involving the amount of P1,936,798.64
demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole trial court to –
given to the Municipality of Guinobatan as calamity
evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the a. ask the defense counsel a series of question
fund for the victims of the Mayon volcanic eruption.
sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the to determine whether he had conferred with and
Garcia died on August 25, 2001 and was accordingly
court is merely required to ascertain whether there is completely explained to the accused that he
dropped from the amended information.
competent or sufficient proof to sustain the had the right to present evidence and be heard
- Rivera pleaded not guilty to all 13 cases. A pre-trial
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. as well as its meaning and consequences,
was conducted. Prosecution presented its witnesses
- The order dated September 29, 2003, inaccurately together with the significance and outcome of
and offered documentary exhibits.
stated that Atty. Belarmino manifested that he will be the waiver of such right. If the lawyer for the
- September 29, 2003: The defense was scheduled to
filing a demurrer to evidence even without leave of accused has not done so, the trial court shall
present evidence; however, during the hearing,
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 142 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

give the latter enough time to fulfill this and finally to the provincial Government. It has not proceedings, so that Choi may adduce evidence on
professional obligation. been satisfactorily established whether petitioner the civil aspect of the case.” Park’s motion for
b. inquire from the defense counsel with has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has reconsideration of the remand of the case having
conformity of the accused whether he wants to consented to the taking by another person, of such been denied, he elevated the case to the CA which
present evidence or submit a memorandum funds. dismissed his petition.
elucidating on the contradictions and - The presentation of evidence by the defense would
insufficiency of the prosecution evidence, if any, resolve any doubt as to petitioner’s complicity and ISSUES
or in default theory, file a demurrer to evidence avoid possible miscarriage of justice. 1. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for
with prior leave of court, if he so believes that - Clearly, when “transcendental matters” like life, not fully complying with verification requirements
the prosecution evidence is so weak that it need liberty or State security are involved, suspension of 2. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the
not even be rebutted. If there is a desire to do the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously. ground that it was not accompanied by copies of
so, the trial court shall give the defense enough The Rules on procedure are merely tools designed to certain pleadings and other material portions of the
time to this purpose. facilitate the attainment of justice. When they are record as would support the allegations of the
c. elicit information about the personality profile rigid and strict in application, resulting in petition
of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than 3. WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for
status, and educational background, which may promote justice, the Court is empowered to suspend failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a
serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to the rules. party
give a free and informed waiver. Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. Sandiganbayan 4. WON the respondent has a right to present
d. all questions posed to the accused should be resolutions SET ASIDE. Records of Criminal Case Nos. evidence on the civil aspect of the case in view of his
in a language known and understood by the 26686-98 REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for demurrer
latter, hence, the record must state the further proceedings.
language used for this purpose as well as reflect HELD
the corresponding translation thereof in English. HUN HYUNG PARK v EUNG WON CHOI 1. NO
- People v. Flores: Though the Rules require no such Ratio Verification is not an empty ritual or a
CARPIO-MORALES; February 12, 2007
inquiry to be undertaken by the court for the validity meaningless formality. Its import must never be
of such waiver or any judgment made as result of the sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer
FACTS
waiver, prudence, however, requires the Court to caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity
- Eung Won Choi, was charged for violation of BP 22,
ascertain the same to avoid any grave miscarriage of attested by the sanctity of an oath to secure an
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, for
justice. Any lawyer worth his salt ought to know that assurance that the allegations in the pleading have
issuing PNB Check No. 0077133 postdated August
the filing of a demurrer to evidence with leave of been made in good faith, or are true and correct and
28, 1999 in the amount of P1,875,000 which was
court has the beneficial effect of reserving the not merely speculative.
dishonored for having been drawn against
movant’s right to present evidence if the demurrer is Reasoning
insufficient funds. He pleaded not guilty.
denied by the court. Thus, a counsel who files a - Section 4 of Rule 7 of the RoC:
- After the prosecution rested its case, respondent
demurrer with leave of court, but at the same time Verification – Except when otherwise specifically
filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to
expressly waives his right to present evidence should required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under
Evidence to which he attached his Demurrer,
put a judge on guard that said counsel may not oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
asserting that the prosecution failed to prove that he
entirely comprehend the consequences of the waiver. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant
received the notice of dishonor, hence, the
has read the pleading and that the allegations
presumption of the element of knowledge of
- The evidence on record do not clearly show where therein are true and correct of his personal
insufficiency of funds did not arise.
and to whom the allegedly malversed money were knowledge or based on authentic records.
- (2/27/03) The MeTC of Makati, Branch 65 granted
given after it was encashed. What is clear is that the - A pleading required to be verified which contains a
the demurrer and dismissed the case. The
calamity fund was released to Almeda O. Lim, the verification based on “information and belief,” or
prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Municipal Treasurer of Guinobatan, Albay to which upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a
- Park appealed the civil aspect of the case to the
Official Receipt No. 8749242H was issued. proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned
RTC of Makati, contending that the dismissal of the
Thereafter, checks bearing her signature and that of pleading.
criminal case should not include its civil aspect. The
Rivera’s were personally encashed by her while she - Park argues that the word “or” is a disjunctive term
RTC held that while the evidence presented was
was allegedly accompanied by Garcia. Witnesses signifying disassociation and independence, hence,
insufficient to prove Choi’s criminal liability, it did not
who owned the forged receipts testified that they he chose to affirm in his petition he filed before the
altogether extinguish his civil liability. It accordingly
handed the blank receipts to Garcia and not to court a quo that its contents are “true and correct of
granted Park’s appeal and ordered Choi to pay him
petitioner. Then, after receipt of the cash, the my own personal knowledge,” and not on the basis of
P1,875,000 with legal interest.
disbursement vouchers and other forms required to authentic documents. On the other hand, Choi
- Upon Choi’s motion for reconsideration, however,
liquidate the amount were allegedly prepared by Lim counters that the word “or” may be interpreted in a
the RTC set aside its decision and ordered the
and thereafter, transmitted to Rivera for approval, conjunctive sense and construed to mean as “and,”
remand of the case to the MeTC “for further
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 143 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

or vice versa, when the context of the law so by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of doubt, then the same evidence is likewise not
warrants. the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, insufficient to establish civil liability by mere
- A pleading may be verified under either of the two certified correct by the clerk of court [Sec 2(d) Rule preponderance of evidence.
given modes or under both. The veracity of the 42]. - On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented
allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on - The only duplicate original or certified true copies is insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it
either one’s own personal knowledge or on authentic attached as annexes to the petition are the RTC does not follow that the same evidence is insufficient
records, or both, as warranted. The use of the Order granting respondent’s MFR and the RTC Order to establish a preponderance of evidence. For if the
preposition “or” connotes that either source qualifies denying petitioner’s MFR. The copy of the September court grants the demurrer, proceedings on the civil
as a sufficient basis for verification and, needless to 11, 2003 RTC Decision, which petitioner prayed to be aspect of the case generally proceed. The only
state, the concurrence of both sources is more than reinstated, is not a certified true copy and is not even recognized instance when an acquittal on demurrer
sufficient. Bearing both a disjunctive and conjunctive legible. Petitioner later recompensed though by carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is
sense, this parallel legal signification avoids a appending to his MFR a duplicate original copy. when there is a finding that the act or omission from
construction that will exclude the combination of the - While petitioner averred before the CA in his MFR which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
alternatives or bar the efficacy of any one of the that the February 27, 2003 MeTC Order was already Absent such determination, trial as to the civil aspect
alternatives standing alone. attached to his petition as Annex “G,” Annex “G” of the case must perforce continue.
- However, the range of permutations is not left to bares a replicate copy of a different order. It was to - In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer
the pleader’s liking, but is dependent on the this Court that petitioner belatedly submitted an and dismissed the case without any finding that the
surrounding nature of the allegations which may uncertified true copy of the said MeTC Order as an act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
warrant that a verification be based either purely on annex to his Reply to respondent’s Comment. The did not exist. Choi did not assail the RTC order of
personal knowledge, or entirely on authentic records, copy of the other MeTC Order, dated May 5, 2003, remand. He thereby recognized that there is basis
or on both sources. “Authentic records” as a basis for which petitioner attached to his petition before the for a remand.
verification bear significance in petitions where the CA is similarly uncertified as true. Since both Orders - Park posits that Choi waived his right to present
greater portions of the allegations are based on the were adverse to him even with respect to the civil evidence on the civil aspect of the case (1) when the
records of the proceedings in the court of origin, and aspect of the case, petitioner was mandated to grant of the demurrer was reversed on appeal, citing
not solely on the personal knowledge of the submit them in the required form. Section 1 of Rule 33, and (2) when respondent orally
petitioner. 3. YES opposed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
- To sustain petitioner’s explanation that the basis of Reasoning pleading that proceedings with respect to the civil
verification is a matter of simple preference would - The MeTC acquitted respondent. As a rule, a aspect of the case continue.
trivialize the rationale and diminish the resoluteness judgment of acquittal is immediately final and - Petitioner’s citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is
of the rule. It would play on predilection and pay no executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the incorrect. Where a court has jurisdiction over the
heed in providing enough assurance of the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition subject matter and over the person of the accused,
correctness of the allegations. against double jeopardy. Either the offended party or and the crime was committed within its territorial
2. NO the accused may, however appeal the civil aspect of jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises
Ratio Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires it to
the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike The public prosecutor has generally no interest in resolve. One of the issues in a criminal case being
are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the the civil liability of the accused arising from the
while the Court, in some instances, allows a accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is crime, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal
relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we terminated as far as he is concerned. The real Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure which
stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are pertains to a civil action arising from the initiatory
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The the offended party and the accused. pleading that gives rise to the suit.
liberality in the interpretation and application of the 4. YES - As for petitioner’s attribution of waiver to
rules applies only in proper cases and under Reasoning respondent, it cannot be determined with certainty
justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true - In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of from the records the nature of Choi’s alleged oral
that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is court, the accused may adduce countervailing objections to Park’s motion for reconsideration of the
equally true that every case must be prosecuted in evidence if the court denies the demurrer. Such grant of the demurrer to evidence. Any waiver of the
accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure denial bears no distinction as to the two aspects of right to present evidence must be positively
an orderly and speedy administration of justice. the case because there is a disparity of evidentiary demonstrated. Any ambiguity in the voluntariness of
Reasoning value between the quanta of evidence in such the waiver is frowned upon; hence, courts must
- The materiality of those documents is very aspects of the case. In other words, a court may not indulge every reasonable presumption against it.
apparent since the civil aspect of the case, from deny the demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at Dispositive Petition is DENIED.
which Park is appealing, was likewise dismissed by the same time grant the demurrer as to the civil
the trial court on account of the same Demurrer. The aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not PEOPLE v CRUZ
Rules require that the petition must “be accompanied insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable
177 SCRA 451
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 144 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

REGALADO; SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 a blatant disregard of solemn agreements submitted Severino.
FACTS to and approved by a court of justice and would - Apprehension on December 3, 1944, of
The information for rape with homicide (based on make a mockery of the judicial process. Clemente Chica
witness testimonies, postmortem report, police Coming now to the conclusion of the trial court that - Apprehension on January 9 of Gavino Moras
interrogation, and admission by the accused) was the accused raped and, on the occasion thereof, - the three individuals were apprehended by the
filed against Danilo Gole Cruz with the then CFI. killed Teresita Gumapay, the Court has painstakingly appellant or at his instigation, due to their guerrilla
Accused pleaded not guilty in the arraignment and scrutinized the record, with the concomitant connections, all in Cebu City, and the appellant was
trial on the merits followed wherein several calibration of the evidence and the consequent accompanied by Japanese during all 3 apprehensions
witnesses were presented. The suspension of the determination as to whether the quantum thereof
direct examination of the accused was at his passes the test of moral certainty of guilt. There is no ISSUE
instance and as moved by his counsel. Upon doubt that it was the accused who killed Teresita WON the lower court committed an error by allowing
medical examination, accused was found to be Gumapay, the evidence thereon being capped by his the prosecution to present evidence of appellant’s
suffering from schizophrenia, and was admitted to own written confession of the same before the Filipino citizenship after the prosecution had rested
a mental hospital. He however tried to escape. investigating officers. The authenticity of and the fact its case and the defense had moved for dismissal
Later, Dr. Maaba recommended on March 22, 1982 that he and the witnesses thereto knowingly affixed
the discharge of the accused from the mental their signatures on said extrajudicial confession were HELD
hospital and for his return to the provincial jail of never questioned. Buttressing the foregoing evidence NO
Bulacan, he having been found fit to stand trial. is the positive identification of the accused at the Reasoning
This unrebutted fact notwithstanding, the accused situs and during the occurrence of the crime. We - The matter of reopening a case for the reception of
refused to take the witness stand without any agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the trial further evidence after either the prosecution or the
plausible justification. In addition, it was the court that the accused is not entitled to the defense has rested is within the discretion of the trial
defense itself which moved to terminate the exempting circumstance of insanity. Against the court.
testimony of the accused, which fact became the effete efforts in the accused's afterthought to create Dispositive The appealed judgment, being in
basis for such testimony being stricken from the an insanity defense is the whole weight of the conformity with the facts and the law, is affirmed.
records for lack of cross-examination. In fact, presumption of sanity provided by law, amply
when the former presiding judge thereafter supported by convincing circumstances laudably CABARLES v MACEDA
ordered the reopening of the case sua pointed out by the trial court.
QUISUMBING; February 20, 2007
sponte, it was the defense that objected to
the same and insisted that the case be DISPOSITION
NATURE
deemed submitted for decision. WHEREFORE, with the modifications that the death
Petitioner seeks to annul the Order issued by
Defense then motioned for a reopening of the case sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to
respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda in Criminal
which was denied for lack of merit. Trial Court reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 19(l), Article
Case No. 99-0878, entitled People of the Philippines
found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt III of the Constitution, and the indemnification for the
v. Rene "Nonoy" Cabarles y Adizas, for murder, filed
of the crime of rape with homicide and found his death of Teresita Gumapay is hereby increased from
with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch
defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance P12,000.00 to P30,000.00, consonant with present
275.
unavailing. jurisprudence.
ISSUE FACTS
WON accused was denied of his constitutional right PEOPLE v CONCEPCION - On June 18, 1999, Cabarles was charged with
to be heard and to defend himself. (NO.) 84 PHIL 787 murder under the following information:
HELD
PARAS; October 25, 1949 The undersigned Prosecutor II accuses RENE
RATIO: The mere filing of a motion to reopen a case "NONOY" CABARLES Y ADIZAS of the crime of Murder,
must not in any way automatically vacate an committed as follows:
NATURE
agreement and order submitting the case for That on or about the 25th day of April, 1999, in the
Appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding
decision. While the court may reopen a case for City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the
the appellant, Concepcion, guilty of treason, and
reception of further evidence after the parties have jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine
closed their evidence, such action is addressed to the accused, without justifiable motive with intent to kill
of P10,000.
sound discretion of the court, to be exercised only and by means of treachery and evident
on valid and justifiable reasons (which are absent in premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
FACTS
this case). and feloniously attack, assault, and stab with a
(the case is really short, there aren’t many facts or
REASONING: The failure of the accused to complete deadly weapon (fan knife) one Antonio Callosa,
anything)
his testimony was of his own making, on the which directly caused his death.
- Appellant was found guilt of treason on 3 counts:
initiation, confirmation and reiteration of his own - Cabarles pleaded not guilty. The trial court
- Apprehension on December 7, 1944 of Basilio
counsel. Verily, the present stance of the accused is scheduled the case for hearing on the following
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 145 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

dates, to wit: pre-trial on November 22, 2000; but service upon Dr. Salen failed since the doctor was and the only controlling guideline governing a motion
presentation of prosecution’s evidence on April 18, no longer assigned to the SPD Crime Laboratory. to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. This
May 4, 11, 18, and 23, 2001; and presentation of Notwithstanding the service upon Pedrosa, the remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a
defense evidence on June 20 and 27, July 4 and 18, prosecution still failed to present a witness during the miscarriage of justice.
and August 1, 2001. May 8, 2003 hearing. Nonetheless, Judge Maceda, - However, while Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen
-The prosecution had subpoenas issued to its upon motion, again decided to extend to the the case before judgment is rendered, Section 24
witnesses: Flocerfina Callosa, the mother of the prosecution another chance, giving the People June requires that a hearing must first be conducted.
deceased; Imelda Pedrosa, the alleged eyewitness; 19 and July 3, 2003 as additional hearing dates. Judge Maceda issued the April 1, 2003 Order without
Carlos Callosa, brother of the deceased; and Dr. Finally, on June 19, 2003, Pedrosa took the witness notice and hearing and without giving the
Romeo T. Salen, Police Senior Inspector of the stand and completed her direct examination. A few prosecution and accused an opportunity to manifest
Southern Police District (SPD) Crime Laboratory to days thereafter, Cabarles filed the present petition their position on the matter. This failure, to our mind,
testify on the contents of the death certificate of questioning Judge Maceda’s order, alleging that it constitutes grave abuse of discretion and goes
Antonio Callosa. was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Since trial against the due process clause of the Constitution
- Through no fault of its own, the prosecution was in the lower court continued, on July 3, 2003, the which requires notice and opportunity to be heard.
unable to present its evidence on the first four Public Attorney’s Office conducted its cross- The issuance of the said order, without the benefit of
hearing dates. examination of Pedrosa. a hearing, is contrary to the express language of
- A day before the scheduled promulgation of Cabarles was then given a chance to adduce further Section 24, Rule 119.
judgment on April 2, 2003, Judge Maceda motu evidence on his behalf.1avvphi1.net 2. YES
proprio issued the questioned order reopening the On August 9, 2004, Judge Maceda deferred the Ratio The concept of speedy disposition is relative or
case. In it, he observed that the prosecution may not promulgation of judgment and ordered the case flexible. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time
have been given its day in court resulting in a archived pending this Court’s resolution of the case. involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be
miscarriage of justice. He explained that because taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each
there was a mix-up in the dates specified in the ISSUES case.
subpoena and the hearing dates of when the case 1. WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of Reasoning
was actually heard, the prosecution was unable to discretion in issuing the assailed order - The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the
present its evidence on the first four of the five 2. WON petitioner’s right to due process and speedy right to speedy trial, is deemed violated when the
hearing dates: April 18, May 4, 11 and 18, 2001 disposition of his case was violated proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and
assigned to it. Judge Maceda found that there was no oppressive delays; or when unjustified
hearing conducted on April 18, 2001. Thereafter, the HELD postponements of the trial are asked for and secured;
subpoena issued to Pedrosa required her to appear 1. YES or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long
on April 11, 2001, which was not a date assigned for Ratio Section 24, Rule 119 and existing period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
the prosecution but May 11, 2001. Also, Judge jurisprudence stress the following requirements for having his case tried.
Maceda noted that another subpoena was issued to reopening a case: (1) the reopening must be before - Cabarles invokes the jurisdiction of this Court in the
Pedrosa and Dr. Salen requiring them to appear on the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the order interest of speedy justice since the information
May 11 and June 20, 2001. But, the May 11, 2001 is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon against him was filed way back in June 1999, and
hearing was reset to May 25, 2001 because the judge motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is almost eight years thereafter, no judgment has yet
was indisposed, and insofar as the June 20, 2001 conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a been rendered. Any further delay in the resolution of
setting was concerned, it was not one of the days set miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of the instant petition will be prejudicial to Cabarles.
by the court for the prosecution. Judge Maceda additional and/or further evidence should be Also, the Court has full discretionary power to take
further observed that the May 18, 2001 hearing was terminated within thirty days from the issuance of cognizance of the petition filed directly to it for
never scheduled and May 25, 2001 was likewise not the order. compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of
a hearing date set by the court. According to Judge Reasoning the issues raised. Since Section 24 is a new
Maceda, since the prosecution was not able to - Generally, after the parties have produced their provision, and considering the irregularities in the
present its evidence on the first four hearing dates respective direct proofs, they are allowed to offer issuance of the April 1, 2003 Order, it is necessary to
and there was either no return on the subpoenas rebutting evidence only. However, the court, for good resolve the issues raised in this petition.
subsequently issued or there was no subpoena reasons, in the furtherance of justice, may allow new - In fine, we are not unmindful of the gravity of the
issued at all to Pedrosa and Dr. Salen, the evidence upon their original case, and its ruling will crime charged; but justice must be dispensed with an
prosecution should have been given a last chance to not be disturbed in the appellate court where no even hand. Regardless of how much we want to
present the alleged eyewitness and the doctor. abuse of discretion appears. A motion to reopen may punish the perpetrators of this ghastly crime and
- Judge Maceda denied Cabarles’s MFR and set the thus properly be presented only after either or both give justice to the victim and her family, the
case for hearing on May 8, 2003 to hear the parties had formally offered and closed their protection provided by the Bill of Rights is bestowed
testimonies of Pedrosa and Dr. Salen. The subpoena evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even upon all individuals, without exception, regardless of
issued to Pedrosa for that hearing was duly served, after promulgation but before finality of judgment race, color, creed, gender or political persuasion -
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 146 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

whether privileged or less privileged - to be invoked - The Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases FACTS
without fear or favor. Hence, the accused deserves applies only to criminal cases where the penalty - On 10 September 1996, Oliver Caparas, then 13
no less than an acquittal; ergo, he is not called upon prescribed by law for the offense charged does not years of age, was waiting for a ride to school in a
to disprove what the prosecution has not proved. exceed six (6) months imprisonment or a fine of one corner near his house in Matimbo, Malolos, Bulacan,
Dispositive instant petition is GRANTED. We hold thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both when four (4) men forcibly seized and boarded him
that the assailed Order dated April 1, 2003 was - The crime of Theft as charged herein is penalized into a car. While inside the car, he was blindfolded.
issued with grave abuse of discretion. Said Order is with arresto mayor in its medium period to prision He was later transferred to a van. The van, tailed by
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, any correccional in its minimum period, or, from two (2) a car, traveled to Baguio. While there, they slept
evidence received and offered in this case as a result months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) overnight inside the van in a parking lot.
of the April 1, 2003 Order is hereby stricken off the months. 6 Clearly, the Rule on Summary Procedure is - The following day, Eleazar Caparas, the father of
record. Let the records of this case be REMANDED inapplicable Oliver, received a call from the kidnappers initially
immediately to the trial court concerned for its - But even assuming that the case falls under the asking for P10 million ransom
appropriate action without further delay. coverage of said Rule, the same does not dispense - The kidnappers proceeded to Bonita’s Resort in
with trial Pangasinan. Oliver was then brought to a room and
COMBATE v SAN JOSE "Section 11. When case set for arraignment and his blindfold removed. He stayed inside the room for
trial.- Should the court, upon a consideration of the one week. During his stay, a woman, later identified
135 SCRA 693
complaint or information and the affidavits as Lanie dela Cruz, took care of him by feeding him
MELENCIO-HERRERA; April 15, 1985 submitted by both parties, find no cause or ground three times a day.
to hold the defendant for trial, it shall order the - After three days of negotiation, the kidnappers
NATURE dismissal of the case; otherwise, the court shall set agreed to lower the ransom to P1.7 million. On 17
Petition for Certiorari the case for arraignment and trial. September 1996, Pedro Navarro, an uncle of Oliver,
"Section 14. Procedure of Trial.- Upon a plea of not was instructed by Eleazar Caparas to deliver the
FACTS guilty being entered, the trial shall immediately ransom money. After receiving a call from the
- petitioner was charged with the crime of Theft of proceed. The affidavits submitted by the parties kidnappers, he proceeded to follow the instructions
one (1) Rooster [Fighting Cock] color red, belonging shall constitute the direct testimonies of the on the drop-off.
to Romeo Posada worth P200.00. witnesses who executed the same. Witnesses who - Later that night, Oliver was made to board the
- Following the procedure laid down in the Rule on testified may be subjected to cross-examination. same van and brought to the Petron Gas Station in
Summary Procedure in Special Cases, respondent Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall Meycauayan Highway. Upon alighting from the van,
Judge required petitioner and his witnesses to submit not be considered as competent evidence for the he was given P500.00 and was told that he would be
counter-affidavits to the supporting affidavits of the party presenting the affidavit, but the adverse fetched by his uncle inside a canteen in the gas
complainant party may utilize the same for any admissible station. At around 1:00 a.m. of 18 September 1997,
- On June 5, 1984, petitioner was subpoenaed to purpose. the kidnappers called Eleazar again and asked them
appear before respondent Judge and was arraigned "No witness shall be allowed to testify unless he to go to the Petron Gas Station located between
without the assistance of counsel. He pleaded not had previously submitted an affidavit to the court Meycauayan and Marilao along the Expressway.
guilty. in accordance with Sections 9 and 10 hereof." Upon arriving at the Petron Station at 3:00 a.m, Pedro
- Subsequently, in an Order dated July 5, 1984, - since petitioner-accused had pleaded not guilty, Navarro saw Oliver eating inside the canteen and
respondent Judge deemed the case submitted for trial should have proceeded immediately. But not brought him home where he was reunited with his
resolution purportedly pursuant to the Rule on only was petitioner unrepresented by counsel upon father.
Summary Procedure. arraignment; he was neither accorded the benefit of - After the kidnapping incident, an investigation was
- In a Decision promulgated on July 16, 1984, without trial conducted by the Intelligence Section of the
benefit of trial, petitioner was sentenced to suffer six Dispositive Judge's Decision promulgated on July Philippine National Police. It appears that one of the
(6) months' imprisonment and to pay the 16, 1994, is hereby ANNULLED for having been suspects was a member of an NPA rebel returnee
complainant the amount of P200.00, plus costs issued with grave abuse of discretion. The case is group headed by Armando Rodrigo, Jr. Upon the
remanded to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of killing of Bert Liwanag, his girlfriend, dela Cruz, who
Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, for proceedings was a suspected member of the group, was invited
strictly in accordance with law. for questioning. On that occasion, she admitted her
ISSUES participation in the kidnapping of Oliver Caparas and
1. WON the application of the Rules on Summary
PEOPLE v RODRIGO implicated appellants.
procedure was valid - An Information was filed on 11 March 1997 against
2. WON he was afforded due process TINGA; January 23, 2007
appellants Plata, Fajardo and Rodrigo, together with
dela Cruz, Armando Rodrigo, Helen Joven, Boyong
HELD NATURE
Catindig, Jun Parubrob, and a John Doe.
NO Automatic review
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 147 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- Four of the accused were apprehended, namely: needed by the State to press its prosecution to a the identity of the culprit is in doubt and not when he
Plata, Rodrigo, Fajardo and dela Cruz. The rest successful conclusion. Under our Rules, however, it is positively identified by a credible witness.
remained at large. The trial court, upon motion of is the courts that will finally determine whether the Dispositive Affirmed with modification
the prosecution, discharged Dela Cruz to serve as requirements have been satisfied to justify the
state witness. discharge of an accused to become a witness for the WEBB v DE LEON
- On arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. government.
247 SCRA 652
- On 31 May 2000, the RTC rendered its decision - The testimony of dela Cruz was an absolute
finding all appellants guilty beyond reasonable necessity. PUNO; August 23, 1995
doubt. - Neither does dela Cruz appear to be the most guilty
- Appellants elevated the case to the Court of of the accused. The trial court held that dela Cruz NATURE
Appeals. was not privy to the kidnap plan and was merely Petitions for the issuance of the extraordinary writs of
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s taken in later by the group because they suspected certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
decision except that it acquitted Rodrigo. that she already knew too much.
- Appellants Plata and Fajardo submitted their - Did the lower courts properly consider the FACTS
individual appeal briefs. testimony of dela Cruz? It is a jurisprudential rule - Petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian,
that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or Antonio J. Lejano and six (6) other persons were
ISSUE co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide
WON Dela Cruz was eligible to be a state witness his co-accused cannot, by itself and without (Vizconde massacre).
corroboration, be regarded as proof with a moral - Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for not including
HELD certainty that the latter committed or participated in Alfaro in the Information considering her alleged
- Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides: the commission of the crime. The testimony must be conspiratorial participation in the crime of rape with
When two or more persons are jointly charged substantially corroborated in its material points by homicide. It is urged that this constitutes ". . . an
with the commission of any offense, upon motion unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances intrusion into judicial prerogative for it is only the
of the prosecution before resting its case, the and must be to such an extent that its court which has the power under the Rules on
court may direct one or more of the accused to be trustworthiness becomes manifest. The testimony of Criminal Procedure to discharge an accused as a
discharged with their consent so that they may be dela Cruz was substantially corroborated by no less state witness" based on Section 9, Rule 119 which
witnesses for the state when, after requiring the than the victim himself, Oliver, as well as Pedro. gives the court the prerogative to approve the
prosecution to present evidence and the sworn - As noted by the trial court, there may have been discharge of an accused to be a state witness.
statement of each proposed state witness at a inconsistencies in the narration of dela Cruz. These,
hearing in support of the discharge, the court is however, were minor details and simply could be ISSUE
satisfied that: attributed to the frailty of human memory. It cannot WON Alfaro should be included as one of the accused
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony be expected that her testimony would be entirely in the information
of the accused whose discharge is requested; flawless. Inconsistencies as to minor details and
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the HELD
the proper prosecution of the offense committed, witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their - The non-inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on Republic
except the testimony of said accused; testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even Act No. 6981, entitled "An Act Providing For A
(c) The testimony of said accused can be serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate Witness Protection, Security And Benefit Program
substantially corroborated in its material points; any suspicion that the testimonies have been And For Other Purposes" enacted on April 24, 1991.
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most rehearsed. Moreover, the testimony of dela Cruz Alfaro qualified under its Section 10, which provides:
guilty; and coincides with that of Oliver and Pedro relating to the Sec. 10. State Witness. Any person who has
(e) Said accused has not at any time been principal occurrence and the positive identification of participated in the commission of a crime and
convicted of any offense involving moral appellants. desires to a witness for the State, can apply and, if
turpitude. - Plata insists that dela Cruz harbored a grudge qualified as determined in this Act and by the
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge against him because he was apparently a member of Department, shall be admitted into the Program
shall automatically form part of the trial. If the the Armando Rodrigo group, the lone suspect in the whenever the following circumstances are present:
court denies the motion for discharge of the murder of Bert Liwanag, dela Cruz’s boyfriend. (a) the offense in which his testimony will be used
accused as state witness, his sworn statement Plata’s effort to impute ill-motive on the part of de la is a grave felony as defined under the R.P.C. or its
shall be inadmissible in evidence. Cruz to falsely testify against him does not hold equivalent under special laws;
- The power to prosecute includes the initial water. Even granting that De la Cruz may have an (b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;
discretion to determine who should be utilized by the axe to grind is of no moment. Plata was positively (c) there is no other direct evidence available for
government as a state witness. The prosecution has identified by Oliver. His statement was corroborated the proper prosecution of the offense committed;
gathered the evidence against the accused and is in by dela Cruz. Motive becomes essential only when (d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated
a better position to decide the testimonial evidence on its material points;
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 148 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and judicial prerogative. Under this provision, the court, is companions, to get down of the car. Forthwith,
(f) he has not at anytime been convicted of any given the power to discharge a state witness only Gomez conducted a search of the vehicle and in the
crime involving moral turpitude. because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the course thereof, allegedly found a light green plastic
An accused discharged from an information crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused bag in the back seat containing three bricks of
or criminal complaint by the court in order that he is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a marijuana.
may be a State Witness pursuant to Sections 9 and recognition of an inherent judicial function. Moreover, - The accused testified that the police operatives
10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may the Rules of Court have never been interpreted to be took his wallet which contained cash and several ATM
upon his petition be admitted to the Program if he beyond change by legislation designed to improve cards and that the latter coerced him into divulging
complies with the other requirements of this Act. the administration of our justice system. R.A. No. the PIN numbers of the ATM cards.
Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of 6981 is one of the much sought penal reform laws to - Accused gave them the correct PIN number to his
an accused so that he can be used as a Witness help government in its uphill fight against crime, one Far East Bank account but purposely mixed up the
under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. certain cause of which is the reticence of witnesses other PIN numbers to his other bank accounts.
- Upon qualification of Alfaro to the program, Section to testify. - The accused and his companions were brought to
12 of the said law mandates her non-inclusion in the - The rationale for the law is well put by the the WPD headquarters where their male companion,
criminal Complaint or Information, thus: Department of Justice, viz.: "Witnesses, for fear of Jerry, was mauled to force him to admit that drugs
Sec. 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into reprisal and economic dislocation, usually refuse to were recovered from their group. The accused’s wife
the Program. The certification of admission into appear and testify in the investigation/prosecution of and her other companion were likewise coerced to
the Program by the Department shall be given full criminal complaints/cases. Because of such refusal, admit the same. However, they all insisted that no
faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor criminal complaints/cases have been dismissed for illegal drugs were recovered from any of them.
who is required NOT TO INCLUDE THE WITNESS IN insufficiency and/or lack of evidence. For a more - After trial, the trial court rendered the decision
THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION and if effective administration of criminal justice, there was under review.
included therein, to petition the court for his a necessity to pass a law protecting witnesses and
discharge in order that he can be utilized as a granting them certain rights and benefits to ensure ISSUE
State Witness. The court shall order the discharge their appearance in investigative bodies/courts." WON the guilt of the accused was proven beyond
and exclusion of the said accused from the Petitioner Webb's challenge to the validity of R.A. No. reasonable doubt to warrant the supreme penalty of
information. 6981 cannot therefore succeed. death
- Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Dispositive Petitions dismissed
Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for HELD
the offense or offenses in which his testimony will be PEOPLE v BUBAN The Court finds for the accused.
given or used and all the rights and benefits provided - While the Court is mindful that law enforcers enjoy
[SUPRA, PAGE 6]
under Section 8 hereof the presumption of regularity in the performance of
- Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it lies on the their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the
faulty assumption that the decision whom to PEOPLE v SAPAL constitutional right of the accused to be presumed
prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative 328 SCRA 417 innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of
of courts and beyond executive and legislative KAPUNAN; December 22, 1997 guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
interference. In truth, the prosecution of crimes - In the present case, there is sufficient evidence to
appertains to the executive department of NATURE show that the manner by which the law enforcers
government whose principal power and responsibility Automatic Review of the Decision effected the arrest of the accused was highly
is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A irregular and suspect.
necessary component of this power to execute our FACTS - Gomez claimed that they arrested accused
laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The - The RTC of Manila sentenced accused-appellant pursuant to the warrant issued by Judge Barrios
right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide Jimmy Sapal to DEATH after he was found guilty which explicitly stated that said accused Jimmy Sapal
range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of unlawful be “brought before him as soon as possible.”
and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends possession of three (3) kgs. of marijuana. However, contrary to the clear directive of the
on a smorgasbord of factors which are best - The prosecution presented two witnesses, namely warrant, the law enforcers never brought him before
appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is P03 Jesus Gomez and Renee Checa, a forensic the said judge. Gomez himself admitted the same
not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to chemist. Gomez testified that the office of the Drug and did not offer any convincing explanation for this
enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Enforcement Unit received a call that accused who omission.
Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a had a standing warrant of arrest had been seen at - Moreover, the records reveal that the documents
witness in the program and who shall be granted Jocson St., Sampaloc Manila. relating to the arrest of the accused and his wife
immunity from prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119 - Their group spotted the car frequently used by the were prepared three (3) days after the arrest.
does not support the proposition that the power to accused. The police operatives approached the car, - Further, the case was submitted to the inquest
choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent told the accused and his wife, along with two other prosecutor only on April 25, 1995 and the information
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 149 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

against accused and his wife was subsequently filed - On the same day that the judgment was final and executory because the 15-day period of
on April 26, 1995. promulgated, private respondent Icao filed a petition appeal provided by law had lapsed without an appeal
- It was not likewise shown that accused was fully for probation pursuant to the provisions of the being taken. A judgment which has become final and
apprised of his rights under custodial arrest. Probation Law of 1976, and was released from executory can no longer be amended or corrected
Specifically, accused was not assisted by counsel custody on his own recognizance. He never except only as regards clerical errors. Hence, even
when he was under custodial investigation. thereafter sought to take an appeal or have the the subsequent discovery of an erroneous imposition
- Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived his verdict reversed or modified. According to Sol-Gen., of a penalty will not justify correction of the judgment
right to question the irregularities attending his Icao's application for probation was approved. after it has become final. [b] Under Art. 44 of RPC,
arrest for his failure to raise the same before he Nothing in the record clearly supports this assertion. the penalty of arresto imposed on Icao carries with it
entered his plea. Nonetheless, the peculiar factual Whether or not probation was granted is not, that of suspension of the right to hold office and the
circumstances surrounding the case effectively however, material. The case will be resolved on other right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. The
destroy the presumption of regularity in the considerations. plain implication would appear to be that courts have
performance by Gomez and his colleagues of their - A month later, the respondent Judge's attention was no power to fix a longer term for that accessory
duties. Such being the case, the presumption of drawn to a letter of the Probation Officer of Dipolog penalty of disqualification
regularity cannot be made the sole basis of the City, replying to an inquiry of the Office of the Dispositive Petition GRANTED. Challenged Orders
conviction of the accused. Provincial Governor, stating that pending final action annulled and set aside.
- It has been sufficiently established that several on his petition for probation, Icao could continue
withdrawals were made from the Far East Bank performing his duties as provincial guard in JOSE v CA
account of accused through ATM on April 22, 1995 accordance with the spirit and intent of the Probation
70 SCRA 257
and these withdrawals could not have been made by Law. The respondent Judge issued an order,
the accused and his wife because they were then announcing his amendment of the judgment of MUÑOZ PALMA; March 31, 1976
already under arrest. conviction by specifying the period of temporary
- The Court cannot completely disregard this piece of special disqualification of Icao, and requiring the FACTS
evidence as it strongly corroborates the testimony of latter's presence for the promulgation of the - Jose was convicted of illegal possession of
accused that law enforcers were able to withdraw amended decision. explosives (handgrenade) and sentenced to suffer
money from is Far East Bank account through ATM. - Icao moved for reconsideration, arguing that the imprisonment of five years. He seeks a new trial but
- It is well-settled that “where the circumstances Court had already lost jurisdiction over the case, the was denied by the CFI of Pampanga and affirmed by
shown to exist yield two (2) or more inferences, one judgment having become final, and the alteration by the CA.
of which consistent with the presumption of the respondent Judge of the decision under the - Jose was arrested by the local police for illegal
innocence while the other or others may be circumstances would place him in double jeopardy. discharge of firearm, robbery and illegal possession
compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must His motion was denied, as was, too, a second MFR. of explosives. Hon. Romero acquitted accused Jose of
acquit the accused: for the evidence does not fulfill Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition now illegal discharge of firearm and robbery, but
the test or moral certainty and is insufficient to before this Court. convicted him for illegal possession of the
support a judgment of conviction. handgrenade that was found on his person at the
Dispositive Reversed. ISSUE time of his arrest.
WON respondent Judge had the authority to modify - After promulgation of the judgment, petitioner on
that same day, filed his notice of appeal. Petitioner
ICAO v APALISOK the judgment of conviction
filed a motion praying that the case be reopened to
180 SCRA 680 permit him to present, pursuant to a reservation he
HELD
NARVASA; December 29, 1989 NO had made in the course of the trial, a permit to
Ratio A judgment of conviction may be modified or possess the handgrenade in question. The trial court
NATURE set aside by the court rendering it before the denied the motion mainly on the ground that it had
Petition for certiorari and prohibition judgment has become final or appeal has been lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the
perfected. A judgment in a criminal case becomes perfection of the appeal by the accused on the very
FACTS final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an date the decision was promulgated.
- Petitioner Tarcisio Icao was a provincial guard appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or - The records were then elevated to the Court of
employed by the Province of Zamboanga del Norte. totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has Appeals where petitioner as accused-appellant raised
His chief function was to guard prisoners confined in expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. ( Sec. the issues of (1) an erroneous conviction for illegal
the provincial jail located in Dipolog City. He was 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court of 1964) possession of explosives when there was no proof of
charged with the felony of infidelity in the custody of Reasoning an essential element of the crime, and (2) erroneous
prisoners in the CFI Dipolog City, and after due - Under said rule, the respondent Judge had clearly denial of his motion to reopen the case for the
arraignment and trial, was convicted. lost the authority to modify the judgment of reception of his permit to possess the handgrenade.
conviction. [a] The judgment in this case became Jose prayed for his acquittal or in the alternative for
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 150 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

the remand of the case back to the trial court for a - It is indeed an established rule that for a new trial - Petitioner cites certain peculiar circumstances
new trial. CA affirmed RTC. to be granted on the ground of newly discovered obtaining in the case now before Us which may be
- A motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was evidence, it must be shown that (a) the evidence was classified as exceptional enough to warrant a new
filed but was denied. discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not trial if only to afford human opportunity to establish
- Jose filed before the SC but was denied. Thus this have been discovered and produced at the trial even his innocence of the crime charged.
Motion for Reconsideration. with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the - Thus petitioner was facing a criminal prosecution
- Manifestation was submitted by the Solicitor evidence is material, not merely cumulative, for illegal possession of a handgrenade in the court
General informing the Court that in view of the corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) it must go to below. He claimed to be an agent of the Philippine
"persistence of accused petitioner Lorenzo Jose both the merits as ought to produce a different result if Constabulary with a permit to possess explosives
before this Honorable Court and respondent Court of admitted. such as the handgrenade in question. However, he
Appeals as to his alleged existing appointment as PC - However, petitioner herein does not justify his found himself in a situation where he had to make a
Agent and/or authority to possess handgrenade," in motion for a new trial on newly discovered evidence, choice reveal his identity as an undercover agent of
the interest of justice, he was constrained to make but rather on broader grounds of substantial justice the Philippine Constabulary assigned to perform
pertinent inquiries from the PC Chief, Gen. Fidel V. under Sec. 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which intelligence work on subversive activities and face
Ramos who in reply sent his letter dated December provides: possible reprisals or even liquidation at the hands of
27, 1974 that states that Mr. Lorenzo Jose was "Power of appellate court on appeal. Upon appeal the dissidents considering that Floridablanca, the site
appointed as PC Agent. The Solicitor General now from a judgment of the Court of First Instance, the of the incident, was in the heart of "Huklandia", or
concedes that the interests of justice will best be appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify the ride on the hope of a possible exoneration or
served by remanding this case to the court of origin judgment and increase or reduce the penalty acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence of
for a new trial. imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the the prosecution. Without revealing his identity as an
Court of First Instance for new trial or retrial, or agent of the Philippine Constabulary, he claimed
ISSUE dismiss the case." before the trial judge that he had a permit to possess
WON CA committed an error of law and gravely - Petitioner asserts, and correctly so, that the the handgrenade and prayed for time to present the
abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's authority of respondent appellate court over an same. The permit however could not be produced
motion for new trial "for the reception of (1) the appealed case is broad and ample enough to because it would reveal his intelligence work
written permit of petitioner to possess and use embrace situations as the instant case where the activities. Came the judgment of conviction and with
handgrenade, and (2) the written appointment of court may grant a new trial or a retrial for reasons it the staggering impact of a five-year imprisonment.
petitioner as PC agent with Code No. P-36-68 and other than that provided in Section 13 of the same The competent authorities then realized that it was
Code Name 'Safari' (both documents are dated 31 Rule, or Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court. unjust for this man to go to jail for a crime he had not
January 1968)" While Section 13, Rule 124, and Section 2, Rule 121, committed, hence, came the desired evidence
provide for specific grounds for a new trial, i.e. newly concerning petitioner's appointment as a Philippine
HELD discovered evidence, and errors of law or Constabulary agent and his authority to possess a
YES irregularities committed during the trial, Section 11, handgrenade for the protection of his person, but, it
- This is a situation where a rigid application of rules Rule 124 quoted above does not so specify, thereby was too late according to the trial court because in
of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of leaving to the sound discretion of the court the the meantime the accused had perfected his appeal.
courts of justice — to render justice where justice is determination, on a case to case basis, of what would Dispositive PREMISES CONSIDERED, We hereby set
due to secure to every individual all possible legal constitute meritorious circumstances warranting a aside the judgment of conviction of the herein
means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he new trial or retrial. petitioner, Lorenzo Jose, and remand the case to the
is charged. The failure of the Court of Appeals to - Thus, admittedly, courts may suspend its own rules court a quo for a new trial only for the purpose of
appreciate the merits of the situation, involving as it or except a case from them for the purposes of allowing said accused to present additional evidence
does the liberty of an individual, thereby closing its justice or, in a proper case, disregard them. In this in his defense. The trial court shall inform this Court
ear to a plea that a miscarriage of justice be averted, jurisdiction, in not a few instances, this Court ordered of the final outcome of the case within a reasonable
constitutes a grave abuse of discretion which calls for a new trial in criminal cases on grounds not time.
relief from this Court. mentioned in the statute, viz: retraction of witness,
- We do not question the correctness of the findings negligence or incompetency of counsel, improvident FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT v BAYBAY
of the Court of Appeals that the evidence sought to plea of guilty, disqualification of an attorney de oficio
CARPIO MORALES; January 31, 2007
be presented by the petitioner do not fall under the to represent the accused in the trial court, and where
category of newly-discovered evidence because the a judgment was rendered on a stipulation of facts
FACTS
same his alleged appointment as an agent of the entered into by both the prosecution and the
Philippine Constabulary and a permit to possess a defense. - First Women’s Credit Corp filed a petition before the
handgrenade were supposed to be known to - Characteristically, a new trial has been described as Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against
petitioner and existing at the time of trial and not a new invention to temper the severity of a judgment the corporation’s officers Jacinto, Colayco, Sangil and
discovered only thereafter. or prevent the failure of justice. Cruz, for alleged mismanagement of the corporation.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 151 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The SEC, in SEC Case No. 11-97-5816, created an 2. WON the only remedy for the petitioners was a Hospital. Consequently, the Supreme Court
Interim Management Committee (IMC) for the petition fro certiorari, not an ordinary appeal dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal.
corporation by Order of November 17, 1999. The However, it required the Solicitor General to file its
Order was upheld by the SEC en banc on July 4, HELD comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising
2000. 1. NO from his commission of the offense charged. In his
- The IMC thereupon issued directives to the - As to what mode of review petitioners may avail of comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view
corporation’s president Antonio Tayao and corporate after a court grants an accused’s motion to withdraw that the death of accused-appellant did not
secretary and treasurer Glicerio Perez. information and/or to dismiss the case, Section 1 of extinguish his civil liability as a result of his
- Allegedly in conspiracy with Jacinto and Colayco, Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal commission of the offense charged.
Tayao and Perez defied the implementation of the Procedure instructs: "Any party may appeal from a - Counsel for the accused-appellant argues that the
SEC November 17, 1999 Order 6 when IMC attempted judgment or final order, unless the accused will be death of the accused while judgment of conviction is
to enter the main office of the corporation in Makati placed in double jeopardy." pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and
on December 3, 1999, December 29, 1999 and - In availing of the remedy of certiorari before the civil penalties. Said counsel invoked the ruling of the
January 28, 2000 RTC, petitioners claim that they had no plain, CA in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia which held that
- The IMC then preventively suspended Tayao and adequate and speedy remedy to question the MeTC’s the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the
Perez. However, Tayao and Perez continued to issue grant of the motion. criminal liability and, therefore, civil liability is
memoranda to the employees to disobey the IMC. -The records of the cases show, however, that the extinguished if accused should die before final
Later, the IMC dismissed them both. motion was granted by the MeTC before respondents judgment is rendered.
- The corporation, represented by Katayama were arraigned. Thus, the prohibition against appeal
(minority stockholder), filed before the Makati City in case a criminal case is dismissed as the accused ISSUE
Prosecutor criminal complaints against Jacinto, would be placed in double jeopardy does not apply. WON death of the accused pending appeal of his
Colayco, Tayao and Perez for: - Petitioners not having availed of the proper remedy conviction extinguishes his civil liability
a) Article 151 which punishes resistance and to assail the dismissal of the cases, the dismissal had
disobedience to person in authority or the agents of become final and executory. On this score alone, the
such person (20 counts); present petition must fail. HELD
b) Article 154 which punishes the unlawful use of 2. YES YES
means of publication and unlawful utterances (2 - The judge made a finding independent of that of Ratio Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is the
counts); the DOJ’s. controlling statute. It reads, in part: Criminal liability
c) Article 172(2) which punishes falsification by - The trial court did stress in its December 3, 2002 is totally extinguished … By the death of the convict,
private individuals and use of falsified documents (2 Order denying the motion for reconsideration that it as to the personal penalties; and as to the pecuniary
counts); was bound to make, as it did, a preliminary finding penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when
d) Article 315, paragraph 2(a) Estafa by falsely independently of those of the Secretary of Justice. the death of the offender occurs before final
pretending to be officers of FWCC (23 counts) - The trial judge need not state with specificity or judgment. The term final judgment employed in the
- The investigating prosecutor found no probable make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal RPC means judgment beyond recall. Really, as long
cause for violations under A151, A154 and A315. foundation relied upon by him to arrive at his as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot
However, it found probable cause for 2 counts of decision. It suffices that upon his own personal be truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of
violation of A 172(2) against Jacinto, Colayco and evaluation of the evidence and the law involved in the felony charged against him. If the private
Perez, and 3 counts of grave coercion against Tayao the case, he is convinced that there is no probable offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex
and 3 secuirty guards.. The City prosecutor approved cause to indict the accused. delicto desires to recover damages from the same
the investigating prosecutor’s resolution. Dispositive Petition denied act or omission complained of, he must, subject to
- The respondents appealed to the DOJ. The DOJ Section 1, Rule 111, file a separate civil action, this
reversed the resolution and ordered that the GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN time predicated not on the felony previously charged
informations be withdrawn. The corporation moved but on other sources of obligation. We summarize
[SUPRA, PAGE 82]
to reconsider but was denied by the DOJ. They then our ruling herein:
assailed the DOJ order before the CA. 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his
- In the meantime, respondents filed a motion to PEOPLE v BAYOTAS conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
dismiss the criminal cases. Judge Baybay granted the 236 SCRA 239 as the civil liability based solely thereon.
motion. ROMERO; September 2, 1994 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same
ISSUES FACTS may also be predicated on a source of obligation
1. WON the judge correctly dismissed the criminal - Rogelio Bayotas was charged with Rape and other than delict.
case eventually convicted thereof. Pending appeal of his
conviction, Bayotas died at the National Bilibid
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 152 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for pending resolution by the DOJ of Martinez' petition - Martinez moved to dismiss the appeal on the
recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of for review, which was granted by Judge Pepito. ground that no appeal lies from the dismissal of a
filing a separate civil action - Complainant Laurel attempted once more to have criminal case, and certainly not by the private
4. The private offended party need not fear a the case set for arraignment and trial. No action was complainant, particularly where dismissal was at the
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action taken on his said motion. instance of the City Prosecutor upon orders of the
by prescription, in cases where during the - August 16, 1991: Acting Justice Secretary Silvestre Department of Justice.
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its H. Bello III declared inter alia that while the language - If any remedy was available to private complainant,
extinction, the private-offended party instituted used in the article may be unsavory and unpleasant it was a petition for certiorari, not an appeal.
together therewith the civil action. In such case, the to complainant, the same was not actionable as libel,
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed as it embodied merely an opinion protected as a ISSUE
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, privileged communication under Article 354 of the WON complainant is allowed to file an appeal
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the RPC. The appealed resolution was set aside and the
Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any City Prosecutor was directed to cause the dismissal HELD
apprehension on a possible privation of right by of the information filed against Manuel F. Martinez. YES
prescription. Consequently, a motion to dismiss was filed on Ratio The right to appeal from a final judgment or
Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we August 26, 1991 and set for hearing on December order in a criminal case is granted to "any party",
hold that the death of appellant Bayotas 17, 1991. At the hearing, upon manifestation of except when the accused is placed thereby in double
extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability complainant's counsel, as private prosecutor, that he jeopardy.
based solely on the act complained of, i.e., rape. had received no copy of the motion to dismiss, the Reasoning
Dispositive The appeal is DISMISSED. trial court directed the case prosecutor to furnish Section 2, Rule 122 RCP
said counsel the desired copy, giving the latter ten "Who may appeal. Any party may appeal from a final
MARTINEZ v CA (LAUREL) (10) days to respond thereto. judgment or order, except if the accused would be
- Motion to dismiss was granted by Judge Roberto placed thereby in double jeopardy.”
237 SCRA 575
Barrios. - Court ruled that the word "party" must be
NARVASA; October 13, 1994 - Laurel went to CA ascribing error to the lower court. understood to mean not only the government and
- CA issued a Resolution granting the appeal and the accused, but also other persons who may be
NATURE remanding the case for arraignment of the accused affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal
This petition for review prays for the reversal of the and trial on the merits. The Appellate Court ruled proceeding. Thus, the party injured by the crime has
resolutions of the Court of Appeals. that private complainant had "sufficient personality been held to have the right to appeal from a
and a valid grievance against the order of dismissal resolution of the court which is derogatory to his
FACTS before arraignment" and that the remedy of appeal right to demand civil liability arising from the offense.
- Manuel P. Martinez actually seeks the dismissal of was property available because the order of (People v. Guido)
the information for libel filed against him in the Trial dismissal was a final order which terminated all - “Offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient
Court. proceedings in the case. interest and personality as 'person(s) aggrieved' to
- On complaint of then Vice-President Salvador H. - The fault or error tainting the order of dismissal of file the special civil action of prohibition and
Laurel, an Information was filed before the RTC of the lower court consists in its failure to observe certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 in line
Manila by Assistant Prosecutor Antonio J. Ballena, procedural due process and to exercise its discretion with the underlying spirit of the liberal construction
charging Manuel P. Martinez with libel arising from properly and judiciously. of the Rules of Court…”
the allegedly derogatory and scurrilous imputations - The dismissal was based merely on the findings of - The procedural recourse of appeal taken by private
and insinuations against Laurel contained in the Acting Secretary of Justice that no libel was complainant Laurel is correct because the order of
Martinez' article entitled "The Sorrows of Laurel" committed. The trial judge did not make an dismissal was a final order. It finally disposed of the
published on January 8, 1990 in his Manila Times independent evaluation or assessment of the merits pending action so that nothing more could be done
column. of the case. with it in the lower court.
- Martinez filed a "Motion for Reinvestigation" which - The grant of the motion to dismiss was based upon - The remedy against such a judgment is an appeal,
was denied by Judge Manuel E. Yuzon. The case was considerations other than the judge's own personal regardless of the questions sought to be raised on
set for arraignment and pre-trial conference on July individual conviction that there was no case against appeal, whether of fact, or of law, whether involving
31, 1990, but this setting was cancelled in view of the accused. The trial judge must himself be jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of the Trial
Judge Yuzon's retirement. convinced that there was indeed no sufficient Court. . . . (T)he party aggrieved . . . did not have the
- Martinez filed a petition with the DOJ seeking review evidence against the accused, and this conclusion option to substitute the special civil action of
of the resolution of the City Prosecutor finding a can be arrived at only after an assessment of the certiorari under Rule 65 for the remedy of appeal
prima facie case of libel against him. Accordingly, 3rd evidence in the possession of the prosecution. provided for in Rule 41. Indeed, the existence and
Asst. City Prosecutor Lourdes C. Tabanag filed before Petitioner’s Claim availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to
the trial court a motion to suspend proceedings the availment of the special civil action of certiorari.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 153 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a WON that part of the sentence of the CFI - The courts uniformly hold that where a sentence
complaint or information is filed in Court any condemning Cruz to subsidiary imprisonment in case imposes a punishment in excess of the power of the
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the of insolvency in the payment of the P1,000 fine is court to impose, such sentence is void as to the
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the legal excess, and some of the courts hold that the
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal sentence is void in toto; but the weight of authority
retains the direction and control of the prosecution of HELD sustains the proposition that such a sentence is void
criminal cases even while the case is already in Court NO only as to the excess imposed in case the parts are
he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The - CFI had jurisdiction of the offense complained of. It separable, the rule being that the petitioner is not
Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with had jurisdiction of the prisoner who was properly entitled to his discharge on a writ of habeas corpus
the case before it. (Crespo v. Mogul) brought before it. It had jurisdiction to hear and unless he has served out so much of the sentence as
Dispositive Petition is denied. decide upon the defense offered by him, but it did was valid.
not have power to sentence the petitioner to - Warden agrees Cruz has served out the entire part
CRUZ v DIRECTOR OF PRISONS subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the of the sentences which CFI had power to impose, and
payment of the fine imposed. It is therefore clear that adhering to the rule that that part of the sentences
17 PHIL 269
that part of the judgment is void. imposed by the court below in excess of its
TRENT; November 3, 1910 - Act No. 1732 (effective November 1, 1907): when a jurisdiction is void, the petitioner is entitled to his
fine is imposed as a whole, or as any part of the release.
NATURE punishment for any criminal offense made Dispositive Cruz ordered discharged from custody.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus punishable by any Act of the Philippine Commission,
the court shall also sentence the guilty person to PEOPLE v CULA
FACTS subsidiary imprisonment until the fine is satisfied;
- Juan M. Cruz was tried, convicted, and sentenced by 329 SCRA 101
provided that such subsidiary imprisonment shall
CFI Manila for violation of the provisions of Act No. not, in any case, exceed one year; but in case the MELO; March 28, 2000
292 by the Phil Commission (effective Nov 4, 1901). court imposes both a fine and imprisonment the
- Case#1: conspiracy against the government. He subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third FACTS
was sentenced to 3 yrs imprisonment, and fine of of the term of imprisonment imposed by such - Accused-appellants Manuel Cula Y Bandilla and
P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of sentence. Joselito Lopez Y Roco were charged for raping the
insolvency in the payment of the fine. - This provision is not applicable to Cruz because the former’s 16-year old daughter, Maricel Cula.
- Case#2: sedition. He was sentenced to penalty was imposed upon him long before Act No. - Accused-appellants were found guilty beyond
imprisonment of 2 yrs, and fine of US $2,000 1732 went into effect. Penal statutes can not have a reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged in
(=PhP4000). This last case was appealed to, and retroactive effect for the reason that such effect the Information.
affirmed by SC, without subsidiary imprisonment. would not be beneficial to the petitioner. (Art. 22, - Manuel Cula was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
- Nov 15, 1905: Cruz commenced to serve these Penal Code; US v Macasaet) death while Joselito Lopez, the penalty of Reclusion
sentences. - Prior to the passage of Act No. 1732, CFIs had no Perpetua.
- Nov 15, 1910: supposed expiry of 5yr total prison authority to impose subsidiary imprisonment for
term. failure to pay fines in cases of conviction for ISSUE
- June 4, 1910: expiry of prison term on account of violations of the Acts issued by the Philippine WON the court erred in imposing the penalty of death
good conduct allowance, as provided by Act No. 1533 Commission. Such errors (regarding authority to
(Cruz was not allowed the full time for good conduct impose the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment in HELD
on account of certain violations of prison case of insolvency) when committed have been YES
regulations). corrected by SC in those cases which were appealed: - It is a well-established rule in criminal procedure
- Oct 14, 1910: petition for writ oh habeas corpus US v Hutchinson, US v Lineses, and US v Macasaet, that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the
was filed in behalf of Cruz. among them. whole case open for review and it becomes the duty
- Warden of Bilibid Prison says Cruz is now serving - CFI did not have power to sentence Cruz to of the appellate court to correct an error in the
the subsidiary imprisonment on account of his failure subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the appealed judgment, whether this is assigned as an
to pay the P1,000 fine in case#1. At the rate of P2.50 payment of the fine imposed. error or not.
a day, said subsidiary imprisonment will expire about - SC at this time has no power to correct this error - In the case at bar, the trial court, pursuant to
the 9th of July, 1911. committed by the court below, neither has it power Section 11 of Republic 7659, imposed the penalty of
- Oct 21, 1910: writ as prayed for was issued. to remand the case to the trial court for that death upon accused-appellant Manuel Cula, taking
Hearing was set the next day. purpose. The fact that Cruz did not appeal can not into account the minority of Maricel as she is said to
affect the question as the two penalties imposed are have been only 16 years old at the time of the rape
ISSUE separate and distinct. incident, as well as the relationship of father and
daughter between them.
Criminal Procedure a2010 page 154 Prof.
Rowena Daroy Morales

- People vs. Javier: However it is significant to note

that the prosecution failed to present the birth
certificate of the complainant. Although the victim’s
age was not contested by the defense, proof of age
of the victim is particularly necessary in this case
considering that the victim's age which was then 16
years old is just two years less than the majority age
of 18.
- At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to
prove with certainty the fact that the victim was
below 18 when the rape was committed in order to
justify the imposition of the death penalty. The record
of the case is bereft of any independent evidence,
such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live
Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age.
- The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not
denied the allegation in the complaint that Maricel
was 16 years old when the crime was committed
cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to
discharge its burden in this regard.
- Because of this lapse, as well as the corresponding
failure of the trial court to make a categorical finding
as to the minority of the victim, we hold that the
qualifying circumstance of minority under Republic
Act No. 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case, and
accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed.
- The award of damages made by the trial court
should likewise be modified. As regards the civil
indemnity, this Court has to date consistently ruled
that if, in the crime of rape, the death penalty is
imposed, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim
should be in the amount of P75,000.00; and if the
death penalty is not decreed by the Court, the victim
would instead be entitled to P50,000. Accordingly,
accused~appellants shall each pay the amount of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape.
In addition, as held in People vs. Prades, both
accused-appellants must each indemnify the victim
the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages for
each count of rape without the need of pleading or
proof as the basis thereof. Lastly, accused~appellant
Manuel is also liable to pay the sum of P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages to deter other fathers with
perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior
from sexually abusing their own daughters
Dispositive Judgment appealed from was affirmed
with the modification.