Ariel M. Los BañosVs. Joel R.

Pedro
G. R. No. 173588
April 22, 2009

Facts :
Pedro was charged in court for carrying a loaded firearm without the required
written authorization from the COMELEC a day before the May 14, 2001 National
and Local Elections. The accusations was based on Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 or the
Omnibus Election Code after the Marinduque PNP caught Pedro illegally carrying his
firearm at a checkpoint at Boac, Marinduque. Then the Boac Election Officer filed a
criminal complaint against Pedro for violating the election gun ban. Pedro filed with
the RTC a motion to quash, arguing that the information contains overments which , if
true , would constitute a legal excuse or justification and/or that the facts charged do
not constitute an offense. Private prosecutor Ariel Los Baños , moved to reopen the
case , and the prosecution was deprived of due process when the judge quashed the
information without a hearing . The public prosecutor manifested his express
conformity with the motion to reopen the case . Pedro filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari and prohibition to nullify the RTC’s mandated reopening , but the petition is
denied.
In his motion for reconsideration , Pedro manifested the exact date and time of
the Marinduque provincial prosecutors receipt of the quashal order to be 2:35 pm,
December 10, 2001, and argued that based on this date , the provisional dismissal of
the case became “permanent” on December 10, 2002. On the other hand, the
petitioner was able to prove that the motion to reopen the case was filed after the
lapse of more than one (1) year from the time the public prosecutor was served the
notice of dismissal. Los Baños argues that the dismissal under Section 8 of Rule 117
covers only situations where both the prosecution and the accused either mutually
consented or agreed to and he adds that although the trial court granted the motion to
quash , it did not categorically dismiss the case either provisionally or permanently.

Issue :
Whether or not section 8 of Rule 117 is applicable to the case , as the CA
found. If it applies , then the CA ruling effectively lays the matter to rest. If it does not
, then the revised RTC decision reopening the case should prevail.

Ruling :
The cited basis , in fact , for Pedro’s motion to quash was a COMELEC
certification that Pedro attached to his motion to quash . This COMELEC
Certification is a matter aliunde that is not appropriate motion to rise in, and cannot
support , a motion to quash grounded on legal excuse or justification found on the
face of the information. The established rule is that the character of the crime not
determined by the caption of the provision of the law alleged to have been violated ;
the crime is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
complaint or information.
Wherefore, we hereby grant the petition and recordingly declare the assailed
September 19, 2005 decision and the July 6, 2006 resolution of the CA respectively
modified and reversed . The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Boac,
Marinduque for the arraignment and trial of respondent Joel R. Pedro , after reflecting
the information the amendment introduced on Section 261 (q) of the code by section
32 of RA. No. 7166.
 Gina Villa Gomez Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R .No. 216824
November 10, 2020

Facts :
An information was filed against the accused Gomez for corruption of public
officials under Article 212 of the RPC. The RTC dismissed the case for the reason
that the Assistant City Prosecutor had no authority to prosecute the case as the
information he filed does not contain the signature or any indication of approval from
the City Prosecutor. Hence the ACP lacks of authority to file the information is a
jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured . The Prosecution filed for motion for
reconsideration but it was denied .
The prosecution appealed and elevated the case to the CA through the OSG
citing that there is nothing in the Rules of Court which states that the authorization or
approval of the City or Provincial Prosecutor should appear on the face or to be
incorporated in the information. The CA granted the petition and reinstated the
criminal case , setting aside the decision of the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not the lack of authority on the part of the handling prosecutor in
filing an information prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the subject
matter or over the person of the accused?

Ruling :
No. The court affirmed the decision of the CA and ordered to resume the
proceedings of the criminal case. The court has abandoned the doctrine in Villa Vs.
Ibañez which states that the absence of the signature and approval of the
provincial/city/state prosecutor on the face of an information is a jurisdictional defect
that dismisses the case. As such, the formal defect must be raised by the accused
prior to entering his or her plea , hence , the consequence of not complying with the
formal requirement is that the handling prosecutors representation as counsel for the
state may not be recognized by the trial court.
 Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. Vs. Hon. Lidua, Sr.
G.R .No. 169588
October 7, 2013

Facts :
Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private parking operator duly
authorized to operate and manage the parking spaces in Baguio City and to render any
motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally
parked. Respondents are two sets of individuals found by Jadewell on separate
occasions to be parking illegally , prompting Jadewell to place metal clamps on a
wheel of each car. Respondents, in both cases , dismantled the clamps and carried it
away on the vehicle. Jadewell filed charges of robbery but was dismissed due to lack
of probable cause. On May 23, 2003 , Jadewell filed an affidavit-complaint charging
respondents of violations of the City Parking Ordinance . On October 2, 2003, the
prosecutor filed an information charging the respondents. Respondents filed with the
MTC Baguio City a motion to quash the information on the ground that criminal
action has already prescribed after two months from the discovery of the crime
pursuant to Act No. 3763. The motion to quash was granted. Jadewell filed a petition
for review before the RTC, averring that Act No. 3763 does not apply in the case and
that under the rules of criminal procedure the prescription was interrupted when they
filed a compliant on May 23, 2003 , days after the prescription period commenced.

Issue :
Whether or not the filing of the complaint with the office of the City
Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled?

Ruling :
No. The running of the prescripted period shall be halted on the date the case
is actually filed in court and not on any date before that. So when the office of the
prosecutor filed the information on October 5, 2003 , the period had already
prescribed ,, thus respondent Lidua did not err when he ordered the dismissal of the
case.
 People Vs. XXX
G. R. No. 240750
June 21, 2021

Facts :
On June 18, 2014 at 10:30 in the morning BBB was in the house of the
employer and she saw the accused-appellant , XXX and her child , AAA near the
poultry farm. BBB went after them when they totally disappeared in her view. Upon
reaching the poultry house, she searched for the whereabouts of her child until the
latter was descended ,after being called , from the upstairs of the said house. The
child was looking nervous and scared , thereafter they went home. AAA narrated
what XXX did to her. The accused-appellant instructed the victim to go upstairs of the
poultry house and forced her to sit down on his lap, lie down her on the floor and
subsequently removed her short pants and underwear. XXX inserted his penis in
AAA’s vagina and thereafter his middle finger.
The Regional Trial Court convicted XXX for statutory rape while the ca after
the appeal proceedings , convicted the accused herein of not only statutory rape but
also of rape lay sexual assault . The accused-appellant argued that the information
filed was originally described of one offense. Rape by carnal knowledge andno rape
by sexual assault was introduced therein.

Issue:
Whether or not XXX can be convicted for rape by carnal knowledge and by
sexual assault in one information filed?

Ruling :
Yes. The Supreme Court held that XXX could be convicted for Rape by
Carnal Knowledge and Rape by Sexual Assault contained in one information as there
was no procedural challenge made by the accused during the arraignment stage.
 Lazaro Vs. People
G.R. No. 230018
June 23, 2021

Facts :
Father of Galindez filed a criminal complaint against Lazaro and Kevin
for giving assistance to suicide under Article 253 of the RPC. Respondents Lazaro
and Kevin filed a petition for review before the DOJ and the the same was granted in
a resolution. During the arraignment Lazaro refused to enter a plea, thus the court
entered a plea of not guilty for him. Kevin filed a motion to quash alleging that the
facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense. The court grants the
same and Pasig OCP was given a 10-day period from the receipt of the order to file
an amended information . After 17 days from receipt of the courts order , Pasig OCP
filed compliance/motion for leave of court to admit amended information attached
with the amended information dropping Kevin from the charges. The private
prosecutor filed motion for clarification polluting out that the order of the court
contained contradictory statements. Lazaro opposed the motion and again filed a
motion to expunge on the grounds of the court’s order October 23, 2013 had already
become final and immutable. The court denied Lazaro’s motion for reconsideration
stating that the court never meant to dismiss the case and the fallo of the said order
conflictingly granted the motion to quash, while the same thing giving the prosecution
an opportunity to connect the defect in the information by way of amendments
pursuant to Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the RTC and the CA were error in allowing the amendment of
the information despite the prosecution belatedly file its compliance motion to admit
amended information.

Ruling :
No. The rules do not prescribed a period for filing amended information by the
prosecution when so ordered by the trial court in response to a motion to quash.
In this case, the 10-days period was set by the RTC in its discretion. Indeed,
the RTC could also validly set a shorter or longer period within reason , in the sound
exercise of its discretion . All the more should the RTC be empowered to allow or
admit the amended information despite being filed beyond the period it initially fixed.
 Chingkoe Vs. Sandiganbayan
G. R. No. 232029-40
October 12, 2022

Facts :
On March 18, 2003, the special task force filed a complaint against the
officials and employees of the one-stop shop inter agency tax credit and duty
drawback center of the Department of Finance , in connection with the irregularities
in the issuance of tax credit certificates. Among those accused were Chingkoe and
Andutan. Chingkoe, allegedly used and submitted spurious and falsified documents
relative to the issuance of the tax in favor of Filstar , as well as the subsequent transfer
thereof to Petron and Shell in conspiracy with former and present government
officials and employees. On March 26,2009 , several informations for violation of
section ( e ) of RA. No. 3019 and estafa through falsification of public documents
were filed against Chingkoe and Andutan , and other respondents before
Sandiganbayan.
On August 25, 2016 Chingkoe filed a motion to quash , and she argued that
the office of the Ombudsman has violated her constitutional rights to due process and
speedy disposition of cases. She claimed to have filed the motion based on Rule 117,
Section 3 ( b ) and ( d ) of the Rules of Court , adding hat the violation of her
constitutional rights ousted the prosecution of authority to file the cases against her
and did not vest the court of jurisdiction over the offenses charged. In a resolution ,
the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash/motion to dismiss for lack of merit. It
ruled that Chingkoe’s motion was belatedly file after her arraignment , barring her
right to object to the validity of the information. But in her petition, Chingkoe alleges
that public respondent Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over the criminal
cases filed against her.

Issues:
1.) Whether or not the petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases been
violated.
2.) Whether or not the Sandiganbayan did not require jurisdiction over
criminal cases.

Ruling :
Petitioner’s allegation of lack of jurisdiction is also unmeritorious. It is
premised on the arguments of lack of the prosecutor’s authority to file the information
, ousting the court of jurisdiction over the case. In any case, petitioners failed to
substantiate this argument. It is thus unnecessary to delve on petitioners allegation
that their arraignment did not operate as waiver to question the authority of the filing
officer or the jurisdiction of the court. Courts cannot easily ousted of jurisdiction once
it has validly attached.
For failing to follow the rules ans sleeping on their right for almost 6 years,
thereafter waiting until the information's were filed with the respondent, after their
arraignment , and only after finding out that the cases against the other accused were
dismissed on the basis of violation of their right to speedy disposition of case ,
petitioners evidently failed to timely assert their right to speedy disposition of cases.
They are deemed to have assented to the delay. Insum , we find that the
Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Motion to Quash/Motion to Dismiss
informations. Accordingly , the petitions for Certiorari are Denied. Tha
Sandiganbayan is hereby Directed to dispose of criminal cases.
 Lapi Vs. People
G.R. No. 210731
February 13, 2019

Facts :
Simeon Lapi , together with Allen Sacare , and Keneth Lim were charged
with violation of Article II, Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 , or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drug Act. On arraignment , Lapi Sacare and Lim pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged. At pre-trial , Sacare and Lim charged their pleas to guilty , and were
sentenced to rehabilitation for 6 months at a government recognized center. Only Lapi
was subjected to trial on the merits. The initial laboratory found that Lapi , Sacare and
Lim tested negative. The RTC found Lapi guilty where it ruled that the warrant less
arrest against him was legal since he was caught in flagrante delicto. Lapi appealed to
the CA where the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue :
Whether or not the petitioner validly waived his right to question the warrant
less arrest by his failure to question it during arraignment.

Ruling :
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the right to question the validity of an arrest
may be waived if the accused assisted by his counsel , fails to object to its validity
before arraignment. The court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a
warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over
the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise , the
objection is deemed waived.
 Cabral Vs. Bracamonte
G.R. No. 233174
January 23, 2019

Facts:
On September 15, 2009, respondent Chris Bracamonte and petitioner Ruel
Cabral executed a memorandum of agreement in Makati City for the purchase of
shares of stock of Wellcross Freight Corporation (WFC) and Aviver International
Corporation (AVIVER). Simultaneously with the signing of the MOA, Bracamonte
issued a postdated check to Cabral in the amount of P12,677,950.15. When the check
was presented for payment, however, the drawee bank in Makati City dishonored the
same for lack of sufficient funds. Consequently, for failure to settle the obligation,
Cabral instituted a complaint for estafa against Bracamonte in Parañaque City.
Finding probable cause, the prosecutor filed with the RTC of Parañaque City an
information. After arraignment and prosecution of evidence, Bracamonte moved to
quash the information contending that the venue was properly laid in Parañaque City,
because the postdated check was delivered and dishonored in Makati City. In contrast,
Cabral maintained that the averments in the complaint and information are controlling
to determined jurisdiction. Since the complaint affidavit alleged negotiations on the
MOA were conducted in the warehouse in Parañaque City were Cabral was convinced
to sell his shares in the two corporations, then the RTC of Parañaque City properly
had jurisdiction.
RTC denied the motion to quash explaining that it has jurisdiction over the
case because Bracamonte employed fraudulent acts against Cabral in Parañaque City
prior to the issuance of the postdated check. According to the RTC, a perusal of the
informationwould show that Cabral was defrauded by Bracamonte in the Parañaque
City. Also, in paragragh 7 of the complaint affidavit, Cabral narrated that it was
during their meeting in the old warehouse of AVIVER and WFC located at km. 17,
west service road, south of super highway, Parañaque City that Bracamonte was able
to persuade and convince him to sell his entire shares of stock. There, they triumphed
in misleading and fulling him until he finally accepted their offer. The RTC held that
the fundamental is the rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal
cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Moreover,
jurisdiction of said court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information. Thus, since the complaint affidavit and the information in the instant
case duly alleged that Bracamonte deceived Cabral in Parañaque City, the Parañaque
RTC appropriately had jurisdiction over the instant case.
The CA set aside the RTC order and dismissed the information against
Bracamonte. According to the Appellate Court, in determining the proper venue, the
following acts must be considered as the following were actually proven by the
evidence on record: (a) Cabral and Bracamonte executed the MOA in Makati City; (b)
Bracamonte issued and delivered a postdated check to Cabral in Makati City
simulteneous to the signing of the agreement; and (c) the check was presented for
payment and was dishonored in Makati City. Applying the elements of estafa, it is
clear that deceit took place in Makati City where the worthless check was issued and
delivered while damage was inflicted in the same place where the check was
dishonored by the drawee bank. Thus, jurisdiction solely lies in Makati City where all
the elements of the crime occurred.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it held that the trial
court is devoid of jurisdiction to try the criminal case against Bracamonte as venue
was improperly laid.

Ruling:
No. The court has held that the territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused. In all criminal prosecutions, the action
shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the
offense was committed or where any one of the essential ingredients took place.
Otherwise stated, the place where the crime was committed determines not only the
venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. Thus, a court cannot
take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of
its limited territory. It has been held that the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is so
shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the
court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. In the present petition, cabral
insisted that since he alleged in his complaint affidavit that the business transactions
with regard to the terms and conditions of the subject MOA were conducted in a
warehouse in Parañaque City, the element of deceit definitely occurred therein, and as
such, the RTC of Parañaque City has jurisdiction over the case.
 Lorezon Vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 242506-10
September 14, 2022

Facts:
The Department of Agriculture (DA) alloted four hundred thirty two million
pesos (PhP432M) for the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) Rice Program in 2003.
In a memorandum dated April 30, 2003, respondent DA secretary Lorenzo authorized
the National Food Authority (NFA) to enter into contracts for the procurements of
fertilizers intended for the wet season (May to Ocotber 2003). Thus, on May 13,2003
the DA and the NFA entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to jointly
implement the fertilizer component of the GMA Rice Program for the government.
The ombudsman found several irregularities in the procurement of fertilizer in the
Luzon-wide regions. Mainly, the ground relied upon the ombudsman were the
absence of public bidding and other acts allegedly showing manifest partially towards
philpos. To ensure an unimpeded procurement process, Yap also issued general
guidelines via wire instructions to the concerned NFA officials in regions I to V and
the NCR. The ombudsman found that the DA-central, as the primary implementing
office of the 2003 GMA Rice Program, actively intervened in the procurement
process through its regional directors who were given authority to confirm the initial
recommendations of the regional bids and awards committee (RBAC) of each
procuring NFA region. The DA also submitted the list of accredited suppliers that
were invited by the RBAC of each NFA regional office. Moreover, the DA issued
certifications that enable philphos to participate in all the subject bidding despite it
being a manila-based business entity.
August 9, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions of Lorenzo, Yap, and
Gubani. On Lorenzo’s allegation that negotiated procurement was proper, the
Sandiganbayan ruled that even granting arguendo that E.O. 40, and not RA 9184 was
applicable, resort to methods of procurement other than competitive bidding remained
subjects to the following conditions: 1. when justified by extraordinary conditions; 2.
prior approval of the head of the agency; and 3. resort thereto was made in the interest
of economy and efficiency. The Sandiganbayan also ruled that Lorenzo and Yap
cannot rely on past resolutions of the ombudsman to justify the quashal of the instant
informations since the facts in those cases are not in all four with the present case.
The Sandiganbayan also ruled that evidence aliunde cannot be used to quash the
information and likewise, matters of defense cannot be considered in a motion to
quash.

Issue:
Whether or not evidence aliunde should be admitted in resolving a motion to
quash.

Ruling:
The court finds that the Sandiganbayan committed grievous error in refusing
to consider the evidence aliunde presented by petitioners in their motions to quash on
the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Moreover, the
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to quash
despite the prosecutions’ failure to provide sufficient justification for the delay in the
termination of the preliminary investigation. Consequently, the cases against the
petitioners before Sandiganbayan should be dismissed for violation of petitioners’
right to speedy disposition of cases.