Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Criminal Procedure

Acquittal; appeal. In this jurisdiction, after trial on the September 20, 2010.
merits, an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be
appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. The only Arraignment; pendency of second motion for
exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is reconsideration with the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court
where there is a finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of rejected petitioner’s contention that his second motion for
due process. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by reconsideration before the Ombudsman should have
the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the suspended his arraignment. According to the Supreme
parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings Court, the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman allows
and its conclusions of law. People of the Philippines vs. the filing of an information in court pending a motion for
Hon. Sandiganbayan, Abelardo P. Panlaqui, et al., reconsideration of the finding of a probable cause; hence,
G.R. No. 173396, September 22, 2010. if the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the
resolution finding probable cause cannot bar the filing of
Acquittal; denial of due process. The instant case involves the corresponding information, then neither can it bar the
an alleged error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. arraignment of the accused, which in the normal course of
Petitioner has not convincingly shown that the prosecution criminal procedure logically follows the filing of the
has indeed been deprived of due process of law. There is information. Brig Gen. (Ret.) Jose Ramiscal, Jr. vs.
no showing that the trial court hampered the Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R.
prosecution’s presentation of evidence in any way. On the No. 172476-99.,September 15, 2010.
contrary, the prosecution was given ample opportunity to
present its ten witnesses and all necessary documentary Arraignment; pendency of second motion for
evidence. The case was only submitted for decision after reconsideration with the Ombudsman. An arraignment is
the parties had duly rested their case. Respondent trial that stage where, in the mode and manner required by the
court clearly stated in its decision which pieces of Rules, an accused, for the first time, is granted the
evidence led it to its conclusion that the project was opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts
actually undertaken, justifying payment to the contractor. him. Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8493, otherwise
Clearly, petitioner failed to show that there was mistrial known as the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, the court must
resulting in denial of due process. People of the proceed with the arraignment of an accused within 30
Philippines vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, Abelardo P. days from the filing of the information or from the date the
Panlaqui, et al., G.R. No. 173396, September 22, accused has appeared before the court in which the
2010. charge is pending, whichever is later. Brig Gen. (Ret.)
Jose Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan and People of
Appeal; failure to file appellant’s brief. Under Sec. 8, Rule the Philippines, G.R. No. 172476-99.,September 15,
124 of the Rules of Court, a criminal case may be 2010.
dismissed by the CA motu proprio and with notice to the
appellant if the latter fails to file his brief within the Arraignment; pendency of second motion for
prescribed time. The phrase “with notice to the appellant” reconsideration with the Ombudsman. Petitioner failed to
means that a notice must first be furnished the appellant show any of the grounds for suspension of arraignment as
to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. provided under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court,
The purpose of such a notice is to give an appellant the which applies suppletorily in matters not provided under
opportunity to state the reasons, if any, why the appeal the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman or
should not be dismissed because of such failure, in order the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan. Thus,
that the appellate court may determine whether or not the the Sandiganbayan committed no error when it proceeded
reasons, if given, are satisfactory. Gregorio Dimarucot y with petitioner’s arraignment, as mandated by Section 7
Garcia vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. of RA 8493. Brig Gen. (Ret.) Jose Ramiscal, Jr. vs.
183975, September 20, 2010. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R.
Appeal; failure to file appellant’s brief. In the case at bar, No. 172476-99.,September 15, 2010
there is no showing that petitioner was served with a
notice requiring him to show cause why his appeal should Evidence; ballistics report. A ballistic report serves only as
not be dismissed for failure to file appellant’s brief. a guide for the courts in considering the ultimate facts of
Notwithstanding such absence of notice to the appellant, the case. It would be indispensable if there are no credible
no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the CA in eyewitnesses to the crime inasmuch as it is corroborative
considering the appeal abandoned with the failure of in nature. The presentation of weapons or the slugs and
petitioner to file his appeal brief despite four (4) bullets used and ballistic examination are not
extensions granted to him and non-compliance to date. prerequisites for conviction. The corpus delicti and the
Dismissal of appeal by the appellate court sans notice to positive identification of accused-appellant as the
the accused for failure to prosecute by itself is not an perpetrator of the crime are more than enough to sustain
indication of grave abuse. Thus, although it does not his conviction. Lenido Lumanog, et al. vs. People of
appear that the appellate court has given the appellant the Philippines/Cesar Fortuna vs. People of the
such notice before dismissing the appeal, if the appellant Philippines/People of the Philippines vs. SPO2 Cesar
has filed a motion for reconsideration of, or to set aside, Fortuna y Abudo, et al., G.R. Nos. 182555/G.R. No.
the order dismissing the appeal, in which he stated the 185123/G.R. No. 187745, September 7, 2010
reasons why he failed to file his brief on time and the
appellate court denied the motion after considering said Evidence; ballistics report. Even without a ballistic report,
reasons, the dismissal was held proper. Likewise, where the positive identification by prosecution witnesses is
the appeal was dismissed without prior notice, but the more than sufficient to prove accused’s guilt beyond
appellant took no steps either by himself or through reasonable doubt. In the instant case, since the identity of
counsel to have the appeal reinstated, such an attitude of the assailant has been sufficiently established, a ballistic
indifference and inaction amounts to his abandonment report on the slugs can be dispensed with in proving
and renunciation of the right granted to him by law to petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Lenido
prosecute his appeal. Gregorio Dimarucot y Garcia vs. Lumanog, et al. vs. People of the Philippines/Cesar
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183975, Fortuna vs. People of the Philippines/People of the
1
Criminal Procedure
Philippines vs. SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, et al., Babanggol and Cesar Naranjo, G.R. No. 181422.
G.R. Nos. 182555/G.R. No. 185123/G.R. No. 187745, September 15, 2010
September 7, 2010
Evidence; lack of formal offer of evidence. The High Court
Evidence; credibility of witness. The determination of the modified the accused’s conviction from qualified rape to
credibility of the offended party’s testimony is the most simple rape since both medical certificate and AAA’s birth
basic consideration in every prosecution for rape. The lone certificate, although marked as exhibits during the pre-
testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain trial, were not formally offered in evidence pursuant to
a verdict of conviction. As in most rape cases, the ultimate Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. According to the
issue in this case is credibility. In this regard, when the Court, a formal offer is necessary because judges are
issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment
will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties
considering that the latter is in a better position to decide at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know
the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is
observed their deportment and manner of testifying presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows
during trial. The exceptions to the rule are when such opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its
evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court admissibility. People of the Philippines vs. Saturnino
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or Villanueva Vs. General Milling Corporation, G.R. No.
circumstance of weight and substance which could affect 181829, September 1, 2010
the result of the case. None of these circumstances are
present in the case at bar to warrant its exception from Evidence; lack of formal offer of evidence. Documents
the coverage of this rule. People of the Philippines vs. which may have been identified and marked as exhibits
Miguelito Malana y Lardisabay, G.R. No. 185716. during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered
September 29, 2010 in evidence cannot in any manner be treated as evidence.
Neither can such unrecognized proof be assigned any
Evidence; credibility of witness. The prosecution has the evidentiary weight and value pursuant to the express
exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as mandate that ‘the court shall consider no evidence which
witnesses. It need not present each and every witness as has not been formally offered.’ Consequently, as in this
long as it meets the quantum of proof necessary to case, any evidence that has not been offered shall be
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable excluded and rejected. People of the Philippines vs.
doubt. That AAA’s brother was not presented does not Saturnino Villanueva Vs. General Milling
thus infirm the case for the prosecution for, among other Corporation, G.R. No. 181829, September 1, 2010
things, his testimony would have been merely
corroborative. It need not be underlined that the weight Evidence; state witness. Turning an accused into a state
and sufficiency of evidence are determined by the witness is not a magic formula that cures all the
credibility, nature, and quality of the testimony. That deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The state
explains why an accused in rape cases may be convicted witness cannot simply allege everything left unproved and
solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the automatically produce a conviction of the crime charged
victim where such testimony is clear, positive, convincing against the remaining accused. Corroboration of the
and consistent with human nature and the normal course account of the state witness is key. It is in fact a
of things, as in AAA’s testimony in this case. People of requirement for the discharge of an accused to be a state
the Philippines vs. Paterno Lasanas, G.R. No. witness under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
183829. September 6, 2010 that the testimony to be given can be substantially
corroborated in its material points. People of the
Evidence; conspiracy. The Supreme Court agreed with Philippines vs. Feliciano Anabe y Capillan, G.R. No.
appellant Naranjo that the prosecution in this case failed 179033, September 6, 2010
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he acted in
conspiracy with the other accused. The buy-bust operation Evidence; state witness. As an exception to the general
was supposedly set-up based on the police informant’s rule requiring corroboration, the uncorroborated testimony
report of illegal activities of “Acas and Arnel.” But the of a state witness may be sufficient when it is shown to be
evidence shows that the informant was not familiar with sincere in itself because it is given unhesitatingly and in a
Naranjo. Indeed, the informant got to identify only straightforward manner and full of details which, by their
Babanggol during the buy-bust operation. And it was nature, could not have been the result of deliberate
Babanggol who introduced Naranjo to Alfonso, the poseur- afterthought. People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
buyer. The Supreme Court ruled that a person’s mere Anabe y Capillan, G.R. No. 179033, September 6,
presence when an illegal transaction had taken place does 2010
not mean that he was into the conspiracy. People of the
Philippines vs. Arnel Babanggol and Cesar Naranjo, Evidence; state witness. This exception, however, applies
G.R. No. 181422. September 15, 2010 only if the state witness is an eyewitness since the
testimony would then be direct evidence. Section 17 of
Evidence; conspiracy. To be guilty as a conspirator, the Rule 119 actually assumes that the testimony of the
accused needs to have done an overt act in pursuit of the accused sought to be discharged as a state witness would
crime. While the testimonies of the three other accused constitute direct evidence (i.e., that he or she is an
were inconsistent in some material points, they all agreed eyewitness) in that it requires that there is no other direct
that Naranjo was a mere hired driver. The prosecution did evidence, except the testimony of the said accused.
not bother to contradict this. It presented no proof that Where, as here, the state witness is not an eyewitness,
Naranjo knew of the criminal intentions of the other the testimony partakes of the nature of circumstantial
accused, much less that he adopted the same. All told, evidence. The rule on circumstantial evidence thus
nothing in the circumstances of this case can be used to applies. If the testimony is uncorroborated, it does not
infer that Naranjo was in conspiracy with the other suffice. It cannot merit full credence. People of the
accused. People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Philippines vs. Feliciano Anabe y Capillan, G.R. No.
2
Criminal Procedure
179033, September 6, 2010 jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. People of the
Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza,
Evidence; testimony of witness. The fact is that AAA’s G.R. No. 169004, September 15, 2010.
testimony is not flawless. However, it is but ordinary for a
witness, a rape victim no less, to have some Criminal Contempt. The guarantee given to Jesus Disini
inconsistencies in her statements since not only had the that he would not be compelled to testify in other cases
rapes occurred four or five years prior to her testimony against Herminio Disini constitutes a grant of immunity
but her testimony pertains to facts and details of shameful from civil or criminal prosecution. Here, Disini’s refusal to
events that she would rather forget. Truly, if not for the testify as ordered by the Sandiganbayan is certain to
motivation to seek justice for the molestations she had result in prosecution for criminal contempt. It constitutes
gone through, AAA would choose to bury those details in criminal contempt since guilt would draw a penalty of fine
the deepest recesses of her memory. Moreover, or imprisonment or both. Criminal contempt is “conduct
inconsistencies may be attributed to the well-known fact directed against the authority and dignity of the court or a
that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of judge acting judicially; it is an act of obstructing the
the testimony and the manner in which a witness answers administration of justice which tends to bring the court
questions. Likewise, inconsistencies in the testimony of a into disrepute and disrespect. Jesus P. Disini vs. The
rape victim are inconsequential when they refer to minor Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al, G.R. No. 180564.
details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of June 22, 2010
the commission of the crime — carnal knowledge through
force or intimidation. People of the Philippines vs. Criminal Contempt. In criminal contempt, the proceedings
Elpidio Parohinog Alejandro, G.R. No. 186232, are regarded as criminal and the rules of criminal
September 27, 2010. procedure apply. What is more, it is generally held that the
State or respondent Republic is the real prosecutor in such
Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan. The core issue raised in the case. The grant therefore of immunity to Disini, against
petition is whether or not the Sandiganbayan has being compelled to testify is ultimately a grant of
jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang immunity from being criminally prosecuted by the State
Panlungsod whose salary grade is below 27 and charged for refusal to testify, something that falls within the
with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines. The express coverage of the immunity given him. Jesus P.
Court held in the affirmative, citing the provisions of R.A. Disini vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R.
8249. . People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan No. 180564. June 22, 2010
and Rolando Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, September 15,
2010 Evidence; corpus delicti. Paragraph 1 of Section 21, Article
II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure to be followed in the
Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan. Under Section 4 (a) of R.A. custody and handling of the seized drugs. The failure of
8249, the following offenses are specifically enumerated: the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted
violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, R.A. No. 1379, the required physical inventory and photograph of the
and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines is not
Code. In order for the Sandiganbayan to acquire fatal. Indeed, the implementing rules provide that “non-
jurisdiction over the said offenses, the latter must be compliance with these requirements under justifiable
committed by, among others, officials of the executive grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
branch occupying positions of regional director and of the seized items are properly preserved by the
higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. invalid such seizure of and custody over said items.”
People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines vs. Aldrin Berdadero y
Rolando Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, September 15, Armamento, G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010.
2010
Evidence; corpus delicti. The Supreme Court reiterated its
Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan. However, the law is not ruling in People v. Del Monte that what is of vital
devoid of exceptions. Those that are classified as Grade importance is the preservation of the integrity and
26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions thus be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
enumerated by the same law. Particularly and exclusively of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a
enumerated are provincial governors, vice-govenors, condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its
department heads; city mayors, vice-mayors, members of existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is
the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be
engineers, and other city department heads; officials of established beyond doubt. People of the Philippines vs.
the diplomatic service occupying the position as consul Aldrin Berdadero y Armamento, G.R. No. 179710, June 29,
and higher; Philippine army and air force colonels, naval 2010.
captains, and all officers of higher rank; PNP chief
superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank; City and Evidence; corpus delicti. The chain of custody requirement
provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and
and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so
special prosecutor; and presidents, directors or trustees, much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the
or managers of government-owned or controlled evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution
corporations, state universities or educational institutions must show by records or testimony, the continuous
or foundations. In connection therewith, Section 4 (b) of whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it
the same law provides that other offenses or felonies came into possession of the police officers and until it was
committed by public officials and employees mentioned in tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to
subsection (a) in relation to their office also fall under the the time it was offered in evidence. People of the
3
Criminal Procedure
Philippines vs. Aldrin Berdadero y Armamento, G.R.
No. 179710, June 29, 2010. Information; objection to form. Objections relating to the
form of the complaint or information cannot be made for
Evidence; corpus delicti. In this case, the testimonies of the first time on appeal. The accused-appellant should
prosecution witnesses convincingly show that the integrity have moved before arraignment either for a bill of
and the evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal particulars or for the quashal of the information. Having
substance was properly preserved. The appellant in this failed to pursue either remedy, he is deemed to have
case has the burden to show that the evidence was waived his objections to any formal defect in the
tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of information. The People of the Philippines vs. Romar
regularity in the handling of exhibits of public officers and Teodoro y Vallejo, G.R. No. 172372. December 4,
a presumption that public officers properly discharge their 2009.
duties. The appellant was unable to discharge such
burden. People of the Philippines vs. Aldrin Information; options available to RTC upon filing of
Berdadero y Armamento, G.R. No. 179710, June 29, information. The options available to the RTC upon the
2010. filing of an information before it by the public prosecutor
or any prosecutor of the Secretary of Justice, are the
Evidence; dying declaration. Under Section 37, Rule 130 of following: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record
the Rules of Court provides that “the declaration of a clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) if the RTC
dying person, made under the consciousness of an finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in
impending death, may be received in any case wherein his case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause, order
death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5
and surrounding circumstances of such death.” A dying days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court
declaration is evidence of the highest order; it is entitled within thirty (3) days from the filing of the information.
to the utmost credence on the premise that no one person The Supreme Court held that dismissal of the case by the
who knows of his impending death would make a careless RTC judge in this case did not amount to grave abuse of
and false accusation. At the brink of death, all thoughts of discretion. Rather, it clearly showed his compliance with
concocting lies disappear. People of the Philippines vs. his duty to personally evaluate the resolution of the
Albert Sanchez y Galera, G.R. No. 188610, June 29, prosecutor and its supporting evidence. Elvira O. Ong
2010. vs. Jose Casim Genio, G.R. No. 182336. December
23, 2009
Evidence; dying declaration. As an exception to the rule
against hearsay evidence, a dying declaration or ante Jurisdiction; election cases. A public prosecutor exceeded
mortem statement is evidence of the highest order and is the authority delegated to him by the Commission on
entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his Elections (COMELEC) to prosecute election-related cases
impending death would make a careless and false when he filed amended informations in court against the
accusation. In order for a dying declaration to be held respondent Pablo Olivares even after he had been directed
admissible, four requisites must concur: first, the by the Legal Department of the COMELEC to suspend the
declaration must concern the cause and surrounding implementation of his joint resolution (which found that
circumstances of the declarant’s death; second, at the the respondent should be indicted) but before his
time the declaration was made, the declarant must be delegated authority had been revoked by the COMELEC en
under the consciousness of an impending death; third, the banc.
declarant is competent as a witness; and fourth, the
declaration must be offered in a criminal case for The Constitution, particularly Article IX, Section 20,
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is empowers the COMELEC to investigate and, when
the victim. People of the Philippines vs. Jonel appropriate, prosecute election cases. Furthermore, under
Falabrica Serenas, et al., G.R. No. 188124, June 29, Section 265 of the OEC, the COMELEC, through its duly
2010. authorized legal officers, has the exclusive power to
conduct the preliminary investigation of all election
Dismissal; appeal by private party. The dismissal made offenses punishable under the OEC and to prosecute the
by the RTC can only be appealed by the OSG. The private same. Under Section 265 of the OEC, the COMELEC may
offended party has no legal personality to do so. Here, the avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of
Supreme Court applied the general rule under Sec. 35(1), the government. Thus, Section 2, Rule 34 of the COMELEC
Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of Rules of Procedure provides for the continuing delegation
1987 which provided that only the OSG can bring and/or of authority to other prosecuting arms of the government,
defend actions on behalf of the Republic or represent the which authority, however, may be revoked or withdrawn
people or the State in criminal proceedings pending in the at anytime by the COMELEC in the proper exercise of its
Supreme Court and the CA. judgment. Section 10 of the same Rule 34 gives the
COMELEC the power to motu proprio revise, modify and
Private offended parties have limited roles in criminal reverse the resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor and/or
cases. They are only witnesses for the prosecution. Thus, provincial/city prosecutors.
a private offended party may not appeal the dismissal of a
criminal case or the acquittal of an accused because the Clearly, the Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City
aggrieved party is the People of the Philippines. However, Fiscals, and/or their respective assistants have been given
the offended party may appeal the civil aspect of the case continuing authority, as deputies of the Commission, to
and may, thus, file a special civil action for certiorari conduct a preliminary investigation of complaints
questioning the decision/action of the court on involving election offenses under the election laws and to
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the private offended prosecute the same. However, such authority may be
party cannot bring the action in the name of the People of revoked or withdrawn anytime by the COMELEC either
the Philippines, but must prosecute the same in his own expressly or impliedly, when in its judgment, such
personal capacity. Elvira O. Ong vs. Jose Casim revocation or withdrawal is necessary to protect the
Genio, G.R. No. 182336. December 23, 2009. integrity of the process to promote the common good or
4
Criminal Procedure
where it believes that the successful prosecution of the
case can be done by the COMELEC. Moreover, being mere
deputies or agents of the COMELEC, provincial or city
prosecutors deputized by it are expected to act in accord
with and not contrary to or in derogation of the
resolutions, directives or orders of the COMELEC in
relation to election cases where it had been deputized to
investigate and prosecute by the COMELEC. As mere
deputies, provincial and city prosecutors acting on behalf
of the COMELEC must proceed within the lawful scope of
their delegated authority. Bievenido Diño and Renato
Comparativo vs. Pablo Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447,
December 4, 2009.

Petition for review; questions of fact. A petition for review


on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should
only raise issues involving questions of law and not
questions of fact. As a general rule, a Rule 45 petition for
certiorari should only involve legal questions which should
be raised and distinctly set forth in the petition because
the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The Supreme
Court will not disturb the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals, unless such findings are mistaken, absurd,
speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of
discretion, or contrary to the findings reached by the court
of origin.

The Supreme Court explained that questions of law exist


when there is doubt on what law is applicable to a certain
set of facts, while questions of fact are involved when
there is an issue regarding the truth or falsity of the
statements of facts. Questions on whether certain pieces
of evidence should be accorded with probative value or
whether the proofs presented by one party are clear,
convincing, and adequate to establish a proposition, are
issues of fact which are not subject to review by the
Supreme Court. Juno Batistis vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 181571. December 16, 2009.

Probable case; reversal of finding. A new presiding Judge


of the Regional Trial Court can reverse the order issued by
a former presiding Judge finding no probable cause
against respondents. although the former presiding judge
had found no probable cause against respondents, he did
not altogether close the issue. In fact, he ignored
respondents’ motion to dismiss the case and even
directed the City Prosecutor’s Office to submit additional
evidence. This indicated that he still had doubts about his
findings. Thus, when Judge Justalero took over, Judge
Justalero committed no grave abuse of discretion when he
reversed his predecessor’s earlier unsettled position.

There was no grave abuse of discretion when Judge


Justalero found probable cause against respondents.
Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that a crime has been committed and that it was likely
committed by the person sought to be arrested. It requires
neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing
evidence of guilt. The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is
less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of
the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie
case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient
ground to issue a warrant for his arrest. People of the
Philippines vs. Jan Michael Tan and Archie Tan, G.R.
No. 182310, December 9, 2009.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi