7.

Topic: Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not
brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need
not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late
stage.

LUCILLE DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. MERLINDA COLINA, respondent.
G.R. No. 173330. June 17, 2013.

NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA.

FACTS: An Information was filed with the MTCC against Domingo for violation of BP 22.
After the prosecution rested its case, Domingo filed a Demurer to evidence.
The MTCC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case. The prosecutor
filed a Motion for Reconsideration and in Alternative to Reopen the Civil Aspect of the case
which was denied.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Colina, the complainant, appealed the civil aspect of the case
with RTC. Domingo was ordered to pay Colina for the civil liability. The RTC also denied
Domingos motion for reconsideration.
Domingo filed a petition for review with the CA, wherein the RTCs decision was
affirmed. Aggrieved, Domingo filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.

CONTENTION OF DOMINGO: She has the right, and has not waived her right, to present
evidence despite the fact that the demurrer to evidence filed was with leave of court.

CONTENTION OF COLINA: Domingo is already estopped for her failure to timely invoke
her right to present evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dominngo failed to timely invoke her right to present evidence

HELD: Yes. Petitioner may not argue that her right to due process was violated, because she
was given the opportunity to raise this issue a number of times both in the RTC and the CA.
Petitioner does not dispute that neither in her Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the
RTC nor in her Petition for Review, as well as in her Memorandum filed with the CA, did she
raise the issue of her right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the present case. As correctly
observed by the CA, it was only in her Motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision that she
brought up such matter. Where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due
course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law.
Equally settled is the rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been
raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the
attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered
by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. For her failure
to timely invoke her right to present evidence, petitioner is already estopped.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED.
8. Topic: Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; The prosecutors findings on the
existence of probable cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently
shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion

MASAYUKI HASEGAWA, petitioner, vs. LEILA F. GIRON, respondent.
G.R. No. 184536. August 14, 2013

NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.

FACTS: Giron, an office worker, claimed that she and her friend were taken at gunpoint by two
men and forcibly boarded into a vehicle. They were detained for more than 24-hours. They were
taunted and repeatedly threatened by their abductors into withdrawing the case against
Hasegawa.
Hasegawa claimed that he has no knowledge of the crime and doesnt know the
abductors. He asserted that respondent and Marcos were extorting money from him because the
instant case was filed right after the negotiations to settle the civil aspect of the three cases they
filed with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), National Labor Relations
Commission, (NLRC) and MeTC Pasay failed.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Giron filed a Complaint- Affidavit for Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention against Hasegawa. Senior State Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for
lack of probable cause. Giron filed a Petition for Review before the DOJ and her subsequent
motion for reconsideration were likewise denied. She filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals.
The CA reversed and set aside the resolution of the DOJ.

CONTENTION OF HASEGAWA: The prosecutors findings on the existence of probable
cause are not subject to review by the courts.

CONTENTION OF GIRON: The CA did no err in finding that the prosecutor usurped the
duties belonging to the court when she overstretched her duties and applied the standards, not of
ordinary prudence and cautiousness, nor of mere reasonable belief and probability, but of a
full-blown trial on the merits, where rules on admissibility of testimonies and other evidence
strictly apply.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecutor had overstretched her duties that would amount to grave
abuse of discretion warranting the review of the court

HELD: Yes. The decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused
depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor. Courts will not interfere with the conduct of
preliminary investigations, or reinvestigations, or in the determination of what constitutes
sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against an offender.
Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch.
Differently stated, as the matter of whether to prosecute or not is purely discretionary on his part,
courts cannot compel a public prosecutor to file the corresponding information, upon a
complaint, where he finds the evidence before him insufficient to warrant the filing of an action
in court. In sum, the prosecutors findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to
review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse of
discretion. We find such reason for judicial review here present. We sustain the appellate courts
reversal of the ruling of the Secretary of the DOJ.
The Investigating Prosecutor has set the parameters of probable cause too high. Her
findings dealt mostly with what respondent had done or failed to do after the alleged crime was
committed. She delved into evidentiary matters that could only be passed upon in a fullblown
trial where testimonies and documents could be fairly evaluated in according with the rules of
evidence. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be
threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for
the presentation of prosecutions evidence in support of the charge. The validity and merits of a
partys defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better
ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level. By taking into
consideration the defenses raised by petitioner, the Investigating Prosecutor already went into the
strict merits of the case.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is
DENIED for lack of merit.


9. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prescription of Offenses; Summary Procedure;
As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls
the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance

JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION represented by its manager and
authorized representative Norma Tan, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA, SR.,
Presiding Judge of The Municipal Trial Court Branch 3, Baguio City, BENEDICTO
BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG, JOHN DOES and PETER DOES, respondents.
G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013.

NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Baguio City

FACTS: Jadewell, pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000, was authorized to render any motor
vehicle immobilized by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked.
Balajadia and the other respondents dismantled, took and carried away the clamps
attached to the wheel of the vehicles, which took place on May 7, 2003. Jadewell filed a
complaint for robbery against the respondents with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23,
2003. However, the Informations were filed with the MTC on October 2, 2003. Balajadia filed a
motion to quash.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The MTC granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case
and Jadewells subsequent motion for reconsideration. Jadewells petition for certiorari with
RTC was likewise denied. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.

CONTENTION OF JADEWELL: They argued that the filing of the criminal complaint with
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, not the filing of the criminal information before
Court, is the reckoning point in determining whether or not the criminal action had prescribed.

CONTENTION OF BALAJADIA: Respondents argued that Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the
proceedings mentioned in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, refer to judicial proceedings.
Thus, the SC, in Zaldivia, held that the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period commenced from the alleged
date of the commission of the crime on May 7, 2003 and ended two months after on July 7, 2003.

ISSUE: Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23,
2003 tolled the prescription period of the commission of the offense

HELD: No. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an
Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance.
The respondent judge was correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v.
Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992), the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also
featured similar facts and issues with the present case. In that case, the offense was committed on
May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.
When the representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint before the Provincial
Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to run until the filing of
the Information. They had two months to file the Information and institute the judicial
proceedings by filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court.
The failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is unfortunate as it
resulted in the dismissal of the case against the private respondents. It stands that the doctrine of
Zaldivia is applicable to ordinances and their prescription period. It also upholds the necessity of
filing the Information in court in order to toll the period. Zaldivia also has this to say concerning
the effects of its ruling: The Court realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime may
prescribe even if the complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutors office if, intentionally or
not, he delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late. However,
that possibility should not justify a misreading of the applicable rules beyond their obvious intent
as reasonably deduced from their plain language. The remedy is not a distortion of the meaning
of the rules but a rewording thereof to prevent the problem here sought to be corrected.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

16. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Constitutional Law; Warrantless Arrests;
Warrantless Searches; Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest;

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JOEL REBOTAZO y ALEJANDRIA, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 192913. June 13, 2013.

NATURE: APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals

FACTS: As a result of buy bust operation, conducted by the NBI, Rebotazo was arrested. Two
sachets of shabu were confiscated. One sachet was the shabu that Rebotazo sold to the poseur-
buyer and the other was found inside his sock.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Before the SC is a Notice of Appeal from the Decision of the
CA. The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC convicting Rebotazo of violating Sections 5 and
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.

CONTENTION OF REBOTAZO: He argued that his arrest was illegal and the seizure was
illegal.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE: It was a valid warrantless arrest and seizure.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest and seizure is valid

HELD: Yes. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine cannot apply in the face of a valid
buy-bust operation.
Given circumstances above, appellants arrest cannot be considered illegal. Time and
again, we have ruled that the arrest of the accused in flagrante during a buy-bust operation is
justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. From the very nature of a buy-bust
operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.
As we held in People v. Marcelino, the illegal drug seized was not the fruit of the
poisonous tree, as the defense would have this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-
bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the
Rules of Court. Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the
search was also valid, and a warrant was not needed to conduct it.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

17. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; An appeal taken by one or more of
several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN VALDEZ, accusedappellants.
G.R. No. 175602. February 13, 2013

NATURE: PLEA FOR APPLICATION of Reduced Penalty Imposed on a Co-Accused.

FACTS: Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez were co-accused in a murder case. Both were
convicted, by the RTC, of 3 counts of murder with a penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
count. On appeal the CA upheld the RTCs decision.
Initially both accused filed an appeal before the SC. However, Edwin later on filed a
motion to withdraw appeal. Edwins appeal was deemed closed and terminated. The SC
promulgated its judgment on the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez, finding him guilty of three
counts of homicide, instead of three counts of murder, and meting on him for each count of
homicide the indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years of
reclusion temporal as maximum.
Edwin sent to the Court Administrator a self-explanatory letter where he pleaded for the
application to him of the judgment given to Eduardo on the ground that the judgment would be
beneficial to him as an accused.

ISSUE: Whether or not a co-accused may benefit from a favorable judgment on his co-accused

HELD: Yes. Edwin cannot be barred from seeking the application to him of the downgrading of
the crimes committed (and the resultant lighter penalties) despite the finality of his convictions
for three counts of murder due to his withdrawal of his appeal. The downgrading of the crimes
committed would definitely be favorable to him. Worth pointing out is that to deny to him the
benefit of the lessened criminal responsibilities would be highly unfair, considering that this
Court had found the two accused to have acted in concert in their deadly assault against the
victims, warranting their equal liabiliy under the principle of conspiracy. We grant Edwins plea
based on Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which relevantly provides: Section 11.
Effect of appeal by any of several accused.(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several
accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. x x x x In this connection, the Court
has pronounced in Lim v. Court of Appeals, 491 SCRA 385 (2006), that the benefits of this
provision extended to all the accused, regardless of whether they appealed or not.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: ACCORDINGLY, the Court GRANTS the plea of EDWIN
VALDEZ

18.Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; In a preliminary
investigation, the prosecutor is bound to determine merely the existence of probable cause that a
crime has been committed and that the accused has committed the same.

LORELI LIM PO, petitioner, vs.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and JASPER T. TAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 195198. February 11, 2013

ANTONIO NG CHIU, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and JASPER T.
TAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 197098. February 11, 2013

NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals; and SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

FACTS:
Tan was a stockholder of CHVI. Antonio Chiu was the President of the said company.
Tan claimed that Po was the personal accountant of the Chiu. However, Po argued that she is
merely a consultant of the company.
Tan lamented that pertinent information relative to CHVIs operations were withheld
from him. His repeated requests for copies of financial statements and allowance to inspect
corporate books proved futile. He filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor against Chiu and
Po for violation of the Corporate Code.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: The prosecutor found probable cause. Chiu and Pos motion
to reconsider were denied by the prosecutor. The findings of the prosecutor was subjected by Po
and Chiu to a petition for review with the DOJ. Initially, the DOJ reversed the prosecutors
finding. However, in the end, it affirmed the findings of the prosecutor.
Po and Chiu, each filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Pos petition was dismissed
on a technical ground. Chius petition was denied for lack of merit.
Po filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Chiu filed for certiorari under
Rule 65. The SC consolidated the case.

CONTENTION OF PO and CHIU: The DOJ gravely abused its discretion in affirming the
prosecutors finding.

CONTENTION OF TAN: The Court cannot interfere with an executive function of the
prosecutor in determining the existence of probable cause during a preliminary investigation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court may interfere with the determination of probable cause which
is an executive function

HELD: No. As we ruled in Metrobank vs. Tobias III, 664 SCRA 165 (2012), in a preliminary
investigation, the prosecutor is bound to determine merely the existence of probable cause that a
crime has been committed and that the accused has committed the same. The rules do not require
that a prosecutor has moral certainty of the guilt of a person for the latter to be indicted for an
offense after the conduct of preliminary investigation. Further, we have repeatedly ruled that the
determination of probable cause, for purposes of preliminary investigation, is an executive
function. Such determination should be free from the courts interference save only in
exceptional cases where the DOJ gravely abuses its discretion in the issuance of its orders or
resolutions.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant
consolidated petitions are DENIED.



19. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prejudicial Questions; A prejudicial question
generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must first be determined before the latter
may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

TEODORO A. REYES, petitioner, vs. ETTORE ROSSI, respondent.
G.R. No. 159823. February 18, 2013
NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

FACTS: Reyes and Advanced Foundation, represented by its Executive Project Director, Rossi,
executed a deed of conditional sale involving the purchase by Reyes of equipments.
The parties agreed therein that Reyes would pay the sum of P3,000,000.00 as
downpayment, and the balance of P7,000,000.00 through four post-dated checks. Reyes
complied, but in January 1998, he requested the restructuring of his obligation under the deed of
conditional sale by replacing the four post-dated checks with nine post-dated checks.
Reyes commenced an action for rescission of contract and damages in the Regional Trial
Court in Quezon City (RTC).While, Rossi charged Reyes with five counts of estafa and five
counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati for
the dishonor of Checks
Another criminal charge for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was lodged against
Reyes in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City for the dishonor of another check.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The prosecutor ruled for the suspension of the proceedings
relating to the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 based on a prejudicial question.
Rossi appealed the resolution of the City Prosecutor to the Department of Justice, but the
Secretary of Justice, denied Rossis petition for review.
In the petition for certiorari, the CA ruled in favor of Rossi.

CONTENTION OF REYES: He asserts that there is a prejudicial question that would warrant
the suspension of the criminal proceedings

CONTENTION OF ROSSI: The rescission of the contract is not a prejudicial question to
criminal proceeding for the violation of BP22.

ISSUE: Whether or not the rescission of a contract of sale is a prejudicial question that will
warrant the suspension of a criminal proceeding for the violation of BP22

HELD: The rescission of a contract of sale is not a prejudicial question that will warrant the
suspension of the criminal proceedings commenced to prosecute the buyer for violations of the
Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) arising from the dishonor of the checks the
buyer issued in connection with the sale.
A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must first be
determined before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action
is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case. The rationale for the suspension on the ground of a prejudicial question is to avoid
conflicting decisions. Two elements that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered a
prejudicial question are expressly stated in Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to wit: Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
To properly appreciate if there is a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the
criminal actions, reference is made to the elements of the crimes charged. The issue in the
criminal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or not
Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon presentment. On
the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether or not the breach in the
fulfillment of Advanced Foundations obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional sale.
If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have
committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not
necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility for issuing the
dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, he already committed the
violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional sale
was still fully binding upon the parties. His obligation to fund the checks or to make
arrangements for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of
extinguishment of the obligation under the contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check was already the offense in
itself. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 could proceed despite the pendency of the civil action for rescission of the conditional
sale.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review;
AFFIRMS the decision the Court of Appeals.