Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2. Since the petition assails the trial courts dismissal of the criminal
information for bigamy filed against private respondent Leo Beronilla,
the petition, if at all warranted, should be filed in behalf of the People
of the Philippines by the Office of the Solicitor General, being its
statutory counsel in all appealed criminal cases.
3. There is a violation of the rule on double jeopardy as the dismissal
of the subject criminal case is tantamount to an acquittal based on
the trial courts finding that the first essential element of bigamy,
which is a first valid marriage contracted by private respondent is
wanting.
Issue:
1. W/N the petition is infirm in form and substance Yes but still
given due course
2. W/N respondents right against double jeopardy has been violated
NO
3. W/N the trial court acted with gad when it sustained respondents
motion to quash - YES
Held:
The defect being merely formal and not jurisdictional, we ruled that
the court may nevertheless order the correction of the pleading, or
even act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that
xxx strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order
that the ends of justice xxx may be served.
The present petition xxx is fatally infirm in form and substance for the
following reasons:
1. The verification is defective as it does not include the assurance
that the allegations in the petition are based on authentic records.
Facts:
The Ombudsman charged Romualdez before the Sandiganbayan
with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.
The Information reads: (paraphrased)
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, imputing gad
on the part of the SB in quashing the information.
Issue:
1. W/N the SB committed gad in quashing YES
2. W/N the charges against private respondent have already
prescribed - YES
Held:
1. The determinative test in appreciating a motion to quash under
this rule is the sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is,
whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish
the essential elements of the offense as defined by law without
considering matters aliunde.
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or inexcusable negligence in the discharge of his
functions; and
Issue:
W/N there is a denial of due process when the Special Prosecutor
filed the Amended Information without authority from or the approval
of the Ombudsman YES
Held:
Under the present constitution, the Special Prosecutor (Raul
Gonzalez) is a mere subordinate of the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman)
and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latters
authority or orders. The Special Prosecutor cannot initiate the
prosecution of cases but can only conduct the same if instructed to
do so by the Ombudsman. Even his original power to issue
subpoena, which he still claims under Section 10(d) of PD 1630, is
now deemed transferred to the Ombudsman, who may, however,
retain it in the Special Prosecutor in connection with the cases he is
ordered to investigate.
RA 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989
provides:
1) expressly included the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the
Ombudsman;
2) gave the Special Prosecutor the power, under the supervision and
control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman, to conduct
preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and to perform such other duties
assigned to it by the Ombudsman;
3) granted the Ombudsman the powers to:
Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person,
any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of its primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
agency of the Government, the investigation of such cases.
Facts:
Eliseo F. Soriano is a minister of the "Church of God in Jesus Christ,
the Pillar and Ground of the Truth in the Philippines. The offended
party, Lolita Hizon, became interested in Soriano's religious group
and became a member thereof.
Soriano confided to Hizon his worries about his indebtedness of
P250k to Dr. and Mrs. Zoilo Pangilinan. The obligation was secured
by a mortgage on the congregation's property.
Hizon agreed to help and gave Soriano P250k cash in exchange for
a post-dated check in the same amount. His check was undated.
When Hizon went back from her US trip, she asked why the check
bore no date. Soriano told her to date it "July 18, 1984" so he would
have sufficient time to fund it. When Hizon deposited the check on
that date, the drawee bank dishonored it because Soriano's account
with it had been closed as of July 10, 1984.
Respondent RTC Judge Laggui ruled that the accused could not be
convicted of a violation of BP 22 because the information failed to
allege that he knew, when be issued the check, that he would not
have sufficient funds for its payment in full upon its presentment to
the drawee bank. In the opinion of the trial judge, the information did
not charge an offense, hence, he dismissed it. Convicted the
accused of estafa.
The accused appealed the estafa case to the CA which reversed and
acquitted Soriano.
The State filed the instant petition assailing the dismissal of the
allegedly defective information.
The elements of the offense are:
1. the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply
to account or for Value,
Held:
The gravamen of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making
and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
presentment for payment. The law has made the mere act of issuing
a bum check a malum prohibitum an act.
However, although its decision is erroneous, that decision may not
be annulled or set aside because it amounted to a judgment of
acquittal. It became final and executory upon its promulgation. The
State may not appeal that decision for it would place the accused
twice in jeopardy.
Heirs of the victim (petitioners) moved before the OCP for the
inhibition for the reinvestigation and prayed that the case be
remanded to the court for trial.
ACP denied petitioners motion and set the case for continuation of
the hearings. Petitioner heirs moved that the hearing be suspended
on the ground that they have filed a petition for review before the
DOJ.
Petitioners again filed a petition for review with the DOJ on June 14,
which was dismissed with finality on July 14.
Upon learning that a petition for certiorari had been filed before SC,
the MTC issued an Order recalling the Order of Dismissal and
reinstating the criminal information in Criminal Case No. 89724.
Issue:
Thus, the RTC should have allowed, and should not have
disqualified, Atty. Atencia from intervening in the bigamy case
Before transferring the case, the trial court deferred the resolution of
respondents motion for bail and allowed the prosecution to present
evidence. Thereafter, the hearing of the application for bail ensued.
RTC Manila found that evidence to prove treachery and evident
premeditation was not strong, thus granted bail.
Prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was
denied. SC granted the petition and set aside the decision of the CA
together with the Order of the RTC granting bail to the
respondents. The RTC was also ordered to immediately issue a
warrant of arrest against the accused. As a result, Estanislao was rearrested, but Joven and Armando were not.
A day after filing the petition, the private prosecutor sought the OSGs
conformity in a letter. OSG instructed the private prosecutor to
secure the necessary endorsement from the DOJ for it to pursue the
case.
Trial commenced but was later suspended when the court granted
the Joint Motion to Suspend further Proceedings filed by the accused
and respondent Ombudsman through Special Prosecutors
Humphrey Monteroso and Leonardo Tamayo.
The test for the third element is whether one offense is identical with
the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or
whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included
in the other, as provided in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of
Court.
The motion stated that both the accused were also the accused in a
pending case in the Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec 3(e) of RA