Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

63. Salvanera Vs.

People Abutin and Tampelix that petitioner is the


mastermind or the principal by induction.
G.R. No. 143093 May 21, 2007
The court dismissed their reasoning. What is
Facts: needed is that the corroborative evidence
required by the Rules does not have to consist of
1 The petitioner contests the decision of the court the very same evidence as will be testified on by
which discharged the accused Feliciano Abutin and the proposed state witnesses. We have ruled that
Domingo Tampelix from the information in a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts
Criminal Case for the Murder of Ruben Parane, of a fellow criminal than by any other method.
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Trece If it is sown that the statements of the conspirator
Martires City, to become State witnesses. are corroborated by other evidence, then we have
2 The appellate court likewise cancelled his bail bond. convincing proof of veracity. Even if the
The trial court granted bail of the petitioner but confirmatory testimony only applies to some
denied the discharge of the accused Abutin and particulars, we can properly infer that the witness
Tampelix has told the truth in other respects.
The prosecution elevated the case to the CA and
argued that the testimonies of the two accused are 64. Vda de Manguerra vs. Risos
absolutely necessary to establish that petitioner
masterminded the murder of Ruben Parane. CONCEPCION VDA. DE MANGUERRA vs.
RAUL RISOS,et al.
The prosecution likewise claimed that it was GR No. 152643, August 2008
premature to allow the petitioner bail as they have
hot even rested their case. FACTS:
Criminal information was filed on October
Issue: 29, 1999 which was subsequently amended on
November 18, 1999 before the RTC of Cebu City,
Whether there is sufficient ground to discharge the Branch 19. Respondents were charged with estafa
accused Abutin and Tampelix to be a state witness through falsification of public document. On
against the petitioner. September 10, 1999, Concepcion Manguerra while
on vacation in Manila, was unexpectedly confined at
Held:
the Makati Medical Center and was advised to stay in
Yes. There is sufficient ground. The court is Manila for further treatment. On November 24, 1999,
satisfied that: respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of the
a There is absolute necessity for the testimony of Criminal Proceedings on the ground of prejudicial
the accused whose discharge is requested. question. Respondents argued that civil action for the
b There is no other direct evidence available for declaration of nullity of the mortgage should first be
the proper prosecution of the offense committed resolved. The RTC granted the aforesaid motion of
except the testimony of said accused. the respondents but denied petitioners motion for
c The testimony of said accused can be reconsideration.
substantially corroborated in its material points. On August 16, 2000, the counsel of
d Said accused does not appear to be the most Concepcion Manguerra filed a motion to take the
guilty latters deposition on account of her sickness and
e Said accused has not at any time been convicted advanced age. On August 25, 2000, the RTC granted
of any offense involving moral turpitude. the motion and directed that petitioners deposition be
taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City.
However, the petitioner argued that both Abutin Aggrieved, respondents assailed the August 25
and Tampelix will naturally seize the opportunity decision of the RTC and November 3 RTC orders. On
to be absolved of any liability by putting the August 15, 2001, the CA rendered a decision granting
blame on one of their co-accused. Petitioner the petition of the respondents and setting aside the
argues that prosecution witnesses Parane and RTC orders on August 25, 2000 and November 3,
Salazar, who are not accused, do not have 2000 respectively. Hence, the instant petition for
personal knowledge of the circumstances review on certiorari was filed by Concepcion
surrounding the alleged conspiracy. Thus, they Manguerra.
could not testify to corroborate the statement of
ISSUE: 2 Montero is qualified to be discharged as a state
Whether or not the deposition taken from witness as he does not appear to be the most
petitioner Concepcion Manguerra is in accordance guilty, although he is a principal by direct
with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. participation. The principals by inducement are
more guilty because, without their orders, the
HELD: crime would not have been committed.
No. The taking of the deposition before the
Clerk of Court of Makati City was erroneous and Jimenez raises the following errors:
contrary to the clear mandate of the Rules of Court
1 There is no necessity to discharge Montero as a
that the same be made before the court where the
state witness because:
case is pending.
a the voluntary sworn extrajudicial
Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
confessions of Montero are all in the
requires that the conditional examination be made
possession of the prosecution which they
before the court at least before the Judge where the
could readily present in court without
case is pending. It is also necessary that the accused
discharging Montero; and
be notified, so that he can attend the examination,
b there was unjust favoritism in the discharge
subject to his right to waive the same after reasonable
of Montero because all the other
notice. The Rules mandate that it be conducted in the
conspirators are equally knowledgeable of
same manner as an examination during trial, that is,
the crime.
through question and answer. The Court cannot
2 Montero appears to be the most guilty. A
disregard these rules which are designed mainly for
principal by direct participation is more guilty
the protection of the accuseds constitutional rights.
than the principal by inducement as the Revised
Petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED;
Penal Code penalizes the principal by
the Court of Appeals decision and resolution dated
inducement only when the principal by direct
August 25, 2000 and March 12, 2002 respectively are
participation has executed the crime.
hereby AFFIRMED.
Issue: Whether Judge Docena committed grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the order which granted the
People of the Philippines motion to discharge
65. Jimenez vs. People, G.R. No. 209195 Montero as a state witness in the Criminal Case.
Facts: Montero executed sworn statements Held: No.
confessing his participation in the killing of Ruby
Rose Barrameda (Ruby Rose), and naming petitioner 1 Absolute necessity exists for the testimony of an
Jimenez and four others as his coconspirators. accused sought to be discharged when he or she
alone has knowledge of the crime. In more
The statements of Montero which provided the concrete terms, necessity is not there when the
details on where the alleged steel casing containing testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise
the body of Ruby Rose was dumped, led to the strengthen the prosecutions evidence.
recovery of a cadaver, encased in a drum and steel a In the present case, not one of the accused-
casing, near or practically at the place that Montero conspirators, except Montero, was willing to
pointed to. testify on the alleged murder of Ruby Rose
and their participation in her killing. Hence,
Montero then filed a motion for his discharge as state
the CA was correct in ruling that Judge
witness; the People of the Philippines also filed a
Docena acted properly and in accordance
motion to discharge Montero as a state witness for
with jurisprudence in ruling that there was
the prosecution. Jimenez opposed both motions.
absolute necessity for the testimony of
Judge Docena granted the motions, arguing that:
Montero. He alone is available to provide
1 The crime would have remained undiscovered direct evidence of the crime.
and unsolved had it not been for Monteros b That the prosecution could use the voluntary
extrajudicial confession that narrated in detail the statements of Montero without his discharge
manner of the abduction and subsequent murder as a state witness is not an important and
of Ruby Rose. As the crime was committed in relevant consideration. To the prosecution
secret, only one of the co-conspirators, such as belongs the control of its case and this Court
Montero, could give direct evidence identifying cannot dictate on its choice in the discharge
the other coconspirators.
of a state witness, save only when the legal Ruby Rose which was executed by accused
requirements have not been complied with. Lennard. Monteros participation was
2 By jurisprudence, "most guilty" refers to the highest limited to providing the steel box where the
degree of culpability in terms of participation in the drum containing the victims body was
commission of the offense and does not necessarily placed, welding the steel box to seal the
mean the severity of the penalty imposed. While all cadaver inside, operating the skip or tug
the accused may be given the same penalty by boat, and, together with his co-accused,
reason of conspiracy, yet one may be considered to dropping the steelbox containing the cadaver
have lesser or the least guilt taking into account his into the sea.
degree of participation in the commission of the
offense. What the rule avoids is the possibility that
the most guilty would be set free while his co-
66. People vs. De Grano
accused who are less guilty in terms of
participation would be penalized. [GR No. 167710, June 5, 2009]
a However, the CA is incorrect in finding that
a principal by inducement is automatically People of the Philippines, Petitioner,
the most guilty in a conspiracy. As a rule, for Vs.
purposes of resolving a motion to discharge
Joven De Grano, et al., Respondents
an accused as a state witness, what are
controlling are the specific acts of the FACTS:
accused in relation to the crime committed. Joven De Grano, Armando De Grano, and
b But neither can the Court agree with Estanislao Lacaba, together with their co-accused
Jimenez that a principal by direct Leonides Landicho, Domingo Landicho, and
participation is more guilty than the Leonardo Genil were all charged for the crime of
principal by inducement as the Revised Murder. Thereafter, the hearing for the application for
Penal Code penalizes the principal by bail ensued, and granted respondents motion for bail.
inducement only when the principal by
direct participation has executed the crime. After the presentation of the parties respective
The severity of the penalty imposed is part sets of evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision
of the substantive criminal law which should finding several accused guilty of the offense as
not be equated with the procedural rule on charged. At the promulgation of sentence, only
the discharge of the particeps criminis. The accused Estanislao was present despite due notice to
procedural remedy of the discharge of an the other respondents. Thereafter, the respondents
accused is based on other considerations, filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration praying that
such as the need for giving immunity to one the Decision be reconsidered and set aside and acquit
of several accused in order that not all shall them. Acting on the motion, the RTC acquitted Joven
escape, and the judicial experience that the and Armando, and downgrading the conviction of
candid admission of an accused regarding Domingo and Estanislao from Murder to Homicide.
his participation is a guaranty that he will
testify truthfully. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before
c The requirement is that a state witness does the CA where it alleged that it had no other plain,
not need to be found to be the least guilty; adequate, and speedy remedy, considering that the
he or she should not only "appear to be the State could not appeal a judgment of acquittal. The
most guilty." From the evidence submitted CA denied the petition on the ground that the rule on
by the prosecution in support of its motion double jeopardy prohibits the State from appealing a
to discharge Montero, it appears that while judgment of acquittal that was based on the merits of
Montero was part of the planning, the case.
preparation, and execution stage as most of
his co-accused had been, he had no direct ISSUE:
participation in the actual killing of Ruby
Rose. While Lope allegedly assigned to him Whether CA erred in dismissing the petition for
the execution of the killing, the records do certiorari on the ground of double jeopardy.
not indicate that he had active participation
in hatching the plan to kill Ruby Rose, HELD:
which allegedly came from accused Lope The petitioners recourse to the CA was correct.
and Jimenez, and in the actual killing of
The prosecution sought to prove that the accused had
Double jeopardy has the following essential entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with
elements: (1) the accused is charged under a Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., (Coca Cola) for
complaint or information sufficient in form and the sale of softdrink products at the same school. The
substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court has school principal then created an audit committee to
jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and look into the financial reports of the Cooperative.
he has pleaded; and (4) he is convicted or acquitted, Based on the documents obtained from Coca-Cola,
or the case dismissed, without his express consent. including the records of actual deliveries and sales,
and the financial statements prepared by Asistio, the
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of audit committee found that Asistio defrauded the
Criminal Procedure, provides that, The judgment is Cooperative and its members for three (3) years.
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the Despite requests for her to return to the Cooperative
accused and any judge of the court in which it was the amounts she had allegedly misappropriated,
rendered. The proper clerk of court shall give notice Asistio failed and refused to do so. Thus, the
to the accused, personally or though his bondsman or Cooperative issued a Board Resolution authorizing
warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the filing of criminal charges against her.
the promulgation of the decision.
Trial ensued and after the presentation and offer of
When the Decision was promulgated, only evidence by the prosecution, Asistio moved to
Estanislao was present. Subsequently thereafter, dismiss the case by way of Demurrer to Evidence
without surrendering and explaining the reasons for with prior leave of court. She argued, among other
their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined matters, that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Estanislao in their Joint Motion. In blatant disregard Manila, does not have jurisdiction over the case, as
of the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause the the crime charged (Violation of Section 46 of RA
arrest of the respondents who were at large, it also 6938) does not carry with it a sanction for which she
took cognizance of the joint motion. Thus, Joven, can be held criminally liable.
Armando, and Domingo, were not placed in double
jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. However,
with respect to Estanislao, the RTC committed no ISSUE:
reversible error when it entertained the Joint Motion.
Whether or not the dismissal of the charge against the
He was in custody and was present at the
accused on demurrer to evidence amounts to an
promulgation of judgment. Hence, the RTC never lost
acquittal, hence, final and unappealable.
jurisdiction over his person. For Estanislao, and for
him alone, the proscription against double jeopardy HELD:
applies.
No. The dismissal of the charge by RTC does not
Wherefore, the petition is granted. amount to an acquittal.

The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as


the one at bar, is filed after the prosecution had
67. Asistio vs. People rested its case, and when the same is granted, it calls
for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
JOCELYN ASISTIO Y CONSINO, Petitioner, prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction
vs. beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MONICA the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of
NEALIGA, Respondent. the accused. Such dismissal of a criminal case by
G.R. No. 200465 April 20, 2015 the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be
Peralta, J.: appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused
in double jeopardy. The verdict being one of
FACTS: acquittal, the case ends there.

Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was charged with violation In this case, however, the RTC granted the demurrer
of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the to evidence and dismissed the case not for
Philippines (Republic Act No. [RA] 6938). insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction
over the offense charged. Notably, the RTC did not
decide the case on the merits, let alone resolve the No, Cabador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
issue of Asistios guilt or innocence based on the of violation of his right to speedy trial, not a demurrer
evidence proffered by the prosecution. This being the to evidence.
case, the RTC Order of dismissal does not operate as
an acquittal, hence, may still be subject to ordinary Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Criminal Procedure, reads:

Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests


its case, the court may dismiss the action on the
68. Cabador vs. People ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own
initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity
G.R. No. 186001 to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to the evidence filed
by the accused with or without leave of court.
October 2, 2009
But because some have in the past used the demurrer
Ponente: ABAD, J. in order to delay the proceedings in the case, the
remedy now carries a caveat. When the accused files
Facts: a demurrer without leave of court, he shall be deemed
to have waived the right to present evidence and the
On June 23, 2000, Antonio Cabador was charged
case shall be considered submitted for judgment.
before the RTC of Quezon City for murder in
conspiracy with others. On February 2006, after To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurer
presenting only five witnesses over five years of to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must
intermittent trial, the RTC declared an end to the consider (1) the allegations in it made in good faith;
prosecutions presentation of evidence and required (2) the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed;
the prosecution to make a formal offer of its and (3) the primary objective of the party filing it.
documentary evidence. But, the public prosecutor
asked for three extensions of time and still did not Here, after the prosecution filed its formal offer of
make the required written offer not until August 1, exhibits, on the same day Cabador filed his motion to
2006 dismiss, the trial court still needed to give Cabador an
opportunity to object to the admission of those
On the same date, August 1, 2006, Cabador filed a exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal offer.
motion to dismiss, complaining of a turtle-paced And only after such a ruling could the prosecution be
proceeding in the case since his arrest and detention deemed to have rested its case. Since Cabador filed
in 2001 and invoking his right to a speedy trial. his motion to dismiss before he could object to the
prosecutions formal offer, before the trial court could
On August 31, 2006 the RTC issued an Order treating
act on the offer, and before the prosecution could rest
Cabadors motion to dismiss as a demurrer to
its case, it could not be said that he had intended his
evidence. And, since he filed his motion without
motion to dismiss to serve as a demurrer to evidence.
leave of court, the RTC declared him to have waived
his right to present evidence in his defense. The trial WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the
court deemed the case submitted for decision. Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
Cabador filed a motion for reconsideration of this REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Order of the
Order but the RTC denied it. Regional Trial Court is NULLIFIED. The latter court
is DIRECTED to resolve Cabadors motion to
Cabador questioned the RTCs actions before the CA
dismiss based on the circumstances surrounding the
but the latter denied his petition and affirmed the
trial in the case.
lower courts actions. Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari.

Issue: 69. People vs. Tan


Whether or not Cabadors motion to dismiss filed 625 SCRA 388, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
before the trial court was a demurrer to evidence. Facts:
Held:
Two informations were filed against Dante Tan, the
new beneficial owner of Best World Resources
Corporation (BWRC). According to the information that the Best World Resources Corporation stocks
he willfully, unlawfully, and criminally fail to file were divided into, whether there are preferred shares
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and as well as common shares, or even which type of
with the Philippine Stock Exchange a sworn shares respondent had acquired.
statement of the amount of all BWRC shares within
ten (10) days after he became such beneficial owner, The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as
in violation of the Revised Securities Act. After the one at bar, is "filed after the prosecution had
arraignment, respondent pleaded not guilty to both rested its case," and when the same is granted, it calls
charges and trial ensued. The prosecution made its "for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
Formal Offer of Evidence and in the meantime, prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction
respondent filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave to beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of
File Demurrer to Evidence. The RTC granted the the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of
motion. The prosecution opposed but the CA ruled the accused." Such dismissal of a criminal case by the
that the dismissal of a criminal action by the grant of grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed,
a Demurrer to Evidence is one on the merits and for to do so would be to place the accused in double
operates as an acquittal, for which reason the jeopardy. The Petition was dismissed and the
prosecution cannoty appeal therefrom for it would Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed.
place the accused in double jeopardy.

Issue:
70. Imperial vs. Joson
Whether the RTC abuse its discretion in the manner it
conducted the proceedings of the trial and in its grant Facts:
of respondents demurrer to evidence
At about 2 oclock in the morning of May 11, 2001
Held: along the portion of National Highway in Barangay
Concepcion in Sariaya Quezon an Isuzu Ten Wheeler
No. truck collided with a Fuso six wheeler truck. Owned
by Petitioner Nelson Imperial, the Isuzu ten wheeler
As ruled in People vs. Laguio, Jr., the only instance truck was being driven by respondent Santiago
when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial Giganto Jr. who was at that time was accompanied by
court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting a helper respondent Samuel Cubeta. After colliding
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the with the Fuso 6 wheeler truck , the Isuzu Ten wheeler
prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its truck further rammed into a Kia Besta Van which was
case or where the trial was a sham. However, while in turn, being driven by respondent Arnel Lazo. The
certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous KIA was owned by Noel Tagle who was on board the
acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary vehicle, together with 8 other passengers. As a
proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial consequence of the collision this resulted to the death
court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave of the driver of Kia Besta Van and its 8 passengers, a
as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence resulting
However, in this case it was clear that the RTC never to Multiple Homicide, Multiple Serious Physical
prevented petitioner from presenting its case. The Injuries, and Damage to Property was filed against
RTC even allowed petitioner to withdraw its formal Petitioners Santos Francisco and Noel Imperial. The
offer of evidence after having initially rested its case case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-99 before
and then continue its presentation by introducing the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sariaya Quezon.
additional witnesses
Issue:
Even if this Court were to review the action taken by
the RTC in granting the demurrer to evidence, no Whether or not the fact that the 9 postponements of
grave abuse can be attributed to it as it appears that the pre-trial conference of the case amounted to a
the 29-page Order granting the demurrer was arrived violation of Franciscos constitutional right to speedy
at after due consideration of the merits thereto. As trial?
correctly observed by the CA, the RTC extensively
discussed its position on the various issues brought to Held:
contention by petitioner. One of the main reasons for
the RTCs decision to grant the demurrer was the In determining whether the accused has been
absence of evidence to prove the classes of shares deprived of his right to the speedy disposition of the
case and a speedy trial, four factors must be Resolution granting the motion. On June 30, 2006,
considered (a) length of delay (b) reason for the delay private respondent filed his demurrer to evidence.
(c) prejudice of the defendant (d) defendants On July 26 2006, the Sandiganbayan
assertion of his right. Petitioner Francisco claims that promulgated the assailed Resolution, finding the
his right to speedy trial was violated when the Public demurrer to evidence well taken. Granting Demurrer
Prosecutors assigned to the case failed to attend the 9 to Evidence and dismissing the case.
hearings scheduled by Sariaya MTC. Far from being
vexatious, capricious and oppressive, however the Issue :
delays entailed by postponements of the hearings Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with
were, to a great extent attributable to petitioners grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
Franciscos own pursuit of extraordinary remedies excess of jurisdiction in giving due course to and
against the interlocutory orders issued by Sariaya eventually granting the demurrer to evidence.
MTC and the assignment of at least 3 public
prosecutors in the case. Ruling:
An order of dismissal arising from the grant
Although Revised rules of Criminal Procedure of a demurrer to evidence has the effect of an
mandates commencement of the trial within 30 days acquittal unless the order was issued with grave
from the receipt of pre-trial order and the continuous abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
conduct thereof for a period not exceeding 180 days. jurisdiction.
Sec 3 a Rule 119 provides that delays resulting from In criminal cases, the grant of a demurrer is
extra ordinary remedies against interlocutory orders tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order
shall be excluded in computing the time within which may not be appealed because this would place the
trial must commence. In determining the right of an accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal
accused to speedy trial moreover, courts are required order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable
to do more than a computation of postponements of but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the
the scheduled hearings of the case, and give peculiar Rules of Court.The burden is on the petitioner to
facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive
it of its very power to dispense justice.13
In the case at bar, the Sandiganbayan
71. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. granted the demurrer to evidence on the ground that
SANDIGANBAYAN (Third division) and the prosecution failed to prove that the government
MANUEL G. BARCENAS suffered any damage from private respondents non-
liquidation of the subject cash advance because it
Facts : was later shown, as admitted by the prosecutions
This is a Petition for Certiorari which seeks witness, that private respondent liquidated the same
to nullify the Sandiganbayans July 26, 2006 albeit belatedly. On the other hand, COA Circular
Resolution1 which granted private respondents No. 90-33114 or the "Rules and Regulations on the
demurrer to evidence. Granting, Utilization and Liquidation of Cash
The accused MANUEL G. BARCENAS, a Advances" which implemented Section 89 of P.D.
high-ranking public officer, being a Vice-Mayor of No. 144 that the AO (Accountable Officer) shall
Toledo City, and committing the offense in relation liquidate his cash advance. Failure of the AO to
to office, having obtained cash advances from the liquidate his cash advance within the prescribed
City Government of Toledo, which he received by period shall constitute a valid cause for the
reason of his office, for which he is duty bound to withholding of his salary. Upon failure of the AO to
liquidate the same within the period required by law, liquidate his cash advance within one month for
with deliberate intent and intent to gain, did then and AOs within the station and three months for AOs
there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to outside the station from date of grant of the cash
liquidate said cash advances of P61,765.00, advance, the Auditor shall issue a letter demanding
Philippine Currency, despite demands to the damage liquidation or explanation for non-liquidation.
and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid
amount. Nonetheless, even if the Sandiganbayan
On April 20, 2006, private respondent filed a proceeded from an erroneous interpretation of the
motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence. On law and its implementing rules, the error committed
June 16, 2006, the Sandiganbayan issued a was an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction.
Petitioner failed to establish that the dismissal order
was tainted with grave abuse of discretion such as 1. Whether the acquittal by virtue of a Demurrer to
the denial of the prosecutions right to due process evidence can be appealed by the private offended
or the conduct of a sham trial. In fine, the error party.
committed by the Sandiganbayan is of such a nature 2. Whether the acquittal by virtue of a Demurrer to
that can no longer be rectified on appeal by the evidence amounts to acquittal on the merits.
prosecution because it would place the accused in
double jeopardy. The Courts Ruling:
However erroneous the order of respondent
Court is, and although a miscarriage of justice 1. No. It has been consistently held that in criminal
resulted from said order, to paraphrase Justice Alex cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of
the case against him can only be appealed by the
Reyes in People vs. Nieto, 103 Phil. 1133, such error
Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. Only
cannot now be righted because of the timely plea of the OSG, and not the private offended party, has the
double jeopardy.22 authority to question the order granting the Demurrer
to evidence in a criminal case. The private
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. complainant or the offended party may question such
acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability
of the accused is concerned.

Thus, Sally Go had no personality to file the petition


72. Bangayan, Jr. vs. Bangayan
for certiorari before the CA.
G.R. No. 172777 October 19, 2011
2. Yes. A Demurrer to evidence is filed after the
BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN, JR. vs. SALLY GO
prosecution has rested its case and the trial court is
BANGAYAN
required to evaluate whether the evidence presented
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
by the prosecution is sufficient enough to warrant the
G.R. No. 172792
conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
RESALLY DE ASIS DELFIN vs. SALLY GO
If the court finds that the evidence is not sufficient
BANGAYAN
and grants the Demurrer to evidence, such dismissal
of the case is one on the merits, which is equivalent
The Facts:
to the acquittal of the accused. Well-established is the
The City Prosecutor issued a Resolution
rule that the Court cannot review an order granting
recommending the filing of an information for
the Demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused
bigamy against Benjamin, Jr. and Resally for having
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence because to
contracted a marriage despite knowing fully well that
do so will place the accused in double jeopardy.
he was still legally married to Sally Go. Benjamin, Jr.
filed his Demurrer to Evidence, praying that the
In this case, all four elements of double jeopardy are
criminal case be dismissed for failure of the
doubtless present. Therefore, the CA erred in
prosecution to present sufficient evidence of his guilt.
reversing the trial courts order dismissing the case
One of his arguments is that the prosecution was
against the petitioners because it placed them in
unable to show that he and the "Benjamin Z. Sojayco
double jeopardy.
Jr.," who married Resally, were one and the same
person.

The RTC dismissed the criminal case for


73. People of the Philippines vs. Jose c. Go
insufficiency of evidence, due to the prosecutions
G.R. No. 191015 (Aug. 6, 2014)
failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Benjamin, Jr. used the fictitious name, Benjamin Z. FACTS: The Philippine Deposit Insurance
Sojayco Jr., in contracting his marriage with Resally. Corporation (PDIC) was designated as the receiver
Sally Go elevated the case to the CA, which granted for Orient Commercial Banking Corporation (OCBC)
her petition, holding that the following pieces of after the latter bank was ordered closed by the
evidence presented by the prosecution were sufficient Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Acting in this capacity,
to deny the Demurrer to evidence. the PDIC went after some of OCBC's bad loans and
filed two counts of Estafa thru Falsification of
The Issues: Commercial Documents against private respondent
Jose C. Go who was the OCBC president. It alleged
that fictitious loans worth a total of P20 million were place the accused in double jeopardy. The order is
misappropriated and used to fund personal checks reviewable only by certiorari if it was issued with
issued by him. grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. When grave abuse of discretion is
After the presentation of all of the prosecutions present, an order granting a demurrer becomes null
evidence, private respondents filed a Motion for and void.
Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence based on failure
of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond The prosecution has presented competent evidence to
reasonable doubt. Respondent RTC judge agreed, sustain the indictment for the crime of estafa through
dismissed the criminal cases and acquitted all of the falsification of commercial documents, and that
accused. A motion for reconsideration was denied. respondents appear to be perpetrators thereof. What
the trial and appellate courts disregarded however, is
The prosecution filed an original Petition for that the OCBC funds ended up in the personal bank
Certiorari with the CA which was denied, along with accounts of respondent Go, and were used to fund his
a motion for reconsideration. The appellate court held personal checks, even as he was not entitled thereto.
that the assailed Order of the trial court became final These, if not rebutted, are indicative of estafa. Hence,
since the prosecution failed to move for the the petition is granted. Resolution of the Court of
reconsideration thereof in a timely manner, and thus Appeals are reversed and set aside.
double jeopardy attached. It also ruled that the
prosecution failed to demonstrate that the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion and also prove
the offense charged. 74. People vs. Pepino

Issue: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
decision in granting Demurrer to Evidence. JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA
GOMEZ y CAMPOS, G.R. No. 174471.
Ruling: Yes. The order was patently null and void for January 12, 2016.
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
and manifest irregularity, thus causing substantial The Case: This is an appeal filed by Jerry Pepino
injury to the banking industry and public interest. (Pepino) and Preciosa Gomez (Gomez) assailing
the June 16, 2006 decision1 of the Court of
Demurrer to the evidence is an objection by one of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02026.
the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence
which his adversary produced is insufficient in point Facts: At 1:00 p.m., on June 28, 1997, two men
of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or and a woman entered the office of Edward Tan at
sustain the issue. The court, in passing upon the Kilton Motors Corporation in Sucat, Paraaque
sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is City, and pretended to be customers. When
merely required to ascertain whether there is Edward was about to receive them, one of the
competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the men, eventually identified as Pepino, pulled out a
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt x x x or gun. Thinking that it was a holdup, Edward told
such evidence in character, weight or amount as will Pepino that the money was inside the cashiers
legally justify the judicial or official action demanded box. Pepino and the other man looted the
according to the circumstances. To be considered cashiers box, handcuffed Edward, and forced
sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the him to go with them. From the hallway, Jocelyn
commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree Tan Edwards wife, saw Pepino take her husband.
of participation therein by the accused. Thus, when Pepino brought Edward to a metallic green Toyota
the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate Corolla where three other men were waiting
whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough inside. The woman (later identified as Gomez) sat
to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond on the front passenger seat. The abductors then
reasonable doubt. placed surgical tape over Edwards eyes and made
him wear sunglasses. After travelling for two and
The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left a half hours, they arrived at an apartment in
to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling Quezon City. The abductors removed the tape
on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of from Edwards eyes, placed him in a room, and
a grave abuse of such discretion. As to effect, the then chained his legs. Pepino approached Edward
grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an and asked for the phone number of his father so
acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would
that he could ask for ransom for his liberty. At moral and exemplary damages were increased
around 5:00 p.m. of the same day, the kidnappers from P300, 000.00 and P100, 000.00,
called Edwards father and demanded a P40 respectively.
million ransom for his release. Edwards father
told the kidnappers that he did not have that ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the arrest is valid.
amount. The abductors negotiated with Jocelyn 2. Whether accused-appellant is
who eventually agreed to a P700, 000.00 ransom. deprived of right to counsel during police lineup.
The kidnappers told Jocelyn to pack the money 3. Whether or not Edwards out of court
into two packages and to drop these at a identification of the suspects
convenience store in front of McDonalds at (Gomez) during trial may have been
Mindanao Avenue. They further demanded that preconditioned by suggestive identification
Edwards vehicle be used to bring the money. therefore inadmissible.
After four days, or on July 1, 1997, Antonio
Gepiga (the family driver) brought the agreed HELD: 1. We point out at the outset that Gomez
amount to the 7-Eleven convenience store at did not question before arraignment the
Mindanao Avenue as instructed. That evening, legality of her warrantless arrest or the acquisition
three men and Gomez blindfolded Edward, made of RTCs jurisdiction over her person. Thus,
him board a car, and drove around for 30 minutes. Gomez is deemed to have waived any objection
Upon stopping, they told Edward that he could to her warrantless arrest. It is settled that any
remove his blindfold after five minutes. When objection to the procedure followed in the matter
Edward removed his blindfold, he found himself of the acquisition by a court of jurisdiction over
inside his own car parked at the UP Diliman the person of the accused must be opportunely
Campus. He drove home and reported his raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
kidnapping to Teresita Ang See, a known anti- objection is deemed waived. Appellant is now
crime crusader. After five months, the National estopped from questioning any defect in the
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) informed Edward manner of his arrest as he failed to move for the
that they had apprehended some suspects, and quashing of the information before the trial court.
invited him to identify them from a lineup Consequently, any irregularity attendant to his
consisting of seven persons: five males and two arrest was cured when he voluntarily submitted
females. Edward positively identified Pepino, himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by
Gomez, and one Mario Galgo. Jocelyn likewise entering a plea of not guilty and by
identified Pepino.10 participating in the trial. At any rate, the illegal
Pepino and Gomez did not testify for their arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for
defense. The defense instead presented Zeny setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
Pepino, Reynaldo Pepino, NBI Special sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.
Investigator Marcelo Jadloc and P/Sr. Insp. Simply put, the illegality of the warrantless arrest
Narciso Guano (Qano). cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute
In its May 15, 2000 decision, the RTC the guilty when all other facts on record point to
convicted Pepino and Gomez of kidnapping and their culpability. It is much too late in the day to
serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid
Revised Penal Code (as amended) and sentenced information had been filed, the accused had been
them to suffer the death penalty. The RTC also arraigned, the trial had commenced and had been
ordered them to pay Edward P700, 000.00 completed, and a judgment of conviction had
representing the amount extorted from him; been rendered against her.
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P50, 000 as 2. The right to counsel is a fundamental
exemplary damages. The trial court acquitted right and is intended to preclude the
Batijon for insufficiency of evidence. The RTC slightest coercion that would lead the accused to
held that Edward positively identified Pepino and admit something false. The right to counsel
Gomez as two of the persons who forcibly attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e.,
abducted him. The case was automatically when the investigating officer starts to ask
elevated to this Court in view of the death penalty questions to elicit information and/or confessions
that the RTC imposed. We referred the case to the or admissions from the accused. Custodial
CA for intermediate review pursuant to our ruling investigation commences when a person is taken
in People v. Mateo. In its decision dated June 16, into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the
2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC commission of the crime under investigation. As a
decision with the modification that the amounts of rule, a police lineup is not part of the custodial
investigation; hence, the right to counsel faces of the three persons who entered his office.
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be In addition, Edward stated that Pepino had talked
invoked at this stage. The right to be assisted by to him at least once a day during the four days
counsel attaches only during custodial that he was detained.
investigation and cannot be claimed by the
accused during identification in a police lineup.
3. In resolving the admissibility of and 75. Llamas vs. CA
relying on out of-court identification of suspects, Llamas vs. Court of Appeals
courts have adopted the totality of circumstances
test where they consider the following factors, G.R. No. 149588.August 16, 2010
viz.: (1) the witness opportunity to view the
criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness Topic: Rule 120 Judgment
degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy
of any prior description given by the witness; (4) Facts:
the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
Petitioners (spouses Francisco R. Llamas and
at the identification; (5) the length of time
Carmelita C. Llamas) are assailing the decision of the
between the crime and the identification; and (6)
RTC of Makati City convicting them of the offense
the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
Other Forms of Swindling punishable under Article
In People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54 (1995),
316, paragraph 2, of the RPC. It was alleged that the
the Court explained the procedure for out-of-court
accused, well knowing that their parcel of land
identification and the test to determine the
situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of
admissibility of such identifications in this
Paraaque, Metro Manila, was mortgaged to the
manner: Out-of-court identification is conducted
Rural Bank of Imus, sold said property to one
by the police in various ways. It is done thru show
Conrado P. Avila, falsely representing it to be free
ups where the suspect alone is brought face to
from all liens and encumbrances to the damage and
face with the witness for identification. It is done
prejudice of said Conrado P. Avila.
thru mug shots where photographs are shown to
the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done The RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable
thru lineups where a witness identifies the suspect doubt of the crime charged. On appeal, the Court of
from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
In resolving the admissibility of and relying on
out-of-court identification of suspects, courts Petitioner Francisco moved for the lifting or recall of
have adopted the totality of circumstances test the warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the
where they consider the following factors, viz.: issue that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the
(1) the witness opportunity to view the criminal offense charged.
at the time of the crime; (2) the witness degree of
attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any There being no action taken by the trial court on the
prior description given by the witness; (4) the said motion, petitioners instituted the instant
level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the
the identification; (5) the length of time between appellate courts decisions.
the crime and the identification; and (6) the
suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Issue:
Applying the totality-of-circumstances test, we
find Edwards out-of-court identification to be Whether or not the remedy of annulment of judgment
reliable and thus admissible. To recall, when the can be availed of in criminal cases.
three individuals entered Edwards office, they
initially pretended to be customers, and even Ruling:
asked about the products that were for sale. The
Yes.
three had told Edward that they were going to
pay, but Pepino pulled out a gun instead. After In the interest of justice and for humanitarian reasons,
Pepinos companion had taken the money from the Court deems it necessary to re-examine this case.
the cashiers box, the malefactors handcuffed
Edward and forced him to go down to the parked Petitioners took many procedural missteps in this
car. From this sequence of events, there was thus case, from the time it was pending in the trial court
ample opportunity for Edward before and after until it reached this Court, all of which could serve as
the gun had been pointed at him to view the enough basis to dismiss the present motion for
reconsideration. However, considering petitioners up, she noticed that the garter of her panties was
advanced age, the length of time this case has been loose and rolled down to her knees. She suffered pain
pending, and the imminent loss of personal liberty as in her head, thighs, buttocks, groin and vagina, and
a result of petitioners conviction, the Court resolves noticed that her panties and short pants were stained
to grant pro hac vice the motion for reconsideration. with blood which was coming from her vagina. When
This Court has, on occasion, suspended the her mother arrived home from work the following
application of technical rules of procedure where morning, she kept on crying but appellant Ida ignored
matters of life, liberty, honor or property, among her.
other instances, are at stake. It has allowed some
meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent ABC testified that on April 4, 1995 around 1:00 a.m.,
procedural defects and lapses on the principle that she was left alone in the room since her mother was
rules of procedure are mere tools designed to at work at the beer house. Tampus went inside their
facilitate the attainment of justice. The strict and rigid room and threatened to kill her if she would report
application of rules that tend to frustrate rather than the previous sexual assault to anyone. He then
promote substantial justice must always be avoided. forcibly removed her panties. ABC shouted but
It is far better and more prudent for the court to Tampus covered her mouth and again threatened to
excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a kill her if she shouted. He undressed himself, spread
review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather ABCs legs, put saliva on his right hand and he
than dispose of the case on technicality and cause applied this to her vagina; he then inserted his penis
grave injustice to the parties. into ABCs vagina and made a push and pull
movement. After consummating the sexual act, he
Thus, the Court, at the first instance, had recognized left the house. When ABC told appellant Ida about
that the petition, although captioned differently, was the incident, the latter again ignored her.
indeed one for certiorari. Since we have resolved to On May 4, 1995, after being maltreated by her
treat the petition as one for certiorari, the doctrine in mother, ABC sought the help of her aunt, Nellie
People v. Bitanga no longer finds application in this Montesclaros (Nellie). She told Nellie about the rape
case. and that her mother sold her. ABC, together with
Nellie and Norma Andales, a traffic enforcer,
reported the incident of rape to the police. On May 9,
1995, Nestor A. Sator , M.D. (Dr. Sator), head of the
76. People vs. Montesclaros Medico-Legal Branch of the Philippine National
Crime Laboratory Services, Regional Unit
7, conducted a physical examination of ABC and
The present case is an appeal of the decision of the issued a Medico-Legal Report. Dr. Sator testified that
Court of Appeals finding appellant Ida Monteclaros the result of his examination of ABC revealed a deep
guilty as an accomplice in the commission of rape. healed laceration at the seven (7) oclock position and
a shallow healed laceration at the one (1) oclock
Facts:
position on ABCs hymen.
The offended party, ABC, is the daughter of appellant
Ida, and was 13 years old at the time of the incident. On September 22, 1995, ABC filed two Complaints.
Ida worked as a waitress in Bayanihan Beer House in She accused Tampus of taking advantage of her by
Mabini, CebuCity. On February 19, 1995, Ida and having carnal knowledge of her, against her will,
ABC started to rent a room in a house owned by while she was intoxicated and sleeping on April 1,
Tampus, a barangay tanod. On April 1, 1995, about 1995 at 4:30 p.m. She declared in her Complaint that
4:30 p.m., ABC testified that she was in the house this was done in conspiracy with accused Ida who
with Ida and Tampus who were both drinking beer at gave permission to Tampus to rape her. And again,
that time. They forced her to drink beer and after she stated that on April 3, 1995, she was threatened
consuming three and one-half (3 ) glasses of beer, she with a wooden club by Tampus, who then succeeded
became intoxicated and very sleepy. While ABC was in having sexual intercourse with her, against her
lying on the floor of their room, she overheard will.
Tampus requesting her mother, Ida, that he be
allowed to remedyo or have sexual intercourse with Agustos B. Costas, M.D. (Dr. Costas), the Head of
her. Appellant Ida agreed and instructed Tampus to the Department of Psychiatry of the Vicente Sotto
leave as soon as he finished having sexual intercourse Memorial Medical Center, issued a Medical
with ABC. Ida then went to work, leaving Tampus Certification, which showed that appellant Ida was
alone with ABC. ABC fell asleep and when she woke treated as an outpatient at the Vicente Sotto Memorial
Medical Center Psychiatry Department from study the proper informations filed against
November 11, 1994 to January 12, 1995 and was petitioners. On the other hand, petitioners filed a
provisionally diagnosed with Schizophrenia, paranoid Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Cases claiming
type. that there was no probable cause. After the
reinvestigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor
The trial court convicted Tampus of two counts of affirmed the informations filed against petitioners.
rape, as principal in Criminal Case No. 013324-L and However, acting on the Joint Memorandum of
Criminal Case No. 013325-L. Appellant Ida was petitioners as an appeal, the Resolution was reversed
found guilty as an accomplice in Criminal Case No. by the Assistant City Prosecutor holding there was no
013324-L. The trial court appreciated in Idas favor probable cause. Consequently, a Motion to Withdraw
the mitigating circumstance of illness which would Informations was filed before herein respondent but
diminish the exercise of will-power without was denied. Hence, this Petition for Mandamus.
depriving her of the consciousness of her acts,
pursuant to Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code. Issue:

Whether or not respondent Judge should be


bound by the Resolution of the Prosecution?
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in convicting Ida
Monteclaros as accomplice to the crime of rape Held:
despite failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt
beyond reasonable doubt? The court ruled in the negative. The trial
court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the
Held: case before it. A motion to dismiss the case filed by
the public prosecutor should be addressed to the court
No, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial and who has the option to grant or deny the same. When
appellate courts in ruling that Ida is liable as an the trial court grants a motion of the public
accomplice in the rape of her daughter, ABC. prosecutor to dismiss the case, or to quash the
Information, or to withdraw the Information in
Accomplices are persons who, not being included in compliance with the directive of the Secretary of
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, cooperate in Justice, or to deny the said motion, it does so not out
the execution of the offense by previous or of subservience to or defiance of the directive of the
simultaneous acts.[47]The following requisites must be Secretary of Justice but in sound exercise of its
proved in order that a person can be considered an judicial prerogative.
accomplice:
Furthermore, Mandamus is never available
(a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a
design of the principal by direct participation, he particular way or the retraction or reversal of an
concurs with the latter in his purpose; action already taken in the exercise of either. In other
words, while a judge refusing to act on a Motion to
(b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by Withdraw Informations can be compelled by
previous or simultaneous acts; and, mandamus to act on the same, he cannot be
compelled to act in a certain way like to grant or deny
(c) there must be a relation between the acts done by
such Motion.
the principal and those attributed to the person
charged as accomplice In the case at bar, Judge Bay did not refuse
to act on the Motion to Withdraw Informations; he
had already acted on it by denying the same.
Accordingly, mandamus is not available anymore. If
77. Hipos Sr. vs. Bay petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed grave
abuse of discretion in the issuance of such Order
Facts: denying the Motion to Withdraw Informations, the
proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file
Petitioners of this case were charged with
a Petition for Certiorari against the assailed Order of
two informations for the crime of rape and act of
Judge Bay.
lasciviousness before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City presided by herein respondent. Private
complainants file a Motion for Reinvestigation to
78. People vs. Lorenzo The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment
of conviction rendered by the RTC.
Facts:

Two (2) informations were filed against Issue:


Paterno Lorenzo charging him with
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Whether the prosecution discharged its burden of
Republic Act No. 9165. proving Lorenzos guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conrado Estanislao was also accused of
possessing illegal drugs in violation of the Held:
provisions of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165. No. The prosecutions case fails for failure to
establish the identity of the sachets of shabu with
On arraignment, both accused, with the
moral certainty.
assistance of counsel, entered NOT GUILTY
pleas. Specific procedures relating to the seizure and
The prosecution presented as its lone custody of drugs have been laid down under the
witness, PO1 Pineda, who was a member of Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for
the buy-bust team. Republic Act No. 9165 and it is the prosecutions
As told, Lorenzo handed the shabu to the burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have
informant. PO1 Pineda and SPO1 Arellano been complied with in proving the elements of the
alighted from the tricycle and approached offense.
Lorenzo, and introduced themselves as
police officers and arrested him. Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules
Upon being arrested, Lorenzo was bodily and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:
searched and PO1 Pineda was able to
retrieve the marked money and 2 other (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and
sachets of shabu from him. control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
A certain Estanislao, attempted to escape the and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused
police officers and ran, but he was soon
or the person/s from whom such items were
accosted. A search of his pockets yielded
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
one (1) sachet of shabu.
counsel, a representative from the media and the
Next, Lorenzo and Estanislao were taken to
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
the police station. The sachets of white official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
crystalline substance bought from Lorenzo inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided,
were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The further that non-compliance with these requirements
results showed that the substance was under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
positive for Methylamphetamine the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
Hydrochloride or shabu. preserved by the apprehending officers/team, shall
Interposing the defenses of denial and not render void and invalid such seizures of and
frame-up, Lorenzo and Estanislao stood custody over said items.
before the witness stand and presented their
version of the facts. This failure to follow proper procedure, i.e. inventory
RTC rendered a Decision convicting and photographing of the retrieved evidence, raises
Lorenzo, but acquitting Estanislao. doubts, as to whether the specimen examined by the
According to RTC, the prosecution proved forensic chemist and presented in court were indeed
beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the retrieved from Lorenzo and failed to support
buyer in the buy-bust operation and the Lorenzos conviction for violation of Sections 5 and
seller, object and consideration, including 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165.
the delivery of the shabu sold by Lorenzo
and the payment of the buy-bust money Therefore, the presumption of innocence should
Lorenzo appealed to the Court of Appeals, prevail.
questioning the procedure followed by the
police operatives in the seizure and custody
of the evidence against him.
79. People vs. Baron No. The accused had the time to escape
while he was inside the tricycle but did not take
People v. Rene Baron y Tangarocan advantage of the same. The threat was not real or
imminent to be appreciated. Robbery with homicide
GR No. 185209; 28 June 2010 is a single indivisible crime punishable with reclusion
perpetua to death. The aggravating circumstance of
Facts: treachery is well appreciated to increase the penalty
of death. However, the penalty of death can no longer
The accused was found guilty of the crime
be applied because of the passage of RA 9346.
of robbery with homicide by the RTC of Cadiz City,
Hence, this court is mandated to apply the penalty of
Negros Occidental. Said conviction stemmed from
reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole,
the allegation contained in the information stating
consistent with the CAs modification. The contents
that the accused acted in conspiracy with two (2)
of the judgment of the Trial Court and the Court of
people in taking the tricyle and other personal
Appeals was sufficient in pursuant to Section 2 Rule
belongings of the victim. They pretended to be
120 of the Revised Criminal Procedure. The rule
passengers of the tricycle owned and driven by the
explicitly provides that the judgment of conviction
Juanito Berallo, the same was killed by reason of
shall also state the civil liability or damages caused
multiple stab wounds in a sugarcane plantation. A
by the wrongful act to be recovered from the accused
witness in the name of Pacitao Caratao, talked to the
by the offended party, the heirs of the deceased in this
deceased before the brutal killing and asked the same
case. The legal qualifications were also discussed as
if he was on his way home so that she could ride with
to the circumstances present.
him. The deceased stated that he still had to ferry
passengers. Consequently, the witness saw three (3)
people riding in the tricycle, one of them wearing a
fatigue jacket. 80. Abellana vs. People
In the sugarcane field where the killing
happened, a fatigue jacket was found, which led to FIRST DIVISION
the filing of the information against the accused and
his two companions. However, only the accused was G.R. No. 174654 August 17, 2011
tried for the case because the other two (2) remained
at-large to date. The accused invoked the defense of FELIXBERTO A. ABELLANA, Petitioner,
acting with the impulse of uncontrollable fear of
vs.
greater or equal injury. He contended that he has
nothing to do with the killing because he remained PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses
inside the tricycle and he no longer knew what SAAPIA B. ALONTO and DIAGA
happened to the deceased when the latter was ALONTO, Respondents.
dragged to the sugarcane plantation with his hands
tied. Accordingly, they went to Taytay Martesan and FACTS:
detached the sidecar, took him to a house in Barangay
Origao and he was not allowed to leave. He was then
brought to his house and threatened him and his wife Abellana extended a loan to spouses Alonto secured
at gunpoint not to report anything to the police. The by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over 2 lots.
RTC found him guilty of and provided the penalty of Subsequently, Abellana prepared a Deed of Absolute
death because of the aggravating circumstance of Sale conveying the mortgaged lots to him which was
treachery. The CA affirmed and modified the penalty signed by spouses Alonto in Manila and notarized in
to reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole. Cebu City, allegedly without spouses Alonto
Hence, this appeal. appearing before the notary public. Thereafter,
Abellana caused the transfer of the titles to his name
Issue: and sold the lots to third persons.

Whether or not the accused can validly Information was filed charging Abellana with Estafa
invoke his defense of acting under duress. through Fasification of Public Document.

Held: RTC found Abellana guilty of fasification of public


document. On appeal, CA acquitted him of the crime
of falsification of public document by a private
individual because the information charged him with
a different offense (estafa through falsification of
public document). However, CA still adjudged him 81. People vs. Asis, 629 SCRA 250
civilly liable.
Facts:
ISSUE:
On or about February 10, 1998, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, Asis and Formento, conspiring and
Whether Abellana could still be held civilly liable confederating together and mutually helping each
notwithstanding his acquittal. other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force
RULING: and violence upon person, to wit: by then and there
stabbing one Roy Ching with a bladed instrument on
the different parts of the body and thereafter robbed
No. A judgment of acquittal shall state whether the
the victim against his will. As a result thereof, he
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove
sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct
the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his
and immediate cause of his death.
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment shall
determine if the act or omission from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist. When the When arraigned on July 9, 1998, both appellants
exoneration is merely due to the failure to prove the pleaded not guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they were
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but also by
court should award the civil liability in favor of the an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. After
offended party in the same criminal action. In other due trial, appellants were found guilty and sentenced
words, the "extinction of the penal action does not to death.
carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final On appeal, two things stand out: first, there
judgment that the fact from which the civil [liability] were no eyewitnesses to the robbery or to the
might arise did not exist." homicide; and second, none of the items allegedly
stolen were recovered or presented in evidence.
While an act or omission is felonious because it is
punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so Appellants argued that the pieces of
circumstantial evidence submitted by the prosecution
much because it is a crime but because it caused
are insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
damage to another. Hence, for Abellana to be civilly doubt. The prosecution counters that these pieces of
liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the evidence, taken together, necessarily lead to their
acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses. conviction.

Based on the records of the case, Abellana did not Issue: WON the evidences of the Prosecution is
cause any damage to spouses Alonto. Spouses Alonto sufficient to warrant conviction.
indeed signed the document and that their signatures
were genuine and not forged. Even assuming that Ruling:
spouses Alonto did not personally appear before the The appeal is meritorious. The prosecutions evidence
notary public, the non-appearance does not does not prove the guilt of appellants beyond
necessarily nullify or render void ab initio the Deed reasonable doubt; hence, their constitutional right to
of Absolute Sale. be presumed innocent remains and must be upheld.
Circumstantial evidence that merely arouses
suspicions or gives room for conjecture is not
There is no basis to hold Abellana civilly liable to sufficient to convict. It must do more than just raise
restore ownership and possession of the subject the possibility, or even the probability, of guilt. It
properties to the spouses Alonto or to pay must engender moral certainty. Otherwise, the
them P1,103,000.00 representing the value of the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails, and
properties and to pay them nominal damages, the accused deserves acquittal.
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation
expenses.

82. Basilonia vs. Villaruz


THIRD DIVISION In July, 2003, Richard Natividad, Milo Malong and
G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015 Bing Nanquil, representing themselves as contractors
RODOLFO BASILONIA, LEODEGARIO with business in Pamanga, bought contraction
CATALAN AND JOHN BASILONIA, materials from Armilyn, worth P500,054.00. Per
Petitioners, v. HON. DELANO F. VLLLARUZ, their agreement, 20% of the amount should be paid
ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING within seven days, while the remaining 80% shall be
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, paid within 35 days, with post-dated checks. After
ROXAS CITY, BRANCH 16, AND DIXON the last delivery, Richard paid P20,000.00 and issued
ROBLETE, Respondents. two post-dated checks drawn from Metrobank,
Facts: Pampanga branch. Upon maturity, Armilyn
deposited the checks in her account with Equitable
On June 19, 1987, a decision was promulgated PCIBank; they were however dishonoured. When
against the petitioners, wherein the court finds the Armilyn communicated the fact of dishonour to
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the Richard, the latter replaced the checks with two post-
crime of murder of Attorney Isagani Roblete on dated Metrobank checks, which again were
September 15, 1983 in Roxas City, Philippines with dishonored. Despite demand, Richard and his
no aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The partners failed to make good on the checks, hence
petitioners appealed but was denied by the CA. Armilyn filed a case for BP 22 against Richard and
After two decades from the entry of judgement Milo Malong before the MeTC of Makati City.
Dixon Roblete the son of the deceased Atty. Roblete
filed a motion for execution on May 11, 2009, After trial, the MeTC Makati City convicted Richard
alleging, among others, that despite his request to as charged, hence he appealed to the RTC, arguing
the City Prosecutor to file a motion for execution, that the MeTC of Makati City had no jurisdiction
the judgment has not been enforced because said over the case. He asserted that since the subject
prosecutor has not acted upon is request. Pursuant to checks were issued, drawn, and delivered to
the trial court's directive, the Assistant City petitioner in Subic, the venue of the action was
Prosecutor filed on May 22, 2009 an Omnibus improperly laid for none of the elements of the
Motion for Execution of Judgment and Issuance of offense actually transpired in Makati City. He also
Warrant of Arrest. assailed the absence of the public prosecutor, as the
That the petitioners would like to avail bail however latter delegated the prosecution of the case to the
they did not appear before the court which forfeited private prosecutor.
their manifestation for bail and that the court issued
a writ of execution. The RTC affirmed the conviction. The Court of
Appeals, however, reversed the lower courts. It ruled
Issue: that MeTC had no jurisdiction over the case, as all
Whether or not a trial court has jurisdiction to grant the elements of the crime of BP 22 happened in
writ of execution which was filed 20 years ago Pampanga. Since all the elements of the crime
happened in Pampanga the case should have been
Held: Yes because the prescription of penalty will filed in Pampanga, not where Armilyn deposited the
only commence when they were put in custody or in checks, in Makati City.
prison which does not happened in this case for the
longest time, despite that they were sentenced by Armilyn appealed to the Supreme Court.
final judgment, thus the prescription will not run in
THE ISSUE:
their favor. Therefore the court did not commit any
wrong to grant the execution. Moreover, thus every Whether or not the court of the place where the
criminally liable is also civilly liable therefore the checks were deposited, had jurisdiction to try a case
writ of execution of final judgement does not for BP 22.
expired and the court has jurisdiction to issue and
take eefect the writ of execution. THE RULING:

It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are


categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. In
83. Morillo vs. People such cases, the court wherein any of the crimes
essential and material acts have been committed
FACTS: maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being
understood that the first court taking cognizance of
the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged because the alleged disbursement vouchers, which
with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly were supposed to be annexed to the COA Report as
tried in any municipality or territory where the proof of nonpayment of RATA, were not submitted
offense was in part committed.
with said report.
84. Estino v. People
G.R. NOS. 163957-58, April 7, 2009 Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of
Rule 121 a new trial before a judgment of conviction becomes
final when new and material evidence has been
FACTS: discovered which the accused could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered and
For review before the Court under Rule 45 are the produced at the trial and which if introduced and
April 16, 2004 Decision and June 14, 2004 admitted would probably change the judgment.
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in the consolidated Although the documents offered by petitioners are
Criminal Cases Nos. 26192 and 26193 entitled strictly not newly discovered, it appears to us that
People of the Philippines v. Munib S. Estino and petitioners were mistaken in their belief that its
Ernesto G. Pescadera. production during

In G.R. Nos. 163957-58, petitioners Munib S. Estino Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of
and Ernesto G. Pescadera appeal their conviction of a new trial before a judgment of conviction becomes
violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. (RA) final when new and material evidence has been
3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for discovered which the accused could not
failure to pay the Representation and Transportation with reasonable diligence have discovered and
Allowance (RATA) of the provincial government produced at the trial and which if introduced and
employees of Sulu. In G.R. Nos. 164009-11, admitted would probably change the judgment.
petitioner Pescadera alone appeals his conviction of Although the documents offered by petitioners are
malversation of public funds under Article 217 Of the strictly not newly discovered, it appears to us that
Revised Penal Code for failure to remit the petitioners were mistaken in their belief that its
Government Service Insurance System production during trial was unnecessary.
(GSIS) contributions of the provincial government
employees amounting to PhP 4,820,365.30.

85. Briones vs. People


In these consolidated appeals, petitioners pray for
GR NO 156009
their acquittal. June 5, 2009
FACTS
ISSUE:
An Information was filed against Briones for the
crime of robbery. Briones allegedly took the service
Whether a new trial is proper in the determination the
firearm of S/G Gual while the latter approached
guilt of the petitioners in non-payment of RATA in group where the former is involve in a mauling. S/G
violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019. Gual positively identified Briones. RTC found
Briones guilty of the crime of simple theft after
RULING: giving weight to prosecutions positive testimony as
against the defences of denial and alibi.
YES. Petitioners defense is anchored on their On his appeal, he raised the issue of self-defence. The
payment of RATA, and for this purpose, they Court of Appeals found Briones guilty of robbery
submitted documents which allegedly show that they under Article 293 in relation to par. 5 of Article 294
paid the RATA under the 1998 reenacted budget. of RPC and not of theft.
They also claim that the COA Report did not
ISSUE
sufficiently prove that they did not pay the RATA
Whether or not a new trial may be granted on the Briones group and another person. To be sure, there
ground of newly discovered evidence. was nothing unlawful in preventing a fight from
further escalating and in using reasonable and
RULING necessary means to stop it. This conclusion is
strengthened by evidence showing that at the time of
No. For new trial to be granted on the ground of the incident, Briones was drunk and was with three
newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of the companions; they all participated in the mauling.
following conditions must obtain:
For these reasons, the Court find that the CA did not
a the evidence must have been discovered after commit any reversible error when it denied Briones'
trial; motion for new trial. Likewise, we find no error in
b the evidence could not have been discovered at the RTC and CA conclusion that he is criminally
the trial even with the exercise of reasonable liable under the criminal information.
diligence;
c the evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching; and
d the evidence must affect the merits of the case
and produce a different result if admitted.26
86. Saludaga vs. Sandiganbayan

In this case, although the firearm surfaced after the Facts:


trial, the other conditions were not established. Saludaga and Genio entered into a Pakyaw
Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must Contract for the construction of Barangay Day Care
be one that could not, by the exercise of due Centers without conducting a competitive public
diligence, have been discovered before the trial in the bidding as required by law, which caused damage and
court below.27 The determinative test is the presence prejudice to the government. An information was
of due or reasonable diligence to locate the thing to filed for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 by
be used as evidence in the trial. causing undue injury to the Government. The
information was quashed for failure to prove the
Under the circumstances, Briones failed to show that actual damage, hence a new information was filed,
he had exerted reasonable diligence to locate the now for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 by giving
firearm; his allegation in his Omnibus Motion that he unwarranted benefit to a private person. The accused
told his brothers and sisters to search for the firearm, moved for a new preliminary investigation to be
which yielded negative results, is purely self-serving. conducted on the ground that there is substitution
He also now admits having taken the firearm and and/or substantial amendment of the first
having immediately disposed of it at a nearby house, information.
adjacent to the place of the incident.28 Hence, even
before the case went to court, he already knew the Issue:
location of the subject firearm, but did not do Whether or not there is substitution and/or substantial
anything; he did not even declare this knowledge at amendment of the information that would warrant an
the trial below. new preliminary investigation.

In petitions for new trial in a criminal proceeding Ruling:


where a certain evidence was not presented, the No, there is no substitution and/or substantial
defendant, in order to secure a new trial, must satisfy amendment.
the court that he has a good defense, and that the
acquittal would in all probability follow the Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In
introduction of the omitted evidence.30 The Court find addition to acts or omissions of public officers
that Briones change of defense from denial and alibi already penalized by existing law, the following shall
to self-defense or in defense of a relative will not constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
change the outcome for Briones considering that he are hereby declared to be unlawful:
failed to show unlawful aggression on the part of S/G
Molina and/or S/G Gual the essential element of xxxx
these justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the
Code. The records show that prior to the taking of the (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
firearm, S/G Molina and S/G Gual approached the Government, or giving any private party any
Briones and his companions to stop the fight between unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad Lumanog likewise filed a motion for new trial for the
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision presentation of a new witness, who was allegedly on
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or board a taxi immediately behind Abadillas car, and
government corporations charged with the grant of who clearly saw that those who perpetrated the
licenses or permits or other concessions. gruesome crime were not the accused

That there are two (2) different modes of committing In his Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration,
the offense: either by causing undue injury or by Lumanog assailed the inconsistencies in the
giving private person unwarranted benefit. That declarations of Alejo, and the non-presentation of
accused may be charged under either mode or under eyewitnesses Minella Alarcon and Metro Aide Aurora
both. Hence a new preliminary investigation is Urbano. In addition, Lumanog pointed to well-
unnecessary. publicized statements of the Alex Boncayao Brigade
(ABB), which claimed responsibility for the killing
of Abadilla, but the investigation got sidetracked by
another angle -- that a political rival of Abadilla paid
money for a contract assassination. He contended that
87. Lumanog vs. People the police opted for the path of least resistance by
rounding up the usual suspects, indeed another
G.R. No. 182555.February 08, 2011 glaring example of our law enforcers strategy of
LENIDO LUMANOG AND AUGUSTO SANTOS, instituting trumped-up charges against innocent
petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, people
respondent.
On January 25, 2000, the trial court issued an Order
ruling on the pending motions:
I. THE FACTS WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court
resolves:
Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the 1. to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration by
ambush-slay of former Chief of the Metropolitan accused Lenido Lumanog;
Command Intelligence and Security Group of the 2. to DENY the Motion for New Trial by accused
Philippine Constabulary (now the Philippine National Joel de Jesus;
Police), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla. 3. to consider the Motion for New Trial by accused
Lenido Lumanog as abandoned and/or withdrawn;
The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie 4. to DENY the Supplement to the Motion for
Alejo, a security guard employed assigned at 211 Reconsideration by accused Lenido Lumanog as well
Katipunan Avenue, Blue Ridge, Quezon City, where as his addendum thereto and his Manifestation and
the ambush-slay happened. As a purported Motion dated December 15, 1999 to allow him to
eyewitness, he testified on what he saw during the introduce additional evidence in support of his
fateful day, including the faces of the accused. Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration;
5. to DENY the Manifestation and Submission dated
All the accused raised the defense of alibi, December 14, 1999 by accused Lenido Lumanog;
highlighted the negative findings of ballistic and 6. and to ORDER the immediate transmittal of the
fingerprint examinations, and further alleged torture records of these cases to the Honorable Supreme
in the hands of police officers and denial of Court for automatic review pursuant to law, the Rules
constitutional rights during custodial investigation. of Court and the Joint Decision of this court dated
July 30, 1999.
The trial court however convicted the accused-
appellants. Lumanog challenged before the Supreme Court the
validity of the Orders dated January 25, 26, and 28,
On August 25, 1999, Lumanog filed a motion for 2000 allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion
reconsideration.On September 2, 1999, Joel filed a on the part of the trial judge who thereby denied the
motion for new trial based on newly discovered accused the opportunity to introduce evidence on the
evidence to present two witnesses, Merevic S. alleged role of the ABB in the ambush-slay of Col.
Torrefranca and Rosemarie P. Caguioa, who offered Abadilla. O
to testify on the whereabouts of Joel on the day of the
incident.
On September 7, 2001, the Suprme Court denied his the trial to secure testimonies from police officers
petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 142065. like Jurado, or other persons involved in the
investigation, who questioned or objected to the
Accused-petitioners motion for reconsideration of the apprehension of the accused in this case. Hence, the
above decision was denied with finality. belatedly executed affidavit of Jurado does not
On September 17, 2002, this Court likewise denied qualify as newly discovered evidence that will justify
for lack of merit the motion for new trial and related re-opening of the trial and/or vacating the judgment.
relief dated April 26, 2002 filed by counsel for said In any case, we have ruled that whatever
accused-petitioner.

The CA affirmed with modification the decision of "A perusal of the pieces of evidence, except the
the trial court. The CA upheld the conviction of the Omega wristwatch, which are sought to be presented
accused-appellants based on the credible eyewitness by the petitioners in a new trial are not newly
testimony of Alejo, who vividly recounted before the discovered evidence because they were either
trial court their respective positions and participation available and could have been presented by the
in the fatal shooting of Abadilla, having been able to defense during the trial of the case with the exercise
witness closely how they committed the crime. of due diligence, such as the alleged newspaper
reports and AFP/PNP intelligence materials on Col.
Abadilla. The wristwatch allegedly belonging to the
II. THE ISSUES late Col. Abadilla is immaterial to the case of murder
while the testimony of F. Roberto Reyes on the turn
over of the said wristwatch by an alleged member of
Did the Orders dated January 25, 26, and 28, 2000 of the ABB who purportedly knows certain facts about
the Trial Court: the killing of Col. Abadilla would be hearsay without
1. DENY the Motion for Reconsideration by accused the testimony in court of the said alleged member of
Lenido Lumanog; the ABB. The document which granted amnesty to
2. to DENY the Motion for New Trial by accused Wilfredo Batongbakal is irrelevant to the killing of
Joel de Jesus; Col. Abadilla inasmuch as Batongbakal does not
3. to consider the Motion for New Trial by accused appear privy to the actual commission of the crime of
Lenido Lumanog as abandoned and/or withdrawn; murder in the case at bar. If at all, those pieces of
4. to DENY the Supplement to the Motion for additional evidence will at most be merely
Reconsideration corroborative to the defense of alibi and denial of
herein petitioners. Petitioners alternative prayer that
issued with grave abuse of discretion? this Court itself conduct hearings and receive
evidence on the ABB angle is not well taken for the
reason that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts"
III. THE RULING

No. 88. Payumo v. Sandiganbayan


654 SCRA 277, July 25, 2011
The Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari.
Facts:
To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment
of conviction on the basis of such evidence, it must be The petitions stem from the facts of Criminal Case
shown that the evidence was newly discovered No. 4219 involving a shooting incident that occurred
pursuant to Section 2, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules on February 26, 1980 at around 5:30 o'clock in the
of Criminal Procedure, as amended.To justify a afternoon in Sitio Aluag, Barangay Sta. Barbara, Iba,
new trial or setting aside of the judgment of Zambales. A composite team of Philippine
conviction on the basis of such evidence, it must be Constabulary (PC) and Integrated National Police
shown that the evidence was newly discovered (INP) units allegedly fired at a group of civilians
pursuant to Section 2, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules instantly killing one and wounding several others.
of Criminal Procedure, as amended. Evidence, to be The accused were indicted for Murder with Multiple
considered newly discovered, must be one that could Frustrated and Attempted Murder before the
not, by the exercise of due diligence, have been Sandiganbayan.
discovered before the trial in the court below. Movant
failed to show that the defense exerted efforts during
After four years of trial, the Second Division of the do not meet the criteria for newly discovered
Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision dated October evidence that would merit a new trial. A motion for
5, 1984, convicting the accused as co- new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may
principals in the crime of Murder with Multiple be granted only if the following requisites are met:
Frustrated and Attempted Murder. On January 11, (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b)
1985, the accused filed their Motion for New Trial, that said evidence could not have been discovered
which was denied. The accused elevated the case to and produced at the trial even with the exercise of rea
the Supreme Court, which set aside the October 5, sonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely
1984 Decision of the Sandiganbayan and remanding cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that
the case for a new trial. Thus, Criminal Case No. the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted,
4219 was remanded to the Sandiganbayan and was would probably change the judgment. It is essential
raffled to the First Division. Accordingly, the First that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence
Division received anew all the evidence of the in seeking to locate the evidence before or during
parties, both testimonial and documentary. Later, with trial but nonetheless failed to secure it. In this case,
the creation of the Fourth and Fifth divisions, however, such records could have been easily
Criminal Case No. 4219 was transferred to the Fifth obtained by the accused and could have been
Division. presented during the trial with the exercise of
reasonable diligence. Hence, the JAGO records
On February 23, 1999, the Fifth Division cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence.
promulgated judgment, convicting the accused of the There was nothing that prevented the accused from
crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. using these records during the trial to substantiate
The accused filed their Omnibus Motion to Set Aside their position that the shooting incident was a result
Judgment and for New Trial. Since the Fifth Division of a military operation. Accordingly, the assailed
could not reach unanimity in resolving the aforesaid Resolution dated October 24, 2001 must be set aside.
omnibus motion, a Special Fifth Division was
constituted pursuant to Section 1 (b) of Rule XVIII of
the 1984 Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan. On
September 27, 2001, Special Fifth Division, voting 3- 89. Macapagal vs. People
2, issued the subject Resolution promulgated on
October 24, 2001, setting aside the November 27, G.R. No. 193217 February 26, 2014
1998 Decision and granting a second new trial of the
case. The Special Fifth Division pronounced among
others that a second new trial would enable it to CORAZON MACAPAGAL, Petitioner,
allow the accused to adduce pertinent evidence vs.
including the records of the Judge Advocate General PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Office (JAGO), Armed Forces of the Philippines, to
shed light on the "serious allegations" On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision
finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa for
Issue:
misappropriating, for her own benefit, the total
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of its
jurisdiction when it granted a new trial of Criminal amount of P800,000.00 for unreturned and unsold
Case pieces of jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on
January 13, 2009 then she timely moved for
Held: reconsideration, but was likewise denied in an Order
Yes. The Court finds and so rules that the dated May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly
Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division acted in excess
received on July 31, 2009. She supposedly filed a
of its jurisdiction. The Court finds the issue to be
devoid of any legal and factual basis. Rule 121, Notice of Appeal on August 3, 2009, but the same
Section 2(b) of the 2000 Rules on Criminal was denied on June 29, 2010 for having been filed
Procedure provides that: new and material evidence out of time. Aggrieved, petitioner comes directly
has been discovered which the accused could not before the Supreme Court in this petition for review
with reasonable diligence have discovered and on certiorari alleging that the RTC of Manila gravely
produced at the trial and which if introduced and erred in denying their notice of appeal, in convicting
admitted would probably change the judgment, as
petitioner for estafa and in denying their motion for
one of the grounds to grant a new trial. The records of
the JAGO relative to the February 26, 1980 incident reconsideration and/or new trial.
ISSUE: special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, in availing
of the wrong mode of appeal in this petition under
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65,
BRANCH 9, GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING the petition merits an outright dismissal.
THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE
HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT. Second, even if we treat this petition as one for
certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for
HELD: violation of the hierarchy of courts. Direct resort to
this Court is allowed only if there are special,
No. The Court notes that the instant case suffers from important and compelling reasons which are not
various procedural infirmities. First, petitioner present in this case.
availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial
courts denial of her notice of appeal. Sections 2 and Third, the petitioner failed to attach a clearly legible
3, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal duplicate original or a certified true copy of the
Procedure lay down the rules on where, how and assailed decision convicting her of estafa and the
when appeal is taken, to wit: order denying her motion for reconsideration which
she also assails in addition to the denial of her notice
SEC. 2. Where to appeal. The appeal may be taken of appeal. A petition for review on certiorari under
as follows: Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must contain a certified
true copy or duplicate original of the assailed
(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court decision, final order or judgment.
in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided
by the Regional Trial Court; and The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SEC. 3. How appeal taken. (a) The appeal to the


Regional Trial Court or to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal filed with the court which 90. People vs Morales
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must Facts: Police Officers Roy and Rivera apprehended M
be taken within fifteen days from promulgation of the violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. During
judgment or from notice of the final order appealed for the prosecution telling the lower court that th
from x x x. and presentation in court, were turned over
examination. From the witnesses statements, th
decision of the trial court convicting Morales. In
Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of claimed that the evidence of the corpus delicti ne
appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. the illegal acts such that the two Officers did not
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of creating serious doubt as to the items and actual qu
Court is a mode of appeal of a lower courts decision the Solicitor General, the testimony of the O
or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However, possession and sale of shabu.
the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is
Issue: Whether the affirmation of the Court of Appeal p
not a decision or final order from which an appeal
delicti beyond reasonable doubt
may be taken. The Rules of Court specifically
provides that no appeal shall be taken from an order Held: No. Under RA 9165, the apprehending team havi
disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the immediately after seizure and confiscation, physical
aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a presence of the accused or the persons/s from whom
Issue:
his/her representative or counsel, a representative fromWhether
the mediaorand
notthe
theDepartment
Court of Appeals
of Justiceerred in
(DOJ),
dismissing
and any elected public official who shall be required petitioners
to sign Notice
the copies of of Appeal
the inventory andonbe ground
given a
copy thereof. of lack of jurisdiction.

Held: in court, were not marked, inventoried and taken


Here, the objects seized, which was not even presented
photograph in the presence of the Morales, anyNo. The petition
representative hasmedia,
from the no merit. Upon
the DOJ, or anyBalabas
elective
conviction
official participating in the operation who later signed bythe the RTC, What
inventory. his remedy should
was being done have
was
immediate turn-over of the items. In fine, thebeen anofappeal
identity the to the Sandiganbayan as stated in
beyond reasonable doubt. There was likewiseParagraph 3, Section
a break in the chain of 4(c) of Republic
custody Act fatal
which proves No. to
8249
the
prosecutions case. Thus, since the prosecution(RA
has 8249),
failed towhich reads:
establish the element of
the prescribed degree of proof required for successful prosecution of both possession and sale of
prohibited drugs. Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or
orders of the regional trial courts whether in the
91. Balaba vs People exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their
appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
IRENORIO B. BALABA vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES The Court of Appeals is bereft of any jurisdiction to
G.R. No. 169519 July 17, 2009 review the judgment Balaba seeks to appeal.

Facts: Citing Melencion v. Sandiganbayan, An error in


designating the appellate court is not fatal to the
On October 1993, State Auditors of the Provincial appeal. However, the correction in designating the
Auditors Office conducted an examination of the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-
cash and accounts of the accountable officers of the day period to appeal. Once made within the said
Municipality of Guindulman, Bohol. The State period, the designation of the correct appellate court
Auditors discovered a shortage of P114, 186.34 may be allowed even if the records of the case are
traceable to Balaba. forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the
second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules
In an Information dated 26 April 1995, the Office of of court would apply. The second paragraph of
the Special Prosecutor charged Balaba with the Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court reads: "An
crime of Malversation of Public Funds. During his appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals
arraignment on 17 May 1996, Balaba entered a plea shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but
of not guilty. shall be dismissed outright."

On 9 December 2002, the trial court found Balaba Balaba sought the correction of the error only after
guilty. The dispositive portion of the 9 December the expiration of the period to appeal. The trial court
2002 and promulgated its Decision on 9 December 2002.
sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence of 10 Balaba filed his notice of appeal on 14 January
YEARS AND ONE DAY as minimum, to 17 2003. The Court of Appeals issued the Decision
YEARS, 4 MONTHS AND ONE DAY of Reclusion declaring its lack of jurisdiction on 15 December
Temporal as maximum. He shall suffer the penalty 2004. Balaba tried to correct the error only on 27
of perpetual special disqualification and a fine of January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day period to
P114, 186.34. appeal from the decision of the trial court.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not commit any
On 14 January 2003, Balaba filed his Notice of error when it dismissed Balabas appeal because of
Appeal before the Court of Appeals. On 15 lack of jurisdiction.
December 2004 the Court of Appeals dismissed it.
The Court of Appeals declared that it had no
jurisdiction to act on the appeal because the 92. People vs. Olivo
Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over the case. On 27 January 2005, Balaba filed a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CHARMEN
Motion for Reconsideration and was denied. Hence, OLIVO (G.R. NO. 177768, JULY 27, 2009)
this instant petition for review.
FACTS:
On November 21, 2000, around 6:30 oclock affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the
in the evening, Maricel Permejo was tending the store judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
of the victim, Mariano Constantino in Bagong applicable to the latter. Our pronouncements here
Silangan, Quezon City. Suddenly, three (3) armed with respect to the insufficiency of the prosecution
men entered the store and demanded money. When evidence to convict appellants beyond reasonable
Maricel did not accede to the demand, one of the doubt are definitely favorable and applicable to
armed men later identified as appellant Nelson Danda accused Joey Zafra, should not therefore be treated as
kicked her in the leg while his other companion, the odd man out and should benefit from the acquittal
appellant Joey Zafra got money from the cash of his co-accused.
register. When the store owner, Mariano Constantino,
went inside the store and shouted, the third
companion, appellant Charmen Olivo poked a gun at
him. Mariano ran towards the back of the house but 93. Guasch vs. Dela Cruz
appellant Olivo nevertheless chased him. Thereafter,
Maricel heard successive shots and saw appellants GUASCH VS. DELA CRUZ
Danda and Zafra going out of the store while the 589 SCRA 297
bloodied body of Mariano was lying at the stairway
of the house. The victim was taken to the hospital FACTS:
where he died upon arrival. Arnaldo dela Cruz filed a Complaint-Affidavit
against Mercedita Guasch as the latter transacted
Two days after the incident SPO2 Joseph business with him by exchanging cash for checks of
Dino received information from the Batasan Police small amount without interest.
Station that they have three (3) suspects for drug
violations and illegal possession of firearms. He On 26 July 1999, Guasch requested Dela Cruz to
borrowed the suspects for identification by Maricel. exchange her check with cash amounting to P3.3
When presented to her, she identified them as the million. He initially refused but was later convinced
men who staged a hold up and shot the deceased. to do so upon the assurance that the former will have
the funds and the bank deposit to cover the said
On August 24, 2004, the RTC rendered a check by January 2000. However, on its maturity
decision convicting accused-appellants of the crime date and upon presentment, the check was
of robbery with homicide. The dispositive portion of dishonored as the account from which it was drawn
the decision states: was already closed. Subsequently, information for
Estafa was filed against Guasch. She then entered a
Accused-appellants Olivo and Danda appealed to the plea of not guilty and later filed a Motion with
Court of Appeals. Leave to Admit Demurrer to Evidence, which the
trial court granted, resulting to the dismissal of the
In a decision dated November 30, 2006, the Court of case.
Appeals affirmed in toto the RTCs decision.
On 28 June 2005, Dela Cruz received a copy of the
ISSUE: aforementioned order, hence, he filed a Motion to
Amend in order to include the finding of civil
Whether an accused that has not perfected liability of Guasch. The counsel of the former
an appeal should be included in a decision of justified his failure to file the said motion within the
acquittal on appeal by the other co-accused. period of 15 days because all postal offices in Metro
Manila were allegedly closed to give way for the
HELD:
rally to be held in the area. He also filed a Petition
YES. In view of the foregoing, acquittal of for Certiorari with the appellate court to set aside the
the accused-appellants is in order. The other accused order granting the demurrer to evidence while the
Joey Zafra who is identically circumstanced as the trial court denied the Motion to Amend as counsel
other appellants and who was likewise convicted on for respondent was inexcusably negligent. A Motion
the same evidence, does not appear to have perfected for Reconsideration was filed but was also denied.
an appeal from the trial courts judgment. The record
does not show the reason therefore. ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
Be that as if may the present rule is that an holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of
appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not
discretion when it denied the respondents Motion to trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when
Amend? it denied respondents Motion to Amend.

HELD:
As a general rule, the statutory requirement that 94. People vs. Taruc
when no motion for reconsideration is filed within
the reglementary period, the decision attains finality People vs. Taruc , 579 SCRA 682, G.R. No. 185202
and becomes executory in due course must be February 18, 2009
strictly enforced as they are considered
indispensable interdictions against needless delays Doctrine: Once an accused escapes from prison or
and for orderly discharge of judicial business. The confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign
purposes for such statutory requirement are two- country, he loses his standing in court and unless he
fold: to avoid delay in the administration of justice surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court
and to put an end to judicial controversies, which are he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief
precisely why the courts exist. from the court

Although Rule 124, Section 8 particularly applies to


However, in exceptional cases, substantial justice
the Court of Appeals, it has been extended to the
and equity considerations warrant the giving of due
Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the Revised
course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads: SECTION
of statutory and mandatory rules of procedure. The
1. Uniform procedure.Unless otherwise provided
elements considered for the appeal to be given due
by the Constitution or by law, the procedure in the
course, are as follows: (1) the existence of special or
Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases
compelling circumstances, (2) the merits of the case,
shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals.
(3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of Facts:
the rules, (4) lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (5) the
other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby. 1. That on or about November 8, 1998 Francisco
Taruc , with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
In the case at bar, there is ostensible merit to premeditation, did then and there willfully,
respondents cause. The records show that petitioner unlawfully and feloniously attack , assault and use
admits her civil obligation to respondent. However, personal violence upon Emelito Sualog (Elmer), by
the respondent did not waive, reserve, nor institute a
then and there shooting him with a Celiber (sic) 45
civil action for the recovery of the civil liability,
hence, the trial court was duty-bound to determine on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting
the civil liability, as it is deemed instituted with the upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and
criminal action. Moreover, it cannot be said that immediate cause of his death, thereafter, to the
petitioner will be unduly prejudiced if respondents damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.
Motion to Amend for the sole purpose of including
the civil liability of petitioner in the order of 2. Upon arraignment on 25 April 2005, accused, duly
acquittal shall be allowed. Respondent concededly
assisted by a lawyer from the Public Attorneys
has an available remedy even if his Motion to
Amend was denied, which is to institute a separate Office (PAO), pleaded not guilty to the crime
civil action to recover petitioners civil liability. charged.
Nevertheless, to require him to pursue this remedy
at this stage will only prolong the litigation between 3. RTC: Guility of MURDER, penalty of DEATH
the parties which negates the avowed purpose of the
strict enforcement of reglementary periods to
appeal. 4. The case was brought to the Court of Appeals for
automatic review
It is a cherished rule of procedure that a court should
always strive to settle the entire controversy in a 5. On 13 January 2006, accused-appellant, through
single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the PAO, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
the seeds of future litigation. Given the Appellants Brief
circumstances in this case, the Court ruled that the
6. The PAO lawyer concerned informed the Court [O]nce an accused escapes from prison or
of Appeals that accused-appellant escaped from confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign
prison on 23 August 2002. Said PAO lawyer country, he loses his standing in court and unless he
claimed that he had no means of knowing the surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court
current whereabouts of the accused-appellant. he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief
Thereupon, the PAO lawyer asked the Court of from the court.
Appeals to direct the Warden of the Provincial
Jail in Balanga, Bataan, to file a certification as to There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be
the accused-appellants escape. waived even by the accused himself, but the right of
appeal is not one of them. This right is granted solely
7. The period of extension granted had lapsed without for the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or
the accused-appellant filing his brief; thus, the Court not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly
of Appeals required the PAO to show cause why the or by implication. When the accused flees after the
latter should not be held in contempt for failing to file case has been submitted to the court for decision, he
the same. will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal
from the judgment rendered against him x x x.
8. On 27 February 2008, the Court of Appeals
rendered a Decision affirming with modification the The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal
Decision of the RTC. unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the
court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from
9. On 13 March 2008, accused-appellant, still notice of the judgment against him. While at large, he
represented by the PAO, filed a Notice of Appeal cannot seek relief from the court, as he is deemed to
stating that he was appealing the Decision of the have waived the appeal. Thus, having escaped from
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court on questions prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court;
of law and fact. And on 29 April 2008, the Court of and unless he surrenders or submits to its jurisdiction,
Appeals gave due course to accused-appellants he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief
appeal and directed its Records Division to forward from the court.
the rollo and records of the case to the Supreme
Court. By putting himself beyond the reach and application
of the legal processes of the land, accused-appellant
10. He remains at large even while his counsel revealed his contempt of the law and placed himself
continues to file various pleadings on his behalf in a position to speculate, at his pleasure on his
before the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this chances for a reversal. In the process, he kept himself
Court. out of the reach of justice, but hoped to render the
judgment nugatory at his option.Such conduct is
Issue: intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part of
the appellate court.
Given that the accused-appellant escaped from jail
and eluded arrest until the present, the issue of Accused-appellant, in the case at bar, has
whether he has lost his right to appeal his conviction remained at large for most of the proceedings
inexorably ensues. before the RTC, as well as for the entirety of the
pendency of his appeal before the Court of
Held: Yes, By escaping prison, accused-appellant Appeals, and even until now when his appeal is
impliedly waived his right to appeal. The Court of pending before this Court. He cannot so
Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu audaciously hope that his appeal before this Court
proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes would succeed. He only hopes in vain.
from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a
foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
95. Tiu vs. People probation law the accused who appeals "from
the judgment of conviction" is disqualified
from availing himself of the benefits
of probation. But, as it happens, two judgments of
96. Colinares vs. People conviction have been meted out to Arnel: one, a
conviction for frustrated homicide by the regional
ARNEL COLINARES trial court, now set aside; and, two, a conviction for
vs. attempted homicide by the Supreme Court. If the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Court chooses to go by the dissenting opinion's hard
G.R. No. 182748 : December 13, 2011 position, it will apply the probation law on Arnel
based on the trial court's annulled judgment against
FACTS: Arnel Colinares was found guilty of him. He will not be entitled to probation because of
frustrated homicide and sentenced him to suffer the severe penalty that such judgment imposed on
imprisonment from two years and four months of him. More, the Supreme Court's judgment of
prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one conviction for a lesser offense and a lighter penalty
day of prision mayor, as maximum. Since the will also have to bend over to the trial court's
maximum probationable imprisonment under the law judgment--even if this has been found in error. And,
was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for worse, Arnel will now also be made to pay for the
probation. trial court's erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of
his right to apply for probation.
ISSUE: Whether or not he may still apply for
probation on remand of the case to the trial court Ang kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sakalabaw
given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for (the horse errs, the carabao gets the whip).
a lower offense and a reduced probationable penalty.
Where is justice there? The dissenting opinion also
HELD: Ordinarily, Arnel would no longer be entitled expresses apprehension that allowing Arnel to apply
to apply for probation, he having appealed from the for probation would dilute the ruling of this Court in
judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated Francisco v. Court of Appeals:
homicide. But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of .
the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that that the probation law requires that an accused must
the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should not have appealed his conviction before he can avail
be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto himself of probation. But there is a huge difference
mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of between Francisco and this case. In Francisco, the
prision correccional, as maximum. With this new Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati found
penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the right to the accused guilty of grave oral defamation and
apply for probation upon remand of the case to the sentenced him to a prison term of one year and one
RTC. Some in the Court disagrees. They contend that day to one year and eight months of prision
probation is a mere privilege granted by the state only correccional, a clearly probationable
to qualified convicted offenders. Section 4 of the penalty. Probation was his to ask! Still, he chose to
probation law (PD 968) provides: "That no appeal, seeking an acquittal, hence clearly waiving
application for probation shall be entertained or his right to apply for probation. When the acquittal
granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal did not come, he wanted probation. The Court would
from the judgment of conviction. Since Arnel not of course let him. It served him right that he
appealed his conviction for frustrated homicide, he wanted to save his cake and eat it too. He certainly
should be deemed permanently disqualified from could not have both appeal and probation. The
applying for probation. But, firstly, while it is true Probation Law, said the Court in
that probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that Francisco, requires that an accused must not have
Arnel has the right to such privilege; he certainly appealed his conviction before he can avail himself
does not have. What he has is the right to apply for of probation. This requirement "outlaws the element
that privilege. The Court finds that his maximum jail of speculation on the part of the accused--to wager on
term should only be 2 years and 4months. If the the result of his appeal--that when his conviction is
Court allows him to apply for probation because of finally affirmed on appeal, the moment of truth well-
the lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence
decide whether or not to grant him the privilege of inevitable, he now applies for probation as an `escape
probation, taking into account the full circumstances hatch' thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's
of his case. Secondly, it is true that under the affirmance of his conviction." Here, however, Arnel
did not appeal from a judgment that would have Court now finds, he did not commit? He only
allowed him to apply for probation. He did not have committed attempted homicide with its maximum
a choice between appeal and probation. He was not in penalty of 2 years and 4 months. Ironically, if the
a position to say, "By taking this appeal, I choose not Court denies Arnel the right to apply for probation
to apply for probation." The stiff penalty that the trial under the reduced penalty, it would be sending him
court imposed on him denied him that choice. Thus, a straight behind bars. It would be robbing him of the
ruling that would allow Arnel to now seek probation chance to instead undergo reformation as a penitent
under this Court's greatly diminished penalty will not offender, defeating the very purpose of the probation
dilute the sound ruling in Francisco. It remains that law. At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC
those who will appeal from judgments of conviction, done what was right and imposed on Arnel the
when they have the option to try for probation, forfeit correct penalty of two years and four months
their right to apply for that privilege. Besides, in maximum, he would have had the right to apply for
appealing his case, Arnel raised the issue of probation. No one could say with certainty that he
correctness of the penalty imposed on him. He would have availed himself of the right had the RTC
claimed that the evidence at best warranted his done right by him. The idea may not even have
conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, crossed his mind precisely since the penalty he got
homicide, which crime called for a probationable was not probationable.
penalty. In a way, therefore, Arnel sought from the
beginning to bring down the penalty to the level
where the law would allow him to apply 97. Villareal vs. People
for probation. In a real sense, the Court's finding that
Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, petitioner
of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that vs.
for the first time imposes on him a probationable PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it G.R. No. 151258
would have found him guilty of the correct offense
and imposed on him the right penalty of two years February 01, 2012
and four months maximum. This would have Ponente: SERENO, J.
afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation. The
Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his
right to probation through no fault of his. The BRIEF
underlying philosophy of probation is one of This is are 5 consolidated cases involving the death
liberality towards the accused. Such philosophy is not of Leonardo Lenny Villa, a freshman law student
served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law,
statutory provisions. As Justice Vicente V. Mendoza during initiation rites of the Aquila Legis Juris
said in his dissent in Francisco, the Probation Law
must not be regarded as a mere privilege to be given Fraternity.
to the accused only where it clearly appears he comes
within its letter; to do so would be to disregard the FACTS
teaching in many cases that the Probation Law should In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the
be applied in favor of the accused not because it is a Ateneo de Manila University School of Law signified
criminal law but to achieve its beneficent purpose. their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris
One of those who dissent from this decision points Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). They were Caesar
out that allowing Arnel to apply for probation after he
"Bogs" Asuncion, Samuel "Sam" Belleza,
appealed from the trial court's judgment of conviction
would not be consistent with the provision of Section Bienvenido "Bien" Marquez III, Roberto Francis
2 that the probation law should be interpreted to "Bert" Navera, Geronimo "Randy" Recinto, Felix Sy,
"provide an opportunity for the reformation of a Jr., and Leonardo "Lenny" Villa (neophytes).
penitent offender." An accused like Arnel who
appeals from a judgment convicting him, it is The neophytes had to undergo initiation rites that
claimed, shows no penitence. This may be true if the were scheduled to last for three days. Initiation rites
trial court meted out to Arnel a correct judgment of include physical and psychological sufferings such
conviction. Here, however, it convicted Arnel of the that the neophytes were punched, given knee blows
wrong crime, frustrated homicide that carried a to their thighs, paddled and were required to
penalty in excess of 6 years. How can the Court memorize and recite the principles of the Aquila
expect him to feel penitent over a crime, which as the Legis Juris Fraternity.
The neophytes had survived their first two days of Dismiss of accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and
initiation. However, after the neophytes had Adriano. On 25 October 2006, the CA reversed the
concluded their second day of initiation, and after a trial courts Orders and dismissed the criminal case
while, accused non-resident or alumni fraternity against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the
members Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal basis of violation of their right to speedy trial.
demanded that the rites be reopened. The head of
initiation rites, Nelson Victorino, initially refused. The decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting the
Upon insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he accused was appealed by the prosecution before the
reopened the initiation rites. After receiving again Supreme Court. The prosecution, to support their
several blows and paddles, the initiation for the day appeal, contends, among others, that such appeal
was officially ended and the neophytes had their does not violate the right of the accused against
dinner, then they slept at the carport. double jeopardy.

After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly ISSUE/S of the CASE
roused by Lennys shivering and incoherent 1. Whether or not the appeal by the prosecution of the
mumblings. When his conditioned worsened, the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting the
Aquilans rushed him to the hospital, but Lenny was accused of the charges violates the accused right
against double jeopardy.
pronounced dead on arrival.
HELD:
Consequently, two criminal cases for homicide was The rule on double jeopardy thus prohibits the state
filed against 35 Aquilans, one under Criminal Case from appealing the judgment in order to reverse the
no. C-38340(91) and the other was Criminal Case no. acquittal or to increase the penalty imposed either
C-38340. The trial in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) through a regular appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules
commenced thereafter. On the other hand, the trial of Court or through an appeal by certiorari on pure
against the remaining nine accused in Criminal Case questions of law under Rule 45 of the same
no. C-38340 was held in abeyance due to certain Rules.74 The requisites for invoking double jeopardy
matters that had to be resolved first. are the following: (a) there is a valid complaint or
information; (b) it is filed before a competent court;
Due to "several pending incidents," the trial court (c) the defendant pleaded to the charge; and (d) the
ordered a separate trial for accused Escalona, Saruca, defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case
Adriano, Ramos, Ampil, Concepcion, De Vera, S. against him or her was dismissed or otherwise
Fernandez, and Cabangon (Criminal Case No. C- terminated without the defendants express consent.75
38340) to commence after proceedings against the 26
other accused in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) As we have reiterated in People v. Court of Appeals
shall have terminated. On 8 November 1993, the trial and Galicia, "[a] verdict of acquittal is immediately
court found the 26 accused guilty beyond reasonable final and a reexamination of the merits of such
doubt. As a result, the proceedings in Criminal Case acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the
No. C-38340 involving the nine other co-accused accused in jeopardy for the same offense. The
recommenced on 29 November 1993. For "various finality-of-acquittal doctrine has several avowed
reasons," the initial trial of the case did not purposes. Primarily, it prevents the State from using
commence until 28 March 2005, or almost 12 years its criminal processes as an instrument of harassment
after the arraignment of the nine accused. to wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with
accumulated trials. It also serves the additional
The trial court in Criminal Case no. 38340 dismissed purpose of precluding the State, following an
the charge against accused Concepcion on the ground acquittal, from successively retrying the defendant in
of violation of his right to speedy trial. Meanwhile, the hope of securing a conviction. And finally, it
on different dates between the years 2003 and 2005, prevents the State, following conviction, from
the trial court denied the respective Motions to retrying the defendant again in the hope of securing a
greater penalty."76 We further stressed that "an Fraternity in conspiracy with more or less twenty
acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose other members and officers conducted initiation rite.
as a direct consequence of the finality of his MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte
was subjected to physical harm. After the initiation
acquittal."77
rites, accused Sibal inquired about Villanueva's
condition but he was ignored by Castillo. He then
XXX XXX XXX called co-accused Dungo for help. After Dungo
arrived at the resort, they hailed a tricycle and
In our view, what the Petition seeks is that we brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he
reexamine, reassess, and reweigh the probative value gave a false name to the security guard as he heard
that Dungo had done the same. RTC found Dungo
of the evidence presented by the parties. 88 In People
and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of
v. Maquiling, we held that grave abuse of discretion the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer
cannot be attributed to a court simply because it the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
allegedly misappreciated the facts and the
evidence.89 Mere errors of judgment are correctible The CA ruled that the appeal of Dungo and Sibal was
by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of bereft of merit. The accused thus appealed to the
the Rules of Court, and not by an application for a Supreme Court the CAs decision arguing that the
amended information charged them as they "did then
writ of certiorari.90 Therefore, pursuant to the rule on
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault
double jeopardy, we are constrained to deny the and use personal violence upon one Marlon
Petition contra Victorino et al. the 19 acquitted Villanueva y Mejilla." Yet, both the RTC and the CA
fraternity members. found them guilty of violating R.A. No. 8049 because
they "[i]nduced the victim to be present" during the
initiation rites.

ISSUE:

Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 was


the proper remedy in this case.

98. Dungo vs People RULING:

LESSON / DOCTRINE: No. An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a


decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher court
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a authority. The right to appeal is neither a natural right
component of due process. It is a mere statutory nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere
privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
and in accordance with the provisions of law.
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.

DANDY L. DUNGO and GREGORIO A. SIBAL,


JR., petitioners
vs.
Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-
GR No. 209464
03, dated October 15, 2004, governs the procedure on
01 July 2015
the appeal from the CA to the Court when the penalty
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
imposed is either reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. An accused, upon whom the penalty
of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment had been
imposed by the CA, can simply file a notice of appeal
FACTS
to allow him to pursue an appeal as a matter of right
before the Court. An appeal in a criminal case opens
On January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy.
the entire case for review on any question including
Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, the Alpha Phi Omega
one not raised by the parties. Section 13(c), Rule 124
recognizes the constitutionally conferred jurisdiction by the Finance Manager. This prompted the former to
of the Court in all criminal cases in which the penalty pursue the criminal charges against Manansala and
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. An accused, the Finance Manager.
nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to an
appeal by certiorari to the Court via Rule 45 under Issue:
the Rules of Court. An appeal to this Court by
petition for review on certiorari shall raise only Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed
questions of law. Moreover, such review is not a Manansalas conviction for Falsification of Private
matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and Documents.
will be granted only when there are special and
important reasons. Held:

The court agrees with the ruling of the courts a quo


In this case, the CA affirmed the RTC decision
convicting Manansala of the crime of Falsification of
imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon the
Private Documents, but disagrees in the appreciation
petitioners. The latter opted to appeal the CA decision
of the mitigating circumstance of acting under an
via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45.
impulse of uncontrollable fear in her favor.
Consequently, they could only raise questions of law.
Oddly, the petitioners began to assail the existence of The MeTC, RTC and CA all correctly found
conspiracy in their reply, which is a question of fact Manansala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
that would require an examination of the evidence aforesaid crime considering that: (a) as UMCs PC
presented. In the interest of justice, however, and due custodian, she is legally obligated to disclose only
to the novelty of the issue presented, the Court deems truthful statements in the documents she prepares in
it proper to open the whole case for review. connection with her work; (b) she knew all along that
Siy never made any cash advance nor utilized the
proceeds thereof from her personal use; (c) despite
99. Manansala vs People such knowledge, she still proceeded in revising the
subject report by inserting therein a statement that
Facts:
Siy made such cash advance and (d) she caused great
This is a petition for review on certiorari on the prejudice to Siy as the latter was terminated from her
Decision and Resolution of the CA. job on account of the falsified report that she
prepared.
The former Vice President of Finance of the UMC,
Kathleen Siy, the private complainant instructed her While the conviction of Manansala for the aforesaid
secretary to withdraw via ATM a certain amount from crime was proper, it was error for the MeTC to
her Metrobank and BPI bank accounts but failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of acting
do so as the ATM was offline but get such amount under an impulse of uncontrollable fear and for the
from the Petty Cash Fund custodian, Manansala of RTC and the CA to affirm in toto the MeTCs ruling
the UMC instead. The secretary forgot to inform Siy without correcting the latter courts mistake. Acting
where she got the money. under an impulse of uncontrollable fear is not among
the mitigating circumstances enumerated in Article
The Finance Manager informed Siy that as per Petty 13 of the RPC but an exempting circumstance
Cash Replenishment Report prepared by Manansala, provided under Article 12 (6) of the same code.
she alleged that Siy made a cash advance which
remained unliquidated. Upon learning, the latter
immediately issued two checks to reimburse the petty
100. Miclat vs People
cash account.
ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE
The Finance manager instructed Manansala to revise
PHILIPPINES
the subject report by deleting the entry relating to
GR No. 176077, August 31, 2011
Siy alleged cash advance. Then in a certain day, the
said finance manager instructed again Manansala to
retrieve the subject report and re-insert the entry
FACTS:
relating to Siys alleged cash advance therein.
On November 2002 in Caloocan City,
Siy was charged for using office funds for personal Miclat was arrested for illegal possession of shabu.
use and was terminated from her job and succeeded The arrest was made, while a team of Caloocan City
Police was conducting surveillance in Palmera Spring that a baggage of marijuana was loaded on a
II, Caloocan City. PO3 Antonio peeped inside and passenger jeepney about to leave for the poblacion.
there he saw Miclat, Jr., arranging small pieces of
plastic sachets of which he believed containing PO2 Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and
shabu. The team introduced themselves and placed positioned himself on top thereof. While the vehicle
the suspect under arrest after informing the latter of was in motion, he found the black backpack with an
his constitutional right. Miclat, Jr., pleaded not guilty O.K. marking and peeked inside its contents. PO2
during the arraignment. The RTC convicted him for Pallayoc found bricks of marijuana wrapped in
violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 or newspapers. He then asked the other passengers on
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002. His top of the jeepney about the owner of the bag, but no
appealed was dismissed, thus he petitioned for review one knew.
on certiorari seeking to reverse and revise the
decision. When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2
Pallayoc alighted together with the other passengers.
ISSUE: Unfortunately, he did not notice who took the black
Whether or not the arrest is lawful and the backpack from atop the jeepney. He only realized a
seizures of evidence are admissible in accordance few moments later that the said bag and three (3)
with the Rules of Court. other bags, including a blue plastic bag, were already
being carried away by two (2) women. He caught up
HELD: with the women and introduced himself as a
Yes, the arrest is lawful. The right against policeman. He told them that they were under arrest,
warrantless searches and seizures is subject to legal but one of the women got away.
and judicial exception as in warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest. The accused was clearly Issue: Whether the right against an unreasonable
arrested in flagrante delicto as he was then search violated
committing a crime, a violation of the Dangerous
Held: No.
Drug Act, within the view of the arresting officer. The
accused was caught in the act of arranging the plastic The search of a moving vehicle is one of the
sachets in plain sight of the arresting officer and the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the Constitutional
accused voluntary surrendered said seized items to mandate that no search or seizure shall be made
the arresting officer upon learning that the latter is a except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after
police officer. personally determining the existence of probable
As to admissibility of the seized drugs in cause. This had been justified on the ground that the
evidence, it too falls within the established mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the
exceptions. The seizure of .24 grams of sachets of vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or
shabu is not only incidental but also falls within the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
purview of the plain view doctrine. The accused
merely denied the accusations against him and raised In the instances we have recognized as exceptions to
the defense of frame-up. The appeal was DENIED. the requirement of a judicial warrant, it is necessary
The Court AFFIRMED with modification the that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must
decision of the Court of Appeal. Miclat, Jr., was have been impelled to do so because of probable
sentenced to suffer indeterminate sentence of twelve cause. The essential requisite of probable cause must
(12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
eight (8) months. can be lawfully conducted.

Since the secret agent from the Barangay Intelligence


101. People vs Mariacos Network informed PO2 Pallayoc that a baggage of
marijuana was loaded on a passenger jeepney about
G.R. No. 188611
to leave for the poblacion, he had probable cause to
Facts: On October 26, 2005, the night before search the packages allegedly containing illegal
appellants arrest, the police received information that drugs.
marijuana was to be transported from Barangay
Balbalayang, and had set up a checkpoint around the The search in this case is valid. The vehicle that
area to intercept the suspects. At dawn of October 27, carried the contraband or prohibited drugs was about
2005, PO2 Pallayoc met the secret agent from the to leave. PO2 Pallayoc had to make a quick decision
Barangay Intelligence Network, who informed him and act fast. It would be unreasonable to require him
to procure a warrant before conducting the search validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon
under the circumstances. Time was of the essence in the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon
this case. The searching officer had no time to obtain probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be
a warrant. Indeed, he only had enough time to board determined by the judge himself and not by the
the vehicle before the same left for its destination. applicant or any other person; (3) in the
determination of probable cause, the judge must
examine, under oath or affirmation, the complaint
and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and the
102. People vs Tuan warrant issued must particularly describe the place to
be searched and persons or things to be seized.
[GR No. 176066, August 11, 2010]
There is no dispute herein that the second and
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, third factors for a validly issued search warrant were
Vs. complied with. What is left for the Court to determine
Estela Tuan y Baludda, Accused-Appellant is compliance with the first and fourth factors.
FACTS: As to the first factor, Judge Cortes found
probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant
An application for search warrant was granted for accused-appellants residence after said personal
by Judge Cortes regarding the alleged selling of examination of applicant and the informants. This
marijuana by a certain Estela Tuan at Barangay was shown in the TSN related to the application of
Gabriela Silang, Baguio City. Upon receipt of the the warrant in which Judge Cortes carefully reviewed
search warrant, the police operatives implemented the the testimonies of the applicant and the informants.
same by proceeding to the house of the accused and As to the fourth factor, the address and description of
found nine (9) bricks of dried marijuana leaves and the place to be searched in the search warrant was
one (1) unlicensed high-powered firearm. The police specific enough. There was only one house located at
then issued a receipt for the items confiscated and a the stated address, which was the accused-appellants
certification stating that the items were confiscated residence, constituting of a structure with two floors
and recovered from the house of the accused and in and composed of several rooms.
the latters presence.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals
Estela Tuan was charged with illegal possession is affirmed.
of marijuana under Article II, Section 8 of RA 6425,
as amended; and illegal possession of firearms under
PD 1866. Upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty
to both charges. In its Decision, the RTC found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both 103. Esquillo vs. People
offenses.
SUSAN ESQUILLO, Petitioner,
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of vs.
the accused for the illegal possession of marijuana PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
but acquitted her on the illegal possession of firearm. G.R. No. 182010 August 25, 2010
Carpio Morales, J.:

ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether the search warrant issued against the
PO1 Cruzin and PO2 Aguas were sent to conduct
accused was valid.
HELD: surveillance on the activities of an alleged notorious
The search warrant was valid. snatcher operating in the Pasay area known only as
Ryan.
The right of a person against unreasonable
searches and seizure is recognized and protected by As PO1 Cruzin alighted from the private vehicle that
no less than the Constitution. Accordingly, Sections 4 brought him and PO2 Aguas to the target area, he
and 5 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal glanced in the direction of petitioner who was
Procedure laid down the following requisites for the standing three meters away and seen placing inside a
issuance of a valid search warrant. Therefore, the
yellow cigarette case what appeared to be a small
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
white substance. While PO1 Cruz was not sure what deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
the plastic sachet contained, he became suspicious used against the police officer.
when petitioner started acting strangely as he began
to approach her. He then introduced himself as a The circumstances under which petitioner was
police officer to petitioner and inquired about the arrested indeed engender the belief that a search on
plastic sachet she was placing inside her cigarette her person was warranted: The police officers were
case. Instead of replying, however, petitioner on a surveillance operation as part of their law
attempted to flee to her house nearby but was timely enforcement efforts when PO1 Cruzin saw petitioner
restrained by PO1 Cruzin who then requested her to placing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
take out the transparent plastic sachet from the substance into her cigarette case. Given his training
cigarette case and thereafter arrested her. as a law enforcement officer, it was instinctive on his
part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her.
RTC found appellant guilty of illegal possession of That petitioner reacted by attempting to flee after he
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. introduced himself as a police officer and inquired
about the contents of the plastic sachet all the more
Before the Court of Appeals, appellant questioned as pricked his curiosity.
illegal her arrest without warrant to thus render any
evidence obtained on the occasion thereof From these standards, the Court finds that the
inadmissible. She assails the appellate courts questioned act of the police officers constituted a
application of the stop-and-frisk principle in light valid stop-and-frisk operation. The search/seizure
of PO1 Cruzins failure to justify his suspicion that a of the suspected shabu initially noticed in petitioners
crime was being committed, he having merely possession - later voluntarily exhibited to the police
noticed her placing something inside a cigarette case operative - was undertaken after she was interrogated
which could hardly be deemed suspicious. To on what she placed inside a cigarette case, and after
petitioner, such legal principle could only be invoked PO1 Cruzin introduced himself to petitioner as a
if there were overt acts constituting unusual conduct police officer. And, at the time of her arrest, petitioner
that would arouse the suspicion was exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact
attempted to flee after the police officer had
ISSUE: identified himself. Absent any proof of motive to
Whether or not the stop-and-frisk principle was falsely accuse petitioner of such a grave offense, the
properly applied by the CA. presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty and the findings of the trial court with
HELD: respect to the credibility of witnesses prevail over
In a stop-and-frisk, it is essential is that a genuine that of petitioner
reason must exist, in light of the police officers
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the
belief that the person who manifests unusual
suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband 104. The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless
Search And Seizures of Prohibited Drugs and
concealed about him. Such a stop-and-frisk Eventual Arrest SKIP
practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest
of effective crime prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police officer may,
under appropriate circumstances and in an 105. Marimla vs. People
appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes Marimla v. People
of investigating possible criminal behavior even
without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing 604 SCRA 57, GR. no. 158467 Oct. 16, 2009
interest of safety and self-preservation which permit
Facts:
the police officer to take steps to assure himself that
Special Investigator (SI) Lagasca of the NBI Anti- (a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
Organized Crime Division filed two (2) applications
for search warrant with the RTC of Manila seeking crime was committed
permission to search: (1) petitioners house located
on RD Reyes St., Brgy. Sta. Trinidad, Angeles City (b)For compelling reasons stated in the application,
and (2) the premises on Maria Aquino St., Purok V, any court within the judicial region where the crime
Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Porac, Pampanga, both for Violation was committed if the place of the commission of the
of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. crime is known, or any court within the judicial
6425, as amended. The said applications uniformly region where the warrant shall be
alleged that SI Lagascas request for the issuance of
the search warrants was founded on his personal enforced.
knowledge as well as that of witness Roland D.
However, if the criminal action has already been
Fernandez (Fernandez), obtained after a series of
filed, the application shall only be made in the court
surveillance operations and a test buy made at
where the criminal action is pending.
petitioners house. The purpose of the application for
search warrants was to seize shabu, marijuana Nothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the
weighing scale, plastic sachets, tooters, burner, heads of the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF and REACT-TF
rolling papers, and other paraphernalia. from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing
the application for search warrant to their assistant
Judge Guaria III found probable cause to issue the
heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the
search warrant. The officers conducted a search and
Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or
found separate dried flowering tops in different
other subordinate in every bureau may perform such
containers. The petitioners filed a Motion to Quash
duties as may be specified by their superior or head,
the Search Warrant for it was allegedly filed outside
as long as it is not inconsistent with law.
the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the
court where the crime was committed The court cannot find any irregularity or abuse of
discretion on the part of Judge Viola for denying
Issue:
petitioners Motion to Quash Search Warrant and
Whether or not the respondent court acted with grave their Motion for Reconsideration. The Orders of the
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of RTC are affirmed. The Petition for Certiorari is
jurisdiction in denying petitioners Motion to Quash dismissed.
Search Warrant

Held:
106. People vs. Punzalan
No.
# 106
The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow
People vs. Punzalan
the hierarchy of courts. However, in exceptional
cases, the Court, for compelling reasons or if Facts: Seaman 1st class Anulfo, Andal, SNI Antonio
warranted by the nature of the issues raised, may take Duclayna, SNI Evelio Bacosa, SN1 Cesar Domingo,
cognizance of petitions filed directly before it. In this SNI Danilo Cuya, and SN1 Erlinger Bundang were
case, the Court opts to take cognizance of the among the members of the Philippine Navy sent for
petition, as it involves the application of the rules schooling at the Naval Education and Training
promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its rule- Command (NETC) at San Miguel, San Antonio
making power under the Constitution. Zambales.
Rule 126 of the Criminal Procedures on Search and * On August 10, 2002 at 5 or 6pm they all went to
Seizure states that: the All in One canteen to drink and at 10pm
transferred to Aquarius, a videoke bar where SN1
Sec. 2. Court where application for search warrant
Bacosa and appellant Punzalan got into fight.
shall be filed. An application for search warrant
shall be filed with the following: * The Navy group walked back to the NETC Camp to
avoid aggravating the conflict. The appellant,
however, drunk drove a maroon Nissan with plate Held:
number DRW 706 and followed the group to the
camp. The navy sentries flagged down Punzalan and Section 12 says that search incident to a lawful arrest.
heard him threaten to kill the Navy members he A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
fought in the bar. dangerous weapons or anything which may be used
as proof of the commission of an offense, withut a
*Punzalan charged forward despite being flagged search warrant. Meanwhile. Rule 113 states that a
down, hit the group of navy personnel from behind, peace officer or private person may, without warrant
and sped away resulting to the death of Andal and arrest a person: (1) when in his presence a person to
Duclayna, and injuries to the rest of the group. be arrested has committed, is actually committing or
is attempting to commit an offense.
* Punzalan was charged with complex crime of
Double Murder qualified by treachery with In the case at bar, accused was caught in
Attempted Murder attended by aggravating flagrante, since he was carrying
circumstances of the use of motor vehicle. marijuana at the time of his arrest. This
case therefore falls squarely within the
Issue: exception. The warrantless search was
incident to a lawful arrest and is
Whether or not search and seizure was appropriate in constantly valid.
the case at bar.