Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 51

CASE NO.

1 section, provision or clause of the statute must


be expounded by reference to each other in order to
Hannah Eunice D. Serana v. Sandiganbayan and arrive at the effect contemplated by the
People of the Philippines
legislature. Evidently, from the provisions of Section
G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008
4(B) of P.D. No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan has
FACTS: Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public
student of the University of the Philippines- officials in relation to their office. Plainly, estafa is one
Cebu. She was appointed by then President of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply
Joseph Estrada on December 21, 1999 as a subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is
student regent of UP, with a one (1) year term committed by public officials and employees
from January 1 to December 31, 2000. In the
mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as
early part of 2000, she discussed with
President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in
Hall Annex in UP Diliman. On September 4, relation to their office.(2) Petitioner falls under the
2000, together with her siblings and relatives, jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even if she does
she registered with the Securities and not have a salary grade 27, as she is placed thereby
Exchange Commission the Office of the express provision of law. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D.
Student Regent Foundation, Inc. One of the No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with
projects of the OSFRI was the renovation of
jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or
the Vinzons Hall Annex to be renamed after to
the then President Estrada, “President managers of government-owned or controlled
Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall”. corporations, state universities or educational
President Estrada gave him Fifteen Million institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this
Pesos (P15, 000,000.00) to the OSFRI as category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the
financial assistance for the proposed BOR performs function similar to those of a board of
renovation. The source of funds came from the
trustees of a non-stock corporation.
Office of the President. But the said renovation
failed to materialize. The succeeding student By express mandate of law, petitioner is,
regent, Bugayong and De Guzman , Secretary- indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No.
General of the KASAMA sa UP, a system-wide 1606.
alliance of student councils within the state
university, filed a complaint for Malversation of
Public Funds and Property with the Office of CASE NO. 2
the Ombudsman .
On July 3, 2003, the Ombudsman, after due
Facts:
investigation, found probable cause to indict
Serana and her brother Jade Ian D. Sera for
Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the Deputy Chief
Estafa. Serana moved to quash the
information. She claimed that Sandiganbayan of Staff for Comptrollership of the Armed Forces of the
does not have any jurisdiction over the offense Philippines. Atty. Maria Olivia Roxas, Graft
charged or over her person, in her capacity as Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Field
UP student regent. She claimed that R.A. No. Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman,
3019 as amended by R.A. No. 8249, after due investigation, filed a complaint against
enumerates the crimes or offenses over which Garcia for violation of: 1) Section 8 of R.A. No.
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
6713(Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public
Sandigandbayan denied her motion for lack of
merit. Serana filed a motion for reconsideration Officials and Employees); 2) Article 183, of the
but was denied with finality. Revised Penal Code; 3) Section 5 2(a)(1), (3) & (20) of
the Civil Service Law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over an estafa case? The wife and three sons were impleaded for violation
of R.A. No. 1379 (An act declaring forfeiture in favor of
HELD: Section 4(B) of P.D. 1606 which the state any property found to have been unlawfully
defines the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan: “Other acquired by any public officer or employee and
offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with providing for the proceedings therefor) insofar as they
other crimes committed by the public officials and acted as conspirators, conduits, dummies and fronts
employees mentioned in subsection A of this section of petitioner in receiving, accumulating, using and
in relation to their office. While the first part of Section disposing of ill-gotten wealth.
4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and
higher, its second part specifically includes Also, a Petition with Verified Urgent Ex Parte
other executive officials whose positions may not be of Application for the Issuance of A Writ Of Preliminary
Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express Attachment was filed by Ombudsman before the
provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan against Garcia, his wife and three
said court. sons. The Ombudsman, after conducting inquiry
The rule is well-established in this jurisdiction (similar to Preliminary Investigation) has determined a
that statutes should receive a sensible construction so prima facie case exists against Garcia since during his
as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. Every incumbency as a soldier and public officer he acquired
huge amounts of money and properties manifestly out Sandiganbayan by removing its jurisdiction over civil
of proportion to his salary as such public officer and actions brought in connection with crimes within the
his other lawful income. exclusive jurisdiction of said court. Such civil actions
removed from the jurisdiction of the Sandigabayan
Petitioner (as respondent a quo) filed a Motion to include those for restitution or reparation of damages,
Dismiss in Civil Case No. 0193 on the ground of lack recovery of instruments and effects of the crime, civil
of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over forfeiture actions under Articles 32 and 34 of the Civil Code, and
proceedings under R.A. No. 1379 (civil action). On the forfeiture proceedings provided for under R.A. No.
same day, petitioner filed the present Petition, raising 1379.
the same issue of lack jurisdiction on the part of the
Sandiganbayan. In the face of the prevailing jurisprudence and the
present state of statutory law on the jurisdiction of the
Garcia argued in his Petition that the Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan, petitioner’s argument—that the
is without jurisdiction over the “civil action” for Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petition for
forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under R.A. forfeiture since it is “civil” in nature collapses
No. 1379, maintaining that such jurisdiction actually completely. The civil nature of an action for forfeiture
resides in the Regional Trial Courts as provided under was first recognized inRepublic v. Sandiganbayan,
Sec. 29 of the law, and that the jurisdiction of the thus: “[T]he rule is settled that forfeiture proceedings
Sandiganbayan in civil actions pertains only to are actions in rem and, therefore, civil in nature.” It is
separate actions for recovery of unlawfully acquired logically congruent that violations of R.A. No. 1379 are
property against President Marcos, his family, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
cronies as can be gleaned from Sec. 4 of Presidential even though the proceeding is civil in nature, since the
Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, as amended, and Executive forfeiture of the illegally acquired property amounts to
Orders (E.O.) Nos. 1411and 14-A. a penalty. Petitioner should abandon his erroneous
In their Comment, the Sandiganbayan submitted the belief that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only
contrary, noting that the issue has been settled in over petitions for forfeiture filed against President
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan17 which ruled that “there Marcos, his family and cronies.
is no issue that jurisdiction over violations of [R.A.] CASE NO. 3
Nos. 3019 and 1379 now rests with the
Sandiganbayan.” They argued that under the SECOND DIVISION
Constitution and prevailing statutes, the [G.R. No. 124644. February 5, 2004]
Sandiganbayan is vested with authority and
ARNEL ESCOBAL, petitioner,
jurisdiction over the petition for forfeiture under R.A.
vs.
No. 1379 filed against petitioner. HON. FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, Presiding Justice
of the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Luisabel Alfonso-Cortez,
Issue:
Executive Clerk of Court IV of the Sandiganbayan,
Hon. David C. Naval, Presiding Judge of the Regional
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 21, Luz N.
over petitions for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379. Nueca, respondents.

FACTS:
Escobal is a graduate of the Phil Military Academy,
Held:
member of AFP and Phil Constabulary, and
Intelligence Group of the PNP.
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. The seminal
decision of Republic v. Sandiganbayan squarely rules While conducting surveillance operations on drug
on the issues raised by petitioner concerning the trafficking at a restaurant in Naga City, he got involved
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the authority of in a shooting incident resulting in death of Rodney
Nueca.
the Office of the Ombudsman. After reviewing the
legislative history of the Sandiganbayan and the Office Amended information was filed with RTC charging
of the Ombudsman, the Court therein resolved the Escobal and Jun Bombita with murder. Escobal was
arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by
question of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan over
RTC.
violations of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 1379.
Originally, it was the Solicitor General who was After arraignment, Escobal filed a Motion to Quash the
Information alleging that as mandated by
authorized to initiate forfeiture proceedings before the
Commonwealth Act No. 408, in relation to Sec 1, PD
then Court of First Instance of the city or province 1822 and Sec 95 of RA 6975, the court martial, not the
where the public officer or employee resides or holds RTC has jurisdiction over criminal cases involving
office, pursuant to Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 1379. Upon the PNP members and officers.
creation of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to P.D. No. Escobal filed a Motion to Dismiss the case arguing
1486, original and exclusive jurisdiction over such that since he committed the crime in the performance
violations was vested in the said court. P.D. No. 1606 of his duties, Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction
was later issued expressly repealing P.D. No. 1486, over the case.
as well as modifying the jurisdiction of the
RTC issued an Order declaring that EScobal Nature: Petition for review on Certiorari assailing the
committed the crime charged while not in the Resolution of the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan
performance of his official function. It also added that (SB) which quash the information filed against herein
upon enactment of RA 7975, the issue had been moot
respondent for alleged violation of section 03 (g) of
and academic. The amendatory law transferred the
jurisdiction over the offense charged from the R.A 3019, otherwise known as the Anti Graft and
Sandiganbayan to the RTC since the petitioner did not Corrupt Practices Act.
have a salary grade of 27.
Doctrine:
The trial court nevertheless ordered the prosecution to
amend the Information to include allegation that the The death of one of two or more conspirators does not
offense charged was not committed by the petitioner prevent the conviction of the survivor or survivors.—
in the performance of his duties/functions, nor in
Indeed, it is not necessary to join all alleged co-
relation to his office. Escobal filed a motion for
reconsideration of the said order and asserted that conspirators in an indictment for conspiracy. If two or
RTC failed to consider exceptions to the prohibition more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by
and asserted further that RA 7975 could not be any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in
applied retroactively. contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they
RTC reversed and set aside its Order declaring that are jointly responsible therefore. This means that
Escobal was on official mission when the shooting everything said, written or done by any of the
occurred and ordered public prosecutor to Re-Amend conspirators in execution or furtherance of the
the Information and transmit the records to common purpose is deemed to have been said, done,
Sandiganbayan. or written by each of them and it makes no difference
Sandiganbayan ordered the return of criminal records whether the actual actor is alive or dead, sane or
to RTC for the reason that RTC retained jurisdiction insane at the time of trial. The death of one of two or
over the case, considering Escobal has a salary grade more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of
of 23. The prosecution had already rested its case and
the survivor or survivors. Thus, this court held that
Escobal had commenced presenting his evidence in
RTC, following the rule on continuity of jurisdiction, .....conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense. One
RTC should continue with the case. person cannot conspire alone. The crime depends
upon the joint act or intent of two or more persons.
ISSUE: Whether RTC has jurisdiction over offense
committed by a public official with a salary grade of Yet, it does not follow that one person cannot be
23. convicted of conspiracy. So long as the acquittal or
death of a co-conspirator does not remove the bases
HELD: Yes. RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the
crime charged. of a charge for conspiracy, one defendant may be
found guilty of the offense.
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction
over crimes committed by public officers in relation to The avowed policy of the state and the legislative
their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intent to repress “acts of public officers and private
intimate relation between the office of the offender and
persons alike, which constitute graft or corrupt
the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the
Information. It is not enough to merely allege in the practices,” would be frustrated if the death of a public
Information that the crime charged was committed by officer would bar the prosecution of a private person
the offender in relation to his office because that would who conspired with such public officer in violating the
be a conclusion of law. Anti Graft Law.—The court agrees with petitioner that
Under the law, even if the offender committed the the avowed policy of the state and the legislative intent
crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a to repress “acts of public officers and private persons
position corresponding to a salary grade below 27, the alike, which constitute graft or corrupt practices,”
proper Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, would be frustrated if the death of a public officer
as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction would bar the prosecution of a private person who
over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police
conspired with such public officer in violating the Anti-
Senior Inspector, with salary grade 23. He was
charged with homicide punishable by reclusion Graft Law.
temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction
over the crime charged conformably to Sections 20 FACTS:
and 32 of Batas PambansaBlg. 129, as amended by
On September 16, 2004, the Office of the Deputy
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.
Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause
R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law which to indict, among others, respondent Henry Go for
may be applied retroactively.
violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. While there was
Petition is DISMISSED. likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary
Enrile, he was no longer indicted because he died
prior to the issuance of the resolution finding probable
CASE NO. 4 cause. The prosecution was given a period of ten
(10) days within which to show cause why this case
People of the Philippines vs. Henry T. Go
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over
Ponente: Peralta, J.
the person of the accused considering that the all instances, be indicted together with the public
accused is a private person and the public official officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer
Arturo may no longer be charged in court, as in the present
Enrile, his alleged co-conspirator, is already case where the public officer has already died, the
deceased, and not an accused in this case. The private person may be indicted alone.
prosecution
complied with the above Order contending that the SB CASE NO. 5
has already acquired jurisdiction over the person of
respondent by reason of his voluntary appearance,
RAMISCAL JR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
when he filed a motion for consolidation and when he
posted bail. The prosecution also argued that the SB FACTS:
has exclusive jurisdiction over respondent's case, In 1998, the Senate Committees on
even if he is a private person, because he was alleged Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation
to have conspired with a public officer. The (Blue Ribbon) and on National Defense and Security
respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information (collectively, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) carried
filed against him contending that, independently of the out an extensive joint inquiry into the "coup rumors
and the alleged anomalies" in the Armed Forces of the
deceased Secretary Enrile, the public officer with
Philippines-Philippine Retirement Benefits Systems
whom he was alleged to have conspired, respondent, (AFP-RSBS). In its Report, the Senate Blue Ribbon
who is not a public officer nor was capacitated by any Committee outlined, among others, the anomalies in
official authority as a government agent, may not be the acquisition of lots in Tanauan, Batangas,
prosecuted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. Calamba, Laguna and Iloilo City by the AFP-RSBS,
The Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to quash and and described the modus operandi of the perpetrators
as follows:
dismissed the case.
The modus operandi in the buying of the lots was to
ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction cover the same transactions with two deeds of sale.
over the person of the respondent Go, despite him One deed of sale would be signed only by the seller or
being a private individual? sellers (unilateral deed). Another deed of sale would
be signed by the seller or sellers and the buyer, AFP-
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. RSBS (bilateral deed). These Unilateral Deeds of Sale
recorded lower consideration paid by the System to
Settled is the rule that private persons, when
the buyer(s) than those stated in the Bilateral Deeds.
acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be The motivation was obviously to evade payment of the
indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent correct taxes to the government and save money for
offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance the seller(s), broker(s) and who knows, probably even
with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to for the kickbacks going to certain officials of RSBS,
repress certain acts of public officers and private the buyer.
persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act
Pursuant to the recommendation of the Senate Blue
or which may lead thereto. The only question that
Ribbon Committee to "prosecute and/or cause the
needs to be settled in the present petition is whether prosecution of Gen. Jose Ramiscal Jr. (Ret), past
herein respondent, a private person, may be indicted AFP-RSBS President, who had signed the
for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 unregistered deeds of sale covering the acquisition of
even if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to certain parcels of land," Ombudsman Investigators
have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the conducted a fact-finding investigation. They executed
a Joint Affidavit-Complaint, stating that based on their
Information. Respondent contends that by reason of
findings, B/Gen. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., among others,
the death of Secretary Enrile, there is no public officer may be charged with falsification of public documents
who was charged in the Information and, as such, and violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act
prosecution against respondent may not prosper. It is (R.A.) No. 3019.
true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, there is
no longer any public officer with whom respondent can ISSUE:
be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not Whether private individuals can participate in the
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan..
mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy
between them can no longer be proved or that their
alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only HELD:
thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is Parties, like the private respondents herein,
his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the may, likewise, enter their appearance as offended
crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of parties and participate in criminal proceedings before
conspiracy between him and private respondent. The the Sandiganbayan.The respondent law firm entered
requirement before a private person may be indicted its appearance as private prosecutor.
for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among The petitioner avers that the crimes charged are
others, is that such private person must be alleged to public offenses and, by their very nature, do not give
have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, rise to criminal liabilities in favor of any private party.
however, does not require that such person must, in
He contends that the Information in for falsification PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PHOTOKINA
of public document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of MARKETING CORPORATION
the Revised Penal Code, do not contain any allegation
that the AGFOI or any private party sustained any VS.
damage caused by the said falsifications. The ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO
petitioner further argues that absent any civil liability
arising from the crimes charged in favor of AGFOI, the Two (2) consolidated petitions for review on certiorari
latter cannot be considered the offended party entitled filed under Rules 45 and 122 of the Rules of Court:
to participate in the proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan. According to the petitioner, this view G.R. No. 154473
conforms to Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised
Facts:
Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Respondent, Alfredo L. BENIPAYO, then Chairman of
The court agreed with the contention of the
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), delivered
petitioner that the AGFOI, and even Commodore
Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, are not the offended a speech in the Forum on Electoral Problems held at
parties envisaged in Section 16, Rule 110, in relation Quezon City and this was subsequently published in
to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of the issues of the Manila Bulletin. Petitioner,
Criminal Procedure. PHOTOKINA MARKETING CORPORATION,
Under Section 5, Rule 110of the Rules, all believing that it was the one alluded to by the
criminal actions covered by a complaint or information respondent in his speech filed an Affidavit-
shall be prosecuted under the direct supervision and Complaintfor libel.
control of the public prosecutor. Thus, even if the
felonies or delictual acts of the accused result in Arguing that he was an impeachable officer,
damage or injury to another, the civil action for the respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the Office of
recovery of civil liability based on the said criminal acts the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP-QC).
is impliedly instituted and the offended party has not Despite the challenge, the City Prosecutor filed an
waived the civil action, reserved the right to institute it
Informationfor libel against the respondent, docketed
separately or instituted the civil action prior to the
criminal action, the prosecution of the action inclusive as Criminal Case No. Q-02-109407.
of the civil action remains under the control and
supervision of the public prosecutor. The prosecution Petitioner further moved that the case be ordered
of offenses is a public function. consolidated with the other libel case [Criminal Case
No. Q-02-103406, which is the subject of G.R. No.
Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of
155573] pending with RTC.
Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene
in the criminal action personally or by counsel, who Respondent, for his part, moved for the dismissal of
will act as private prosecutor for the protection of his
interests and in the interest of the speedy and the case on the assertion that the trial court had no
inexpensive administration of justice. A separate jurisdiction over his person for he was an impeachable
action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, officer and thus, could not be criminally prosecuted
burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and before any court during his incumbency; and that,
further delay the final disposition of the case. The assuming he can be criminally prosecuted, it was the
multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With the implied Office of the Ombudsman that should investigate him
institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the
and the case should be filed with the Sandiganbayan.
two actions are merged into one composite
proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the
civil. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to
punish the offender in order to deter him and others The trial court issued the challenged Orderdismissing
from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate
Criminal Case No. Q-02-109407 and it ruled that the
him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in
general, to maintain social order. case had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
considering that the alleged libel was committed by
On the other hand, the sole purpose of the civil respondent in relation to his office he delivered the
action is for the resolution, reparation or
speech in his official capacity as COMELEC Chair.
indemnification of the private offended party for the
damage or injury he sustained by reason of the Accordingly, it was the Sandiganbayan that had
delictual or felonious act of the accused. jurisdiction over the case to the exclusion of all other
courts.
The offended party may be the State or any of its
instrumentalities, including local governments or Petitioners filed before the Court, on pure questions of
government-owned or controlled corporations, such as law, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
the AFP-RSBS, which, under substantive laws, are
entitled to restitution of their properties or funds, G.R. No. 155573
reparation, or indemnification.
Respondent, as COMELEC Chair, delivered a
statement as a guest of the talk show televised
CASE NO. 6 nationwide on the ANC-23 channel.
Petitioner, corporation, considered respondents G.R. No. 128096; 20 January 1999
statement as defamatory, filed a Complaint-Affidavitfor
Facts:
libel. Respondent similarly questioned the jurisdiction
of the OCP-QC. The City Prosecutor, however, Eleven (11) persons believed to be members
consequently instituted Criminal Case No. Q-02- of the KuratongBaleleng, an organized crime
109406 by filing the corresponding Informationwith the syndicate, were killed by the elements of Anti-Bank
RTC of Quezon City. Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). Said
group was composed of several police units including
Respondent also moved for the dismissal of the the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission Task Force
information raising similar arguments that the court Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by herein petitioner.
Consequently, a police from the Central Investigation
had no jurisdiction over his person, he being an
Command (CIC), another unit belonging to ABRITG,
impeachable officer; and that, even if criminal stated that what transpired between the ABRITG and
prosecution were possible, jurisdiction rested with the the gang members was a summary execution. This
Sandiganbayan. led to the investigation of the incident, finding that said
encounter was a legitimate police operation.
The trial court issued the assailed Order dismissing
Criminal Case No. Q-02-109406 for lack of jurisdiction However, the review board modified the
findings and recommended for the indictment for
over the person of the respondent. The RTC denied
multiple murder against all of the respondents of the
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. case, including herein petitioner. Information for
murder were filed against the same before the
Displeased with the rulings of the trial court,
Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman then filed an
petitioners filed before this Court, on pure questions of amended information to the Sandiganbayan, charging
law, another Petition for Review on Certiorari. herein petitioner only as an accessory.

Issue: The petitioner then moved to question the


jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, contending that
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING since the amended information only charged him as
THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE. an accessory, his case would thereby fall within the
Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction. Petitioner asserted
Ruling: that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is limited
only to cases where one or more of the “principal”
Yes. Petitions for review on certiorari are GRANTED. accused who are government officials with Salary
Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the rank of
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as Chief Superintendent or higher. When the
amended by Republic Act No. 4363, is explicit on Sandiganbayan admitted the amended information, it
which court has jurisdiction to try cases of written ordered for the case to be transferred to the RTC of
defamations, thus: Quezon City.

Consequently, while the case was pending to


The criminal and civil action for damages in
be resolved, a law was passed defining and
cases of written defamations as provided for in this expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (RA
chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately 8249), removing the word “principal” from “principal
with the court of first instance [now, the Regional accused” in Section 2 of RA 7975 (Old
Trial Court] of the province or city where the libelous Sandiganbayan Law). Aggrieved, petitioner
article is printed and first published or where any of challenged the constitutionality of the law and argued
the offended parties actually resides at the time of the that it is prejudicial to his cause considering that the
law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over
commission of the offense.
which a trial has not begun.
A subsequent enactment of a law defining the ISSUE:
jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in
the absence of an express repeal or modification, the Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has
specific provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations in writing or by HELD:
similar means.The grant to the Sandiganbayanof
jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to Yes. Sandiganbayan has the exclusive original
public office, similar to the expansion of the jurisdiction jurisdiction to try and decide the case. The jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan also covers the felonies
of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive
committed by public officials and employees in relation
and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases to their office. Since herein petitioner was charged
regardless of whether the offense is committed in with murder, what determines the jurisdiction of the
relation to office. Sandiganbayan is the official position or rank of the
offender that is, whether he is one of those officers
enumerated in the law. The provisions of RA 7975
CASE NO. 7 (Old Sandiganbayan Law) do not make any
preference to the criminal participation of the accused
PANFILO LACSON v. THE EXECUTIVE public officer as to whether he is charged as a
SECRETARY principal, accomplice, or accessory. In effect, the
Congress, in enacting RA 8249 (New Sandiganbayan (2) Other offenses or felonies
Law), did not mention the criminal participation of the committed by public officers and
public officer as a requisite to determine jurisdiction of employees in relation to their office,
the Sandiganbayan. including those employed in
government-owned or controlled
corporations, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes, where the
CASE NO. 8 penalty prescribed by law is higher
than prisioncorreccional or
imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine
EN BANC of P6,000.00. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993 The crime of rape with homicide with which the
petitioner stands charged obviously does not fall under
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, petitioner, paragraph (1), which deals with graft and corruption
vs. cases. Neither is it covered by paragraph (2) because
The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU (in her it is not an offense committed in relation to the office of
capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, the petitioner.
NCR, Branch 70, Pasig), The Honorable FRANKLIN
DRILON (in his capacity as Secretary of Justice), There is no direct relation between the commission of
JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, LEONARDO C. GUIYAB, the crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner's
CARLOS L. DE LEON, RAMONCITO C. MISON, office as municipal mayor because public office is not
REYNALDO J. LUGTU, and RODRIGO P. LORENZO, an essential element of the crime charged. The
the last six respondents in their official capacities as offense can stand independently of the office.
members of the State Prosecutor's Moreover, it is not even alleged in the information that
Office), respondents. the commission of the crime charged was intimately
connected with the performance of the petitioner's
FACTS: official functions.
Prosecutors filed with RTC Laguna 7 informations
charging Mayor Antonio Sanchez, Luis Corcolon, We have read the informations in the case at bar and
Rogelio Corcolon, PepitoKawit, Baldwin Brion, Jr., find no allegation therein that the crime of rape with
George Medialdea and ZoiloAma with the rape and homicide imputed to the petitioner was connected with
killing of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and killing of Allan the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor or
Gomez. that there is an "intimate connection" between the
offense and his office. It follows that the said crime,
SC transferred the venue of the cases to RTC Pasig being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular
after the Secretary of Justice expressed his courts and not the Sandiganbayan.
apprehension that the trial of said cases might result in
a miscarriage of justice because of the tense and The petition is DISMISSED. The respondent judge is
partisan atmosphere in Laguna in favour of Sanchez DIRECTED to continue with the trial of Criminal Cases
and the relationship of an employee of the trial court in Nos. 101141, 101142, 101143, 101144, 101145,
one of the accused. 101146 and 101147 and to decide them with
deliberate dispatch.
Sanchez argued that since most of the accused were
incumbent public officials or employees at the time of CASE NO. 9
the alleged commission of the crimes, the cases
against them should come under the jurisdiction of the Serana vs Sandiganbayan
Sandiganbayan and not of the regular courts. 542 SCRA
Facts: Accused movant charged for the crime of
ISSUE:
estafa is a government scholar and a student regent of
Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
offense committed by Sanchez as he is a public the University of the Phillipines, Diliman, Quezon City.
officer. While in the performance of her official functions, she
represented to former President Estrada that the
HELD: renovation of the Vinzons Hall of the UP will be
No. The case should be tried by the RTC and not renovated and renamed as Pres. Joseph Ejercito
Sandiganbayan. Section 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No,
Estrada Student Hall and for which purpose accused
1606, as amended by P.D. No.1861, provides:
requested the amount of P15,000,000.00.
Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan had no
Sec. 4.Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction over her person because as a UP student
shall exercise:
regent, she was not a public officer due to the
following: 1.) that being merely a member in
a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
representation of the student body since she merely
involving:
represented her peers; 2.) that she was a simple
student and did not receive any salary as a UP
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, student regent; and 3.) she does not fall under Salary
as amended, otherwise known as the Grade 27.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, The Ombudsman contends that petitioner, as a
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, member of the BOR is a public officer, since she had
Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal the general powers of administration and exercise the
Code:
corporate powers of UP. Compensation is not an The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and
essential part of public office. use of the cyberspace. Using his laptop or computer, a
Moreover, the Charter of the University of the person can connect to the internet, a system that links
Philippines reveals that the Board of Regents, to
him to other computers and enable him, among other
which accused-movant belongs, exclusively exercises
the general powers of administration and corporate things, to:
powers in the university. It is well-established in
1. Access virtual libraries and encyclopedias for all
corporation law that the corporation can act only
through its board of directors, or board of trustees in kinds of information that he needs for research, study,
the case of non-stock corporations. amusement, upliftment, or pure curiosity;

Issue: WON a government scholar and UP student 2. Post billboard-like notices or messages, including
regent is a public officer. pictures and videos, for the general public or for
special audiences like associates, classmates, or
Held: Yes. friends and read postings from them;
First, Public office is the right, authority, and duty
3. Advertise and promote goods or services and
created and conferred by law, by which for a given
make purchases and payments;
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure
of the creating power, an individual is invested with 4. Inquire and do business with institutional entities
some portion of the sovereign functions of the like government agencies, banks, stock exchanges,
government, to be exercise by him for the benefit of trade houses, credit card companies, public utilities,
the public. The individual so invested is a public hospitals, and schools; and
officer. (Laurel vs Desierto)
Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the 5. Communicate in writing or by voice with any
public office. An investment in an individual of some person through his e-mail address or telephone.
portion of the sovereign functions of the government,
This is cyberspace, a system that accommodates
to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public
millions and billions of simultaneous and ongoing
makes one a public officer.
individual accesses to and uses of the internet. The
Second, Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explicitly cyberspace is a boon to the need of the current
vest the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over generation for greater information and facility of
Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of communication. But all is not well with the system
government-owned or controlled corporations, state since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill
universities or educational institutions or foundations. will who would want to use cyberspace technology for
Hence, it is not only the salary grade that determines mischiefs and crimes. One of them can, for instance,
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. avail himself of the system to unjustly ruin the
reputation of another or bully the latter by posting
As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs defamatory statements against him that people can
functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a read.
non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law,
petitioner is a public officer as contemplated by P.D. And because linking with the internet opens up a user
No. 1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the to communications from others, the ill-motivated can
Sandiganbayan. use the cyberspace for committing theft by hacking
into or surreptitiously accessing his bank account or
Third, it is well established that compensation is not an credit card or defrauding him through false
essential element of public office. At most, it is merely representations. The wicked can use the cyberspace,
incidental to the public office. too, for illicit trafficking in sex or for exposing to
pornography guileless children who have access to
Hence, Petitioner is a public officer by express the internet. For this reason, the government has a
mandate of P.D.No. 1606 and jurisprudence.
legitimate right to regulate the use of cyberspace and
contain and punish wrongdoings.

CASE NO. 10 Notably, there are also those who would want, like
vandals, to wreak or cause havoc to the computer
Disini Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, Feb. 18, 2014, systems and networks of indispensable or highly
716 SCRA useful institutions as well as to the laptop or computer
programs and memories of innocent individuals. They
Facts: accomplish this by sending electronic viruses or virtual
These consolidated petitions seek to declare several dynamites that destroy those computer systems,
networks, programs, and memories. The government
provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) 10175, the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional certainly has the duty and the right to prevent these
tomfooleries from happening and punish their
and void.
perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the
cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace
activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. CASE NO. 11
The government of course asserts that the law merely
G.R. No. 178607: December 5, 2012
seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace
activities, punish wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful DANTE LA. JIMENEZ, in his capacity as President
attacks on the system. and representative of UNLAD SHIPPING &
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,Petitioner, v.HON.
Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues
EDWIN SORONGON (in his capacity as Presiding
presented in these cases, on February 5, 2013 the
Judge of Branch 214 of the Regional Trial Court of
Court extended the original 120-day temporary
Mandaluyong City), SOCRATES ANTZOULATOS,
restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on
CARMEN ALAMIL, MARCELl GAZA and MARKOS A
October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent government
VGOUSTIS,Respondents.
agencies from implementing the cybercrime law until
further orders JUSTICE BRION

Issue: FACTS:

Whether RTC has jurisdiction of Cybercrime law? Dante Jimenez is the president of Unlad
Shipping & Management Corporation a local manning
Held:
agency while the private respondents are some of the
The designation of special cybercrime courts of course listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services
is not outside our power to undertake: Section 21 of another local maritime agency. the petitioner filed a
the Cybercrime Law grants the Regional Trial Courts complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City
jurisdiction over any violation of the Cybercrime Law, Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City against the
and provides that special cybercrime courts manned respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal
by specially trained judges should be designated. recruitment. The City Prosecutor ap filed the
Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, on the corresponding criminal information with the Regional
other hand, empowers this Court to promulgate rules Trial Court of Mandaluyong City presided by Judge
on the pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. Rizalina T. Capco-Umali.

*Military Court Jurisdiction: It noted that only the Office of the Solicitor
General has the legal personality to represent the
Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055 lays down the general rule People, the 1987 Administrative Code. Petitioner was
that members of the AFP and other persons subject to not the real party in interest to institute the case, him
military law who commit crimes or offenses penalized not being a victim of the crime charged to the
under the Revised Penal Code (like coup d’etat), other respondents, but a mere competitor in their
special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried recruitment business. Denied the MR that followed.
by the proper civil court, except that, where the civil
court, before arraignment, has determined the offense ISSUE:
to be service-connected, then the offending soldier
Whether or not the petitioner has legal personality in
shall be tried by a court martial, and with the further
assailing the dismissal of the case?
exception that, where the President, in the interest of
justice, directs before arraignment that any such HELD: NO, the petitioner has no legal standing, in a
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil court. criminal case the party interest is the people of the
Philippines. The People is the real party in interest in a
As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or
criminal caseand only the OSG can represent the
offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54
People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in
to 70, Articles 70 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of
this Court. As an exception is when the offended party
Commonwealth Act No, 408, as amended.
may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his
In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, own behalf (as when there is a denial of due process).
the court-martial may take into consideration the
penalty prescribed therefor in the Revised Penal
Code, other special penal laws, or local government
ordinances.
CASE NO. 12 charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of
the information determine the crime of which he
stands charged and for which he must be tried
G.R. No. 175602 February 13, 2013 thoroughly accords with common sense and with the
requirements of plain
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. The downgrading of the crimes committed would
P02 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN definitely be favorable to him based on Section 11(a),
VALDEZ, Accused-Appellants Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.

FACTS: Accordingly, the court grants the plea of Edwin


Valdez.
The two accused were tried for three counts of murder
by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in Quezon City.
after trial, the RTC convicted them as charged,
prescribed on each of them the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count, and ordered them to pay to
the heirs of each victim actual damages, moral
damages and civil indemnity.

The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC.


CASE NO. 13
The two accused then came to the Court on final
appeal, but Edwin Valdez filed a motion to withdraw Miguel vs. Sandiganbayan
appeal, which the Court granted thereby deeming
Edwin’s appeal closed and terminated.1 G.R. No. 172035

FACTS:
On January 18, 2012, the Court promulgated its
judgment on the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez, Vice Mayor and other local officials of Koronadal City,
finding him guilty of three counts of homicide, instead
South Cotabato filed a letter-complaint with the Office
of three counts of murder, and meting on him for each
count of homicide the indeterminate sentence of 10 of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (Ombudsman) charging
years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years the petitioner, Fernando Miguel, with violation of R.A.
of reclusion temporal as maximum, No. 3019, in connection with the consultancy services
for the proposed Koronadal City public market.
Subsequently, Edwin sent to the Court Administrator a
self-explanatory letter3 dated March 12, 2012, where The petitioner moved for reconsideration of his
he pleaded for the application to him of the judgment suspension order and demanded for a pre-suspension
promulgated on January 18, 2012 on the ground that hearing. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion,
the judgment would be beneficial to him as an prompting him to file this certiorari petition to challenge
accused. He impleads favorable Humanitarian
consideration on his letter. the validity of his suspension order.

ISSUE:
The Solicitor General interposed no opposition to the
plea. WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF AN ACTUAL PRE-
SUSPENSION HEARING RENDERS INVALID THE
The court granted the plea for reduction of Edwin’s
SUSPENSION ORDER AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
sentences. The final judgment downgraded the crimes
committed by Eduardo from three counts of murder to
RULING:
three counts of homicide.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE: W/N the downgrading of Edwin’s sentence
was proper. In the case at bar, while there was no pre-
suspension hearing held to determine the validity of
HELD:
the Informations that had been filed against
petitioners, we believe that the numerous pleadings
the real nature of the criminal charge is determined
not from the caption or preamble of the information, or filed for and against them have achieved the goal of
from the specification of the provision of law alleged to this procedure. The right to due process is satisfied
have been violated, which are mere conclusions of nor just by an oral hearing but by the filing and the
law, but by the actual recital of facts in the consideration by the court of the parties' pleadings,
memoranda and other position papers.
The requirement of sufficient factual averments is
meant to inform the accused of the nature and cause
of the charge against him in order to enable him to
prepare his defense. This requirement accords with
the presumption of innocence in his favor, pursuant to
which he is always presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the details of the crime he is being
CASE NO. 14 CASE NO. 15

PEOPLE VS SORIA Union Bank vs. People, 667 SCRA 113 (G.R. No.
SECOND DIVISION 192565)
G.R. No. 179031
November 14, 2012 FACTS:

The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the RTC-


FACTS: Makati City decision dismissing the petition
for certiorari of petitioners Union Bank of the
On February 26, 2000, “AAA” and her siblings enjoyed Philippines (Union Bank) and Desi Tomas
the spaghetti their father (appellant) brought home for (collectively, the petitioners). The RTC found that the
merienda. After eating, “AAA” went to the bedroom to Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City
rest. Thereafter, appellant also entered the room and (MeTC-Makati City) did not commit any grave abuse
of discretion in denying the motion to quash the
positioned himself on top of “AAA”, took off her clothes
information for perjury filed by Tomas.
and inserted his penis into her vigina. “AAA” felt
intense pain and thus told her father that it was The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union Banks
painful. At that point, appellant apologized to his two (2) complaints for sum of money with prayer for
daughter, stood up, and then left the room. The whole a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie and Eliza
incident was incident was witnessed by “AAAs” Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint,
brother. docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0717, was filed before
the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998.
ISSUE: The second complaint, docketed as Civil Case No.
342-000, was filed on March 15, 2000 and raffled to
Whether or not the Trial Court gravely erred in the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. Both complaints
imposing the death penalty upon the accused showed that Tomas executed and signed the
Certification against Forum Shopping. Accordingly,
assuming arguendo that he is guilty of the crime she was charged of deliberately violating Article 183 of
charged. the RPC by falsely declaring under oath in the
Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second
COURT’S RULING: complaint that she did not commence any other action
or proceeding involving the same issue in another
Yes, the Trial Court gravely erred in imposing the tribunal or agency.
death penalty upon the accused.
Desi Tomas filed a motion to quash citing that the
It is settled that “when either one of the qualifying Makati MTC has no jurisdiction as the document was
circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted submitted and used in Pasay and that there was no
or lacking, that which is pleaded in the Information and crime committed as not all of the elements of perjury
proved by the evidence may be considered as an was present.
aggravating circumstances. As such, appellants
relationship with “AAA” may be considered as an The lower courts denied the motion saying that Makati
has jurisdiction as it was notarized there and ruled that
aggravating circumstance. she was sufficiently charged with perjury.
Accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable
ISSUE: Whether, in a crime of perjury, the proper
doubt of the crime of rape by sexual assault and is venue is where it was notarized or where it was used.
sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve years of
person mayor, as minimum, to twenty years of HELD: The SC ruled that Makati was the right venue.
reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is also ordered to
pay “AAA” the amount P30,000.00 as indemnity, The SC cites Rule 110, Sec. 15 of the Rules of Court
P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as where it was stated that criminal action shall be
instituted where the offense was committed or where
exemplary damages. any of its essential elements occurred.

The SC, one-by-one stated the elements of perjury


and provided that Tomas did all things in Makati, thus
making Makati the right venue for the case.
together, did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Dr. Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in
administering the anesthetic agent to Gerald. Indeed,
Dr. Vertido’s findings did not preclude the probability
that other factors related to Gerald’s major operation,
CASE NO. 16 which could or could not necessarily be attributed to
the administration of the anesthesia, had caused the
G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014 hypoxia and had then led Gerald to experience
DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM, Petitioner, bradycardia. Dr. Vertido revealingly concluded in his
vs. report, instead, that "although the anesthesiologist
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. followed the normal routine and precautionary
procedures, still hypoxia and its corresponding side
FACTS: effects did occur."
This appeal is taken by a physician-anesthesiologist The existence of the probability about other factors
who has been pronounced guilty of reckless causing the hypoxia has engendered in the mind of
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries by the the Court a reasonable doubt as to Dr. Solidum’s guilt,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals and moves us to acquit him of the crime of reckless
(CA). He had been part of the team of imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. "
anesthesiologists during the surgical pull-through
operation conducted on a three-year old patient born
with an imperforate anus. Issue #2

We have to clarify that the acquittal of Dr. Solidum


Gerald, then three years old, was admitted at the would not immediately exempt him from civil liability.
Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. The But we cannot now find and declare him civilly liable
petitioner Dr. Fernando Solidum (Dr. Solidum) was the because the circumstances that have been
anesthesioligist. During the operation, Gerald established here do not present the factual and legal
experienced bradycardia, and went into a coma. He bases for validly doing so. His acquittal did not derive
regained consciousness only after a month. He could only from reasonable doubt. There was really no firm
no longer see, hear or move. and competent showing how the injury to Gerard had
been caused. That meant that the manner of
Agitated by her son’s helpless and unexpected administration of the anesthesia by Dr. Solidum was
condition, Ma. Luz Gercayo (Luz) lodged a complaint not necessarily the cause of the hypoxia that caused
for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical the bradycardia experienced by Gerard.
injuries with the City Prosecutor’s Office of Manila Consequently, to adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable
against the attending physicians. would be to speculate on the cause of the hypoxia.
We are not allowed to do so, for civil liability must not
Upon a finding of probable cause, the City rest on speculation but on competent evidence.
Prosecutor’s Office filed an information solely against
Dr. Solidum.
CASE NO. 17
The case was initially filed in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila, but was transferred to the RTC Castillo vs. Salvador, July 2014
pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8369 (The
Family Courts Act of 1997). Facts:

On July 19, 2004, the RTC rendered its judgment The respondent Phillip Salvador and his brother
finding Dr. Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Ramon Salvador were charged with estafa under
reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal
injuries. On January 20, 2010, the CA affirmed the Code. The petitioner, Cristina B. Castillo is a
conviction of Dr. Solidum.
businesswoman who is engaged in real estate
business, educational institution, boutique, and trading
ISSUE(S): business. Petitioner met respondent through a
1) whether or not Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal common friend in December 2000 and became close
negligence. since then. Petitioner eventually met respondent’s
2) Wether or not Dr. Solidum was civilly liable brother and manager, Ramon Salvador. She was then
enticed by the respondent and his brother to engage
HELD:
in freight and remittance business.
1) No
2) No
As petitioner had deeply fallen in love with respondent
RATIO: and since she trusted him very much as he even acted
as a father to her children when her annulment was
Issue 1: on-going, she agreed to embark on the remittance
Dr. Solidum was criminally charged for "failing to business. In December 2001, they went to Hong Kong
monitor and regulate properly the levels of anesthesia and had the Phillip Salvador Freight and Remittance
administered to said Gerald Albert Gercayo and using International Limited registered. A Memorandum of
100% halothane and other anesthetic medications."
Articles of Incorporation and a Certificate of
However, the foregoing circumstances, taken
Incorporation were issued. She agreed with act or omission cannot and can never be held liable
respondent and Ramon that any profit derived from for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil
the business would be equally divided among them liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil
and that respondent would be in charge of promotion action, if any, which may be instituted must be based
and marketing in Hong Kong, while Ramon would take on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is
charge of the operations of business in the Philippines the situation contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of
and she would be financing the business. Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this
The business has not operated yet as petitioner was case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been
still raising the amount of US$100,000.00 as capital satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
for the actual operation. When petitioner already had liability which may be proved by preponderance of
the money, she handed the same to respondent in evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in
May 2002 at her mother’s house in Las Piñas City, Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for
which was witnessed by her disabled half-brother damages is “for the same act or omission.”
Enrico B. Tan. However, the proposed business never
operated. When she asked respondent about the The evidence for the prosecution being insufficient to
money and the business, the latter told her that the prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime as
money was deposited in a bank. However, upon charged had been committed by appellant, the general
further query, respondent confessed that he used the presumption, "that a person is innocent of the crime or
money to pay for his other obligations. Since then, the wrong, stands in his favor. The prosecution failed to
US$100,000.00 was not returned at all. prove that all the elements of estafa are present in this
case as would overcome the presumption of
Respondent testified that he and petitioner became innocence in favor of appellant. Thus, since the
close friends and eventually fell in love and had an acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, respondent is
affair. His defence was that it was the petitioner who not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by
suggested a remittance business upon seeing how preponderance of evidence only.
popular he was among the Filipino domestic helpers
when they travelled to Hong Kong and Bangkok. He In Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., Preponderance
denied receiving the US$100,000.00 capital from the of evidence is defined as the weight, credit, and value
petitioner. He claimed that no remittance business of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
was started in Hong Kong as they had no license, considered to be synonymous with the term "greater
equipment, personnel and money to operate the weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the
same. credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a
phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of
On April 21, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision which the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to
rendered the accused, Philip Salvador guilty beyond the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and is in opposition thereto.
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of four
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision However, in this case, no such civil liability is proved
correctional maximum as minimum to twenty (20) even by preponderance of evidence.
years of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum
and to indemnify the private complainant in the Petitioner failed to show how she was able to raise the
amount of US$100,000.00 or its equivalent in money in such a short period of time and even gave
Philippine currency. conflicting versions on the source of the same. She
also failed to require respondent to sign a receipt so
Respondent appealed his conviction to the CA. On she could have a record of the transaction and offered
February 11, 2010, the CA rendered its Decision no plausible reason why the money was allegedly
reversing the decision of the RTC. Petitioner then files hand-carried to Hong Kong. Moreover, petitioner’s
the instant petition on the civil aspect of the case. claim of trust as reason for not requiring respondent to
sign a receipt was inconsistent with the way she
Issue: conducted her previous transactions with him and her
Whether the award of damages be retained despite behavior after the alleged fraud perpetrated against
the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case her was inconsistent with the actuation of someone
who had been swindled.
Ruling:
Thus, the petition for the award of damages is denied.
No. The award of damages cannot be retained. Our
law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different
CASE NO. 18
effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an
acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the G.R. No. 175256
author of the act or omission complained of. This
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person Petitioner: Lily Lim
who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any
Respondent: Kuo Co Ping aka Charlie Co dismiss the said civil case and Lim’s appeal in the civil
aspect of the estafa case. He maintained that the two
G.R. No. 179160 actions raise the same issue, which is Co’s liability to
Lim for her inability to withdraw the bags of cement,
Petitioner: Kuo Co Ping aka Charlie Co and should be dismissed on the ground of
lispendensand forum shopping. The appellate court
Respondent: Lily Lim (Second Division) favorably resolved Co’s motion and
dismissed Lim’s appeal from the civil aspect of the
Facts: estafa case. It held that the parties, causes of action,
and reliefs prayed for in Lim’s appeal and in her civil
In February 1999, FR Cement Corporation (FRCC), complaint are
owner/operator of a cement manufacturing plant, identical. Both actions seek the same relief, which is
issued several withdrawal authorities for the account the payment of the value of the 37,200 bags of
of cement dealers and traders, Fil-Cement Center and cement. Thus, the CA Second Division dismissed
Tigerbilt. These withdrawal authorities state the Lim’s appeal for forum shopping Lim filed the instant
number of bags that the dealer/trader paid for and can petition for review.
withdraw from the plant. Each withdrawal authority
contained a provision that it is valid for six months Meanwhile, the Manila RTC denied Co’s Motion to
from its date of issuance, unless revoked by FRCC. Dismiss. The Manila RTC held that there was no
forum shopping because the causes of action invoked
Fil-Cement Center and Tigerbilt, through their in the two cases are different. It observed that the civil
administrative manager, Gail Borja, sold the complaint before it is based on an obligation arising
withdrawal authorities covering 50,000 bags of cement from contract and quasi-delict, whereas the civil
to Co for the amount of P3.15 million or P63.00 per liability involved in the appeal of the criminal case
bag. On February 15, 1999, Co sold these withdrawal arose from a felony.
authorities to Lim allegedly at the price of P64.00 per
bag or a total of P3.2 million. Using the withdrawal Co filed a petition for certiorari prayed for the
authorities, Lim successfully withdrew 2,800 bags of nullification of the Manila RTC’s Order in Civil Case
cement, and sold back some of the withdrawal No. 05-112396 for having been issued with grave
authorities, covering 10,000 bags, to Co. In April 1999, abuse of discretion. The CA Seventeenth Division
FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining denied Co’s petition and remanded the civil complaint
37,200 bags. Lim clarified the matter with Co and to the trial court for further proceedings. The CA
Borja, who explained that the plant implemented a Seventeenth Division agreed with the Manila RTC that
price increase and would only release the goods once the elements of litispendentiaand forum shopping are
Lim pays for the price difference or agrees to receive a not met.
lesser quantity of cement.
Co filed the instant Petition for Review. Upon Co’s
After failed demands, Lim filed a criminal case of motion, the Court resolved to consolidate the two
Estafa through Misappropriation or Conversion against petitions.
Co before Branch 154 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig City. She alleged that Co with intent to Issue
defraud her, with grave abuse of confidence, with Did Lim commit forum shopping in filing the civil case
unfaithfulness, received in trust P2,380,800.00 as for specific performance and damages during the
payment for the 37,200 bags of cement but far from pendency of her appeal on the civil aspect of the
complying with his obligation, misappropriated, criminal case for estafa?
misapplied and converted to his own personal use and
benefit the said amount of P2,300,800.00 and despite Ruling:
demands, the accused failed and refused to return
said amount. On November 19, 2003, the RTC of A single act or omission that causes damage to an
Pasig City, Branch 154, rendered its Order14 offended party may give rise to two separate civil
acquitting Co of the estafa charge for insufficiency of liabilities on the part of the offender(1) civil liabilityex
evidence as the first and second elements of the crime delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal
of estafa were not established by the prosecution’s offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
evidence. After the trial on the civil aspect of the and (2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability
criminal case, the Pasig City RTC that may be pursued independently of the criminal
also relieved Co of civil liability. proceedings. The independent civil liability may be
based on “an obligation not arising from the act or
On March 14, 2005, Lim filed her notice of appeal on omission complained of as a felony,” as provided in
the civil aspect of the criminal case. Her appeal was Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85138 and raffled to the contract or for tort53). It may also be based on an act
Second Division of the CA. On April 19, 2005, Lim or omission that may constitute felony but,
filed a complaint for specific performance and nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal
damages before Branch 21 of the RTC of Manila. The action by specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil
defendants in the civil case were Co and all other Code (“in cases of defamation, fraud and physical
parties to the withdrawal authorities. Lim asserted two injuries”). The civil liability arising from the offense or
causes of action: breach of contract and abuse of ex delicto is based on the acts or omissions that
rights. constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is
inherently intertwined with the criminal action. For this
In reaction to the filing of the civil complaint for specific reason, the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted
performance and damages, Co filed motions to with the criminal offense. If the action for the civil
liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to Held: No. Forum shopping exists if there are
the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are multiplicity of suits with same facts and reliefs
suspended until the final outcome of the criminal prayed for. However, it would not be violative
action. The civil liability based on delict is extinguished if there is a law allowing separate civil action
when the court hearing the criminal action declares from the civil aspect pending in criminal case.
that “the act or omission from which the civil liability
may arise did not exist. Here, the civil case should not be dismissed
even if there is multiplicity of suits. The civil
ART. 31. When the civil action is based on an case filed by Casupanan is supported by the
obligation not arising from the act or omission provisions of the Civil Code referring to quasi-
complained of as a felony, such civil action delicts different from the civil actions
mayproceed independently of the criminal pertaining to crime.
proceedings and regardless of the result of
the latter.
CASE NO. 20
ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate G.R. No. 112985. April 21, 1999
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARTIN L.
by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed ROMERO and ERNESTO C. RODRIGUEZ
independentlyof the criminal prosecution, and shall Rule 111- Effect of Death on the Civil Action
require only a preponderance of evidence.
Facts:
Thus, Civil Case No. 05-112396 involves the
obligations arising fromcontract and from tort whereas SAIDECOR started its operation on August 24, 1989
the appeal in the estafa case involves only the as a marketing business with Martin Romero as the
civilobligations of Co arising from the otfense charged. President and General Manager and Ernesto
They present different causesactions, which. under Rodriguez as the operations manager. Later, it
the law, are considered "separate, distinct, engaged in soliciting funds and investments from the
andindependent from each other. Both cases can public guaranteeing an 800% return on investment
proceed to ·their finaladjudication subject to the within fifteen (15) to twenty one (21) days.
prohibition on double recovery under Article 2177 of
Civil Code. On September 14, 1989, Ernesto A. Ruiz went to
SAIDECOR office in Butuan City to make an
Thus, Lily Lim's petition is granted. The assailed investment handing over P150, 000.00 to SAIDECOR
October 20, 2005 Resolution of the SecondDivision of collection agent Daphne Parrocho. Ernesto Rodrigues
the isREVERSED and SET ASIDE. Lily Lim's.appeal issued a post-dated check. The check was presented
in CA-G.R. CV No. 85138 is orderedREINSTATED for payment on October 5, 1989 and was dishonored
and the CA is DIRECTED to RESOLVE the for insufficiency of fund while both the accused cannot
same with DELIBERATE DISPATCH. be located at that time.

On October 25, 1989, an information was filed against


CASE NO. 19 Romero and Rodriguez at the RTC in Butuan city for
estafa.
CAPUSANAN v. LAROYA On the same day, the city fiscal filed with the same
court another information against the two (2) accused
GR No. 145391, August 26, 2002 for violation of Batas PambansaBilang 22, arising from
the issuance of the same check. On January 11, 1990,
both accused were arraigned before the Regional Trial
Facts: The vehicle of Capitulo driven by Casupanan Court, where they pleaded not guilty to both
and another by Laroya figured an accident. informations.
After the unpleasant incident, the latter filed
criminal case against Casupanan for reckless On November 13, 1992, the parties submitted a joint
imprudence resulting in damage to property stipulation of facts, signed only by their respective
and the former filed civil case against Laroya counsels. Thereafter, the case was submitted for
for quasi-delict, both in Municipal Circuit Trial decision. On March 30, 1993, the trial court
Court of Capas, Tarlac. promulgated a Joint Judgment acquitting the accused
for violation of BP 22 and convicting them for estafa.
Subsequently, Laroya file a Motion to dismiss
the civil case. For him, the presence of the On March 30, 1993, accused filed their notice of
case constitutes forum shopping while the civil appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, on
aspect arising from delict is pending. For November 12, 1997, accused Ernesto Rodriguez died.
Casupanan, the civil case can proceed
independently since it is a separate and
distinct civil action source from the Civil Code. Issue: WON the death of Ernesto Rodriguez
extinguished his criminal and civil liability ex delicto.
Issue: Whether the civil case filed by Casupanan be
dismissed
Ruling: Yes. Pursuant to the doctrine established in
People vs. Bayotas, the death of the accused pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability ex delicto. The Issue: Whether the criminal case should be
criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no suspended pending the outcome of the prejudicial
longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil question of the civil case?
action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex
delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on Held: No. The determination of whether the
the criminal case. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability proceedings may be suspended on the basis of a
survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if
prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and
the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. issues raised in the pleading in the civil cases are so
related with the issues raised in the criminal case such
The Court hereby affirms with modification the that the resolution of the issue in the civil case would
appealed judgment. The Court hereby sentences also determine the judgment in the criminal case.
accused-appellant Martin Romero to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) In the case at bar, the pending civil cases are
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to sixteen (16) principally for the determination of whether a loan was
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as obtained by Magestrado from Elena Librojo and
maximum, to indemnify Ernesto A. Ruiz in the amount
whether the former executed a real estate mortgage
of one hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000.00)
with interest thereon at six (6%) per centum per involving the property covered by TCT No. N-173163.
annum from September 14, 1989, until fully paid, to On the other hand, the criminal case involves the
pay twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as moral determination of whether petitioner committed perjury
damages and fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00), as in executing an Affidavit of Loss to support his request
exemplary damages, and the costs for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy. It is
evident that the civil case and the criminal case can
CASE NO. 21 proceed independently of each other. Regardless of
the outcome of the two civil case, it will not establish
FRANCISCO MAGESTRADO VS. PEOPLE OF THE the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal
PHILIPPINES and ELENA M. LIBROJO case for perjury.

(G.R. NO. 148072, JULY 10, 2007)


CASE NO. 22
Facts: Petitioner, Francisco Magestrado loaned a sum
of money from Private Respondent, Elena M. Librojo. Pimentel vs Pimentel
As a security for the said loan, Magestrado executed a 630 SCRA 436
mortgage and surrendered the said title of the property
FACTS:
to Librojo. Private respondent Elena M. Librojo filed a On 25 October 2004, Maria Pimentel (private
criminal complaint for perjury against petitioner, before respondent) filed an action for frustrated parricide
the MeTC of Quezon City. Alleging that the petitioner against Joselito Pimentel (petitioner) before the
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Joselito received
make an untruthful statement under oath, Magestrado a summon to appear before the Regional Trial Court
effected an Affidavit of Loss before Notary Public of Antipolo City for the pre-trial and trial of a civil case
for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article
falsely asserting that he lost Owner’s Duplicate
36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological
Certificate of TCT No. N-173163, which document was incapacity. Joselito then filed an urgent motion to
used in support of a Petition for Issuance of New suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Title and filed on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial
with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. question.
Petitioner Magestrado then filed a motion for
ISSUE:
suspension of proceedings based on a prejudicial
Whether or not the resolution of the action for
question alleging that the civil cases for recovery of a annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that
sum of money for cancellation of mortgage, delivery of warrants the suspension of the criminal case for
title and damages both pending before the Regional frustrated parricide against Joselito.
Trial Court of Quezon City must be resolved first. On
his contention that since the issues in the said civil HELD:
cases are similar or intimately related to the issues The petition has no merit.
raised in the criminal action. Hence, MeTC issued an
Pursuant to Section 7 Rule 111 of the Rules of Court,
Order denying petitioner’s motion for suspension of the elements of prejudicial question are as follows: (a)
proceeding, appearing that the resolution of the issues the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
raised in the civil actions is not determinative of the similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
guilt or innocence of the accused. The Petitions for subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of
Certiorari filed by the petitioner with RTC and the CA such issue determines whether or not the criminal
were dismissed. action may proceed. The civil case for the annulment
was filed after the filing of the criminal case for the
frustrated parricide, thus, requirement of the
aforementioned rule was not met as the civil action
was filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal action.
Board of Directors:
Moreover, the relationship between the offender and 1. Cecilia D. Liclican – Chairman and Presiding
the victim is a key element in the crime of parricide, Officer
which distinguishes it from the crime of murder and 2. Norma D. Isip
homicide. However, the issue in the annulment of 3. Purita C. Dominguez
marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue 4. Tessie C. Dominguez, and
in the criminal case stated. Furthermore, the 5. Shirley C. Dominguez
relationship between the two is not determinative of
the guilt or innocence of the accused. Officers:
1. Cecilia D. Liclican as President and Presiding
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Officer
Appeals. It stated that “In the criminal case for 2. Norma D. Isip as Vice-President
frustrated parricide, the issue is whether the offender 3. Gerald B. Cabrera as Corporate
commenced the commission of the crime of parricide Secretary/Treasurer and Oscar Aquino – Financial
directly by overt acts and did not perform all the acts Consultant Auditor
of execution by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. On the In reaction to the foregoing developments, petitioners
other hand, the issue in the civil action for annulment Dagdagan, Patrick and Kenneth Pacis, and
of marriage is whether petitioner is psychologically Dominguez filed a Complaint against respondents
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City (RTC)
obligations. The Court of Appeals ruled that even if the for nullification of meetings, election and acts of
marriage between petitioner and respondent would be directors and officers, injunction and other reliefs,
declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal raffled to Branch 59 of the court. Docketed as Civil
case because prior to the declaration of nullity, the Case No. 6623-R, the case, after a failed mediation,
alleged acts constituting the crime of frustrated was referred for appropriate Judicial Dispute
parricide had already been committed. The Court of Resolution (JDR) to Branch 7 of the RTC.
Appeals ruled that all that is required for the charge of
frustrated parricide is that at the time of the Subsequently, JMD, represented by petitioners
commission of the crime, the marriage is still Dagdagan and Patrick Pacis, executed an Affidavit-
subsisting.” Complaint7 dated December 15, 2008 charging
respondents Liclican and Isip with qualified theft. The
criminal cases for qualified theft were then docketed
CASE NO. 23 as Criminal Case Nos. 29176-R (based on I.S. No.
3118) and 29175-R (based on I.S. No. 3111). On
G.R. No. 208587, July 29, 2015 March 10, 2009, the corresponding warrants were
issued for the arrests of Isip and Liclican.
JM DOMINGUEZ AGRONOMIC COMPANY, INC.,
HELEN D. DAGDAGAN, PATRICK PACIS, KENNETH In due time, respondents lodged a petition for
PACIS, AND SHIRLEY DOMINGUEZ, Petitioners, v. certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
CECILIA LICLICAN, NORMA D. ISIP, AND PURITA No.108617, to annul and set aside the two (2) March
DOMINGUEZ, Respondents. 10, 2009 Orders by the RTC Branch 7, anchored,
among others, on the alleged existence of a prejudicial
The Facts question. According to respondents, petitioner
stockholders, by filing the complaint-affidavit, are
During the annual stockholders meeting of petitioner already assuming that they are the legitimate directors
JM Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc. (JMD) held of JMD, which is the very issue in the intra-corporate
on December 29, 2007 at the Baguio City Country dispute pending in the RTC, Branch 59.
Club, the election for its new set of directors was
conducted. Conflict ensued when petitioners Patrick The appellate court held that Judge Tiongson-Tabora
and Kenneth Pacis were allegedly not allowed to vote should have refrained from determining probable
on the ground that they are not registered cause since she is well aware of the pendency of the
stockholders of JMD. issue on the validity of JMD’s elections in Civil Case
No. 6623-R.
Tensions rose and respondents, allegedly, walked out
of the meeting. But since the remaining stockholders Issue:
with outstanding shares constituted a quorum, the
election of officers still proceeded, which yielded the Whether or not Civil Case No. 6623-R constituted a
following result: prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the
proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 29175-R and
Officers: 29176-R.
1. Helen D. Dagdagan as President
2. Patrick D. Pacis as Vice-President Ruling
3. Kenneth D. Pacis as Secretary
4. Shirley C. Dominguez as Treasurer In the case at bar, the CA correctly ruled that Judge
Tiongson-Tabora acted with grave abuse of discretion
After staging the walk-out, respondents, on even date, when she ordered the arrests of respondents Isip and
executed a Board Resolution certifying that in the Liclican despite the existence of a prejudicial question.
stockholders meeting, the following were elected
directors and officers of JMD. As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question
generally exists in a situation where a civil action and
a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in Cause. After respondent’s Comment/Opposition4 was
the former an issue that must be pre-emptively filed, the MeTC issued an Order dated July 9, 2004
resolved before the latter may proceed, because dismissing the case on the ground of lack of probable
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
cause.
resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the
guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal Aggrieved, respondent, with the express conformity of
case.24The rationale behind the principle is to avoid the public prosecutor, appealed the case to the
two conflicting decisions,25and its existence rests on Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
the concurrence of two essential elements: (i) the civil On July 21, 2005, the RTC rendered judgment setting
action involves an issue similar or intimately related to aside the July 9, 2004 Order of the MeTC and
the issue raised in the criminal action; and (ii) the directing the said court to proceed to trial.
resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA via a
criminal action may
proceed.26ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary petition for review.
On March 9, 2006, the CA rendered its presently
Here, the CA aptly observed that Civil Case No. 6623- assailed Resolution dismissing the petition. The CA
R, the intra-corporate dispute, posed a prejudicial ruled that the Decision of the RTC is interlocutory in
question to Criminal Case Nos. 29175-R and 29176- nature and, thus, is not appealable.
R. To be sure, Civil Case No. 6623-R involves the Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the
same parties herein, and is for nullification of JMD’s
CA denied it in its Resolution dated May 22, 2006.
meetings, election and acts of its directors and
officers, among others. Court intervention was sought Hence, the instant petition.
to ascertain who between the two contesting group of
officers should rightfully be seated at the company’s Issue: Wheter RTC’s decision was interlocutory and
helm. Without Civil Case No. 6623-R’s resolution, can be appealed?
petitioners’ authority to commence and prosecute
Criminal Case Nos. 29175-R and 29176-R against Held: RTC’s decision was interlocutory in nature. As
respondents for qualified theft in JMD’s behalf
remained questionable, warranting the suspension of such, it cannot be appealed.
the criminal proceedings. One of the grounds for the CA’s outright dismissal of
Fenequito et al.’s petition for review was because of
The resolution of the prejudicial question did not, in the latter’s failure to submit copies of pleadings and
context, cure the grave abuse of discretion already documents relevant and pertinent to the petition filed,
committed. The fact remains that when the RTC, as required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of
Branch 7 issued its challenged Orders on March 10,
Court.
2009, the Judgment in favor of petitioners was not yet
rendered. Consequently, there was still, at that time, a It is settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a
real dispute as to who the rightful set of officers were. natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a
Plainly, Judge Tiongson-Tabora should not have statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
issued the challenged Orders and should have, manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
instead, suspended the proceedings until Civil Case An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing
No. 6623-R was resolved with finality. party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down
in the Rules of Court. The rationale for this strict
The foregoing notwithstanding, it should be made
clear that the nullification of the March 10, 2009 attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are
Orders does not, under the premises, entail the designed to facilities the orderly disposition of
dismissal of the instituted criminal cases, but would appealed cases.
merely result in the suspension of the proceedings in But even if the Court bends its Rules to allow the
view of the prejudicial question. present petition, the Court still finds no cogent reason
to depart from the assailed ruling of the CA. This is
CASE NO. 24 because Fenequito et al. erroneously assumed that
the RTC Decision is final and appealable, when in fact
Fenequito vs. Vergara, Jr., 677 SCRA 113, G.R. No. it is interlocutory. An order is interlocutory if it does not
172829 July 18, 2012 dispose of a case completely, but leaves something
more to be done upon its merits. In contrast, a final
Facts: order is one that which dispose of the whole subject
The present petition arose from a criminal complaint matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action,
for falsification of public documents filed by herein leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution
respondent against herein petitioners with the Office of what has been determined.
the City Prosecutor of Manila. Granted, the assailed Decision of the RTC set aside
the Order of the MeTC and directed the court a quo to
On February 11, 2004, Information for falsification of proceed to trial by allowing the prosecution to present
public documents was filed with the Metropolitan Trial its evidence. Hence, it is clear that the RTC Decision
Court (MeTC) of Manila by the Assistant City is interlocutory as it did not dispose of the case
Prosecutor of Manila against herein petitioners. On completely, but left something more to be done on its
April 23, 2004, herein petitioners filed a Motion to merits.
Dismiss the Case Based on Absence of Probable
CASE NO. 25 been committed, the Secretary of Justice reasoned
out that, [the] theory of conversion or misappropriation
G.R. No. 181021 December 10, 2012 is difficult to sustain and that under the crime of estafa
with grave abuse of confidence, the presumption is
BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, that the thing has been devoted to a purpose or is
vs. different from that for which it was intended but did not
JOSEFA "JING" C. REYES and SECRETARY RAUL take place in this case.1âwphi1 The CA, in sustaining
GONZALEZ of the DEPARTMENT OF the questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice,
JUSTICE, Respondents. ruled that the element of misappropriation or
conversion is wanting.
Facts: Private respondent Josefa "Jing" C. Reyes
It must be remembered that the finding of probable
(Reyes), sometime in 1996, offered her services to
cause was made after conducting a preliminary
petitioner as the latter's real estate agent in buying investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a
parcels of land in Calamba, Laguna, which are to be realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case.13 Its
developed into a golf course. Convinced of her purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been
representations, petitioner released the amount committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause
of P23,423,327.50 in her favor to be used in buying to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.14
those parcels of land. Reyes, instead of buying those
This Court need not overemphasize that in a
parcels of land, converted and misappropriated the
preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely
money given by petitioner to her personal use and determines whether there is probable cause or
benefit. Petitioner sent a formal demand for Reyes to sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
return the amount of P23,423,327.50, to no avail that a crime has been committed, and that the
despite her receipt of the said demand. As such, respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be
petitioner filed a complaint for the crime of Estafa held for trial. It does not call for the application of rules
against Reyes before the Assistant City Prosecutor's and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction
requires after trial on the merits.15 The complainant
Office of Makati City.
need not present at this stage proof beyond
reasonable doubt.16 A preliminary investigation does
not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the
After a preliminary investigation was conducted parties' evidence.17 Precisely, there is a trial to allow
the reception of evidence for both parties to
against Reyes, the Assistant Prosecutor of Makati City
substantiate their respective claims.18
issued a Resolution2 dated April 27, 2005. It is
recommended that respondent be indicted of the The mere presumption of misappropriation or
crime of Estafa defined and penalized under the conversion is enough to conclude that a probable
Revised Penal Code. cause exists for the indictment of Reyes for Estafa. As
to whether the presumption can be rebutted by Reyes
Thereafter, an Information for the crime of Estafa is already a matter of defense that can be best
under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal presented or offered during a full-blown trial.
Code (RPC) was filed against Reyes and raffled
before the RTC, Branch 149, Makati City. Undeterred, To reiterate, probable cause has been defined as the
Reyes filed a petition for review before the Department existence of such facts and circumstances as would
of Justice (DOJ), but it was dismissed by the excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
Secretary of Justice through State Prosecutor facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
JovencitoZuño on June 1, 2006. Aggrieved, Reyes person charged was guilty of the crime for which he
filed a motion for reconsideration, and in a was prosecuted.22 Probable cause is a reasonable
Resolution4 dated July 20, 2006, the said motion was ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well
granted. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the
but was denied by the Secretary of Justice in a prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution
Resolution dated December 14, 2006. Eventually, and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of strong suspicion, that a thing is so.23 The term does
the Rules of Court with the CA.Its motion for not mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it
reconsideration having been denied by the CA in a import absolute certainty.24It is merely based on
Resolution dated December 20, 2007 hence this opinion and reasonable belief.25 Thus, a finding of
Petition for Review on Certiorari. probable cause does not require an inquiry into
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
Issue: THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY conviction.26 It is enough that it is believed that the
ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DOJ act or omission complained of constitutes the
SECRETARY, RAUL GONZALEZ, CAPRICIOUSLY, offense charged.27
ARBITRARILY AND WHIMSICALLY DISREGARDED
THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWING THE CASE NO. 26
[EXISTENCE] OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST
PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOR ESTAFA UNDER CITY PROSECUTOR ARMANDO P.
ARTICLE 315 1(b) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. ABANADO, complainant,
v
Ruling: The petition is meritorious.In reversing the JUDGE ABRAHAM A. BAYONA, Presiding Judge,
finding of probable cause that the crime of estafa has Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Bacolod
City, respondent.
reverses the investigating assisting city or provincial
prosecutor, the resolution finding probable cause
FACTS: replaces the recommendation of the investigating
The case sprang from a criminal case entitled People prosecutor recommending the dismissal of the case.
of the Philippines vs. Cresencio Palo, Sr. It was The result would be that the resolution of dismissal no
initially handled by Investigating Prosecutor Dennis longer forms an integral part of the records of the
Jarder who found no probable cause against Palo. case. It is no longer required that the complaint or
However, complainant, upon review, found that there entire records of the case during the preliminary
was a probable cause against Palo. Thus, investigation be submitted to and be examined by the
complainant disapproved Jarder’s Resolution and filed judge. The rationale behind this practice is that the
the Information in court. rules do not intend to unduly burden trial judges by
requiring them to go over the complete records of the
In connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest cases all the time for the purpose of determining
against accused Palo, respondent Judge Bayona probable cause for the sole purpose of issuing a
issued an order directing complainant Abanado to warrant of arrest against the accused. What is
present (1) a copy of the Memorandum of Preliminary required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient
Investigation, (2) Resolution of the Investigating supporting documents (such as the complaint,
Prosecutor Dennis Jarder, (3) Memorandum of the affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of
transfer of case assignment from designated witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any)
Investigating Prosecutor to the City Prosecutor, and upon which to make his independent judgment or, at
(4) Exhibit to the Court, to enable his court to evaluate the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the
and determine the existence of probable cause. prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.

With respect to item 3, complainant explained in a Complainant executed an administrative complaint


letter that there was no memorandum of transfer of the and the same was received by the Office of the Court
case from Investigating Prosecutor Jarder to him. Administrator (OCA). He alleged that respondent was
guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure and
Respondent was dissatisfied with the explanation of gross misconduct. He essentially asserted that
the Office of the City Prosecutor. In an Order, respondent unduly burdened himself by obsessing
respondent stated that the Jarder’s Resolution over the production of the records of the preliminary
dismissing the complaint was part and parcel of the investigation, especially Jarder’s Resolution.
official records of the case and, for this reason, must Respondent, in his Comment with Counter-Complaint
form part of the records of the preliminary for Disbarment of Prosecutor Abanado, reiterated the
investigation. He further stated that because there was importance of the Jarder’s Resolution in deciding
a conflict between Jarder’s and complainant’s whether to issue a warrant of arrest.
resolutions, those documents were necessary in the
evaluation and appreciation of the evidence to The OCA submitted its report and recommendation. It
establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant noted Judge Gellada’s Order which held that the
of arrest against Palo. He, thus, ordered complainant resolution of the city or provincial prosecutor finding
to complete the records of the case by producing the probable cause replaces the recommendation of the
Jarder’s Resolution. The Office of the City Prosecutor investigating prosecutor. In such case, the resolution
again sent a letter explaining the impossibility of recommending the dismissal is superseded, and no
submitting it to the court. The letter stated that the longer forms an integral part of the records of the case
Resolution was no longer part of the records of the and it need not be annexed to the information filed in
case as it was disapproved by complainant. court.

Respondent did not accept the explanations made by ISSUE:


the Office of the City Prosecutor. In an order, he Whether or not the conduct of a preliminary
required complainant to explain why he should not be investigation is an executive function
cited for contempt. Complainant requested for a ten-
day extension to comply with it but respondent denied HELD:
the request. He likewise ordered the Clerk of Court to Yes. The conduct of a preliminary investigation is
issue a subpoena ducestecumadtestificandum to primarily an executive function.
Jarder directing him to testify on the existence of his
resolution dismissing the case against Palo and to Thus, the courts must consider the rules of procedure
Office of the City Prosecutor’s Records Officer Myrna of the Department of Justice in conducting preliminary
Vañegas to bring the entire record of the preliminary investigations whenever the actions of a public
investigation of the Palo case. prosecutor is put in question. The Department of
Justic-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS)
Aggrieved, complainant immediately filed a motion for Manual states that the resolution of the investigating
inhibition against respondent and a petition for prosecutor should be attached to the information only
certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary as far as practicable. Such attachment is not
restraining order (TRO) to restrain respondent from mandatory or required under the rules.
proceeding with the hearing of the contempt
proceedings. Complainant’s prayer for a TRO was CASE NO. 27
granted by Presiding Judge PepitoGellada of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Bacolod City. HEIRS OF THE LATE NESTOR TRIA, petitioner
vs.
Judge Gellada granted the petition for certiorari ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS, Respondent.
holding that when a city or provincial prosecutor
On July 2, 1999, the Office of the Provincial
G.R. No. 175887 Prosecutor of Camarines Sur issued a
November 24, 2010 resolution8 directing the filing of an information for
Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR., J. murder against Aclan and Ona but dismissing the
case for insufficiency of evidence as against herein
respondent, Atty. EpifaniaObias.

Nature of Case: Petitioners appealed to the Department of Justice


Petition for Review on Certiorari (DOJ) assailing the Provincial Prosecutor’s order to
dismiss the charge against respondent. Based on the
BRIEF findings that the respondent acted with complicity, the
DOJ Secretary modified the resolution of the
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 Provincial Prosecutor and directed the latter to include
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, respondent in the information for murder filed against
seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated Aclan and Ona.
August 14, 2006 and Resolution2 dated December 11,
2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of
86210. The CA denied the petition for the DOJ’s resolution but the same was denied by the
mandamus/certiorari filed by the petitioners which Justice Secretary.
assailed the Order3 dated March 24, 2004 of the Office
of the President (OP) dismissing the murder charge The respondent then filed a Notice of Appeal before
against the respondent. the Office of the President. Senior Deputy Executive
Secretary Waldo Q. Flores adopted the resolutions of
FACTS the DOJ and affirmed the same. Respondent thus filed
a motion for reconsideration, followed by a
On May 22, 1998, at around 10:00 o’clock in the Supplemental Pleading and Submission of Newly
morning at the Pili Airport in Camarines Sur, Engr. Discovered Evidence. This newly discovered evidence
Nestor Tria, Regional Director of the Department of consisted of an affidavit of two witnesses, Calayag
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Region V and and JennisNidea, alleging that the respondent was not
concurrently Officer-In-Charge of the 2nd Engineering responsible for the offense.
District of Camarines Sur, was shot by a gunman
while waiting to board his flight to Manila. He was Based on this newly discovered evidence submitted
brought to a hospital but died the following day from by the respondent, Presidential Assistant Manuel C.
the lone gunshot wound on his nape. Subsequently, Domingo granted respondent’s motion for
the incident was investigated by the National Bureau reconsideration and reversed the DOJ resolutions.
of Investigation (NBI). Accordingly, the case against respondent was
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
During its investigation, the NBI found that the
accused Aclan and Ona had been conducting almost Petitioners then filed before the CA a petition for
a daily surveillance at the office of the victim. In the mandamus/certiorari, but the same was denied by the
morning of the day of the incident, Atty. Obias, CA.
together with Aclan, was at the house of the victim.
The victim was shot by Aclan at the back of his head Petitioners ultimately filed the present petition before
immediately after the victim and Atty. Obias shook the Supreme Court alleging, among others, that they
hands and talked at the airport. were denied due process since they have not
confronted nor cross-examined the witnesses who
The NBI also anchored their basis for the motive on executed the additional affidavits.
the part of Atty. Obias to kill the victim on the the fact
that the respondent acted as a broker between the ISSUE/S of the CASE
victim’s family and spouses Prudencio Jeremias on 1. Whether or not the petitioners were denied due
the sale of a real property. The victim’s family gave the process when they were not able to confront and
respondent the full payment of P2.8 Million for the sale cross-examine the witnesses who executed the
with the agreement that Atty. OBIAS would take care additional affidavits which served as newly discovered
of all legal processes and documentations until the evidence.
Deed of Absolute Sale is delivered to the TRIA family.
After the death of TRIA, the surviving spouse and COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
heirs made several attempts to contact Atty. OBIAS to
demand immediate delivery of the deed of sale, but Petitioners’ argument that the non-referral by the OP
the latter deliberately avoided the TRIA family and, to the DOJ of the appeal or motion for reconsideration
despite verbal and written demands, she failed and filed by the respondent had deprived them of the
refused, as she still fails and refuses, to fulfill her legal opportunity to confront and cross-examine the
obligation to the TRIA family. witnesses on those affidavits belatedly submitted by
the respondent is likewise untenable. Under the
On July 31, 1998, NBI Regional Director Alejandro R. procedure for preliminary investigation provided
Tenerife, Chairman of Task Force Tria, recommended in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
to the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur the Criminal Procedure, as amended,38 in case the
indictment of Roberto "Obet" Aclan y Gulpo, Juanito investigating prosecutor conducts a hearing
"Totoy" Ona y Masalonga and Atty. Epifania "Fanny" where there are facts and issues to be clarified
Gonzales-Obias, for the murder of Engr. Tria. from a party or witness, "[t]he parties can be
present at the hearing but without the right to against Aclan and Ona is hereby REINSTATED and
examine or cross-examine. They may, however, UPHELD.
submit to the investigating officer questions which
may be asked to the party or witness No costs.
concerned."39Hence, the non-referral by the OP to the
DOJ of the motion for reconsideration of respondent, CASE NO. 28
in the exercise of its discretion, did not violate
petitioners’ right to due process. LESSON / DOCTRINE:

In Metro Manila and in chartered cities, the filing of


criminal cases shall be commenced only by
SUPREME COURT RULING: information, except when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de oficio.
After a careful evaluation of the entire evidence on
record, we find no such grave abuse when the
Secretary of Justice found probable cause to charge GERLIE M. UY and MA. CONSOLACION T.
the respondent with murder in conspiracy with Aclan
BASCUG, Complainants
and Ona. The following facts and circumstances
established during preliminary investigation were vs.
sufficient basis to incite reasonable belief in JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
respondent’s guilt: (a) Motive - respondent had COURT, LA CASTELLANA, NEGROS
credible reason to have Engr. Tria killed because of OCCIDENTAL
the impending criminal prosecution for estafa from her
double sale of his lot prior to his death, judging from AM No. MTJ-07-1666 (Formerly AM OCA IPI No. 05-
the strong interest of Engr. Tria’s family to run after
1761-MTJ)
said property and/or proceeds of the second sale to a
third party; (b) Access - respondent was close to Engr. 05 September 2012
Tria’s family and familiar with his work schedule, daily Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J.
routine and other transactions which could facilitate in FACTS
the commission of the crime eventually carried out by
a hired gunmen, one of whom (Aclan) she and her An administrative case was filed against Judge
father categorically admitted being in her company Javellana arising from a verified complaint for “gross
while she visited Engr. Tria hours before the latter was
ignorance of the law and procedures, gross
fatally shot at the airport; (c) Suspicious Behavior --
respondent while declaring such close personal incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper and
relationship with Engr. Tria and even his family, failed unbecoming of a judge, grave misconduct and others,”
to give any satisfactory explanation why she reacted filed by Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug of the Public
indifferently to the violent killing of her friend while they Attorneys Office.
conversed and shook hands at the airport. Indeed, a
relative or a friend would not just stand by and walk
The complaint/allegations involve cases decided
away from the place as if nothing happened, as what
she did, nor refuse to volunteer information that would and/or were handled by Judge Javellana and his
help the authorities investigating the crime, alleged business relation as co-agent in a surety
considering that she is a vital eyewitness. Not even a company. In People vs Lopez, a case of malicious
call for help to the people to bring her friend quickly to mischief, Judge Javellana did not apply the Revised
the hospital. She would not even dare go near Engr. Rule on Summary Procedure and, instead, conducted
Tria’s body to check if the latter was still alive. a preliminary investigation in accordance with the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, then set the
All the foregoing circumstances, in our mind, and from
the point of view of an ordinary person, lead to a case for arraignment and pre-trial, despite confirming
reasonable inference of respondent’s probable that therein complainant and her witnesses had no
participation in the well-planned assassination of Engr. personal knowledge of the material facts alleged in
Tria. We therefore hold that the OP in reversing the their affidavits, which should have been a ground for
DOJ Secretary’s ruling, and the CA in affirming the dismissal of said case.
same, both committed grave abuse of discretion.
Clearly, the OP and CA arbitrarily disregarded facts on
ISSUE/S
record which established probable cause against the
respondent.
Whether Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated August 14,
2006 and Resolution dated December 11, 2006 of the RULING
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86210 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The January 25, 2000 Yes. Without any showing that the accused in People
Resolution of then Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas
vs Lopez, et al were charged with the special cases of
modifying the July 2, 1999 resolution of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Camarines Sur and directing the latter to malicious mischief particularly described in Article 328
include respondent in the information for murder filed of the Revised Penal Code the appropriate penalty for
the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium
and maximum periods which under Article 329(a) of 4. She saw the accused running away carrying
the Revised Penal Code, would be imprisonment for the sumpak.
two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. 5. During the investigation, the policemen
Clearly, this case should be governed by the Revised discovered the presence of 6 pellets hole and
Rule on Summary Procedure. Also, the Revised Rule 1 big hole size of the circumference of a
on Summary Procedure does not provide for a shotgun bullet on the door of the victims.
preliminary investigation prior to the filing of a criminal 6. Through his brother, the accused was
case under Rule 16, but in People vs. Lopez, Judge apprehended and brought him in the
Javellana conducted a preliminary investigation even detachment for initial investigation.
when it was not required or justified. 7. The following day, 1 injured children died as a
result of the wounds she suffered while the
Section 11 of the Revised Rule on Summary other child was discharged from the hospital 1
Procedure states: week after the incident.
8. The accused pleaded not guilty with the
“How commenced. – The filing of criminal cases falling following appeal.
within the scope of this Rule shall be etiher by a. The mother, being the witness has not
complaint or by information; Provided, however, that in proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such in spite of the fact that there was allegedly
cases shall be commenced only by information, no preliminary investigation.
except when the offense cannot be prosecuted de b. There was no sufficient evidence exists
oficio.” proving his guilt on the ground that he was
allegedly the holder of the unlicensed
On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised firearm.
Rules of Criminal Procedure only requires that a c. The witness had flip-flopping allegations as
preliminary investigation be conducted before the filing she could not tell the identity of the suspect
of a complaint or information for an offense where the when she was queried at the hospital.
penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two 9. From the foregoing, settled was the rule that
(2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
As has been previously established herein, the the witnesses are accorded great respect and
maximum penalty imposable for malicious mischief in finality in the appellate court where the same
People vs. Lopez, et al is just six (6) months. are surrounded by the evidence on record.
10. For there was no showing whatsoever of
CASE NO. 29 motivated ill or evil design to testify against the
accused, her motive and integrity, her
G.R. Nos. 94511-13. September 18, 1992 testimony should be given full credit in the light
People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee of the time-honored pronouncement that the
vs
absence of such strengthens the witnesses’
Alejandro C. Valencia, Accused-Appellant
Facts: credibility.

1. This was about a person convicted of (a) Issue:


Homicide with the use of unlicensed firearm,
Whether or not the accused-appellant was deprived of
penalized by Reclusion Perpetua with
his right of preliminary investigation when he was
accessory penalties provided for by law and
arrested without warrant.
further without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency and (b) Less Serious Physical Held:
injuries, penalized by imprisonment of 6
months of arresto mayor with the accessory A person who is LAWFULLY arrested, without warrant
penalties provided for by law without subsidiary pursuant to paragraph 1(bb), Section 5, Rule 113,
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Rules of Court should be delivered to the nearest
2. One night, a mother and her two children were police station and proceeded against in accordance
having supper. The former noticed the with Rule 112, Section 7. Under the latter section,
accused, Alejandro Valencia was few steps Rule 112, the prosecuting officer can file the
away from their shanty who was carrying a information other than the offended party, peace
“sumpak”, a homemade shotgun. She officer on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
immediately closed the door as she seized with party or arresting officer or person.
fear.
However, prior to the filing of such complaint or
3. After a few moments, burst of gunfire was
information, the person arrested may ask for
heard and followed by cries of pain from her
preliminary investigation by a proper officer in
children inside the house. She saw her
accordance with this rule, BUT he must sign a waiver
bloodied children who were immediately sent
of the provisions of Article 124 of the RPC as
to the hospital for cure.
amended, with the assistance of a lawyer and in case
of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible person of Yes. The Court finds that the Ombudsman
his choice. gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the
complaint against individual respondents for lack of
Since the records did not show whether the accused probable cause. Individual respondents were accused
asked from a preliminary investigation and in fact, the of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019. All the elements
latter signified his readiness to be arraigned, the Court to indict the accused are presents. There were
can only conclude that he waived his right to have a charged also with violation of Section 3(g) of the same
preliminary investigation when he did, in fact, pleaded law. The case reveals that Galleon made a request for
“not guilty” upon his arraignment. guarantees from DBP to cover its foreign borrowings
for the purpose of acquiring new and second hand
CASE NO. 30 vessels. The DBP itself raised various red flags
regarding Galleon’s request but still agreed to grant
PCGG vs. MA.MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-
GUTIERREZ, et al. the same request under certain conditions which were
GR NO. 194159, October 21, 2015 eventually not complied with. As a result, Galleons’
obligations to DBP ballooned to Php 2,039,284,390.85
Facts: while security of such obligations were only valued at
Php 539,000,000.00 as of March 31, 1984.
The PCGG through its Legal Consultant in-
charge of reviewing behest loan cases filed an The Ombudsman discredit the findings
affidavit-complaint dated July 15, 2003 against former adopted by the PCGG’s Ad Hoc Committee for being
officers/directors of the Development Bank of the hearsay, self-serving, and of little probative value. In
Philippines (DBP) namely Ferry, Tengco, Zosa, the case of Estrada vs. Ombudsman, the Court
Zalamea, Castell and Sison, as well as former declared that hearsay evidence is admissible in
officers/stockholders of National Galleon Shipping determining probable cause in preliminary
Corporation (Galleon), namely Cuenca, Tinio and investigations because such investigation is merely
Roque charging them of violating Section 3(e) and (g) preliminary and does not finally adjudicate rights and
of RA 3019. The affidavit-complaint contained all obligations of parties. Probable cause can be
findings of the PCGG Ad Hoc Committee that established with hearsay evidence as long as there is
loans/accommodations obtained by Galleon from DBP substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. The factual
totallingPhp 2,039,284,390.85 as approved by findings of the Ad Hoc Committee appears to be
Resolution No. 3002 possessed the characteristics of based on official documents prepared by DBP itself in
behest loans because, a) that Galleon was connection with the behest loans extended in favour of
undercapitalized, b) that the loan itself was under Galleon. These are facts sufficient to support a prima
collateralized; c) that major stockholders of Galleon facie case against the respondents.
were known to be cronies of the former President
Marcos; and d) that certain documents pertaining to The Court is convinced that there is probable
the loan account were found to bear “marginal notes” cause to indict individual respondents of violating
of President Marcos himself. Section 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019. Hence, the
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion
In a Resolution dated May 30, 2007, the amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
Ombudsman found no probable cause against private dismissing the criminal complaint against the PCGG.
respondents and dismissed the criminal complaint on The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated May
the grounds that evidence attached to the case were 30, 2007 and the Order dated April 13, 2009 of the
not sufficient to establish probable cause against the Office of the Ombudsman are hereby REVERSED and
individual respondents, considering that the SET ASIDE. The Ombudsman is directed to issue the
documents presented by the PCGG consisted mostly proper resolution indicting individual respondents of
of hearsay, self-serving, and mostly of little probative violating Section 3(e) and (g) RA No. 3019.
value. The PCGG moved for reconsideration which
was denied in an Order dated April 13, 2009. Hence, a CASE NO. 31
petition for certiorari assailing the Resolution dated
May 30, 2007 and the Order dated April 13, 2009 of Facts: Palawan Governor Mario Joel T. Reyes (former
the Office of the Ombudsman was filed in this Court. Governor Reyes) was implicated in the murder of Dr.
Gerardo Ortega. A special panel of prosecutors (First
Issue: Panel) was created by Secretary of Justice Leila de
Lima to conduct preliminary investigation. The First
Whether or not the Office of the Panel concluded its preliminary investigation and
Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissed the Affidavit-Complaint. Secretary of Justice
De Lima created a new panel of investigators (Second
finding no probable cause to indict the
Panel) to conduct a reinvestigation of the case. The
respondents of violating Section 3(e) and (g) of RA Second Panel found probable cause and
3019. recommended the filing of informations on all accused,
including former Governor Reyes. Reyes filed a case
Held: in the Court of Appeals, which found that the
Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of Amado I. Saraum, Petitioner, vs. People of the
discretion when she created the Second Panel. Philippines, Respondent.

Issues: FACTS:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that A buy-bust operation was formed regarding an illegal
the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of drug activity in SitioCamansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu
discretion when she issued Department Order No. City against a certain “Pata”. During the operation,
“Pata” eluded arrest as he tried to run towards his
710, and with regard to this:
shanty. Inside the house, the buy-bust team saw
a. Whether the issuance of Department Order No.
Saraum and Peter Esperanza, who were holding drug
710 was an executive function beyond the paraphernalia apparently in preparation to have a
scope of a petition for certiorari or prohibition; “shabu” pot session. The police operatives recovered
and from Saraum’s possession a lighter, rolled tissue
b. Whether the Secretary of Justice is authorized paper, and aluminum tin foil (tooter).
to create motuproprio another panel of
prosecutors in order to conduct a reinvestigation Saraum was charged with violation of Section 12,
of the case. Article II (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous
2. Whether this Petition for Certiorari has already Drugs) of RA 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous
been rendered moot by the filing of the information Drugs Act of 2002.
in court, pursuant to Crespo v. Mogul.
Saraum denied the commission of the alleged offense.
He testified that he was held by men with firearms and
Decision:
they were already with “Antik” and “Pata”, both of
whom were his neighbors. Believing that he had not
1. The Court of Appeals erred. committed anything illegal, he resisted the arrest.
a. The determination by the Department of Justice
of the existence of probable cause is not a The RTC rendered the decision finding the accused
quasi-judicial proceeding. guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, CA
i. An administrative agency performs quasi- sustained the judgment of conviction.
judicial functions if it renders awards,
determines the rights of opposing parties, or if ISSUE:
their decisions have the same effect as the Whether Saraum’s warrantless arrest was valid.
judgment of a court.
ii. However, the actions of the Secretary of HELD:
Justice in affirming or reversing the findings of The Court denies the petition.
prosecutors may still be subject to judicial The elements of illegal possession of equipment,
review if it is tainted with grave abuse of apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
discretion. drugs under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 are: (1)
b. The Secretary of Justice has the discretion, possession or control by the accused of any
upon motion or motuproprio, to act on any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia for or
matter that may cause a probable miscarriage intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
of justice in the conduct of a preliminary injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug
investigation. This action may include, but is not into the body; and (2) such possession is not
limited to, the conduct of a reinvestigation. authorized by law. The prosecution has convincingly
i. The Secretary of Justice exercises control and established that Saraum was in possession of drug
supervision over prosecutors and it is within paraphernalia, particularly aluminum tin foil, rolled
her authority to affirm, nullify, reverse, or tissue paper, and lighter, all of which were offered and
modify the resolutions of her prosecutors. admitted in evidence.
Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are
subject to appeal to the Secretary of Justice Saraum was arrested during the commission of a
who, under the Revised Administrative Code, crime, which instance does not require a warrant in
exercises the power of direct control and accordance with Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the
supervision over said prosecutors; and who Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In arrest in
may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the
rulings. very moment he is committing or attempting to commit
2. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 questioning or has just committed an offense in the presence of
the regularity of preliminary investigation becomes the arresting officer. To constitute a valid in flagrante
moot after the trial court completes its delicto, two requisites must concur: (1) the person
determination of probable cause and issues a arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
warrant of arrest. has just committed, is actually committing, or is
a. Once the information is filed in court, the court attempting to commit to crime; and (2) such overt act
acquires jurisdiction of the case and any motion is done in the presence or within the view of the
to dismiss the case or to determine the arresting officer.
accused's guilt or innocence rests within the
sound discretion of the court The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right
to search the shanty for objects relating to the crime
CASE NO. 32 and seize the drug paraphernalia they found. As these
items were plainly visible, the police officers were
[GR No. 205472, January 25, 2016] justified in seizing them. Since the confiscated drug
paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the crime In his defense, Comerciante averred that P03 Calag
charged, the Court has no choice but to sustain the was looking for a certain "Barok", who was a notorious
judgment of conviction. drug pusher in the area, when suddenly, he and
Dasilla, who were just standing in front of a jeepney
Wherefore, the petition is denied.
along Private Road, were arrested and taken to a
CASE NO. 33 police station. There, the police officers claimed to
have confiscated illegal drugs from them and were
WARRANTLESS ARREST asked money in exchange for their release. When they
failed to accede to the demand, they were brought to
ALVIN COMERCIANTE y GONZALES, Petitioner, another police station to undergo inquest proceedings,
vs. and thereafter, were charged with illegal possession of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. dangerous drugs.

G.R. No. 205926 ISSUE:


July 22, 2015 Whether the warrantless arrest validly exercised.
PERLAS-BERNABE,J.:
ACTIONS OF COURTS:
___________________________________________
__________  Regional Trial Court
FACTS:
The R TC found that P03 Calag conducted a valid
On or about the 30th day of July 2003, in the City of warrantless arrest on Comerciante, which yielded two
Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the (2) plastic sachets containing shabu. In this relation,
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named the R TC opined that there was probable cause to
accused, not having been lawfully authorized to justify the warrantless arrest, considering that P03
possess any dangerous drugs, did then and there Calag saw, in plain view, that Comerciante was
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly have carrying the said sachets when he decided to
in his possession, custody and control Two (2) heat- approach and apprehend the latter. Further, the RTC
sealed transparent plastic sachet (sic) each containing found that absent any proof of intent that P03 Calag
0.15 gram (sic) and 0.28 gram (sic) of white crystalline was impelled by any malicious motive, he must be
substance with a total of 0.43 grams which was found presumed to have properly performed his duty when
positive to the test for Methamphetamine he arrested Comerciante.
Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu", a
dangerous drug. Aggrieved, Comerciante appealed to the CA.

According to the prosecution, at around 10 o'clock in  Court of Appeals:


the evening of July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo Radan CA affirmed Comerciante's conviction. It held that P03
(Agent Radan) of the NARCOTICS group and P03 Calag had probable cause to effect the warrantless
BienvyCalag II (P03 Calag) were aboard a motorcycle, arrest of Comerciante, given that the latter was
patrolling the area while on their way to visit a friend at committing a crime in flagrante delicto; and that he
Private Road, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City. personally saw the latter exchanging plastic sachets
Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour along with Dasilla. According to the CA, this was enough to
Private Road, they spotted, at a distance of about 10 draw a reasonable suspicion that those sachets might
meters, two (2) men – later identified as Comerciante be shabu, and thus, P03 Calag had every reason to
and a certain Erick Dasilla (Dasilla) - standing and inquire on the matter right then and there.
showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with
one of them handing plastic sachets to the other. Dissatisfied, Comerciante moved for reconsideration
Thinking that the sachets may contain shabu, they which was, however, denied. Comerciante then filed a
immediately stopped and approached Comerciante petition to the SC contending that P03 Carag did not
and Dasilla At a distance of around five (5) meters, effect a valid warrantless arrest on him. Consequently,
P03 Calag introduced himself as a police officer, the evidence gathered as a result of such illegal
arrested Comerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated warrantless arrest, i.e., the plastic sachets containing
two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline shabu should be rendered inadmissible, necessarily
substance from them. A laboratory examination later resulting in his acquittal.
confirmed that said sachets contained
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.  Supreme Court:
Reversed the decision of RTC and CA.
After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a
demurrer to evidence, which was granted by the RTC, HELD:
thus his acquittal. However, due to Comerciante's
failure to file his own demurrer to evidence, the RTC Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
considered his right to do so waived and ordered him Procedure lays down the rules on lawful warrantless
to present his evidence. arrests, as follows:
SEC.5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace Calag himself admitted that he was aboard a
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, motorcycle cruising at a speed of around 30
arrest a person: kilometers per hour when he saw Comerciante and
Dasilla standing around and showing "improper and
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be unpleasant movements," with one of them handing
arrested has committed, is actually committing, plastic sachets to the other. On the basis of the
or is attempting to commit an offense; foregoing, he decided to effect an arrest.
(b) When an offense has just been committed The Court finds it highly implausible that P03
and he has probable cause to believe based Calag, even assuming that he has perfect vision,
on personal knowledge of facts or would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy -
circumstances that the person to be arrested especially from a distance of around 10 meters, and
has committed it; and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30
(c) When the person to be arrested is a kilometers per hour - miniscule amounts of white
prisoner who has escaped from a penal crystalline substance inside two (2) very small plastic
sachets held by Comerciante.
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined while The Court also notes that no other overt act could
his case is pending, or has escaped while be properly attributed to Comerciante as to rouse
being transferred from one confinement to suspicion in the mind of P03 Calag that the former
another. had just committed, was committing, or was about
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, to commit a crime.
the person arrested without a warrant shall be Verily, the acts of standing around with a
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail companion and handing over something to the
and shall be proceeded against in accordance with latter cannot in any way be considered criminal
Section 7 of Rule 112. acts. In fact, even if Comerciante and his companion
were showing "improper and unpleasant movements"
The aforementioned provision provides three (3)
as put by P03 Calag, the samewould not have been
instances when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully
effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless
(b) arrest of a suspect where, based on personal arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable
cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless
which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a arrest. As such, the shabu purportedly seized from
prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final him is rendered inadmissible in evidence for being
judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Since the
of his case or has escaped while being transferred confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the
from one confinement to another. crime charged, Comerciante must necessarily be
For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to acquitted and exonerated from all criminal liability.
operate, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a)
the person to be arrested must execute an overt WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
act indicating that he has just committed, is Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the Accordingly, petitioner Alvin Comerciante is
presence or within the view of the arresting hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violating
officer. Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

On the other hand, Section 5 (b) requires for its CASE NO. 34
application that at the time of the arrest, an offense
had in fact just been committed and the arresting G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012
RODEL LUZ y ONG vs. PEOPLE
officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating
Ponente: SERENO, J.:
that the accused had committed it.
FACTS:
In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of
the fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely
At around 3:00 am of March 2003, Rodel Ong Luz was
required. Under Section 5 (a), the officer himself flagged down by PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza of the
witnesses the crime; while in Section (b), he knows Naga City Police Station, for violating a municipal
for a fact that a crime has just been committed. ordinance of driving a motorcycle without a helmet.
Alteza invited Luz to their nearby sub-station. While
A judicious review of the factual milieu of the instant Alteza and another police officer were issuing a
case reveals that there could have been no lawful citation ticket, he noticed that Luz was uneasy and
warrantless arrest made on Comerciante. P03 kept on getting something from his jacket, thus, he told
Luz to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket This Court has held that at the time a person is
which was a nickel-like tin or metal container. After arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
instructed to open the container, Alteza noticed a read his Miranda rights. But these constitutional
cartoon cover and something beneath it; and upon requirements were complied only after petitioner had
Alteza’s instruction, Luz spilled out the contents been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous
suspected as shabu. drugs.

Luz was charged of illegal possession of dangerous The following are the instances when a warrantless
drugs and later convicted by the RTC of the same search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental
crime. The RTC found that Luz had been lawfully to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in "plain
arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected to a view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented
valid search, which led to the discovery of two plastic warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a "stop
sachets of shabu. The RTC also found Luz’s defense and frisk" search; and (vii) exigent and emergency
of frame-up and extortion to be weak, self-serving and circumstances. None of the above-mentioned
unsubstantiated instances, especially a search incident to a lawful
arrest, are applicable to this case.
Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision.
While he may have failed to object to the illegality of
Hence, this petition filed under Rule 45 for Review on his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a waiver of an
Certiorari. illegal warrantless arrest does not, however, mean a
waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during
ISSUE: the illegal warrantless arrest.

Whether or not there was no lawful search and seizure The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to
on the ground that there was no lawful arrest. be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any
Held: evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The
We find the Petition to be impressed with merit. There subject items seized during the illegal arrest are
was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged inadmissible. The drugs are the very corpus delicti of
down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and
calls for the acquittal of the accused.
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order
that he or she may be bound to answer for the WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The
commission of an offense. (Sec 1, Rule 113, Rules of Decision of the Court of Appeals in affirming the
Court) It is effected by an actual restraint of the person judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court is
to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Rodel
submission to the custody of the one making the Luz y Ong is hereby ACQUITTED
arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual
touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal CASE NO. 35
declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that
there be an intention on the part of one of the parties
to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the GEORGE ANTIQUERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE
part of the other to submit, under the belief and PHILIPPINES
impression that submission is necessary. G.R. No. 180661 December 11, 2013
FACTS:
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Six Police Officers were conducting a police visibility
Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a patrol in Pasay City when they saw two unidentified
traffic violation is not the arrest, but the confiscation of men rush out of a house and boarded a jeep.
the driver’s license. Suspecting a crime, they approached the house which
these two men came out from. Peeking through a
In Berkemer v. McCarty, U.S. Supreme Court held partially opened door of the house, the officers saw
that, such questioning does not fall under custodial accused Antiquera and his live-in partner Corazon
interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, Cruz, engaged in a pot session. The policemen
by virtue of the nature of the questioning, the entered the house, introduced themselves and
expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the arrested Antiquera and Cruz. While inspecting the
length of time the procedure is conducted. The usual immediate vicinity, PO1 Cabutihan saw a jewelry box
traffic stop is more analogous to a "Terry stop" than to which contained Shabu and unused drug
a formal arrest. paraphernalia. Accused disputed the story and
claimed that he and his partner were sleeping when
the police officers knocked at his house.
According to the City Ordinance violated, the failure to
The RTC rendered a decision finding them guilty of
wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is
illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous
penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a
drugs which the CA affirmed.
warrant of arrest need not be issued if the information
ISSUE:
or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine
Whether or not the arrest of the accused by the police
only. Neither can a warrantless arrest be made for
officers was valid and considered as an arrest in
such an offense.
flagrante delicto considering that the door was only a search warrant or a warrant of arrest at that time he
partially open was arrested. Inasmuch as the arrest was illegal, the
HELD: appellant avers that the evidence obtained as a result
No.
thereof was precluded in court.
Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that a “peace officer or a private Issue:
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when,
in his presence, the person to be arrested has Whether Donald Vasquez may assail the validity of the
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
arrest?
commit an offense.” This is what constitutes an arrest
in flagrante delicto, when an overt act constituting a Held:
crime is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. But the circumstances here do not No.
make out a case of arrest made in in flagrante delicto.
The testimony of PO1 Cabutihan provides that the Ruling: The court ruled that the appellant can no
door was only open approximately 4-6inches and that
longer assail the validity of his arrest. It was reiterated
they had to push it to see what is inside because even
as they peeked through it, they saw no activity that in the case of People vs Tampis, that any objection,
warranted their entering it. Neither did they consider defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made
securing first a search warrant before entering the before the accused enters his plea of arraignment.
property. No crime was plainly exposed to the view of Having failed to move for the quashing of the
the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of information against them before their arraignment,
accused without warrant. appellants are now estopped from questioning the
Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search and
legality of their arrest. His arrest falls within the ambit
seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.
Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the of Section 5 (a) Rule 11354 of the Rules of Criminal
police officers allegedly found in the house and seized Procedure when arrest made without warrant is
are inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid deemed lawful. With the validity of the warrantless
search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug arrest in this case, it was held that warrantless seizure
paraphernalia is the very corpus delictiof the crime of illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid.
charged, the Court has no choice but to acquit
accused. His failure to object to the irregularity of his It was also held in the Case of People vs. Cabugatan
arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his conviction. that, The interdiction against searches and seizures,
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry
however is not absolute and such warrantless
with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. searches and seizures have long been deemed
permissible by the jurisprudence in the instances of (1)
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the RTC Search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view (3)
and CA Decisions and ACQUITTED accused customs searches (4) waiver of consented searches
Antiquera for lack of evidence sufficient to establish (5) stop and frisk situations and search incidental to a
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. lawful arrest.

CASE NO. 36 The Rules of Court recognizes permissible


warrantless arrest to (1) arrest in flagrante delicto (2)
People vs. Vasquez, 714 SCRA 01/15/2014 arrest affected in hot pursuit and (3) arrest of escaped
prisoners. Donald cannot seek pardon by invoking
FACTS:
belatedly the invalidity of his arrest.
The case for illegal possession of drugs was raffled to
RTC but upon motion it was consolidated with the
case of illegal sale of drugs. On arraignment, the
CASE NO. 37
appellant (Donald Vasquez) pleaded not guilty n both
charges. The pre-trial was held, but was terminated Provincial ProsecutorDorentino Z Floresta vs
without them entering to the detailed facts of the case. Judge Eliodoro G uBIADAS
During the trial the prosecution stated the events that
a confidential informant reported to PO2 Trambulo FACTS:
about the illegal drug activities and Fajardo from the
buy bust team. It was during that buy bust operation The complainant administratively charged the
that Donald Vasquez was arrested. herein respondent with gross ignorance of law , grave
abuse of authority and violation of the Code of Judicial
RTC, convicted the appellant of the crimes charged. Conduct.
The RTC gave more credibility to the prosecution’s
evidence given that the presumption of regularity in Complainant faults respondent for granting,
the performance of official duty on the part of the without giving notice to the prosecution, the petition for
police officers was not overcome. On Appeal the CA bail of Jose Mangohig, Jr. , who was arrested by virtue
affirmed the conviction of the appellant. Hence in his of warrant issued in Municipal Trial Court of Subic,
appeal he argued that the Police officers did not have Zambales which found probable cause against him for
violation of section 5 (b), Art III of R.A. 7610.
Respondent argued tha he informs the petition due process for which he is liable for gross ignorance
for bail for Mangohig, Jr., who was then under of law or procedure which is serious charge under
preliminary investigation, which motion was filed on Sec. 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
January 3, 2000 on which same date a copy of said
petition was furnished to the public prosecutor, was as
set by Mangohig, Jr heard on the morning of January Wherefore, respondent, Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas,
4, 2000, during which there was no appearance from Presiding Judge of RTC Bramch 72, Olongapo City, is
Prosecutors Office; and that the offense is ordinarily found GUILTY of undue delay in resolving a motion
bailable, respondent granted him bail. and of ignorance of the law or procedure in granting
The Office of Court Administrator(OCA) an application for bail without affording the prosecution
stressed that the Rules of Court requires movant to due process. He is accordingly FINED in the amount
serve notice of his motion on all parties concerned at of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS, with warning that
least three days before the hearing thereof, hence, the repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
respondent erred in granting the petition for bail with more severely.
without hearing the prosecutors side.
CASE NO. 38
The OCA accordingly recommend that the
respondent be fined in the amount of twenty thousand RULE 114- Bail
pesos.
38. Zuno vs. Cabebe, 444 SCRA 382
Issue :
[A.M. OCA No. 03-1800-RTJ. November 26, 2004]
Whether bail is a matter of right or judicial
discretion. Chief State Prosecutor JOVENCITO R. ZUO,
complainant, vs. Judge ALEJADRINO C. CABEBE,
Whether or not the respondent is liable for Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte,
gross ignorance of the law in granting bail to the respondent.
respondent-detainee- Mangohig without hearing the
prosecution.
FACTS:
HELD :
In a Criminal Case for illegal possession of prohibited
Admission to bail as a matter of discretion or regulated drugs which was filed with the Regional
presupposes the exercise thereof in accordance with Trial Court, the respondent judge issued an Order
law and guided by the applicable legal principles. The granting bail to the accused, even without the latter’s
application or motion for bail.
prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to In this regard, the prosecution filed a motion for
present evidence because by the very nature od reconsideration. But instead of acting thereon,
deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such respondent judge issued an order inhibiting himself
evidence that judicial discretion is weight against in from further proceeding with the case. Complainant
determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. prosecutor thus prays that respondent judge be
In other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all
benefits and be disbarred from the practice of law.
legally within the confines of procedural due process,
that is, after evaluation of evidence submitted to the Respondent denied the charges. While admitting that
prosecution. Any order issued in the absence thereof he issued the Order granting bail to the accused
is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of without any hearing, the same was premised on the
whim and caprice and outright arbitrariness. constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial, for
there was delay in the proceedings due to
Section 18 of Rule 114 on application for bail, complainant’s frequent absences and failure of the
no period is provided as it merely requires the court to witnesses for the prosecution to appear in court,
give a reasonable notice of hearing to the prosecutor resulting in the cancellation of the hearings. He added
that the prosecution did not object to the grant of bail.
or require him to submit recommendation, and the
general rule on the requirement of three – day notice
for hearing of motions under section 4 of Rule 15 ISSUE:
allows a court for good cause to call for hearing his
petition for bail in shorter notice. Whether the respondent judged erred in granting a
bail without any hearing.
Mangohig was arrested for violation of Section
5, Art III,R.A. 7610, punishable by reclusion temporal RULING: Yes.A hearing is mandatory in granting bail
to reclusion perpetua, for statutory rape qualified by whether it is a matter of right or discretion. In order for
relationship, punishable by death. the judge to properly exercise his discretion, he must
first conduct a hearing to determine whether the
Under the circumstances, by the respondent evidence of guilt is strong.
assailed grant of bail, the prosecution was deprived of
"flight risk." After the first judge inhibited himself, the
case was raffled off to another branch presided by
The respondent judge granted bail to the accused respondent judge Olalia. He reversed the decision on
without conducting a hearing, in violation of Sections 8 motion for reconsideration and allowed private
and 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal respondent to post bail, subject to certain conditions.
Procedure.
Hence, the instant petition. Petitioner argues that the
Included in the duties of the judge in case an admission of private respondent to bail has no
application for bail is filed, is that where bail is a matter Constitutional or statutory basis, the right being limited
of discretion, he shall (i) conduct a hearing of the solely to criminal proceedings.
application for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that Issue: Whether the right to bail extends to a potential
the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of extraditee.
enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion;
from there, (ii) decide whether the guilt of the accused Ruling: Yes. While jurisprudence (US vs. Purganan)
is strong based on the summary of evidence of the states that the right to bail is available only in criminal
prosecution; and (iii) if the guilt of the accused is not proceedings, the Court took cognizance of trends in
strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of
international law which uphold the fundamental human
the bail bond; otherwise the petition should be denied.
rights and dignity of every person.This commitment is
Respondent judge did not conduct a hearing before he enshrined in Section 2, Article II of our Constitution
granted bail to the accused, thus depriving the and the various treaties the country has entered into
prosecution of an opportunity to interpose objections giving recognition and protection to human rights,
to the grant of bail. The importance of a bail hearing particularly the right to life and liberty.
and a summary of evidence cannot be downplayed,
these are considered aspects of procedural due
The Court departed from the Purganan ruling on the
process for both the prosecution and the defense; its
following grounds: first, the exercise of the State’s
absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail.
power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not
necessarily limited to criminal proceedings, but even
Also, the failure to raise or the absence of an objection administrative proceedings, such as deportation and
on the part of the prosecution in an application for bail quarantine. Second, Philippine jurisprudence has not
does not dispense with the requirement of a bail limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal
hearing. proceedings only, but even to persons in detention
during the pendency of administrative proceedings,
With regard to respondent judge’s contention that the i.e. deportation cases (US v. Go-Sioco and Mejoff v.
accused were entitled to their right to a speedy trial, Director of Prisons). Likewise, considering that the
there is no indication in the records of the criminal Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to
case that the prosecution has intentionally delayed the deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be
trial of the case. Even assuming there was delay, this invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are
does not justify the grant of bail without a hearing. administrative proceedings where the innocence or
guilt of the person detained is not in issue.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is found guilty of
violation of Supreme Court Rules, specifically Rule An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly
114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on the administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal
grant of bail. This administrative offense is considered process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to
a less serious charge, punishable under Section 9(4) arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to
and Section 11(B-2), Rule 140 of the same Rules. transfer to the demanding state following the
proceedings. Private respondent has been detained
.CASE NO. 39 for over two years without having been convicted of
any crime. By any standard, such an extended period
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL of detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION vs. HON. FELIXBERTO right to liberty.
T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the
G.R. No. 153675 (April 19, 2007) standard of proof required in granting or denying bail
should be "clear and convincing evidence" (separate
FACTS: Private respondent Muñoz was charged opinion of Reynato Puno in the Purganan case). This
before a Hong Kong Court with bribery and conspiracy standard should be lower than proof beyond
to defraud. As a result, an order for his arrest was reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
issued which the Supreme Court later upheld as valid. evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by
"clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight
Petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of
filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the the extradition court.
extradition of private respondent. For his part, private
respondent filed, in the same case, a petition for bail. In this case, there is no showing that private
respondent presented evidence to show that he is not
The petition for bail was initially denied, the judge a flight risk. Consequently, the case was remanded to
holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in the trial court to determine whether private respondent
extradition cases and that private respondent is a high
may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and Bail for Medical Reasons.” The Ombudsman opposed
convincing evidence." the motion. The Sandiganbayan conducted hearings
on the motion for bail, with one Dr. Roberto Anastacio
CASE NO. 40 of the Makati Medical Center appearing as sole
witness for Jinggoy. Jinggoy filed with the Court an
G.R. No. 158754 August 10, 2007 Urgent Motion praying for early resolution of his
Petition for Bail on Medical/Humanitarian
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, Considerations.” He reiterated his earlier plea for bail
vs. filed with the Sandiganbayan.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Special Division) and JOSE Sandiganbayan’s Resolution dated December 20,
"JINGGOY" ESTRADA, Respondents. 2001 denying Jinggoy’s motion for bail for “lack of
factual basis.” According to the graft court, basing its
FACTS: In November 2000, as an findings on the earlier testimony of Dr. Anastacio,
offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against Jinggoy “failed to submit sufficient evidence to
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then President of the convince the court that the medical condition of the
Republic of the Philippines, five criminal complaints accused requires that he be confined at home and for
against the former President and members of his that purpose that he be allowed to post bail.” On
family, his associates, friends and conspirators were February 26, 2002, the Court dismissed Jinggoy’s
filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. On April 4, petition in G.R. No. 148965.
2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution
finding probable cause warranting the filing with the Upon proper motion of Jinggoy, respondent
Sandiganbayan of several criminal Informations Sandiganbayan should conduct hearings to determine
against the former President and the other if the evidence of Jinggoy’s guilt is strong as to
respondents therein. One of the Informations was for warrant the granting of bail to him.
the crime of plunder under Republic Act [RA] No. 7080 On April 17, 2002, Jinggoy filed before the
and among the respondents was herein petitioner Sandiganbayan an Omnibus Application for Bail10
Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, against which the prosecution filed its comment and
Metro Manila. opposition. Bail hearings were then conducted,
followed by the submission by the parties of their
respective memoranda.
On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a
In the herein assailed Resolution of March 6, 2003,
warrant of arrest for Jinggoy and his co-accused. respondent Sandiganbayan (Special Division) granted
On its basis, Jinggoy and his co-accused were the omnibus application for bail.
placed in custody of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Special Division
On April 30, 2001, Jinggoy filed a “Very Urgent of the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of
Omnibus Motion” alleging that: (1) no probable discretion amounting to lack or excess of
cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable jurisdiction in granting bail to Jinggoy Estrada.
for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly
involved in illegal gambling and not in a “series or HELD:The imputation of grave abuse of
combination of overt or criminal acts” as required in discretion to the public respondent is untenable.
R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a The Court rules that public respondent
matter of right. He prayed that he be excluded from Sandiganbayan (Special Division) did not
the Amended Information. In the alternative, he commit grave abuse of discretion when, after
also prayed that he be allowed to post bail. conducting numerous bail hearings and
evaluating the weight of the prosecution’s
On June 28, 2001, he filed a “Motion to Resolve evidence, it determined that the evidence
Mayor Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada’s Motion To Fix Bail On against individual respondent was not strong
Grounds That An Outgoing Mayor Loses Clout An
and, on the basis of that determination, resolved
Incumbent Has And That On Its Face, the Facts
Charged In The Information Do Not Make Out A Non- to grant him bail.
Bailable Offense As To Him.”
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying Jinggoy’s Section 13 of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
“Motion to Quash and Suspend” and “Very Urgent Constitution mandates:
Omnibus Motion.” His alternative prayer to post bail
was set for hearing after arraignment of all accused. “Section 13. All persons, except those charged
Jinggoy moved for reconsideration of the Resolution. with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
arraign him. conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
From the denial action of the Sandiganbayan be released on recognizance as may be
immediately adverted to, Jinggoy interposed a petition
provided by law.”
for certiorari before this Court claiming that the
respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion in, inter alia, (a) sustaining the charge Even if the capital offense charged is bailable
against him for alleged offenses and with alleged owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the
conspirators with whom he is not even connected, and right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the
(b) in not fixing bail for him. Pending resolution of this probability of escape is great. Here, ever since the
petition, docketed as G.R. No. 148965, Jinggoy filed promulgation of the assailed Resolutions a little
with the Sandiganbayan an “Urgent Second Motion for more than four (4) years ago, Jinggoy does not, as
determined by Sandiganbayan, seem to be a flight right to assail the respondent judge’s finding of the
risk. We quote with approval what the graft court existence of probable cause.
wrote in this regard
Issue:
“It is not open to serious doubt that the movant
Jinggoy has, in general, been consistently respectful Whether or not posting a bail bond waives the right to
of the Court and its processes. He has not ominously assail the trial court’s issuance of warrant of arrest.
shown, by word or by deed, that he is of such a flight
risk that would necessitate his continued incarceration. Held:
Bearing in mind his conduct, social standing and his
other personal circumstances, the possibility of his No. We agree with the contention of the petitioner that
escape in this case seems remote if not nil. the appellate court erred in not applying Section 26,
Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
The likelihood of escape on the part individual viz.: SEC. 26.Bail not a bar to objections on illegal
respondent is now almost nil, given his election on arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation.—
May 10, 2004, as Senator of the Republic of the An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the
Philippines. The Court takes stock of the fact that accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
those who usually jump bail are shadowy characters the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from
mindless of their reputation in the eyes of the people assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a
for as long as they can flee from the retribution of preliminary investigation of the charge against him,
justice. On the other hand, those with a reputation and provided that he raises them before entering his plea.
a respectable name to protect and preserve are very The court shall resolve the matter as early as
unlikely to jump bail. The Court, to be sure, cannot practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the
accept any suggestion that someone who has a case. It bears stressing that Section 26, Rule 114 of
popular mandate to serve as Senator is harboring any the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is a new
plan to give up his Senate seat in exchange for one, intended to modify previous rulings of this Court
becoming a fugitive from justice. that an application for bail or the admission to bail by
the accused shall be considered as a waiver of his
CASE NO. 41 right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest on the
legalities or irregularities thereon. The new rule has
OKABE V GUTIERREZ reverted to the ruling of this Court in People v.
Red.The new rule is curative in nature because
precisely, it was designed to supply defects and curb
Facts:
evils in procedural rules. Hence, the rules governing
Petitioner was charged with Estafa for failure to deliver curative statutes are applicable. Curative statutes are
the money agreed upon with Cecilia Maruyama by their essence retroactive in application. Besides,
through door-to-door delivery. The 2nd Assistant City procedural rules as a general rule operate
Prosecutor Joselito J. Vibandor came out with a retroactively, even without express provisions to that
resolution finding probable cause for estafa against effect, to cases pending at the time of their effectivity,
the petitioner. The trial court issued a warrant for the in other words to actions yet undetermined at the time
arrest of the petitioner with a recommended bond of of their effectivity. Before the appellate court rendered
P40,000. The petitioner posted a personal bail bond in its decision on January 31, 2001, the Revised Rules
the said amount, duly approved by Judge Demetrio B. on Criminal Procedure was already in effect. It
Macapagal, the Presiding Judge of Branch 79 of the behooved the appellate court to have applied the
RTC of Quezon City, who forthwith recalled the said same in resolving the petitioner’s petition for certiorari
warrant. The approved personal bail bond of the and her motion for partial reconsideration.
petitioner was transmitted to the RTC of Pasig City.
Upon her request, the petitioner was furnished with a CASE NO. 42 (no case digest uploaded yet as of
certified copy of the Information, the resolution and the sending)
criminal complaint which formed part of the records of
the said case. The petitioner left the Philippines for CASE NO. 43
without the trial court’s permission, and returned to the
Philippines. She left the Philippines anew and G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
returned. The trial court issued an Order setting the
petitioner’s arraignment and pre-trial. On the same JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner,
day, the private prosecutor filed an urgent ex parte vs.
motion for the issuance of the hold departure order. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND
The trial court issued an order on the same day, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
granting the motion of the private prosecutor for the
issuance of a hold departure order. The petitioner filed FACTS: Senator Juan Ponce Enrile filed a petition for
a verified motion for judicial determination of probable certiorari to assail and annul the resolutions dated July
cause and to defer proceedings/arraignment. The 14, 2014 and August 8, 2014 issued by the
petitioner filed a Very Urgent Motion To Lift/Recall Sandiganbayan, where he has been charged with
Hold Departure Order and/or allow her to regularly plunder along with several others. Enrile insists that
travel to Japan because of her minor children. She the resolutions, which respectively denied his Motion
refused to enter her plea with leave of court. When it To Fix Bail and his Motion For Reconsideration, were
was elevated to the CA, her petition was partially issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
granted. The CA ruled that by posting bail and praying lack or excess of jurisdiction.
for reliefs from the trial court, the petitioner waived her
The objective of the petition for certiorari is to annul admitted to bail”. He is also not a flight
the decision of the Sandiganbayan denying his motion risk because of his social and political standing and
to fix bail and motion for reconsideration on the his having immediately surrendered to the authorities
following grounds: 1.) the prosecution failed to show upon being charged in court. Lastly, the fragile
conclusively that Enrile, if ever convicted, is state of Enrile’s health is a compelling justification for
punishable by reclusion perpetua; 2.) the prosecution his admission to bail.
failed to show that the evidence of Enrile’s guilt is
strong; 3.) Enrile is not a flight risk. Bail as a matter of discretion

(Antecedent) On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987
Ombudsman charged Enrile and several others with Constitution and repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the
plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit:
purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of
appropriations under the Priority Development Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion
Assistance Fund (PDAF).On June 10, 2014 and June perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No
16, 2014, Enrile respectively filed his Omnibus person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
Motionand Supplemental Opposition,praying, among punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
others, that he be allowed to post bail should probable shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is
cause be found against him. The motions were heard strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal
by the Sandiganbayan after the Prosecution filed its prosecution.
Consolidated Opposition.
The general rule: Any person, before conviction of any
On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan issued its criminal offense, shall be bailable.
resolution denying Enrile’s motion, particularly on the
matter of bail, on the ground of its prematurity Exception: Unless he is charged with an offense
considering that Enrile had not yet then voluntarily punishable with reclusion perpetua [or life
surrendered or been placed under the custody of the imprisonment] and the evidence of his guilt is strong.
law.Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ordered the
arrest of Enrile. Thus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been
established that the evidence of guilt is strong. Where
On the same day that the warrant for his arrest was evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted
issued, Enrile voluntarily surrendered to Director according to the discretion of the court.
Benjamin Magalong of the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon Thus, Sec. 5 of Rule 114 also provides:
City, and was later on confined at the Philippine
National Police (PNP) General Hospital following his
Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the
medical examination.
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death,reclusionperpetua, or life imprisonment,
ISSUE: Whether Senator Juan Ponce Enrile can bail? admission to bail is discretionary. The application for
bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court
HELD: Yes, the Supreme Court held that the despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has
Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail not transmitted the original record to the appellate
and unwarrantedly disregarded Sen. Enrile’s fragile court. However, if the decision of the trial court
health and advanced age. Bail is a matter right and is convicting the accused changed the nature of the
safeguarded by the constitution, its purpose is to offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application
ensure the personal appearance of the accused for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the
during trial or whenever the court requires and at the appellate court.
same time recognizing the guarantee of due process
which is the presumption of his innocence until proven Should the court grant the application, the accused
guilty. The Supreme Court further explained that Bail may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty
for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail
the crime charged should be allowed independently of subject to the consent of the bondsman.
the merits charged, provided his continued
incarceration is injurious to his health and endanger
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is
his life. Hence, the Sandiganbayan failed to observe
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused
that if Sen. Enrile be granted the right to bail it will
shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon
enable him to have his medical condition be properly
a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the
addressed and attended, which will then enable him to
accused, of the following or other similar
attend trial therefore achieving the true purpose of
circumstances:
bail.
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
In addition, It is the Philippine’s responsibility in
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by
the international community under
the circumstance of reiteration;
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “….of
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal
protecting and promoting the right of every person to
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
liberty and due process…under the obligation to make
conditions of his bail without valid justification;
available to every person under detention such
(c) That he committed the offense while under
remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to
probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
liberty. These remedies include the right to be
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the in violation of law, and the fact of finding the same is
probability of flight if released on bail; or sufficient to convict.
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit
another crime during the pendency of the appeal. On the other hand, the Court emphasized that it must
be put into emphasis that this present case is about
The appellate court may, motuproprio or on motion of the violation of Section 16 of R.A. 6425. In every
any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the
Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. following essential elements must be established: (a)
the accused is found in possession of a regulated
CASE NO. 44 drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly
constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has
Del Castillo vs.People, 664 SCRA knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.
FACTS: It furthermore ruled that while it is not necessary that
Police officers had conducted a search in petitioner’s the property to be searched or seized should be
house after receiving a report that he was engaged in owned by the person against whom the search
selling shabu. Thereat, petitioner had managed to warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing
escape after the officers had served the warrant. that the property is under appellants control or
Consequently, the officers decided to closely guard possession. The CA, in its Decision, referred to the
the place where the subject ran. possession of regulated drugs by the petitioner as a
constructive one. The RTC, as well as the CA, merely
In the presence of the barangay tanod, Nelson presumed that petitioner used the said structure due
Gonzalado, and the elder sister of petitioner searched to the presence of electrical materials, the petitioner
the house of petitioner including the nipa hut where being an electrician by profession.
the petitioner allegedly ran for cover. One of
the barangay tanods was able to confiscate from the In addition, the testimonies of the witnesses for the
nipa hut several articles, including four (4) plastic prosecution do not also provide proof as to the
packs containing white crystalline ownership of the structure where the seized articles
substance. Consequently, the articles that were were found. During their direct testimonies, they just
confiscated were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory said, without stating their basis, that the same
for examination. The contents of the four (4) heat- structure was the shop of petitioner. During the direct
sealed transparent plastic packs were subjected to testimony of SPO1 Pogoso, he even outrightly
laboratory examination, the result of which proved concluded that the electrical shop/nipa hut was owned
positive for the presence of methamphetamine by petitioner. However, during cross-examination,
hydrochloride, or shabu. SPO3 Masnayon admitted that there was an electrical
shop but denied what he said in his earlier testimony
During arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of that it was owned by petitioner.
his counsel, pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs
reasonable of the charge against him in the in the place under his control and dominion and the
Information. character of the drugs. With the prosecution's failure to
prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner's control
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed his case with the CA, and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to
but the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC. his guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to
start with the law's own starting perspective on the
After the motion for reconsideration of petitioner was status of the accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he
denied by the CA, petitioner filed with this Court the is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the
present petition for certiorari. contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that
quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral
ISSUE: certainty that would convince and satisfy the
conscience of those who act in judgment, is
The Court of Appeals erred in its application of the indispensable to overcome the constitutional
element of possession as against the petitioner, as it presumption of innocence.
was in violation of the established jurisprudence on
the matter. had the said court properly applied the CASE NO. 45
element in question, it could have been assayed that
the same had not been proven. MIGUEL V. SANDIGANBAYAN

RULING: Facts:
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its
Comment dated February 10, 2009, argued that the Koronadal City, South CotabatoVice Mayor (and
Court of Appeals did not err in finding him guilty of others) filed a complaint before the Ombudsman
illegal possession of prohibited drugs because it against herein Petitioner for violation of RA 3019 in
stated that when prohibited and regulated drugs are
connection with architectural and engineering works in
found in a house or other building belonging to and
occupied by a particular person, the presumption the proposed Koronadal public market. Ombudsman
arises that such person is in possession of such drugs required Petitioner to submit a counter-affidavit, which
was submitted after a request for extension. The main topic on right to present evidence and be
Ombudsman found probable cause to file the heard is attached to the validity of the suspension of
Information before Sandiganbayan charging Petitioner Petitioner RA 3019 mandates that a public officer
with violation of RA 3019 and falsification of public charged under that Act or under RPC shall be
document. The information essentially said that suspended from office. The suspension requires a
Petitioner committed the offense charged, taking prior hearing to determine the validity of the
advantage of his position, and acting with evident bad information. The accused public official may challenge
faith and manifest partiality the information even before the suspension order on
the grounds of: (1) Validity of the proceeding that led
The next turn of events would show that prior to to the filing of information, (2) propriety of the
arraignment, Petitioner asked several extensions to prosecution on the grounds that the act imputed did
file a counter-affidavit, which he repeatedly failed. not have all the elements of the crime Petitioner says
Petitioner orally moved for reinvestigation, and that, according to a previous jurisprudence, the trial
extension of 10 days to file counter-affidavit, which court should issue a show cause order against the
was granted Again asked for 30-day extension, and prosecution before ordering the suspension. However,
before the expiry of that request, he again asked for in that same jurisprudence he cited, the show cause
another 30 days. Both were granted, but asked for order is unnecessary when a motion to suspend
another 20 days, which was also granted. Despite the pendent lite was already filed. Moreover, the show
extensions given, he failed to submit his counter- cause order (essentially a pre-suspension hearing) is
affidavit. This prompted the Prosecutor to declare that aimed at securing for the accused a fair and adequate
petitioner has waived his right to submit counter- opportunity to challenge the validity of the information
availing evidence, and asked the Sandiganbayan for or the validity of the proceedings against him. Such
the arraignment of Petitioner. Petitioner then asked an proceedings offer the accused to be heard, and being
extension to file a motion to quash and/or heard and does not necessarily mean oral pleadings
reinvestigation, Sandiganbayan denied due to the before the court. It can also be written pleadings.
already pending reinvestigation and his apparent Where opportunity to be heard either through oral
failure to submit a counter affidavit. Petitioner did not arguments or written pleadings has been granted no
question this denial denial of due process exists. Accused has repeatedly
failed to present his counter-affidavit despite being
Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. granted several extensions. Moreover, the said
suspension is not a penalty. It is merely a preventive
Prosecution moved to suspend Petitioner pendente measure that reflects the constitutional mandate that a
lite, which Petitioner opposed. This was eventually public office is a public trust.
granted by Sandiganbayan. Motion for reconsideration
of Petitioner likewise denied , hence, this Petition. CASE NO. 46

Issue: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARTURO LARA Y.


ORBISTA
Whether the Petitioner waived his right to present G.R. No. 199877; 13 August 2012
evidence and be heard
FACTS:
Held: On or about 31 May 2001 in Pasig City, the
accused, armed with a gun, conspired and
Yes. Petitioner claims that Sandiganbayan gravely confederated with an unidentified person and with
abused its discretion ordering his suspension despite violence and intimidation, stole and divested from one
the information failing to prove the evident bad faith Joselito M. Bautista cash amounting to P230,000.00
and manifest impartiality. OSP argues that the and shot and assaulted the same inflicting several
information sufficiently established all the elements of wounds which led to the his death. The money
the crime. Petitioner failed to cite how the evident bad belonged to San Sebastian Allied Services,
faith and manifest impartiality was not proven. represented by the witness Enrique Sumulong. On the
said date, Sumulong was accompanied by Virgilio
The test of w/n an information sufficiently describes Manacob, Jeff Atie, and the deceased after
the crime charged is if the information describes the withdrawing the money supposedly for the salary of
crime in intelligible terms and in such particularity with the company’s employees.
reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly
informed of the crime charged. In this case, what The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial
Petitioner is essentially assailing is that of evident bad commenced. During the course of the trial, the
faith and manifest impartiality. At best, what Petitioner prosecution presented several witnesses including
can ask is a bill of particulars. Enrique Sumulong, SPO1 Cruz, and PO3 Calix.
The first witness testified that on 07 June judgment convicting Sanico and Batiquin with violation
2001, while on his way to barangay San Miguel in of Sec 103 of RA 7942 or Phil Mining Act of 1995 but
Pasig City, he saw the accused walking in Dr. Pilapil acquitted them for trespassing.
Street. He then alerted the other witnesses about this On April 22, 2009, Sanico’s counsel filed a notice of
incident. Consequently, Sumulong, together with four appeal of MCTC judgment. RTC ordered Sanico to file
(4) policemen, went to the said street and positively his memorandum on appeal but he did not comply.
identified the accused. Having confirmed the identity RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file
of the accused, the police approached him and invited Memorandum on Appeal.
him at the police station for questioning. The accused On April 26, 2010, Atty. Dennis Cañete, another
was then placed in a police lineup and there, Manacob lawyer acting for Sanico, filed a motion for
and Atie attested that it was really the accused who reconsideration averring that Sanico was preoccupied
robbed and killed the deceased. Thereafter, the with the condition of his ailing wife who subsequently
accused was informed of his rights and subsequently died; and his counsel, Atty. Baring, suffered from a
detained. medical condition which caused her to forget how she
got the case and whom to contact as principal
In his defense, the accused stated that on the counsel.
said date of the robbery, he was at his house fixing a RTC denied the motion for lack of verification and
sewer trench. Finding this as a weak alibi, the Court affidavit of merit, and because the supposed sickness
considered the vicinity of his residence and the crime of Sanico’s wife and the lapses of Atty. Baring were
scene located in the same barangay, the RTC not justifiable reasons.
convicted him of robbery with homicide.
Atty. Cañete filed a petition for review in CA contesting
On appeal, the accused raised several errors his conviction, and assailing the dismissal of his
appeal, which was denied on the following grounds,
including the argument that he was not assisted by namely: (a) the docket fees were not paid; (b) there
counsel when the police placed him on the lineup, was no proper proof of service of a copy of the petition
which according to him, was a flagrant violation of his for review on the adverse party; (c) the petitioner did
right under Section 12, Article III of the constitution. not furnish to the RTC a copy of the petition for review;
(d) there was no affidavit of service; (e) no written
ISSUE: explanation for not resorting to personal filing was
filed; (f) the documents appended to the petition were
Whether or not Lara was denied his right to only plain photocopies of the certified true copies; (g)
counsel thereby making his arrest illegal, making it a no copies of pleadings and other material portions of
sufficient ground to invalidate the proceedings. the record were attached; (h) the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping were defective due
HELD: to failure to contain a statement that the allegations
therein were based on the petitioner’s personal
No. Since the contention of Lara was a belated knowledge; (i) the verification and certification of non-
invocation, the court did not find merit on his appeal. forum shopping did not contain competent evidence
Any objections to the legality of the warrantless arrest of identity of the petitioner; and (j) the serial number
of the commission of the notary public and the office
should have been raised in a motion to quash duly
address of the notary public were not properly
filed before the accused entered his plea; otherwise, it indicated.
is deemed waived. Furthermore, the Court held that
the illegal arrest is not a ground to set aside conviction CA also denied the motion for reconsideration and
duly arrived at and based on evidence that sufficiently held that a client is generally bound by the acts, even
mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural
establishes his culpability. As regards his claim that he
technique.
was denied a counsel, the Court dismissed the same
stating that there was no legal compulsion to afford ISSUE:
him a counsel because the police lineup was not part Whether Sanico is bound by the mistakes of his
of the custodial investigation. counsel in the realm of procedural technique.

HELD:
CASE NO. 47 No. The petitioner could reasonably expect that his
counsel would afford to him competent legal
FIRST DIVISION representation. The mere failure of the counsel to
observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the
G.R. No. 198753, March 25, 2015 protection of the interests of the petitioner as the client
– as manifested in the multiple defects and
JOSE “PEPE” SANICO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF shortcomings discovered in the petition for review –
THE PHILIPPINES AND JENNIFER SON- was gross negligence in any language because the
TENIO, Respondent. defects were plainly avoidable by the simple
application of the relevant guidelines existing in the
FACTS: Rules of Court. If the incompetence of counsel was so
Sanico and MarsitoBatiquin were criminally charged great and the error committed as a result was so
for trespassing and theft of minerals in MCTC of serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his
Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu. MCTC rendered day in court, the litigation ought to be re-opened to
give to the client another chance to present his case.
The legitimate interests of the petitioner, particularly means which vitiates the free will shall be used
the right to have his conviction reviewed by the RTC against him.
as the superior tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights
altar of technicalities.
shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Although the right to appeal is statutory, it must be
respected and observed because it is an essential He must be warned prior to any questioning that he
component of due process. has the right to remain silent, that anything he says
can be used against him in a court of law, that he has
CASE NO. 48 the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he
cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him
People v Ayson 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
prior to any questioning if he so
desires. Opportunity to exercise those rights must be
Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After
Philippine Airlines and was allegedly involved in such warnings have been given, such opportunity
irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. The PAL afforded him, the individual may knowingly and
management notified him of an investigation to be intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or
conducted. That investigation was scheduled in make a statement. But unless and until such warnings
accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at
Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of
signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' interrogation can be used against him. The objective is
Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of individuals
letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-
settle the amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit incriminating statement without full warnings of
team were given to him, and he refuted that he constitutional rights."
misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was
CASE NO. 49
prevented from settling said amounts. He proffered a
compromise however this did not ensue. Two months
after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, petitioner
Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the vs.
prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 151258
statement, to which defendants argued that the
confession was taken without the accused being PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner
represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not Vs.
admit those stating that accused was not reminded of THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have ANTONIO MARIANO ALMEDA, et. al., Respondents.
counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed by the G.R. No. 154954
prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal.
FIDELITO DIZON, Petitioner,
Vs.
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge is PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
correct in making inadmissible as evidence the G.R. No. 155101
admission and statement of accused.
GERARDA H. VILLA, Petitioner,
Held: No. The judge should admit the evidence in Vs.
court as the accused was not under custodial MANUEL LORENZO ESCALONA II, et. al.,
Respondents.
investigation when his statements were taken. One G.R. No.s 178057 & 178080
cannot invoke violation of the right to counsel in
administrative proceeding. The right to self-
incrimination and custodial investigation are accorded February 01, 2012
only when the accused is subjected to custodial Ponente: SERENO, J.
inquest which involves the questioning initiated by
police authorities after a person is taken in custody or
deprived of his freedom in any way. Because the
BRIEF
statements were obtained beyond the purview of
custodial investigation the evidence should be This is are 5 consolidated cases involving the death of
admitted in court. Leonardo “Lenny” Villa, a freshman law student of the
Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in Ateneo de Manila University School of Law, during
miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused initiation rites of the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity.
include:
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to
FACTS
counsel, and to be informed of such right.
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the
Ateneo de Manila University School of Law signified basis of violation of their right to speedy trial.
their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity
(Aquila Fraternity). They were Caesar "Bogs" Petitioner Villa filed a Petition for Certiorari, praying for
Asuncion, Samuel "Sam" Belleza, Bienvenido "Bien" the reversal of the CA’s decision involving the
Marquez III, Roberto Francis "Bert" Navera, Geronimo dismissal of the criminal charges against Escalona,
"Randy" Recinto, Felix Sy, Jr., and Leonardo "Lenny" Ramos, Saruca and Adriano.
Villa (neophytes).
Petitioner Villa assails the CA’s dismissal of the
The neophytes had to undergo initiation rites that were criminal case involving 4 of the 9 accused, namely,
scheduled to last for three days. Initiation rites include Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano. She argues
physical and psychological sufferings such that the that the accused failed to assert their right to speedy
neophytes were punched, given knee blows to their trial within a reasonable period of time. She also
thighs, “paddled” and were required to memorize and points out that the prosecution cannot be faulted for
recite the principles of the Aquila Legis Juris the delay, as the original records and the required
Fraternity. evidence were not at its disposal, but were still in the
appellate court.

The neophytes had survived their first two days of ISSUE/S of the CASE
initiation. However, after the neophytes had concluded 1. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the case
their second day of initiation, and after a while, against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the
accused non-resident or alumni fraternity members ground of their right to speedy trial.
FidelitoDizon and ArtemioVillareal demanded that the
rites be reopened. The head of initiation rites, Nelson
Victorino, initially refused. Upon insistence of Dizon COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
and Villareal, however, he reopened the initiation rites.
After receiving again several blows and paddles, the
initiation for the day was officially ended and the The right of the accused to a speedy trial has been
neophytes had their dinner, then they slept at the enshrined in Sections 14(2) and 16, Article III of the
carport. 1987 Constitution. This right requires that there be a
trial free from vexatious, capricious or oppressive
After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly delays. The right is deemed violated when the
roused by Lenny’s shivering and incoherent proceeding is attended with unjustified
mumblings. When his conditioned worsened, the postponements of trial, or when a long period of
Aquilans rushed him to the hospital, but Lenny was time is allowed to elapse without the case being
pronounced dead on arrival. tried and for no cause or justifiable motive. In
determining the right of the accused to speedy trial,
Consequently, two criminal cases for homicide was courts should do more than a mathematical
filed against 35 Aquilans, one under Criminal Case no. computation of the number of postponements of the
C-38340(91) and the other was Criminal Case no. C- scheduled hearings of the case. The conduct of both
38340.The trial in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) the prosecution and the defense must be
commenced thereafter. On the other hand, the trial weighed. Also to be considered are factors such as
against the remaining nine accused in Criminal Case the length of delay, the assertion or non-assertion of
no. C-38340 was held in abeyance due to certain the right, and the prejudice wrought upon the
matters that had to be resolved first. defendant.

Due to "several pending incidents," the trial court x xx xxx x xx


ordered a separate trial for accused Escalona, Saruca,
Adriano, Ramos, Ampil, Concepcion, De Vera, S. We do not see grave abuse of discretion in the CA’s
Fernandez, and Cabangon (Criminal Case No. C- dismissal of the case against accused Escalona,
38340) to commence after proceedings against the 26 Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the basis of the
other accused in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) shall violation of their right to speedy trial. The court held
have terminated. On 8 November 1993, the trial court thus:
found the 26 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
As a result, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. C- An examination of the procedural history of this case
38340 involving the nine other co-accused would reveal that the following factors contributed to
recommenced on 29 November 1993. For "various the slow progress of the proceedings in the case
reasons," the initial trial of the case did not commence below:
until 28 March 2005, or almost 12 years after the
arraignment of the nine accused. x xx x xx x xx

The trial court in Criminal Case no. 38340 dismissed 5) The fact that the records of the case were elevated
the charge against accused Concepcion on the to the Court of Appeals and the prosecution’s failure to
ground of violation of his right to speedy trial. comply with the order of the court a quo requiring
Meanwhile, on different dates between the years 2003 them to secure certified true copies of the same.
and 2005, the trial court denied the respective Motions
to Dismiss of accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and x xx x xx x xx
Adriano. On 25 October 2006, the CA reversed the
trial court’s Orders and dismissed the criminal case
While we are prepared to concede that some of the charging herein appellant, an illiterate laborer, with
foregoing factors that contributed to the delay of the rape committed on five separate occasions against his
trial of the petitioners are justifiable, We nonetheless own daughter, complainant EstelitaEstomaca. Melita
hold that their right to speedy trial has been utterly
is the eldest daughter of the accused, the second
violated in this case x xx.
husband of Melitas mother. Melita has a full-blood
x xx x xx x xx younger brother around twelve (12) years old. She has
two (2) half-blood sisters (from) the first marriage of
[T]he absence of the records in the trial court [was] her mother who are residing in Manila. She was first
due to the fact that the records of the case were raped July of 1993, and subsequently on December of
elevated to the Court of Appeals, and the 1993, January of 1994, February of 1994, and march
prosecution’s failure to comply with the order of the of 1994. But the accused on his arraignment plead
court a quo requiring it to secure certified true copies guilty on the two events and not guilty for the three
of the same. What is glaring from the records is the
fact that as early as September 21, 1995, the court a events of raped. As to two guilty case, That sometime
quo already issued an Order requiring the prosecution, in the month of December, 1993, in the Municipality of
through the Department of Justice, to secure the San Joaquin, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within
complete records of the case from the Court of the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, that the
Appeals. The prosecution did not comply with the said accused was taking advantage of his superior
Order as in fact, the same directive was repeated by strength, abuse of confidence and trust, he being the
the court a quo in an Order dated December 27, 1995.
father of the undersigned, with deliberate intent and by
Still, there was no compliance on the part of the
prosecution. It is not stated when such order was means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and
complied with. It appears, however, that even until there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
August 5, 2002, the said records were still not at the intercourse with the undersigned who, at that time,
disposal of the trial court because the lack of it was (was) 15 years of age. The accused also waived the
made the basis of the said court in granting the motion presentation of evidence in his defense, proving his
to dismiss filed by co-accused Concepcion x xx. guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was sentence
reclusion perpetua and indemnity for damages. But
x xx x xx x xx
the court was not convince regarding the procedural
It is likewise noticeable that from December 27, 1995, aspect of the accused.
until August 5, 2002, or for a period of almost seven
ISSUE:
years, there was no action at all on the part of the
court a quo. Except for the pleadings filed by both the
Whether or not the Arraignment of the accused
prosecution and the petitioners, the latest of which
was on January 29, 1996, followed by petitioner is valid?
Saruca’s motion to set case for trial on August 17,
1998 which the court did not act upon, the case HELD:
remained dormant for a considerable length of time.
No, Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the
This prolonged inactivity whatsoever is precisely the
kind of delay that the constitution frowns upon x xx. arraignment should be made in open court by the
judge himself or by the clerk of court furnishing the
SUPREME COURT RULING: accused a copy of the complaint or information with
the list of witnesses stated therein, then reading the
The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954, same in the language or dialect that is known to him,
acquitting Victorino et al., is hereby affirmed. The and asking him what his plea is to the charge. The
appealed Judgments in G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080, requirement that the reading be made in a language or
dismissing the criminal case filed against Escalona,
dialect that the accused understands and knows is a
Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano, are likewise affirmed.
Finally, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal mandatory requirement, just as the whole of said
Code, the Petition in G.R. No. 151258 is hereby Section 1 should be strictly followed by trial courts.
dismissed, and the criminal case against This the law affords the accused by way of
ArtemioVillareal deemed closed and TERMINATED. implementation of the all-important constitutional
mandate regarding the right of an accused to be
CASE NO. 50 informed of the precise nature of the accusation
leveled at him and is, therefore, really an avenue for
[G.R. Nos. 117485-86. April 22, 1996]
him to be able to hoist the necessary defense in
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, rebuttal thereof. It is an integral aspect of the due
vs. MELCHOR ESTOMACA y GARQUE, accused- process clause under the Constitution. That the
appellant. compliant must be fully explained and understand by
the accused and can be translated in any language
FACTS: that would be appropriate for the person to fully
understand. That the court ruled, that Section 3 of
Estomaca an illiterate laborer was charged
Rule 116 which the trial court violated is not a new rule
with 5 counts of rape. In May 24, 1994, consequent to
for it merely incorporated the decision of this Court in
five separate complaints, Criminal Cases were filed in
People vs. Apduhan Jr. and reiterated in an unbroken
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Iloilo City
line of cases. The bottom line of the rule is that a plea in People v. Mateo,15 the case was transferred to the
of guilt must be based on a free and informed Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
judgment. Thus, the searching inquiry of the trial court disposition.16
must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea;
The Court of Appeals affirmed the death penalties
and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of
imposed by the trial court but modified the amounts of
the plea. The questions of the trial court failed to show damages awarded. The Court of Appeals elevated the
the voluntariness of the plea of guilty of the appellant records of the case to the Supreme Court for
nor did the questions demonstrate appellants full automatic review. Thereafter, in our resolution dated
comprehension of the consequences of the plea. The 28 February 2006, the parties were required to submit
records do not reveal any information about the supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty
personality profile of the appellant which can serve as (30) days from notice. The parties opted not to file
supplemental brief on the ground they had fully argued
a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and
their positions in their respective briefs.
informed plea of guilt. The age, socio-economic
status, and educational background of the appellant ISSUE:
were not plumbed by the trial court.
W/N appellant’s rights and interests prejudiced by the
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo fact that he was arraigned only after his case was
in Criminal Cases Nos. 43568 and 43571 convicting submitted for decision
accused-appellant MelchorEstomaca y Garque of two
crimes of rape is hereby SET ASIDE. Said cases are HELD:
REMANDED to the trial court for further and
appropriate proceedings, with instructions that the We do not think so. Appellant’s belated arraignment
same be given appropriate priority and the did not prejudice him. This procedural defect was
cured when his counsel participated in the trial without
proceedings therein be conducted with deliberate
raising any objection that his client had yet to be
dispatch and circumspection. arraigned. In fact, his counsel even cross-examined
the prosecution witnesses. His counsel’s active
participation in the hearings is a clear indication that
he was fully aware of the charges against him;
CASE NO. 51 otherwise, his counsel would have objected and
informed the court of this blunder. Moreover, no
G.R. No. 171020 March 14, 2007 protest was made when appellant was subsequently
arraigned. The parties did not question the procedure
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, undertaken by the trial court. It is only now, after being
vs. convicted and sentenced to two death sentences, that
ALFREDO PANGILINAN y TRINIDAD, Accused- appellant cries that his constitutional right has been
Appellant. violated. It is already too late to raise this procedural
defect. This Court will not allow it.
FACTS:
CASE NO. 52
For review is the decision of the Court of Appeals
which affirmed with modification the decision of (RTC) DAAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
of Dinalupihan, Bataan, Branch 5, finding appellant G.R. NOS. 163972-77
Alfredo Trinidad Pangilinan guilty of two counts of
rape. The Court of Appeals upheld the two death Facts:
sentences imposed on appellant but modified the
award of damages.1ªvvphi1.nét
JoselitoDaan together with co-accused
Two informations were filed charging appellant with BenedictoKuizon were charged for three counts of
raping AAA, his daughter. Appellant, who was malversation of public funds which they purportedly
arrested and detained with no bail recommended, filed tried to conceal by falsifying the time book and
a petition for bail. payrolls for given period making it appear that some
laborers worked on the construction of the new
In the hearings for the petition for bail, the prosecution municipal hall building of Bato, Leyte and collected
presented the private complainant-victim, BBB, and
their respective salaries thereon when, in truth and in
Dr. Melinda Layug.
fact, they did not. Thus, in addition to the charge for
From the evidence presented, the prosecution’s malversation, the accused were also indicted for three
version of what transpired, as summarized by the counts of falsification of public document by a public
Office of the Solicitor General, is quoted by the Court officer or employee.
of Appeals:
The accused offered withdraw their plea of "not guilty"
Inasmuch as the penalty it imposed was the death and substitute the same with a plea of "guilty",
penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the
provided, the mitigating circumstances of confession
case to the Supreme Court for automatic review
pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of or plea of guilt and voluntary surrender will be
Criminal Procedure.14However, pursuant to our ruling appreciated in their favor. In the alternative, if such
proposal is not acceptable, said accused proposed the accused is also willing to plead guilty to a lesser
instead to substitute their plea of "not guilty" to the offense which to our mind, merits consideration.
crime of falsification of public document by a public
officer or employee with a plea of "guilty", but to the Petition granted.
lesser crime of falsification of a public document by a
private individual. On the other hand, in the CASE NO. 53
malversation cases, the accused offered to substitute PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JANJALANI
their plea of "not guilty" thereto with a plea of "guilty", G.R. No. 188314
but to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable January 10, 2011
officer to render accounts.

The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s Motion to Plea FACTS:


Bargain, despite favorable recommendation by the On February 14, 2005 night, the bus conductor of
prosecution, on the main ground that no cogent RRCG bus noticed two men running after the bus. The
reason was presented to justify its approval. Hence, two insisted on getting on the bus and so the
this appeal. conductor obliged and let them in. Elmer Andales, the
bus conductor, immediately became wary due to their
Issue: unusual conduct. One of the two men sat two seats
behind the driver while the other sat at the back of the
Whether Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of bus. Both of them paid for two passengers. At that
discretion in denying petitioner’s plea bargaining offer. point, Andales became certain that the two were up to
no good.
Held:
As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process of Ayala avenue and EDSA, the two men insisted on
whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a getting off the bus. The bus driver initially did not want
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to to let them off the bus due to a Makati ordinance
court approval. It usually involves the defendant's prohibiting the unloading except at designated bus
pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or stop. Eventually, the bus driver gave in and allowed
some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in the two passengers to alight. The two immediately got
return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver off the bus. Moments after, Andales felt an explosion
charge. and saw that the bus was on fire. He ran out of the
bus and when he went back he saw their passengers
either lying on the ground or looking traumatized.
Records show that there was a favorable
recommendation by the Office of the Special After the explosion, the spokesperson for Abu Sayyaff
Prosecutor to approve petitioner's motion to plea announced over radio that the explosion was a
bargain. valentine’s gift for the former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo.
With respect to the falsification cases earlier
Accused Trinidad, in an exclusive interview, confessed
mentioned, it appears that the act of the accused in
his participation in the Valentine’s Day bombing.
pleading guilty for a lesser offense of falsification by
Baharan, in another exclusive interview, likewise
private individual defined and penalized under Article
admitted his role in the bombing incident. Finally,
172 of the Revised Penal Code will strengthen the
accused Asali gave a television interview, confessing
cases against the principal accused, the Municipal
that he had supplied the explosive devises for the
Mayor BenedictoKuizon, who appears to be the
bombing.
master mind of these criminal acts. After all, the
movants herein JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN was The accused were then charged with multiple murder
merely designated as draftsman detailed as and multiple frustrated murder. Only Baharan,
foreman/timekeeper of the Municipality of Bato, Leyte. Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were arrested, while the
other accused members of Abu Sayyaf remain at-
In the cases at bar, there is no dispute that JOSELITO large.
RANIERO J. DAAN has already restituted the total
amount of P18,860.00 as per official receipt issued by On their arraignment for the multiple murder charge,
the provincial government of Leyte dated February 26, Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea of
2002. In short, the damage caused to the government guilty. On the other hand, upon arraignment for the
has already been restituted by the accused. multiple frustrated murder charge, accused Asali pled
guilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan pled not guilty.
There is also no dispute that accused DAAN Rohm pled not guilty to both charges.
voluntarily surrendered in the instant cases. Moreover,
The trial court asked whether accused Baharan and
Trinidad were amenable to changing their not guilty
pleas to the charge of multiple frustrated murder, Trinidad previously plead guilty to another charge -
considering that they plan guilty to the heavier charge multiple murder - based on the same act relied upon in
of multiple murder, creating an apparent inconsistency the multiple frustrated murder charge. The Court
in their pleas. Defence counsel conferred with further notes that prior to the change of plea to one of
accused Baharan and Trinidad and explained to them guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other
the consequences of the pleas. The two accused confessions of guilt - one through an extrajudicial
acknowledge the inconsistencies and manifested their confession, and the other via judicial admission.
readiness for re-arraignment. After the Information Considering the foregoing circumstances, the Court
was read to them, Baharan and Trinidad plead guilty deem it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the
to the charge of multiple frustrated murder. “searching inquiry” in this instance. Remanding the
case for re-arraignment is not warranted, as the
ISSUE: accused’s plea of guilt was not the sole basis of the
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in condemnatory judgment under consideration.
accepting accused-appellants plea of guilt despite
insufficiency of searching inquiry into the voluntariness
and full comprehension of the consequences of the CASE NO. 54
said plea.
ABS-CBN Corp. vs. Gozon, 753 SCRA 1
COURT’S RULING:
FACTS:
The Court ruled that it was unnecessary to rule on the On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a
sufficiency of the “searching inquiry.” criminal complaint against respondent GMA for
(alleged) act of copyright infringement under Sections
Accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad argued that 177 and 211 of the Intellectual Property Code (RA
the trial court did not conduct a searching inquiry after 8293, as amended), because the respondent aired
footage of the arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo
they had changed their plea from not guilty to guilty.
dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq without the petitioner's
Trial court judges are required to observe the following consent. ABS-CBN stated that it has an agreement
with Reuter's that the petition will contribute news and
procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of content that it owns and makes to Reuters in
Court: When the accused pleads guilty to a capital exchange of the latter's news and video material, and
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry Reuters will ensure that ABS-CBN's materials cannot
into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the be aired in the country. The respondent was a
consequences of his plea and shall require that subscriber of Reuter's and CNN live feeds. After it
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree received the live feed of Angelo Dela Cruz's arrival
and homecoming from Reuter's, it immediately aired
of culpability. The accused may also present evidence
the video from that news feed. The respondent alleged
in his behalf. that its news staff was not aware that there was (a
news embargo) agreement between ABSCBN and
The requirement to conduct a searching applies more Reuters. Respondent alleged that it was not also
so in cases of re-arraignment. In People vs Galvez, aware that it aired petitioner's footage.
the Court notes that since accused-appellant’s original
plea was not guilty, the trial court should have exerted Assistant City Prosecutor DindoVenturanza issued
careful effort in inquiring into why he changed his plea resolution on 3 December 2004 which found probable
to guilty. cause to indict Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas. The
respondents appealed the Prosccutor's resolution
According to the Court: The stringent procedure before DOJ. DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez ruled in
governing the section of a plea of guilt, especially in a favor of respondents in his resolution dated 1 August
2005 and held that good faith may be raised as a
case involving the death penalty, is imposed upon the
defense in the case. Meanwhile, DOJ Acting Secretary
trial judge in order to leave no room for doubt on the Alberto C. Agra issued a resolution on 29 June 2010
possibility that the accused might have misunderstood which reversed Sec. Gonzalez's resolution and found
the nature of the charge and the consequences of the probable cause to charge Dela Peña-Reyes,
plea. Manalastas, as well as to indict Gozon, Duavit, Jr.,
Flores, and Soho for violation of the Intellectual
Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching Property Code (due to copyright infringement).
inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in cases which
it was the defencecounsel who explained the The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 9
November 2010, which granted the Petition for
consequences of a “guilty” plea to the accused, as it
Certiorari to reverse and set aside DOJ Sec. Alberto
appears in the case. Agra's resolution and a prayer for issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Nevertheless, the Court ruled that they are not Injunction. The appellate court stated that the
unmindful of the context under which the re- petitioner has copyright of its news coverage, but
arraignment was conducted or of the factual milieu respondents’ act of airing five (5) seconds of the
surrounding the finding of guilt against the accused. homecoming footage without notice of the “No Access
The Court observed that accused Baharan and Philippines” restriction of the live Reuter's video feed,
was undeniably attended by good faith and thus, that others can understand.” Thus, the Supreme Court
serves to exculpate from criminal liability under the stated that “only the expression of an idea is protected
Intellectual Property Code. by copyright, not the idea itself”, citing the US
Supreme Court's decision in Baker vs Selden (101
ISSUE: Whether there is probable cause to charge U.S. 99). In the present case, expression applies to
respondents with infringement under Republic Act No. the event captured and presented in a specific
8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property medium via cinematography or processes analogous
Code. The resolution of this issue requires clarification to it. The Court also gave the four-fold test under the
of the concept of "copyrightable material" in relation to Fair Use Doctrine (stated in section 185 of RA 8293 or
material that is rebroadcast live as a news story. We the Intellectual Property Code, as amended) to
are also asked to rule on whether criminal prosecution determine fair
for infringement of copyrightable material, such as live use:
rebroadcast, can be negated by good faith. a. The purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
HELD: non-profit educational purposes;
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED ABS- b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
CBN’s petition and ordered RTC Q.C. Branch 93 to c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in
continue with the criminal proceedings against Grace relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Dela Peña-Reyes and John Oliver Manalastas due to d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for
copyright infringement. The other respondents, Atty. or value of the copyrighted work.
Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit Jr., Marissa L. Flores,
and Jessica A. Soho were held not liable for the Fair use, which is an exception to copyright owner’s
(criminal) act of copyright infringement. The Court held monopoly of the work's usage, was defined by the
that their mere membership in GMA7's Board of Supreme Court as privilege to use the copyrighted
Directors does not mean that they have knowledge, material in a reasonable manner without the copyright
approval, or participation in the criminal act of owner's consent or by copying the material's theme or
copyright infringement., as there is a need for their idea rather than its expression. It also said that
direct/active participation in such act. Also, there was determination of whether the Angelo dela Cruz
lack of proof that they actively participated or footage is subject to fair use is better left to the trial
exercised moral ascendancy over Manalastas and court where the proceedings are currently pending.
Dela Cruz-Pena. Contrary to GMA’s contention, the
Supreme Court deemed GMA's mere act of
rebroadcast of ABS-CBN’s news footage (arrival and CASE NO. 55
homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from
Iraq last 22 July 2004) for 2 mins and 40 secs.without G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
the latter's authority creates probable cause to find
GMA's news personnel Manalastas and Dela Peña- JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
Reyes criminally liable for violating provisions of THE PHILIPPINES, HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-
Intellectual Property Code (Section 216217 of RA TANG, HON. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES, AND HON.
8293, as amended) that imposes strict liability for ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE
copyright infringement, since they have not been SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
diligent in their functions to prevent that footage from
being aired on television. They knew that there would Facts:
be consequences in carrying ABS-CBN’s footage in On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed
their broadcast –which is why they allegedly cut the an Information3 for plunder against Enrile, Jessica
feed from Reuters upon seeing ABS-CBN’s logo and Lucila Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim,
reporter. and John Raymund de Asis before the
Sandiganbayan.
The difference of an act mala in se and mala prohibita
was stated in the present case. Acts mala in se Enrile responded by filing before the Sandiganbayan
requires presence of criminal intent and the person's (1) an urgent omnibus motion (motion to dismiss for
knowledge of the nature of his/her act, while in acts lack of evidence on record to establish probable cause
mala prohibita, presence of criminal intent and the and ad cautelam motion for bail)
person's knowledge is not necessary. The Court also
stated that Philippine laws on copyright infringement On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s
does not require criminal intent (mens rea) and does motions and ordered the issuance of warrants of
not support good faith as a defense. Thus, the act of arrest on the plunder case against the accused
infringement and not the intent is the one that causes
the damage. On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed a motion for bill of
particulars before the Sandiganbayan. On the same
It held that ABS-CBN's video footage is copyrightable date, he filed a motion for deferment of arraignment
because it is under “audiovisual works and since he was to undergo medical examination at the
cinematographic works and works produced by a Philippine General Hospital (PGH).
process analogous to cinematography or any process
for making audiovisual recordings.” It also stated that When the court session resumed, PJ Cabotaje-Tang
news or the event itself is not copyrightable. The Court announced the Court’s denial of Enrile’s motion for bill
differentiated idea and expression – idea meant as “a of particulars essentially on the following grounds:
form, the look or appearance of a thing” while
expression is its reality or the “external, perceptible (1)
world of articulate sounds and visible written symbols
the details that Enrile desires are “substantial Under the Constitution, a person who stands charged
reiterations” of the arguments he raised in his of a criminal offense has the right to be informed of the
supplemental opposition to the issuance of warrant of nature and cause of the accusation against him
arrest and for dismissal of information; and
(2) The objective is to describe the act with sufficient
the details sought are evidentiary in nature and are certainty to fully appraise the accused of the nature of
best ventilated during trial. the charge against him and to avoid possible surprises
that may lead to injustice. Otherwise, the accused
Enrile claims in this petition that the Sandiganbayan would be left speculating on why he has been charged
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack at all. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, in
or excess of jurisdiction when it denied his motion for implementing the constitutional right of the accused to
bill of particulars despite the ambiguity and be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
insufficiency of the Information filed against him. Enrile against him, specifically require certain matters to be
maintains that the denial was a serious violation of his stated in the Information for its sufficiency. The
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and requirement aims to enable the accused to properly
cause of the accusation against him. prepare for his defense since he is presumed to have
no independent knowledge of the facts constituting the
Enrile further alleges that he was left to speculate on offense charged.
what his specific participation in the crime of plunder
had been. He posits that the Information should have In general, a bill of particulars is the further
stated the details of the particular acts that allegedly specification of the charges or claims in an action,
constituted the imputed series or combination of overt which an accused may avail of by motion before
acts that led to the charge of plunder. arraignment, to enable him to properly plead and
prepare for trial.
Enrile posits that his ‘desired details’ are not
evidentiary in nature; they are material facts that The rule requires the information to describe the
should be clearly alleged in the Information so that he offense with sufficient particularity to apprise the
may be fully informed of the charges against him and accused of the crime charged with and to enable the
be prepared to meet the issues at the trial. court to pronounce judgment. The particularity must
be such that persons of ordinary intelligence may
Enrile adds that the grounds raised in his motion for immediately know what the Information means.
bill of particulars are cited in a context different from
his opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The general function of a bill of particulars, whether in
He maintains that the resolution of the probable cause civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard against
issue was interlocutory and did “not bar the surprises during trial. It is not the function of the bill to
submission of the same issue in subsequent furnish the accused with the evidence of the
proceedings especially in the context of a different prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall not be
proceeding.” required to include in the bill of particulars matters of
evidence relating to how the people intend to prove
ISSUE (S) the elements of the offense charged or how the people
intend to prove any item of factual information
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan exercised its included in the bill of particulars
discretionary power in an arbitrary or despotic manner
in denying Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars Thus, if the Information is lacking, a court should take
a liberal attitude towards its granting and order the
Held: government to file a bill of particulars elaborating on
the charges. Doubts should be resolved in favor of
After due consideration, we resolve to partially granting the bill to give full meaning to the accused’s
GRANT the petition under the terms outlined below. Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

a. We PARTIALLY GRANT the present petition for Wherefore, the petition is granted as to the part of
certiorari, and SET ASIDE the Sandiganbayan’s Sandiganbayan’s resolutions dated July 11, 2014,
resolutions dated July 11, 2014, which denied Enrile’s which denied Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars.
motion for bill of particulars and his motion for
reconsideration of this denial.
CASE NO. 56
b. We DIRECT the People of the Philippines to
SUBMIT, within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) People vs. Lacson, April 2003
days from finality of this Decision, with copy furnished
to Enrile, a bill of particulars containing the facts Facts:
sought that we herein rule to be material and
necessary. The bill of particulars shall specifically Herein petitioners file a motion for reconsideration for
contain the following:LawlibraryofCRAlaw the determination of several factual issues relative to
the application of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised
Ratio Rules of Criminal Procedure on the dismissal of
criminal cases filed against the respondent and his co-
The constitutional right of the accused to be informed
accused. In the said criminal cases, the respondent
and his co-accused were charged with multiple
murders for the shooting and killing of eleven male criminal cases, the accused is entitled to justice
persons. The respondent opposed petitioners’ motion. and fairness, so is the State.

Issues:
CASE NO. 57
a) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had
the express consent of the accused; Panaguiton Jr vs Department of Justice
b) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to G.R. No. 167571
the offended party; November 25, 2008
c) whether the two-year period to revive it has
Facts:
already lapsed;
d) whether there is any justification for the filing of the Based from the facts culled from the records, in 1992,
cases beyond the two-year period; Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums of money
amounting to P1,979,459.00 from petitioner. On 8
Held:
January 1993, Cawili and his business associate,
a) No. The respondent did not give his express Ramon C. Tongson, jointly issued in favor of petitioner
consent to the provisional dismissal of the case. three (3) checks in payment of the said loans.
The respondent allegedly admitted in his Significantly, all three (3) checks bore the signatures
pleadings filed with the Court of Appeals and of both Cawili and Tongson. Upon presentment for
during the hearing thereat that he did not file payment on 18 March 1993, the checks were
any motion to dismiss said cases, or even agree dishonored, either for insufficiency of funds or by the
to a provisional dismissal thereof. closure of the account. Petitioner made formal
b) No. There is no proof on record that all the heirs demands to pay the amounts of the checks upon
of the victims were served with copies of the Cawili on 23 May 1995 and upon Tongson on 26 June
resolution dismissing the said cases. In fine, 1995, but to no avail.
there never was any attempt on the part of the
On 24 August 1995, petitioner filed a complaint
trial court to notify all the heirs of the victims of
against Cawili and Tongson for violating Batas
the respondents’ motion. No notice of motion for
PambansaBilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) before the Quezon
provisional dismissal, hearing and subsequent
City Prosecutor's Office. During the preliminary
dismissal was given to the offended parties.
investigation, only Tongson appeared and filed his
c) No. The two-year period did not lapse yet. The
counter-affidavit. However, Tongson claimed that he
two-year bar in Section 8 of Rule 117 of the
had been unjustly included as party-respondent in the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should be
case since petitioner had lent money to Cawili in the
applied prospectively and not retroactively
latter's personal capacity. Tongson averred that he
against the State. The Judge dismissed the
was not Cawili's business associate; in fact, he himself
case on March 29, 1999, and the New rule took
had filed several criminal cases against Cawili for
effect on Dec 1, 2000. It would only in effect
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Tongson denied that he had
give the petitioners one year and three months
issued the bounced checks and pointed out that his
instead of two years. At that time, they had no
signatures on the said checks had been falsified.
knowledge of the said rule and therefore they
should not be penalized for that. To apply the To counter these allegations, petitioner presented
time limit retroactively to the criminal cases several documents showing Tongson's signatures,
against the respondent and his co-accused which were purportedly the same as those appearing
would violate the right of the People to due on the checks. He also showed a copy of an affidavit
process, and unduly impair, reduce, and of adverse claim wherein Tongson himself had
diminish the States substantive right to claimed to be Cawili's business associate.
prosecute the accused for multiple murders.
d) To require the State to give a valid justification In a resolution dated 6 December 1995, City
as a condition sine qua non to the revival of a Prosecutor III Eliodoro V. Lara found probable cause
case provisionally dismissed with the express only against Cawili and dismissed the charges against
consent of the accused before the effective date Tongson. Petitioner filed a partial appeal before the
of the new rule is to assume that the State is Department of Justice (DOJ) even while the case
obliged to comply with the time-bar under the against Cawili was filed before the proper court. In a
new rule before it took effect. This would be a letter-resolution dated 11 July 1997, after finding that it
rank denial of justice. The State must be given a was possible for Tongson to co-sign the bounced
period of one year or two years as the case may checks and that he had deliberately altered his
be from December 1, 2000 to revive the criminal signature in the pleadings submitted during the
case without requiring the State to make a valid preliminary investigation, Chief State Prosecutor
justification for not reviving the case before the Jovencito R. Zuño directed the City Prosecutor of
effective date of the new rule. Although in Quezon City to conduct a reinvestigation of the case
against Tongson and to refer the questioned
signatures to the National Bureau of Investigation Blg. 22. It argues that under B.P. Blg. 22, a special law
(NBI). which does not provide for its own prescriptive period,
offenses prescribe in four (4) years in accordance with
Tongson moved for the reconsideration of the Act No. 3326.
resolution, but his motion was denied for lack of merit.
Issue:
On 15 March 1999, Assistant City Prosecutor
Ma.Lelibet S. Sampaga (ACP Sampaga) dismissed Whether there is prescriptive period upon violating
the complaint against Tongson without referring the B.P. Blg. 22 per Act No. 3326 and not Art. 90 of the
matter to the NBI per the Chief State Prosecutor's RPC, on the institution of judicial proceedings for
resolution. In her resolution, ACP Sampaga held that investigation and punishment?
the case had already prescribed pursuant to Act No.
3326, as amended, which provides that violations Held:
penalized by B.P. Blg. 22 shall prescribe after four (4)
It must be pointed out that when Act No. 3326 was
years. passed on 4 December 1926, preliminary investigation
Petitioner appealed to the DOJ. But the DOJ, through of criminal offenses was conducted by justices of the
Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee, dismissed peace, thus, the phraseology in the law, "institution of
the same, stating that the offense had already judicial proceedings for its investigation and
prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326. Petitioner filed a punishment," and the prevailing rule at the time was
motion for reconsideration of the DOJ resolution. that once a complaint is filed with the justice of the
peace for preliminary investigation, the prescription of
On 3 April 2003, the DOJ, this time through then the offense is halted.
Undersecretary Ma.Merceditas N. Gutierrez, ruled in
his favor and declared that the offense had not Although, Tongson went through the proper channels,
prescribed and that the filing of the complaint with the within the prescribed periods. However, from the time
prosecutor's office interrupted the running of the petitioner filed his complaint-affidavit with the Office of
prescriptive period citing Ingco v. Sandiganbayan. the City Prosecutor (24 August 1995) up to the time
the DOJ issued the assailed resolution, an aggregate
However, in a resolution dated 9 August 2004, the period of nine (9) years had elapsed. Clearly, the
DOJ, presumably acting on a motion for delay was beyond petitioner's control. After all, he had
reconsideration filed by Tongson, ruled that the already initiated the active prosecution of the case as
subject offense had already prescribed and ordered early as 24 August 1995, only to suffer setbacks
"the withdrawal of the three (3) informations for because of the DOJ's flip-flopping resolutions and its
violation of B.P. Blg. 22" against Tongson. In justifying misapplication of Act No. 3326.
its sudden turnabout, the DOJ explained that Act No.
3326 applies to violations of special acts that do not Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep
provide for a prescriptive period for the offenses on their rights and actively pursue their causes, should
thereunder. Since B.P. Blg. 22, as a special act, does not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply
not provide for the prescription of the offense it defines because of circumstances beyond their control, like
and punishes, Act No. 3326 applies to it, and not Art. the accused's delaying tactics or the delay and
90 of the Revised Penal Code which governs the inefficiency of the investigating agencies.
prescription of offenses penalized thereunder. The court rules and so hold that the offense has not
yet prescribed. Petitioner’s filing of his complaint-
affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor on 24
Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari before the August 1995 signified the commencement of the
Court of Appeals assailing the 9 August 2004 proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and
resolution of the DOJ. The petition was dismissed by thus effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for
the Court of Appeals in view of petitioner's failure to the offenses they had been charged under B.P. Blg.
attach a proper verification and certification of non- 22. Moreover, since there is a definite finding of
forum shopping. In the instant petition, petitioner probable cause, with the debunking of the claim of
claims that the Court of Appeals committed grave prescription there is no longer any impediment to the
error in dismissing his petition on technical grounds filing of the information against petitioner.
and in ruling that the petition before it was patently
without merit and the questions are too unsubstantial WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
to require consideration. resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 29 October
2004 and 21 March 2005 are REVERSED and SET
The DOJ, in its comment, states that the Court of ASIDE. The resolution of the Department of Justice
Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for non- dated 9 August 2004 is also ANNULLED and SET
compliance with the Rules of Court. It also reiterates ASIDE. The Department of Justice is ORDERED to
that the filing of a complaint with the Office of the City REFILE the information against the petitioner. No
Prosecutor of Quezon City does not interrupt the costs.
running of the prescriptive period for violation of B.P.
CASE NO. 58
Meanwhile, one of the reasons for the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMENEGILDO dismissal of the case after presentation of
DUMLAO evidence by the prosecution is insufficiency of
GR No. 168918, March 2, 2009 evidence.

Here, the dismissal of the case is not proper.


Facts: The Government Service Insurance Systems The Sandiganbayan used to dismiss the
(GSIS) owns parcel of land. In one of the information with reason not provided under
meetings of the members of the GSIS Board the Section 3. The trial court utilized the
of Trustees (Board), including Mr. Dumlao, the ground not raised by Mr. Dumlao, and in an
Board authorized its Management to enter inappropriate time and context.
into a Lease-Purchase Agreement
(Agreement) with certain individual. In effect, the Sandiganbayan prevent the
prosecution of its opportunity to prove Mr.
After the investigation by the Ombudsman on Dumlao’s culpability.
said Agreement, it filed an information before
the Sandiganbayan charging, among others,
Mr. Dumlao for violating Republic Act No. CASE NO. 59
3019 as the Agreement is disadvantageous to
the government. Mr. Dumlao filed a Motion to G.R. No. 162336, February 1, 2010
Quash against the information. For him, the
facts stated therein do not constitute the HILARIO P. SORIANO v PEOPLE OF THE
offense since there was no quorum in the PHILIPPINES
members of the Board when the Resolution Rule 117 – Motion to Quash
was issued rendering the Agreement non-
existing. For the People, the Ombudsman Facts:
claims that the case should proceed to trial for
the prosecution to present their case. Sometime in 2000, the Office of Special Investigation
(OSI) of the BSP, through its officers, transmitted a
The Sandiganbayan granted the Motion for letter dated March 27, 2000 to JovencitoZuo, Chief
other the reason that the evidence is not State Prosecutor of the DOJ. The letter has five
sufficient. affidavits attached. These affidavits, along with other
documents, stated that spouses Enrico and Amalia
Issue: Whether the grant of the Motion by the Carlos appeared to have an outstanding loan of P8
Sandiganbayan is proper million with the Rural Bank of San Miguel Inc. (RBSM),
but had never applied for nor received such loan; that
Held: No. Under Section 3 of Rule 117 of the it was petitioner, who was then president of RBSM,
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules), who had ordered, facilitated, and received the
the grounds to quash the information are: proceeds of the loan; and that the P8 million loan had
never been authorized by RBSM's Board of Directors
(a) That the facts charged do not and no report thereof had ever been submitted to the
constitute an offense; BSP.
(b) That the court trying the case has
no jurisdiction over the An Information, dated November 14, 2000 was for
offense charged; estafa through falsification of commercial documents,
(c) That the court trying the case has under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised
no jurisdiction over the person Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Article 172 of the
of the accused; RPC and PD 1689. Another Information dated
(d) That the officer who filed the November 10, 2000 was filed for violation of Section
information had no authority to do 83 of RA 337, as amended by PD 1795. The
so; information alleged that, in his capacity as President of
(e) That it does not conform RBSM, petitioner indirectly secured an P8 million loan
substantially to the prescribed with RBSM, for his personal use and benefit, without
form; the written consent and approval of the bank's Board
(f) That more than one offense is of Directors, without entering the said transaction in
charged except when a the bank's records, and without transmitting a copy of
single punishment for various the transaction to the supervising department of the
offenses is prescribed by law; bank.
(g) That the criminal action or liability
has been extinguished; On June 8, 2001, petitioner moved to quash these
(h) That it contains averments which, informations on two grounds: that the court had no
if true, would constitute a jurisdiction over the offense charged, and that the
legal excuse or justification; and facts charged do not constitute an offense. Essentially,
(i) That the accused has been the petitioner theorized that the characterization of
previously convicted or acquitted possession is different in the two offenses. If petitioner
of the offense charged, or the acquired the loan as DOSRI, he owned the loaned
case against him was dismissed money and therefore, cannot misappropriate or
or otherwise terminated without convert it as contemplated in the offense of estafa.
his express consent. Conversely, if petitioner committed estafa, then he
merely held the money in trust for someone else and settled rule that the determination of the persons to be
therefore, did not acquire a loan in violation of DOSRI prosecuted rests primarily with the Public Prosecutor
rules. who is vested with quasi-judicial discretion in the
discharge in the of this function. Being vested with
In an Order dated August 8, 2001, the trial court
denied petitioner's Motion to Quash for lack of merit. such power, he can reconsider his own resolution if he
The lower court agreed with the prosecution that the finds that there is reasonable ground to do so.
assailed OSI letter was not the complaint-affidavit
itself; thus, it need not comply with the requirements However, upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration,
under the Rules of Court. Since these affidavits were the RTC granted the same and reinstated the case
duly subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, after the DOJ Secretary reversed the resolution the
there was adequate compliance with the Rules. The prosecutor.
trial court further held that the two offenses were
separate and distinct violations, hence the prosecution Issue: Whether there was a valid termination of the
of one did not pose a bar to the other. case so as to usher in the impregnable wall of double
jeopardy.
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was likewise
denied in an Order dated September 5, 2001. Held: The petition is impressed with merit. The rule is
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with
that once a case is filed with the court, any disposition
the CA, reiterating his arguments before the trial court.
The CA denied the petition on both issues presented of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. Hence,
by petitioner. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an
was likewise denied for lack of merit. Hence, this information, the trial court should not rely solely and
petition. merely on the findings of the public prosecutor of the
Secretary of Justice. To assess independently the
Issue: Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the merits of the motion is the court’s bounden duty.
proper remedy against an Order denying a Motion to
Further, the assessment must be embodied in a
Quash?
written order disposing of the motion. While the
Ruling: No. This issue may be speedily resolved by recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the
adopting our ruling in Soriano v. People, where we Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on
held: court.
In fine, the Court has consistently held that a special
civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to In this case, obviously the RTC judge failed to make
assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. his own determination, evaluation or assessment of
The proper procedure in such a case is for the the merit of the case. He blindly relied on the
accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice
manifestation and recommendation of the prosecutor
on his part to present the special defenses he had
invoked in his motion to quash and if after trial on the when he should have been more circumspect and
merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal judicious in resolving the Motion to dismiss and
therefrom in the manner authorized by law. Thus, Withdraw information especially so when the
petitioners should not have forthwith filed a special prosecution appeared to be uncertain, undecided and
civil action for certiorari with the CA and instead, they irresolute on whether to indict respondent.
should have gone to trial and reiterated the special
defenses contained in their motion to quash. There Beyond the object, double jeopardy did not set in.
are no special or exceptional circumstances in the Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites
present case that would justify immediate resort to a
are present: 1. A first jeopardy attached prior to the
filing of a petition for certiorari. Clearly, the CA did not
commit any reversible error, much less, grave abuse second; 2. The first jeopardy has been validly
of discretion in dismissing the petition. terminated; and 3. A second jeopardy is for the same
offense as in the first.

CASE NO. 60 A first jeopardy attaches only: a.) after a valid


indictment; b.) before a competent court; c.) after
JOSEPH C. CEREZO VS. PEOPLE OF THE arraignment; d.) when a valid plea has been entered;
PHILIPPINES, JULIET YANEZ, PABLO ABUNDA, and e.) when the accused has been acquitted or
JR., AND VICENTE AFULUGENCIA convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
(G.R. NO. 185230, June 1, 2011)
CASE NO. 61
Facts: Joseph C. Cerezo, the petitioner filed a
complaint for libel against respondents Juliet Yaneza, CO VS. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS
Pablo Abunda, Jr., Oscar Mapalo and Vicente 727 SCRA 503
Afulugencia. Finding probable cause, the Prosecutor
filed the corresponding information against them, but FACTS:
reversed its earlier finding and recommended the New Prosperity Plastic Products, represented by
withdrawal of information. Relying on the Elizabeth Uy, filed a complaint for violation of B.P. 22
against William Co. In the absence of Uy and the
recommendation of the prosecutor, the RTC ordered private counsel, the cases were tentatively dismissed
the criminal case dismissed on the ground that it is on 09 June 2003 in open court with respect to Section
8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal CASE NO. 62
Procedure. Uy received a copy of the said Order on 02
July 2003, while her counsel-of-record received a copy PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
a day after. A year after, Uy filed a Motion to Revive vs.
the Criminal Cases which was granted. Co then filed a ANTONIO SAYAO JR. y DE LEON, accused-
petition challenging the revival of the said cases. He appellant
argues that the 09 June 2003 Order provisionally
dismissing the criminal cases should be considered as
a final dismissal on the ground that his right to speedy GR No. 124297
trial was denied. Assuming that the criminal cases 21 February 2001
were only provisionally dismissed, Co further posits Ponente: Mendoza, J.
that such dismissal became permanent one year after
the issuance of the 09 June 2003 Order, not after FACTS
notice to the offended party. He also insists that both
the filing of the motion to revive and the trial court's
issuance of the order granting the revival must be Complainant Jenny Sayao is the fourth of five children
within the one-year period. Even assuming that the of accused-appellant Antonio Sayao Jr and his wife
one-year period to revive the criminal cases started on Teresa Sayao. The family lived in BrgyIbaba, Sta
02 July 2003 when Uy received the 09 June 2003 Rosa, Laguna. Jenny testified that accused-appellant
Order, Co asserts that the motion was filed one day had been sexually molesting her since she was in
late since year 2004 was a leap year. Grade I. IT began with accused-appellant fondling her
private parts, but in 1987, when she was in Grade II
ISSUE: and was eight years of age, accused-appellant started
Whether or not the provisional dismissal of the having sexual intercourse with her.
criminal case has become permanent.
The first incident of rape took place at around 3pm of
HELD: June 15, 1987. Afterwards, accussed-appellant raped
NO.The essential requisites of the first paragraph of her several times. She estimated that she must have
Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which are been raped by her father at least 30 times, the last
conditions sine qua non to the application of the time- time being in February 1994, when she was a 3rd year
bar in the second paragraph thereof are: (1) the high student and 16 years of age. Jenny said she kept
prosecution with the express conformity of the quiet about her misfortune because she was afraid of
accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin her father, a big man who threatened to kill her if she
perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the told her anyone what he was doing to her. But, after
prosecution and the accused move for a provisional she had been raped in February 1994, Jenny finally
dismissal of the case; (2) the offended party is notified told her mother what accused-appellant had done to
of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; her.
(3) the court issues an order granting the motion and
dismissing the case provisionally; (4) the public On 13 November 1995, the trial court rendered
prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of judgment convicting accused-appellant and
provisional dismissal of the case. sentencing him to suffer the death penalty and to pay
complainant civil indemnity, moral damages and
In this case, there is no notice of any motion for the exemplary damages. Hence, the automatic review of
provisional dismissal or of the hearing which was the decision.
served on the private complainant at least 3 days
before said hearing as mandated by Section 4, Rule Accused-appellant contends that the information in
15 of the Rules. Furthermore, the second paragraph of this case is void for being vague and ambiguous as to
the new rule should be construed to mean that the the date of the commission of the crime. As a
order of dismissal shall become permanent one year consequence, he claims that he has been deprived of
after service of the order of dismissal on the public the opportunity to prepare his defense.
prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without
the criminal case having been revived. Correlatively, ISSUE/S
when a party is represented by a counsel, notices of
all kinds emanating from the court should be sent to Whether the decision of the RTC may be overturned
the latter at his/her given address pursuant to Section for the vagueness and ambiguity of the information
2, Rule 13 of the Rules. The public prosecutor cannot filed against accused-appellant.
be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is
served with a copy of the order of dismissal. RULING

Moreover, the contention that both the filing of the


No. There may be inelegance in the way that the
motion to revive the case and the court order reviving
information in this case had been drafted, but it is not
it must be made prior to the expiration of the one-year
defective for being vague. First, Rule 110 provides
period is not found in the Rules. Further, the fact that
that it is not necessary for the information to allege the
year 2004 was a leap year is inconsequential to
exact date and the time of the commission of the
determine the timeliness of Uy's motion to revive the
crime is such is not an essential ingredient of the
criminal cases. Even if the Court will consider that
offense. In the crime of rape, the date of commission
2004 is a leap year and that the one-year period to
is not an essential element. Second, even if the
revive the case should be reckoned from the date of
information fails to specify the date of commission of
receipt of the order of provisional dismissal by Uy.
the crime, accused-appellant waived objection on this
ground because he failed to file either a motion for a
bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information.
Third, the vagueness of the information could not have
prejudiced accused-appellant since his denial and alibi
are so general that it cannot be said that his defense
hinges on the date of commission of the crime.

In sum, it is held that the trial court’s finding that


accused-appellant is guilty as charged is fully
substantiated by the evidence on record. However,
accused-appellant cannot be sentenced to death as
the information against him failed to allege Jenny’s
minority and her relationship to accused-appellant.

DECISION

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial


Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant
Antonio Sayao Jr. y De Leon is found guilty of thirty (3)
counts of rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, subject to
the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.
He is further ordered to pay Jenny Sayao for each
count of rape P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and the costs.