Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 48

JURISDICTION under RA 1379 is the disproportion of respondents properties to his legitimate income, it being unnecessary to

prove how he acquired said properties. As correctly formulated by the Solicitor General, the forfeitable nature
HANNAH SERRANA VS SANDIGANBAYAN of the properties under the provisions of RA 1379 does not proceed from a determination of a specific overt
act committed by the respondent public officer leading to the acquisition of the illegal wealth.
DOCTRINE: It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan—the
Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. On the issue of lack of jurisdiction, petitioner argues that the SB did not acquire jurisdiction over her person
and that of her children due to a defective substituted service of summons. There is merit in petitioners
Plainly, estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin contention.
requirements that: 1) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of
PD No. 1606, as amended, and that; 2) The offense is committed in relation to their office. Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides for the requirements of a valid
substituted service of summons, thus: SEC. 7. Substituted service.If the defendant cannot be served within a
It is well-established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely reasonable time as provided in the preceding section [personal service on defendant], service may be effected
incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and
the benefit of the public makes one a public officer. discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof.
A UP Student Regent is a Public Officer. A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by
law, by which for a given period, either fixed or enduring at the pleasure of the power, an individual is It is basic that a court must acquire jurisdiction over a party for the latter to be bound by its decision or orders.
interested with some portion of sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit Valid service of summons, by whatever mode authorized by and proper under the Rules, is the means by which
of the public. a court acquires jurisdiction over a person.
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regents. The Sandiganbayan, also has jurisdiction over the In the instant case, it is undisputed that summons for Forfeitures I and II were served personally on Maj. Gen.
other officers enumerated in PD No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People, the SC held that while the first part of Sec. Carlos Flores Garcia, who is detained at the PNP Detention Center, who acknowledged receipt thereof by
4(A) covers only officials with Salary grade 27 and higher but who are by express provisions of law placed affixing his signature. It is also undisputed that substituted service of summons for both Forfeitures I and II
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provisions of law. Sec. 4(A)(1)(g) were made on petitioner and her children through Maj. Gen. Garcia at the PNP Detention Center. However,
of PD No. 1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors and trustees, or such substituted services of summons were invalid for being irregular and defective.
manager of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities, or educational foundations.
Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the Board of Regents performs Requirements as laid down in Manotoc vs CA 1. Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e., the party relying
functions similar to those of a board of trustee of a nonstock corporation. By express mandate of law, on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is
petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by PD No. 1606. impossibility of prompt service within a reasonable time. Reasonable time being “so much time as is necessary
under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or
GARCIA VS SANDIGANBAYAN duty requires that should be done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any[,] to the other
party.” Moreover, we indicated therein that the sheriff must show several attempts for personal service of at
DOCTRINE: The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over actions for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, albeit
least three (3) times on at least two (2) different dates. 2. Specific details in the return, i.e., the sheriff must
the proceeding thereunder is civil in nature—the civil liability for forfeiture cases does not arise from the
describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. 3.
commission of a criminal offense.
Substituted service effected on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at defendant’s house or
Forfeiture Cases and the Plunder Case Have Separate Causes of Action; the Former Is Civil in Nature while the residence; or on a competent person in charge of defendant’s office or regular place of business.
Latter Is Criminal.
ESCOBAL VS GARCHITORENA
A forfeiture case under RA 1379 arises out of a cause of action separate and different from a plunder case, thus
DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the Information
negating the notion that the crime of plunder charged in Crim. Case No. 28107 absorbs the forfeiture cases. In
or the Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless such statute
a prosecution for plunder, what is sought to be established is the commission of the criminal acts in
provides for a retroactive application thereof.
furtherance of the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. In the language of Sec. 4 of RA 7080, for purposes of
establishing the crime of plunder, it is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D.
criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy [to amass, accumulate or acquire ill- No. 1861 over crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts
gotten wealth]. On the other hand, all that the court needs to determine, by preponderance of evidence,
showing the intimate relation between the office and the offender and the discharge of official duties must be between them can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing
alleged in the Information—it is not enough to merely allege in the Information that the crime charged was extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor
committed by the offender in relation to his office because that would be a conclusion of law did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent. Stated differently, the
death of Secretary Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer who allegedly violated Section 3 (g) of
Under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No. 1861, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction R.A. 3019. In fact, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict Secretary
in all cases involving the following: Enrile for infringement of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. 3019.14 Were it not for his death, he should have been
charged.
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among
others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law,
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer.
those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where
crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone.
years, or a fine of P6,000.00 ….
RAMISCAL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over crimes committed by public
officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate relation between the office DOCTRINE: In finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine
of the offender and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with the said
merely allege in the Information that the crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman which has full control of the case.
because that would be a conclusion of law. The amended Information filed with the RTC against the petitioner
does not contain any allegation showing the intimate relation between his office and the discharge of his Sec 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules provides that only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of an
duties. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense charged when on November 24, 1995, it ordered the approved order or resolution shall be allowed xxxxx the filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation
re-amendment of the Information to include therein an allegation that the petitioner committed the crime in shall not bar the filling of the corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause
relation to office. The trial court erred when it ordered the elevation of the records to the Sandiganbayan. It in the resolution subject of the motion
bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 amending P.D. No. 1606 was already in effect.
The arraignment may be suspended under Sec. 11 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court are: unsoundness of mind,
Under Sec. 2 of said law, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office but occupies prejudicial question and a pending petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor in the DOJ in which
a position corresponding to a salary grade below "27," the proper Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, the suspension shall not exceed 60 days. Ramiscal Jr., failed to show that any of the instances constituting a
as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police valid ground for suspension of arraignment obtained in this case.
Senior Inspector, with salary grade "23." He was charged with homicide punishable by reclusion temporal.
Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas With respect to the finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion to determine
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691. whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with the said
court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman which has full control of the case. Ramiscal Jr.,
The petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7975 should not be applied retroactively has no legal basis. It bears failed to establish that Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion, thus, there is probable cause in
stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law, which may be applied retroactively. the filing of the case.

PEOPLE VS HENRY GO PEOPLE VS BENIPAYO

DOCTRINE: The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases DOCTRINES:
involving violations of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 committed by certain public officers, as enumerated in
Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who are charged as 1. Jurisdiction in libel cases belong to the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts.
co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers.
2. The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief
It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, there is no longer any public officer with whom respondent is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
can be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy
3. The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving is commanded to remand to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for proper
violations of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 committed by certain public officers, as enumerated in Presidential disposition.”
Decree (P.D.) 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories with the said public officers. Another case involving the same question was cited as resolving the matter: “Anent the question of
jurisdiction, we ** find no reversible error committed by public respondent Court of Appeals in denying
The Court observes that the parties have argued at length in their pleadings on the issue of whether the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The contention ** that R.A. 7691 divested the Regional
alleged criminal acts of respondent are committed in relation to his office. They are of the conviction that the Trial Courts of jurisdiction to try libel cases cannot be sustained. While libel is punishable by imprisonment of
resolution of the said question will ultimately determine which court–the RTC or the Sandiganbayan–has six months and one day to four years and two months (Art. 360, Revised Penal Code) which imposable penalty
jurisdiction over the criminal cases filed. The Court, however, notes that both parties are working on a wrong is lodged within the Municipal Trial Court’s jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691 (Sec. 32 ), said law however,
premise. The foremost concern, which the parties, and even the trial court, failed to identify, is whether, under excludes therefrom ** cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts **. The
our current laws, jurisdiction over libel cases, or written defamations to be more specific, is shared by the RTC Court in Bocobo vs. Estanislao, 72 SCRA 520 and Jalandoni vs. Endaya, 55 SCRA 261, correctly cited by the
with the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, if the said courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction to try the offense, it Court of Appeals, has laid down the rule that Regional Trial courts have the exclusive jurisdiction over libel
would be pointless to still determine whether the crime is committed in relation to office. cases, hence, the expanded jurisdiction conferred by R.A. 7691 to inferior courts cannot be applied to libel
cases.”
Uniformly applied is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by
the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless a latter statute provides for a retroactive Conformably with [these] rulings, we now hold that public respondent committed an error in ordering that the
application thereof. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, is criminal case for libel be tried by the MTC of Bangued.
explicit on which court has jurisdiction to try cases of written defamations, thus: The criminal and civil action
for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or For, although RA 7691 was enacted to decongest the clogged dockets of the Regional Trail Courts by expanding
separately with the court of first instance [now, the Regional Trial Court] of the province or city where the the jurisdiction of first level courts, said law is of a general character. Even if it is a later enactment, it does not
libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time alter the provision of Article 360 of the RPC, a law of a special nature. “Laws vesting jurisdiction exclusively
of the commission of the offense xxx. [Underscoring and italics ours.] with a particular court, are special in character, and should prevail over the Judiciary Act defining the
jurisdiction of other courts (such as the Court of First Instance) which is a general law.” A later enactment like
More than three decades ago, the Court, in Jalandoni v. Endaya, acknowledged the unmistakable import of the RA 7691 does not automatically override an existing law, because it is a well-settled principle of construction
said provision: There is no need to make mention again that it is a court of first instance [now, the Regional that, in case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates
Trial Court] that is specifically designated to try a libel case. Its language is categorical; its meaning is free from of their enactment. Jurisdiction conferred by a special law on the RTC must therefore prevail over that granted
doubt. This is one of those statutory provisions that leave no room for interpretation. All that is required is by a general law on the MTC.
application. What the law ordains must then be followed.
Moreover, from the provisions of R.A. 7691, there seems to be no manifest intent to repeal or alter the
This exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC over written defamations is echoed in Bocobo v. Estanislao, jurisdiction in libel cases. If there was such intent, then the amending law should have clearly so indicated
where the Court further declared that jurisdiction remains with the trial court even if the libelous act is because implied repeals are not favored. As much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of the
committed “by similar means,” and despite the fact that the phrase “by similar means” is not repeated in the legislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere
latter portion of Article 360. In these cases, and in those that followed, the Court had been unwavering in its implication. Furthermore, for an implied repeal, a pre-condition must be found, that is, a substantial conflict
pronouncement that the expanded jurisdiction of the municipal trial courts cannot be exercised over libel should exist between the new and prior laws. Absent an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed
cases. Thus, in Manzano v. Hon. Valera, we explained at length that: The applicable law is still Article 360 of the as repealing a prior one unless an irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy exists in the terms of the new
Revised Penal Code, which categorically provides that jurisdiction over libel cases [is] lodged with the Courts of and old laws. The two laws, in brief, must be absolutely incompatible. In the law which broadened the
First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts). jurisdiction of the first level courts, there is no absolute prohibition barring Regional Trial Courts from taking
cognizance of certain cases over which they have been priorly granted special and exclusive jurisdiction. Such
This Court already had the opportunity to rule on the matter in G.R. No. 123263, People vs. MTC of Quezon grant of the RTC (previously CFI) was categorically contained in the first sentence of the amended Sec. 32 of
City, Branch 32 and Isah v. Red wherein a similar question of jurisdiction over libel was raised. In that case, the B.P. 129. The inconsistency referred to in Section 6 of RA 7691, therefore, does not apply to cases of criminal
MTC judge opined that it was the first level courts which had jurisdiction due to the enactment of RA 7691. libel.
Upon elevation of the matter to us, respondent judge’s orders were nullified for lack of jurisdiction, as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is granted: the respondent Court’s Orders dated August 14, 1995, September 7, Lastly, in Administrative Order No. 104-96 issued 21 October 1996, this Court delineated the proper jurisdiction
1995, and October 18, 1995 are declared null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction; and said over libel cases, hence settled the matter with finality:
Court is enjoined from further taking cognizance of and proceeding with Criminal Case No. 43-00548, which it
“RE: DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL COURTS FOR KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY, CARNAPPING, DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately
AND OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND JURISDICTION IN LIBEL connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the
CASES. x x x x “LIBEL CASES SHALL BE TRIED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional
THEM TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS.” (Underscoring supplied)
SANCHEZ VS DEMETRIO
As we have constantly held in Jalandoni, Bocobo, People v. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 32,[41]
Manzano, and analogous cases, we must, in the same way, declare herein that the law, as it still stands at DOCTRINE: The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or
present, dictates that criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed otherwise render the same defective and neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or
simultaneously or separately with the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. A subsequent enactment of a constitute a ground for quashing the information.
law defining the jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or
modification, the specific provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations in The court ruled that where there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicide committed on the
writing or by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the special complex crime of rape with
to (public) office, similar to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. In
and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of whether the offense is committed in effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree.
relation to office. The broad and general phraseology of Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of rape, loses its character as an independent offense,
by Republic Act No. 8249, cannot be construed to have impliedly repealed, or even simply modified, such but assumes a new character, and functions like a qualifying circumstance. However, by fiction of law, it
exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC. merged with rape to constitute an constituent element of a special complex crime of rape with homicide with
a specific penalty which is in the highest degree.
Since jurisdiction over written defamations exclusively rests in the RTC without qualification, it is unnecessary
and futile for the parties to argue on whether the crime is committed in relation to office. Thus, the conclusion The petitioner and his six co-accused are not charged with only one rape committed by him in conspiracy with
reached by the trial court that the respondent committed the alleged libelous acts in relation to his office as the other six. Each one of the seven accused is charged with having himself raped Sarmenta instead of simply
former COMELEC chair, and deprives it of jurisdiction to try the case, is, following the above disquisition, gross helping Sanchez in committing only one rape. In other words, the allegation of the prosecution is that the girl
error. This Court, therefore, orders the reinstatement of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-02-109406 and Q-02-109407 was raped seven times, with each of the seven accused taking turns in abusing her with the assistance of the
and their remand to the respective Regional Trial Courts for further proceedings. Having said that, the Court other six. Afterwards, their lust satisfied, all seven of them decided to kill and thus silence Sarmenta. Every one
finds unnecessary any further discussion of the other issues raised in the petitions.” of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually raping Sarmenta and later killing her instead of
merely assisting the petitioner in raping and then slaying her. The separate informations filed against each of
LACSON VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY them allege that each of the seven successive rapes is complexed by the subsequent slaying of Sarmenta and
aggravated by the killing of Allan Gomez by her seven attackers. The separate rapes were committed in
DOCTRINE: Under Section 4, par. b of Republic Act 8249, what determines the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is succession by the seven accused, culminating in the slaying of Sarmenta.
the official position or rank of the offender; In enacting Republic Act 8249, the Congress simply restored the
original provisions of Presidential Decree 1606 which does not mention the criminal participation of the public The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed
officer as a requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility
by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. The trial courts impressions of the star
In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it is witnesses for the State bind this Court, for we accord great respect if not finality, to the findings of the trial
intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his court on the credibility of witnesses. Further, all the appellants relied on the defense of denial/alibi but
official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is essential in determining positive identification by credible witnesses of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, demolishes the
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. However, upon examination of the amended information, there was no alibi.
specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related
to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez brought a Petition for Certiorari before this Court, challenging the order of the
that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody. The respondent Judge Demetriou denying his motion to quash the Information filed against him and six other
stringent requirement that the charge set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact persons for alleged rape and homicide. One of the arguments of Mayor Sanchez was that there was
offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was not established. discrimination against him because of the non-inclusion of two other persons in the Information. We held that
even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient
evidence to support at least a prima facie case. However, if there was an unmistakable showing of grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the prosecutors, Mayor Sanchez should have filed a Petition for Mandamus to DOCTRINE: The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the
compel the filing of charges against said two other persons. information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere
conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.
DISINI JR VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of the
DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that the power to issue subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial function. Executive offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
agencies have the power to issue subpoena as an adjunct of their investigatory powers. offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was
committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or
Sec. 21 provides that the RTC shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of RA 10175 the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the
(Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or
place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements
was in the Philippines. of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and
circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and
There shall be designated special cybercrime court manned by specially trained judges to handle cybercrime
essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to
cases
inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
offense.
JIMENEZ VS SORONGON
The averments of the informations to the effect that the two accused "with intent to kill, qualified with
DOCTRINE: The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the People treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength did x x x assault, attack and employ personal
in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in the SC. violence upon" the victims "by then and there shooting them with a gun, hitting [them]" on various parts of
their bodies "which were the direct and immediate cause of their deaths" did not sufficiently set forth the facts
It is well-settled that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest[,]" and circumstances describing how treachery attended each of the killings. It should not be difficult to see that
"who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the merely averring the killing of a person by shooting him with a gun, without more, did not show how the
suit." Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the execution of the crime was directly and specially ensured without risk to the accused from the defense that
case, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. By real interest is meant a present the victim might make. Indeed, the use of the gun as an instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for there
substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or are other instruments that could serve the same lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the term treachery
consequential interest. When the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest, the suit is dismissible. constitute a sufficient averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not an
averment of a fact. In short, the particular acts and circumstances constituting treachery as an attendant
Procedural law basically mandates that "[a]ll criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall circumstance in murder were missing from the informations.
be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor." In appeals of criminal cases before the
CA and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People, pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter x x x. The requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to inform the accused of the nature and cause
12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. 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
The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal knowledge of the details of the crime he is being charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of the
proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. This ruling has been repeatedly stressed in several cases and information determine the crime of which he stands charged and for which he must be tried thoroughly
continues to be the controlling doctrine. accords with common sense and with the requirements of plain justice, x x x.
While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on MIGUEL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
his own behalf (as when there is a denial of due process), this exceptional circumstance does not apply in the
present case. DOCTRINE: The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and
with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the offense charged
PEOPLE VS VALDEZ
In Bedruz vs Sandiganbayan, the court considered the opposition of the accused (Motion to Suspend Pendente 2. The Information in this case did not specify with certainty whether appellant committed the rape through
Lite) as sufficient to dispense with the need to actually set the prosecution’s motion for hearing. sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, or rape by sexual assault as described in paragraph 2
thereof. The Information stated that appellant inserted his penis into the genital of "AAA," which constituted
In the case at bar, while there was no pre-suspension hearing held to determine the validity of the rape by sexual intercourse under the first paragraph of Article 266-A. At the same time, the Information alleged
information/suspension, the court believed that the pleadings filed for and against them achieved the goal of that appellant used force and intimidation to commit an act of sexual assault. While these allegations cause
the procedure. The right to due process is satisfied not by just oral arguments but by the filing and the ambiguity, they only pertain to the mode or manner of how the rape was committed and the same do not
consideration by the court of the parties’ pleadings, memoranda and other position papers. invalidate the Information or result in the automatic dismissal of the case. "[W]here an offense may be
committed in any of the different modes and the offense is alleged to have been committed in two or more
Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a due process requirement, when an accused public official is given modes specified, the indictment is sufficient, notwithstanding the fact that the different means of committing
an adequate opportunity to be heard on his possible defenses against a mandatory suspension under RA 3019, the same offense are prohibited by separate sections of the statute. The allegation in the information of the
then an accused would have no reason to complain that no actual hearing was conducted. It is well settled that various ways of committing the offense should be regarded as a description of only one offense and the
to be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where information is not thereby rendered defective on the ground of multifariousness." Any objection from the
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, has been accorded, no denial of appellant with respect to the Information is held to have been waived failing any effort to oppose the same
procedural due process exists. before trial. He therefore can be convicted of rape through sexual intercourse or rape by sexual assault,
depending on the evidence adduced during trial.
PEOPLE VS SORIA
In determining whether appellant is indeed guilty of rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 of
DOCTRINE: The allegation in the information of the various ways of committing the of ense should be regarded
Article 266-A, it is essential to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had carnal knowledge of "AAA".
as a description of only one of ense and the information is not thereby rendered defective on the ground of
There must be proof that his penis touched the labia of "AAA" or slid into her female organ, and not merely
multifariousness.
stroked the external surface thereof, to ensure his conviction of rape by sexual intercourse.
1. Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape under paragraph 1
We reviewed the testimony of "AAA" and found nothing therein that would show that she was raped through
of Article 266-A is referred to as rape through sexual intercourse. Carnal knowledge is the central element and
sexual intercourse. While "AAA" categorically stated that she felt something inserted into her vagina, her
it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is
testimony was sorely lacking in important details that would convince us with certainty that it was indeed the
commonly known as rape by sexual assault. The perpetrator commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis
penis of appellant that was placed into her vagina.
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. Based on the evidence adduced, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape by
sexual assault.
The RTC and the CA found the accused guilty of rape through sexual intercourse but It is evident from the
testimony of AAA that she was unsure whether it was indeed appellant’s penis which touched her labia and UNION BANK VS PEOPLE
entered her organ. AAA stated that she only knew that it was the “bird” of her father which was inserted into
her vagina after being told by her brother BBB. Clearly, AAA has no personal knowledge that it was appellant’s DOCTRINE: The venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the Information
penis which touched her labia and inserted into her vagina. Hence, it would be erroneous to conclude that states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the
there was penile contact based solely on the declaration of AAA’s brother, BBB, which declaration was hearsay territorial jurisdiction of the court
due to BBB’s failure to testify.
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the
The court however found it inconsequential that AAA could not specifically identify the particular instrument criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The
or object that was inserted into her genital. What is important and relevant is that indeed something was reason for this rule is two- fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such
inserted into her vagina. Moreover, the prosecution satisfactorily established that appellant accomplished the that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
act of sexual assault through his moral ascendancy and influence over “AAA” which substituted for violence Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on
and intimidation. Thus, there is no doubt that appellant raped AAA by sexual assault. trial in the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.

It is also improbable for appellant’s wife to have dared encourage their daughter AAA to file the charges Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional consequences. In
publicly expose the dishonor of the family unless the rape was indeed committed. determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it,
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that subject to existing laws,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was Moreover, Ospital ng Maynila could be held civilly liable only when subsidiary liability would be properly
committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. enforceable pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. But the subsidiary liability seems far-fetched
here. The conditions for subsidiary liability to attach to Ospital ng Maynila should first be complied with. Firstly,
The above provision should be read in light of Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, Ospital ng Maynila must be shown to be a corporation
Procedure which states: Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or information is sufficient if it "engaged in any kind of industry." The term industry means any department or branch of art, occupation or
can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients business, especially one that employs labor and capital, and is engaged in industry. However, Ospital ng
occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed Maynila, being a public hospital, was not engaged in industry conducted for profit but purely in charitable and
constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification. humanitarian work. Secondly, assuming that Ospital ng Maynila was engaged in industry for profit, Dr. Solidum
must be shown to be an employee of Ospital ng Maynila acting in the discharge of his duties during the
Both provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where operation on Gerald. Yet, he definitely was not such employee but a consultant of the hospital. And, thirdly,
the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In other words, the assuming that civil liability was adjudged against Dr. Solidum as an employee (which did not happen here), the
venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the Information states that the execution against him was unsatisfied due to his being insolvent.
offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction
of the court. CASTILLO VS SALVADOR

DOCTRINE: An acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused is not exempt from civil liability,
which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
In Manantan v. CA, we discussed the consequences of an acquittal on the civil liability of the accused as
SOLIDUM VS PEOPLE follows. "Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused.
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the actor omission complained of. This
DOCTRINE:
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act
1. Civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence. or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex
delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds
The circumstances that have been established do not present the factual and legal bases for validly doing so. other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of Court. The
His acquittal did not derive only from reasonable doubt. There was really no firm and competent showing how second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the
the injury to Gerard had been caused. That meant that the manner of administration of the anesthesia by Dr. guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability, which may be
Solidum was not necessarily the cause of the hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerard. proved by preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil Code,
Consequently, to adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable would be to speculate on the cause of the hypoxia. We are where the civil action for damages is "for the same act or omission." x x x.
not allowed to do so, for civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence.
A reading of the CA decision would show that Phillip was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his
2. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [S]ince the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, [Phillip] is not exempt from
to that arising from the offense charged. civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. In Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc.,
we explained the concept of preponderance of evidence as follows:
In criminal prosecutions, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the
criminal action refers only to that arising from the offense charged. Ospital ng Maynila, being an artificial x x x Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
entity, had not been charged along with Dr. Solidum. The lower courts thereby acted capriciously and usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the
whimsically, which rendered their judgment against Ospital ng Maynila void as the product of grave abuse of credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.
For one, Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Hence, its fundamental right to be heard
was not respected from the outset. The RTC and the CA should have been alert to this fundamental defect. In discrediting [Castillo's] allegation that she gave [Phillip] US$100,000.00 in May 2002, the CA found that: (1)
Verily, no person can be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a [Castillo] failed to show how she was able to raise the money in such a short period of time and even gave
party. Such a rule would enforce the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. conflicting versions on the source of the same; (2) [Castillo]failed to require respondent to sign a receipt so she
could have a record of the transaction and offered no plausible reason why the money was allegedly hand-
carried toHong Kong; (3) [Castillo's] claim of trust as reason for not requiring [Phillip] to sign a receipt was DOCTRINE: The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in
inconsistent with the way she conducted her previous transactions with him; and (4) [Castillo's] behavior after the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that
the alleged fraud perpetrated against her was inconsistent with the actuation of someone who had been the counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in a separate civil action.”
swindled.
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
LIM VS. KOU CO PING Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even
without reservation. The commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the
DOCTRINE: If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule
criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of the criminal action. Because of the 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before the
distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the of ended party commencement of the criminal action.
may pursue the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without of ending the rules on
forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata. Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first a criminal case
where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities quasi-delict—without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously
on the part of the offender: (1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal offense and independently of each other. The commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend
under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and (2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be the civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for
pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on “an the same act or omission of the defendant. In most cases, the offended party will have no reason to file a
obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,” as provided in Article 31 of the Civil second civil action since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. In
Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort). It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute some instances, the accused may be insolvent, necessitating the filing of another case against his employer or
felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of guardians.
the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries”).
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on the acts or omissions that constitute the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the
criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently intertwined with the criminal action. For this reason, the civil counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in a separate civil action.” This is only fair for two reasons.
liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is
instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed
final outcome of the criminal action. The civil liability based on delict is extinguished when the court hearing instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against
the criminal action declares that “the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.” the offended party. If the accused does not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period
may set in since the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.
The independent civil liabilities are separate from the criminal action and may be pursued independently, as
provided in Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code, which state that: Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in
the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent of the criminal action. To
ART. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a disallow the accused from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his
felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection
the latter. of the law.

ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper.
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. PEOPLE VS ROMERO

Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the DOCTRINE: The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
offended party may pursue the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without offending as the civil liability ex delicto.
the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
Pursuant to the doctrine established in People vs. Bayotas, the death of the accused pending appeal of his
CASUPANAN VS LAROYA conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability ex delicto. The criminal action is
extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted before taking up the criminal case,” therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is
therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case. there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of
each other. However, the court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and upon
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide by the outcome of another
be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. case pending in another court, especially where the parties and the issues are the same, for there is power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of cases on its dockets with economy of time and effort for
Thus, the outcome of this appeal pertains only to the remaining accused-appellant, Martin L. Romero. itself, for counsel, and for litigants.
MAGISTRADO VS PEOPLE Where the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in
the first action are settled, the second action should be stayed. The power to stay proceedings is incidental to
DOCTRINE: There is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its time
independently of each other.
and effort, those of counsel and the litigants. But if proceedings must be stayed, it must be done in order to
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that: avoid multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments, confusion between litigants
and courts. It bears stressing that whether or not the trial court would suspend the proceedings in the criminal
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.—A petition for suspension of the criminal action based case before it is submitted to its sound discretion.
upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the
court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the PIMENTEL VS PIMENTEL
petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.
DOCTRINE: Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for parricide. Further, the
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.—The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent action. There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there
criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed
proceed. because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid
two conflicting decisions. A prejudial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. Clearly, the
is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide. As such, the
The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action
resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and was filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal action.
separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the
accused.
criminal action.
For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend criminal action, it must appear not only that said case
There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in
involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in
the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of
necessarily be determined.
the accused in the criminal case.
Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal
A prejudicial question is defined as: “x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical
proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the following requisites must be present: (1) the civil
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a
case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the
question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it
resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not
necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be
If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the
the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity “that the civil case be determined first accused would necessarily be determined.”
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner can only act through its officers, and the issue in the main case submitted for JDR before Judge Tiongson-
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The issue in parricide is Tabora is one for nullification of meetings, election and act of directors and officers, injunction and other
whether the accused killed the victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the reliefs. Thus, she knows for a fact that there is a question as to who are the legitimate directors of JMD such
issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence that there is doubt as to whether private respondents are in a position to act for JMD.
but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioner’s will.16 At the time
of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
of their marriage, in case the petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is granted, it will have no effect on
the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the FENEQUITO VS VERGARA, JR.
marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at
DOCTRINE: It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG which has authority to file an appeal with the
the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.
RTC. Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
J.M. DOMINGUEZ VS LICLICAN Administrative Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to represent “the Government in the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.” On the other hand, Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275,
DOCTRINE: As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action entitled “Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and
and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be preemptively City Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution Service,” which was
resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved the law in force at the time the appeal was filed, provides that the provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to
would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The as prosecutor) “shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or
rationale behind the principle is to avoid two conflicting decisions, and its existence rests on the concurrence municipal ordinances in the courts of such province or city and shall therein discharge all the duties incident to
of two essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the institution of criminal prosecutions.”
the criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. 1. The Court notes at the outset that one of the grounds relied upon by the CA in dismissing petitioners’
petition for review is the latter’s failure to submit copies of pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to
1. As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a the petition filed, as required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. While petitioners filed a Motion
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be preemptively resolved for Reconsideration, they, however, failed to comply with these requirements. Worse, they did not even
before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be mention anything about it in the said Motion. Section 3, Rule 42 of the same Rules provides: “Sec. 3. Effect of
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale failure to comply with requirements.—The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
behind the principle is to avoid two conflicting decisions, and its existence rests on the concurrence of two requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service
essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be
criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.”
proceed.
Moreover, it is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is
Here, the CA aptly observed the intra-corporate dispute, posed a prejudicial question to Criminal Case. To be merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of
sure, the Civil involves the same parties herein, and is for nullification of JMD’s meetings, election and acts of law. An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid
its directors and officers, among others. Court intervention was sought to ascertain who between the two down in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude
contesting group of officers should rightfully be seated at the company’s helm. Without resolution of the civil is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In
case, petitioners’ authority to commence and prosecute the Criminal case against respondents for qualified an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with
theft in JMD’s behalf remained questionable, warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings. greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. In the instant case,
petitioners had all the opportunity to comply with the Rules. Nonetheless, they remained obstinate in their
2. In the case at bar, the CA correctly ruled that Judge Tiongson-Tabora acted with grave abuse of discretion non-observance even when they sought reconsideration of the ruling of the CA dismissing their petition. Such
when she ordered the arrests of respondents Isip and Liclican despite the existence of a prejudicial question. obstinacy is incongruous with their late plea for liberality in construing the Rules. On the above basis alone, the
Judge Tiongson-Tabora cannot deny knowledge of the pendency of Civil Case No. 6623-R as the judge presiding Court finds that the instant petition is dismissible.
over its JDR. As correctly held by the CA.
2. A final order is one that which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or
Judge Tiongson-Tabora is well-aware of the existence of said prejudicial question that should have barred the action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Upon the other
filing of the criminal complaint against petitioners Liclican and Isip, for the simple reason that a juridical person hand, an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be
done upon its merits. The RTC Decision is beyond cavil interlocutory in nature. It is essentially a denial of Prosecutor. There is nothing in the said law which provides that in cases of appeal an Assistant City Prosecutor
petitioners’ motion to quash because it leaves something more to be done x x x, i.e., the continuation of the or a State Prosecutor may file the same only upon prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor or the
criminal proceedings until the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined. Specifically, the MeTC has yet Chief State Prosecutor. Stated differently, unless otherwise ordered, an Assistant City Prosecutor or a State
to arraign the petitioners, then proceed to trial and finally render the proper judgment. Prosecutor may file an appeal with the RTC, questioning the dismissal by the MeTC of a case for lack of
probable cause, even without prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor or the Chief State Prosecutor.
Petitioners contend that the PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report, submitted as evidence by
respondent to the prosecutor’s office, showed that the findings therein are not conclusive and, thus, BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION VS REYES
insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. The Court is not persuaded.
DOCTRINE: It must be remembered that the finding of probable cause was made after conducting a
It is clear from a perusal of the cited PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report No. 048-03 that the preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a
document examiner found that the signatures appearing in the questioned Deed of Sale as compared to the case. Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable
standard signatures “reveal divergences in the manner of execution and stroke structure [which is] an cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
indication that they WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.” The Court agrees with the
prosecutor’s pronouncement in its Resolution dated September 22, 2003, that although the findings of the It is not disputed that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the Secretary of Justice
PNP Crime Laboratory were qualified by the statement contained in the Report that “no definite conclusion who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said
can be rendered due to the fact that questioned signatures are photocopies wherein minute details are not prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. Review as an act of supervision
clearly manifested,” the fact that an expert witness already found that the questioned signatures were not and control by the justice secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of
written by one and the same person already creates probable cause to indict petitioners for the crime of administrative remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the initial steps of an
falsification of public document. administrative activity or by an administrative agency should be corrected by higher administrative authorities,
and not directly by courts.
In the instant case, the Court finds no justification to depart from the ruling of the RTC that the offense
charged was committed and that herein petitioners are probably guilty thereof. This Court need not overemphasize that in a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely
determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
With respect to respondent’s legal personality to appeal the Order of the MeTC, suffice it to say that the crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It
appeal filed with the RTC was made with the express conformity of the public prosecutor who handles the does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after
case. trial on the merits. The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A
preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence. Precisely,
It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC. Section there is a trial to allow the reception of evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective claims.
35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code
of 1987, mandates the OSG to represent “the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in It is not disputed that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the Secretary of Justice
all criminal proceedings.” On the other hand, Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled who, under the Revised Administrative Code,9 exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said
“Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. Review as an act of supervision
Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution Service,” which was the and control by the justice secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of
law in force at the time the appeal was filed, provides that the provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to as administrative remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the initial steps of an
prosecutor) “shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or administrative activity or by an administrative agency should be corrected by higher administrative authorities,
municipal ordinances in the courts of such province or city and shall therein discharge all the duties incident to and not directly by courts.
the institution of criminal prosecutions.” In consonance with the above-quoted provision, it has been held by
this Court that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial In the present case, after review and reconsideration, the Secretary of Justice reversed the investigating
courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts and the regional trial prosecutor’s finding of probable cause that all the elements of the crime of estafa are present. Estafa, under
courts. Since the appeal, in the instant case was made with the RTC of Manila, it is clear that the City Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by―
Prosecutor or his assistant (in this case, the Assistant City Prosecutor) had authority to file the same.
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).―Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein
Moreover, petitioners’ reliance on Presidential Decree No. 911 is misplaced, as the cited provision refers only below: x x x x
to cases where the assistant fiscal or state prosecutor’s power to file an information or dismiss a case is
predicated or conditioned upon the prior authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or the Chief State
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: (a) x x x (b) By misappropriating or converting, ABANADO VS BAYONA
to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or
on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or DOCTRINE: The Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS) Manual states that the
to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying resolution of the investigating prosecutor should be attached to the information only “as far as practicable.”
having received such money, goods, or other property; x x x Thus, such attachment is not mandatory or required under the rules

In reversing the finding of probable cause that the crime of estafa has been committed, the Secretary of Justice The conduct of a preliminary investigation is primarily an executive function. The courts must consider the
reasoned out that, [the] theory of conversion or misappropriation is difficult to sustain and that under the rules of procedure of the Department of Justice in conducting preliminary investigations whenever the actions
crime of estafa with grave abuse of confidence, the presumption is that the thing has been devoted to a of a public prosecutor is put in question. The Department of Justic-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS)
purpose or is different from that for which it was intended but did not take place in this case. The CA, in Manual states that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor should be attached to the information only as
sustaining the questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, ruled that the element of misappropriation or far as practicable. Such attachment is not mandatory or required under the rules.
conversion is wanting. It further ratiocinated that the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and
the failure of the accused to account for it, are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation, however, the said HEIRS OF NESTOR TRIA VS OBIAS
presumption is rebuttable and if the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing
DOCTRINE: The justice secretary is not precluded from exercising his power of review over the investigating
delivered in trust, he may not be held liable for estafa.
prosecutor even after the information has already been filed in court; The justice secretary’s subsequent
It must be remembered that the finding of probable cause was made after conducting a preliminary resolution withdrawing the information or dismissing the case does not cause the court to lose jurisdiction
investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case. Its over the case.
purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to
Under the procedure for preliminary investigation provided in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
Criminal Procedure, as amended, in case the investigating prosecutor conducts a hearing where there are facts
This Court need not overemphasize that in a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely and issues to be clarified from a party or witness, "[t]he parties can be present at the hearing but without the
determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may
crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It be asked to the party or witness concerned." Hence, the non-referral by the OP to the DOJ of the motion for
does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after reconsideration of respondent, in the exercise of its discretion, did not violate petitioners’ right to due process.
trial on the merits. The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A The findings of the prosecutor with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause is subject to
preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence. Precisely, the power of review by the DOJ.
there is a trial to allow the reception of evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective claims.
Indeed, the Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the resolution of the prosecutor, after which he shall
A review of the records would show that the investigating prosecutor was correct in finding the existence of all direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding information without conducting another
the elements of the crime of estafa. Reyes did not dispute that she received in trust the amount of preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the
P23,423,327.50 from petitioner as proven by the checks and vouchers to be used in purchasing the parcels of parties. In reversing the DOJ’s finding of probable cause, the OP found merit in the argument of the
land. Petitioner wrote a demand letter for Reyes to return the same amount but was not heeded. Hence, the respondent that the DOJ’s finding that she was with Aclan when she went to the residence of Engr. Tria early in
failure of Reyes to deliver the titles or to return the entrusted money, despite demand and the duty to do so, the morning of May 22, 1998, was not sufficiently established. The OP gave more weight to the affidavit of
constituted prima facie evidence of misappropriation. Calayag stating that Aclan was not around when they and respondent, among other visitors, were at Engr. Tria’s
house at that time -- than that account given by SA Eduarte, which was uncorroborated.
To reiterate, probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person As to the double sale allegedly committed by the respondent from which the latter’s strong motive to liquidate
charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.22 Probable cause is a reasonable ground of Engr. Tria was inferred, the OP found this as a mere expression of opinion by the investigators considering that
presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as Engr. Tria’s widow, Mrs. Pura Tria, categorically admitted her knowledge of the said transaction. Neither was
would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, the OP persuaded by the NBI’s "kiss of death" theory since it is but a customary way of greeting a friend to
that a thing is so. The term does not mean “actual or positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is shake hands and hence it cannot imply that respondent utilized this as a signal or identification for the gunman
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry to shoot Engr. Tria. Respondent’s alleged indifference immediately after Engr. Tria was gunned down while
into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or conversing with her, was also negated by the affidavit of an employee of Philippine Air Lines based at the Pili
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
Airport, stating that right after the incident took place he saw respondent in the radio room in shock and was carried out by a hired gunmen, one of whom (Aclan) she and her father categorically admitted being in her
being given water by another person. company while she visited Engr. Tria hours before the latter was fatally shot at the airport; (c) Suspicious
Behavior -- respondent while declaring such close personal relationship with Engr. Tria and even his family,
Considering the totality of evidence, the OP was convinced there was nothing suspicious or abnormal in failed to give any satisfactory explanation why she reacted indifferently to the violent killing of her friend while
respondent’s behavior before, during and after the fatal shooting of Engr. Tria as to engender a well-founded they conversed and shook hands at the airport.
belief of her complicity with the killing of Engr. Tria. Petitioners, however, maintain that the records are replete
with abundant proof of respondent’s complicity in the murder of Engr. Tria. Indeed, a relative or a friend would not just stand by and walk away from the place as if nothing happened, as
what she did, nor refuse to volunteer information that would help the authorities investigating the crime,
Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a considering that she is a vital eyewitness. Not even a call for help to the people to bring her friend quickly to
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was the hospital. She would not even dare go near Engr. Tria’s body to check if the latter was still alive. All the
guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or foregoing circumstances, in our mind, and from the point of view of an ordinary person, lead to a reasonable
may be, well-founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary inference of respondent’s probable participation in the well-planned assassination of Engr. Tria.
caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so
UY VS JAVELLANA
The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based
on opinion and reasonable belief. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial; it is DOCTRINE: The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure does not provide for a preliminary investigation prior to
not a pronouncement of guilt. On the other hand, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an the filing of a criminal case under said Rule
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of previous agreement
to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure only requires that a preliminary investigation be
the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an of ense where the penalty prescribed by law is
themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.

We reverse the OP’s ruling that the totality of evidence failed to establish a prima facie case against the Judge Javellana committed a blatant error in denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by the accused in People v.
respondent as a conspirator in the killing of Engr. Tria. To begin with, whether or not respondent actually Celeste, et al. and in insisting that said Motion was a prohibited pleading, even though the case was never
conspired with Aclan and Ona need not be fully resolved during the preliminary investigation. The absence or previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa as required by Sections 18 and 19(a) ofthe Revised Rule on
presence of conspiracy is factual in nature and involves evidentiary matters. The same is better left ventilated Summary Procedure. A case which has not been previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa shall be
before the trial court during trial, where the parties can adduce evidence to prove or disprove its presence. dismissed without prejudice. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to comply with the Lupon
requirement is an exception to the pleadings prohibited by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Given the
Preliminary investigation is executive in character. It does not contemplate a judicial function. It is essentially express provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, we find irrelevant Judge Javellana’s argument
an inquisitorial proceeding, and often, the only means of ascertaining who may be reasonably charged with a that referral to the Lupon is not a jurisdictional requirement. The following facts are undisputed: People v.
crime. Prosecutors control and direct the prosecution of criminal offenses, including the conduct of preliminary Celeste, et al. were not referred to the Lupon, and the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss based on this ground.
investigation, subject to review by the Secretary of Justice. The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely Judge Javellana should have allowed and granted the Motion to Dismiss (albeit without prejudice) filed by the
to determine whether the executive determination was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave accused in People v. Celeste, et al. (hindi ko sure) Judge Javellana did not provide any reason as to why he
abuse of discretion. Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave needed to conduct a preliminary investigation in People v. Lopez, et al. Judge Javellana cannot be allowed to
abuse. arbitrarily conduct proceedings beyond those specifically laid down by the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, thereby lengthening or delaying the resolution of the case, and defeating the express purpose of
After a careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, we find no such grave abuse when the Secretary of said Rule. Without any showing that the accused in People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez, et al. were charged
Justice found probable cause to charge the respondent with murder in conspiracy with Aclan and Ona. with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in Article 328 of the Revised Penal Code the
appropriate penalty for the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods which under
The following facts and circumstances established during preliminary investigation were sufficient basis to Article 329(a) of the Revised Penal Code, would be imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6)
incite reasonable belief in respondent’s guilt: (a) Motive - respondent had credible reason to have Engr. Tria months. Clearly, these two cases should be governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
killed because of the impending criminal prosecution for estafa from her double sale of his lot prior to his
death, judging from the strong interest of Engr. Tria’s family to run after said property and/or proceeds of the PEOPLE VS VALENCIA
second sale to a third party; (b) Access - respondent was close to Engr. Tria’s family and familiar with his work
schedule, daily routine and other transactions which could facilitate in the commission of the crime eventually
DOCTRINE: 1. Information can be filed without a preliminary investigation against an accused arrested without granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the
warrant. functions of the Court will be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of
investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it,
2. Preliminary investigation; deemed waived when not invoked. in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with cases if they could be compelled to
review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to
A person who is lawfully arrested, without a warrant pursuant to paragraph 1(b), Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.] (Emphasis and underscoring in
Court 23 should be delivered to the nearest police station and proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, the original)
Section 7. 24 Under said Section 7, Rule 112, 25 the prosecuting officer can file the Information in court
without a preliminary investigation, which was done in the accused-appellant’s case In this regard, it is worthy to note that the conduct of preliminary investigation proceedings - whether by the
Ombudsman or by a public prosecutor - is geared only to determine whether or not probable cause exists to
Since the records do not show whether the accused-appellant asked for a preliminary investigation after the hold an accused-respondent for trial for the supposed crime that he committed. In Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr.,
case had been filed in court, as in fact, the accused-appellant signified his readiness to be arraigned, 27 the the Court defined probable cause and the parameters in finding the existence thereof in the following manner,
Court can only conclude that he waived his right to have a preliminary investigation, 28 when he did, in fact, to wit:
pleaded "Not Guilty" upon his arraignment.
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient
PCGG VS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty
thereof. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely
DOCTRINE: 1. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts
based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry whether there is sufficient
as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of
probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute
constitutes the offense charged.
certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute
2. Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable
certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without
basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person charged should be held responsible for
resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on
it. Being merely based on opinion and belief, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to
common sense. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. "[A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion
that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
for the full and exhaustive display of [the prosecution's] evidence. The presence and absence of the elements
It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. (Emphases and
of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial
underscoring supplied)
on the merits." Hence, "the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level." Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable
basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person charged should be held responsible for
It must be stressed that the Court has consistently refrained from interfering with the discretion of the
it. Being merely based on opinion and belief, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to
Ombudsman to determine the existence of probable cause and to decide whether or not an Information
whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. "[A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion
should be filed. Nonetheless, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there
for the full and exhaustive display of [the prosecution's] evidence. The presence and absence of the elements
is a charge of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise
of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial
of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in
on the merits." Hence, "the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of
an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level."
duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The Court's
pronouncement in Ciron v. Gutierrez is instructive on this matter, to wit: Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in
dismissing the criminal complaint against individual respondents for lack of probable cause, as will be
xxx this Court's consistent policy has been to maintain noninterference in the determination of the
explained hereunder.
Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such
discretion. This observed policy is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers
As already stated, individual respondents were accused of violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the elements of DOCTRINE: The prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the
which are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely
functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a
partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits
party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
the discharge of his functions. In the same vein, they were likewise charged with violation of Section 3 (g) of probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that determination, he
the same law, which has the following elements: (a) that the accused is a public officer; (b) that he entered into cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused,
a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (c) that such contract or transaction is grossly and not the fiscal.
manifestly disadvantageous to the government. Notably, private individuals may also be charged with violation
of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with public officers. The determination by the Department of Justice of the existence of probable cause is not a quasi-judicial
proceeding. However, the actions of the Secretary of Justice in affirming or reversing the findings of
Finally, it was error for the Ombudsman to simply discredit the TWG's findings contained in the Executive prosecutors may still be subject to judicial review if it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Summary which were adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee for being hearsay, self-serving, and of little probative
value. It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the Under the Rules of Court, a writ of certiorari is directed against "any tribunal, board or officer exercising
technical rules of evidence should not be applied in the course of its proceedings. In the recent case of Estrada judicial or quasi-judicial functions." A quasi-judicial function is "the action, discretion, etc., of public
v. Ombudsman, the Court declared that hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
preliminary investigations because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a
rights and obligations of parties. Citing a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, it was held judicial nature." Otherwise stated, an administrative agency performs quasi-judicial functions if it renders
that probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting awards, determines the rights of opposing parties, or if their decisions have the same effect as the judgment of
the hearsay, viz.: a court.

Justice Brion's pronouncement in Unilever that "the determination of probable cause does not depend on the In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. The
validity or merits of a party's accusation or defense or on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies prosecutor only determines "whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
presented" correctly recognizes the doctrine in the United States that the determination of probable cause can has been committed and the respondent-is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial." As such, the
rest partially, or even entirely, on hearsay evidence, as long as the person making the hearsay statement is prosecutor does not perform quasi-judicial functions. In Santos v. Go:
credible. In United States v. Ventresca, the United States Supreme Court held:
[T]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He
While a warrant may issue only upon a finding of "probable cause," this Court has long held that "the term does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and
'probable cause' . . . means less than evidence which would justify condemnation," x x x and that a finding of is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable
"probable cause" may rest upon evidence which is not legally competent in a criminal trial, x x x As the Court the fiscal to prepare-his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose
stated in Brinegar v. United States x x x, "There is a large difference between two things to be proved (guilt and except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to
probable cause), as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like difference in the believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be
quanta and modes of proof required to establish them." Thus, hearsay may be the bases for issuance of the acting as a quasi-court, for it. is the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
warrant "so long as there ... [is] a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay." x x x And, in Aguilar, we
recognized that "an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal Though some cases describe the public prosecutors power to conduct a preliminary investigation as quasi-
observations of the affiant," so long as the magistrate is "informed of some of the underlying circumstances" judicial in nature, this is true only to the extent that, like quasi-judicial bodies, the prosecutor is an officer of
supporting the affiant's conclusions and his belief that any informant involved "whose identity need not be the executive department exercising powers akin to those of a court, and the similarity ends at this point. A
disclosed..." was "credible" or his information "reliable." x x x. quasi-judicial body is as an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature which affects
the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making. A quasi-judicial agency performs
Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for adjudicatory functions such that its awards, determine the rights of parties, and their decisions have the same
crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary effect as judgments of a court. Such is not the case when a public prosecutor conducts a preliminary
investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and investigation to determine probable cause to file an information against a person charged with a criminal
obligations of parties, x x x. offense, or when the Secretary of Justice is reviewing the formers order or resolutions.

DE LIMA VS REYES
In Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus was filed it were likewise lawful. The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers found and seized in the shanty
against the Secretary of Justice's issuance of a department order. The assailed order directed all prosecutors to are, therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded from a valid search and seizure. Since the
forward all cases already filed against Celso de los Angeles of the Legacy Group to the Secretariat of the Special confiscated drug paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice but to
Panel created by the Department of Justice. sustain the judgment of conviction.

This court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitions for certiorari and prohibition are directed only to Considering that Saraum failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness on the findings of
tribunals that exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The issuance of the department order was a purely fact of the trial and appellate courts, such findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and
administrative or executive function of the Secretary of Justice. While the Department of Justice may perform binding. Besides, a review of the records reveals that the CA did not err in affirming his conviction.
functions similar to that of a court of law, it is not a quasi-judicial agency:
The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
The fact that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the Government does not make it a quasi-judicial drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any
office or agency. Its preliminary investigation of cases is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. Nor does the DOJ equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
exercise a quasijudicial function when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor on the finding of probable ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. In
cause in any case. Indeed, in Bautista v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court has held that a preliminary this case, the prosecution has convincingly established that Saraum was in possession of drug paraphernalia,
investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, stating: . . . [t]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does particularly aluminum tin foil, rolled tissue paper, and lighter, all of which were offered and admitted in
not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making evidence.
functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the
persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or Saraum was arrested during the commission of a crime, which instance does not require a warrant in
information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a accordance with Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In arrest in flagrante
crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is committing or attempting to commit or has just
While the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, committed an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest,
ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal. two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
There may be some decisions of the Court that have characterized the public prosecutor's power to conduct a presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
preliminary investigation as quasi-judicial in nature. Still, this characterization is true only to the extent that the
public prosecutor, like a quasi-judicial body, is an officer of the executive department exercising powers akin to Here, the Court is unconvinced with Saraum’s statement that he was not committing a crime at the time of his
those of a court of law. arrest. PO3 Larrobis described in detail how they were able to apprehend him, who was then holding a
disposable lighter in his right hand and a tin foil and a rolled tissue paper in his left hand, while they were in
But the limited similarity, between the public prosecutor and a quasi-judicial body quickly ends there. For sure, the course of arresting somebody. The case is clearly one of hot pursuit of "Pata," who, in eluding arrest,
a quasi-judicial body is an organ of government other than a court of law or a legislative office that affects the entered the shanty where Saraum and Esperanza were incidentally caught in possession of the illegal items.
rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making; it performs adjudicatory functions, and its Saraum did not proffer any satisfactory explanation with regard to his presence at the vicinity of the buy-bust
awards and adjudications determine the rights of the parties coming before it; its decisions have the same operation and his possession of the seized items that he claims to have "countless, lawful uses." On the
effect as the judgments of a court of law. In contrast, that is not the effect whenever a public prosecutor contrary, the prosecution witnesses have adequately explained the respective uses of the items to prove that
conducts a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause in order to file a criminal information against they were indeed drug paraphernalia. There is, thus, no necessity to make a laboratory examination and
a person properly charged with the offense, or whenever the Secretary of Justice reviews the public finding as to the presence or absence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or any illegal substances on said
prosecutor's orders or resolutions. items since possession itself is the punishable act.

RULE 113 – ARREST The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the shanty for objects relating to the crime and
seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the
SARAUM VS PEOPLE various drug paraphernalia. As these items were plainly visible, the police officers were justified in seizing
them. Considering that Saraum’s arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise
DOCTRINE: The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the shanty for objects relating to lawful. The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers found and seized in the shanty are, therefore,
the crime and seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of their lawful intrusion, they admissible in evidence for having proceeded from a valid search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug
inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia. As these items were plainly visible, the police officers were paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice but to sustain the
justified in seizing them. Considering that Saraum’s arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from judgment of conviction.
Even if We consider the arrest as invalid, Saraum is deemed to have waived any objection thereto when he did balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the
not raise the issue before entering his plea. "The established rule is that an accused may be estopped from Constitution. The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present where the police officer finds himself
assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police
arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the
the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived." ability to discern - based on facts that they themselves observe - whether an individual is acting in a suspicious
In this case, counsel for Saraum manifested its objection to the admission of the seized drug paraphernalia, manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must
invoking illegal arrest and search, only during the formal offer of evidence by the prosecution. observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.

COMERCIANTE VS PEOPLE x x x x Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to
determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, one of the earliest cases adopting the "stop and
DOCTRINE: The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present where the police officer finds himself or frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, this court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable
herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers cause:
have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to
discern - based on facts that they themselves observe - whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag
Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of
facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. the police officers to inspect the same.

the Court finds it highly implausible that PO3 Calag, even assuming that he has perfect vision, would be able to For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
identify with reasonable accuracy especially from a distance of around 10 meters, and while aboard a circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is
motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour miniscule amounts of white crystalline substance guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
inside two (2) very small plastic sachets held by Comerciante. The Court also notes that no other overt act
could be properly attributed to Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Calag that the former Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement further. It does not have to be probable cause, but it
had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Verily, the acts of standing around with cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a genuine reason to serve the purposes of the "stop and frisk"
a companion and handing over something to the latter cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. In fact, exception:
even if Comerciante and his companion were showing "improper and unpleasant movements" as put by PO3
Calag, the same would not have been sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5 Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it
(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.31 That his reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must
fact that he had seen his fellow officers arrest persons in possession of shabu; and (b) his trainings and exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
seminars on illegal drugs when he was still assigned in the province are insufficient to create a conclusion that person detained has weapons concealed about him.
what he purportedly saw in Comerciante was indeed shabu.
In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not rely on a single
Neither has the prosecution established that the rigorous conditions set forth in Section 5 (b), Rule 113, have suspicious circumstance. There should be "presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, which,
been complied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity." The Constitution prohibits
knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. As already discussed, the factual backdrop of "unreasonable searches and seizures." Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all
the instant case failed to show that PO3 Calag had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably will not result in a reasonable search.
committed by Comerciante. Verily, it is not enough that the arresting officer had reasonable ground to believe
LUZ VS PEOPLE
that the accused had just committed a crime; a crime must, in fact, have been committed first, which does not
obtain in this case. DOCTRINE: At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of
the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of
In this relation, the Court finds respondent's assertion that there was a valid "stop and frisk" search made on
their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be
Comerciante untenable. In People v. Cogaed, the Court had an opportunity to exhaustively explain "stop and
used against them.
frisk" searches:
There was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was
"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is,
not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.
law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.” This is an arrest in flagrante delicto. The overt act
commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that persons constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of actual force,
manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough But the circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto.
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 part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary. Under R.A. 4136, 1. The police officers claim that they were alerted when they saw two unidentified men suddenly rush out of
or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the 107 David Street, Pasay City. Since they suspected that a crime had been committed, the natural thing for them
arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter. to do was to give chase to the jeep that the two fleeing men boarded, given that the officers were in a patrol
car and a tricycle. Running after the fleeing suspects was the more urgent task but the officers instead gave
At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have priority to the house even when they heard no cry for help from it.
been under arrest. There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or
take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which petitioner was at the police 2. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice anything amiss going on in the house from the street where
station may be characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself they stood. Indeed, even as they peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no activity that warranted
testified that the only reason they went to the police sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged down their entering it.
almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting there.
Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused
There was no intention to take petitioner into custody.Even if one were to work under the assumption that
Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search
petitioner was deemed arrested upon being flagged down for a traffic violation and while awaiting the
and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal. Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the
issuance of his ticket, then the requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with. At the time a person is
police officers allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid
arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must
search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged,
show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain
the Court has no choice but to acquit the accused.
silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be used against them. It may also be
noted that in this case, these constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only after One final note. The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to
petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. GRANTED. sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.”
ANTIQUERA VS PEOPLE
PEOPLE VS VASQUEZ
DOCTRINE: The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain
his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of DOCTRINE: Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters
evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. his plea on arraignment.
The prosecution’s theory, upheld by both the RTC and the CA, is that it was a case of valid warrantless arrest in At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his arrest. We reiterated in
that the police officers saw accused Antiquera and Cruz through the door of their house, in the act of having a People v. Tampis52 that "[a]ny objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the
pot session. That valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right as well to search the living room for objects accused enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against
relating to the crime and thus seize the paraphernalia they found there. them before their arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any
irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction."53 Be that as it may, the
The prosecution contends that, since the seized paraphernalia tested positive for shabu, they were no doubt
fact of the matter is that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an undercover
used for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing dangerous drug into the body
police officer in a buy-bust operation. His arrest, thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5(a), Rule 11354 of the
in violation of Section 12 of Republic Act 9165. That the accused tested negative for shabu, said the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful. Having
prosecution, had no bearing on the crime charged which was for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, not
established the validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds that the warrantless seizure of
for illegal use of dangerous drugs. The prosecution added that even assuming that the arrest of the accused
the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid. We held in People v. Cabugatan that:
was irregular, he is already considered to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest when he
voluntarily submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction by entering a plea of not guilty. This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not absolute and such warrantless
searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a “peace officer or a private person
moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and
may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless DOCTRINE: The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of evidence cannot be downplayed, these are
arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the considered aspects of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will
Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected invalidate the grant or denial of bail.
in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. (Citation omitted.)Thus, the appellant cannot seek
exculpation by invoking belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and the subsequent search upon his person. In Docena-Caspe vs. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas,we held that jurisprudence is replete with decisions on the
procedural necessity of a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, relative to the grant of bail, especially in
RULE 114 – BAIL cases involving offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, where bail is a matter
of discretion. Under the present Rules, a hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or
FLORESTA VS UBIADAS discretion.It must be stressed that the grant or the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of discretion,
hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, and the determination of
DOCTRINE: Judges owe it the public and the legal profession to know the very law they are supposed to apply whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order
to a given controversy. for the latter to properly exercise his discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the
evidence of guilt is strong. In fact, even in cases where there is no petition for bail, a hearing should still be
Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas is found GUILTY of undue delay in resolving a motion and of gross ignorance of the
held.
law or procedure in granting an application for bail without affording the prosecution due process.
There is no question that respondent judge granted bail to the accused without conducting a hearing, in
On innumerable occasions this Court has impressed upon judges that, as mandated by the Code of Judicial
violation of Sections 8 and 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Conduct, they owe it to the public and the legal profession to know the very law they are supposed to apply to
a given controversy. They are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and In Cortes vs. Catral, we laid down the following rules outlining the duties of the judge in case an application for
procedural rules, to be conversant with the basic law, and to maintain the desired professional competence. bail is filed:
The propriety of the dismissal, on motion of the accused, on jurisdictional grounds is, however, a matter for 1. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
judicial adjudication and the proper recourse of a party aggrieved by the decision of a judge is to appeal to the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
proper court, not file an administrative complaint. Criminal Procedure);
However, having failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Ubiadas is liable for undue delay in 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or
rendering a decision or order which is a less serious charge under Section 9 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose
of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion (Section 7 and 8, id.);
The Court takes the occasion to reiterate the injunction that a judge is called upon to balance the interests of
the accused who is entitled to the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, 3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
and to enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to conviction, against the
right of the State to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements. 4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Section
19, id.); otherwise the petition should be denied.
In the exercise of his power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, Based on the above-cited procedure, after the hearing, the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain
unjust, improper or inefficient, the Ombudsman is authorized to call on prosecutors or lawyers in the a summary of the evidence of the prosecution and based thereon, the judge should formulate his own
government service for assistance. conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused.
Respondent judge did not follow the above Rules and procedure enumerated in Cortes. He did not conduct a
Judge Ubiadas was not only aware of complainant’s designation, hence, belying his explanation that he must hearing before he granted bail to the accused, thus depriving the prosecution of an opportunity to interpose
have overlooked the same. It also shows his ignorance of the provision of the Ombudsman Act which does not objections to the grant of bail. Irrespective of his opinion on the strength or weakness of evidence to prove the
require the presence of a special reason for the designation or deputization by the Ombudsman of any guilt of the accused, he should have conducted a hearing and thereafter made a summary of the evidence of
prosecutor or government lawyer to assist him. the prosecution. The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of evidence cannot be downplayed, these
are considered aspects of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will
ZUNO VS CABEBE
invalidate the grant or denial of bail.
Respondent’s contention is bereft of merit. There is no indication in the records of the criminal case that the In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the individual
prosecution has intentionally delayed the trial of the case. Even assuming there was delay, this does not justify and the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the ruling in Purganan, and held that an extraditee
the grant of bail without a hearing. This is utter disregard of the Rules. The requirement of a bail hearing has may be allowed to post bail.
been incessantly stressed by this Court. In the same vein, the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be
conversant with the law and the Rules and maintain professional competence; and by the very nature of his PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN
office, should be circumspect in the performance of his duties. He must render justice without resorting to
shortcuts clearly uncalled for. Obviously, respondent failed to live up to these standards. DOCTRINE: Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the
right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is great. A grant of bail does not prevent
GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SPEC. ADM. REGION VS OLALIA the trier of facts, the same Anti-Graft Court, from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on
the merits.
DOCTRINE: The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual
person and the sanctity of human rights. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, the Court sees no Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail
justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases—clearly, the right of a prospective may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is great. Here, ever since the promulgation of the
extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines assailed Resolutions a little more than four (4) years ago, Jinggoy does not, as determined by Sandiganbayan,
concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. seem to be a flight risk.

A potential extraditee is entitled to bail. As we see it, the rulings in Castelo and Ty Sui Wong are not on all-fours applicable to and of governing sway to
the issue of the propriety of revoking Jinggoy’s release on bail. As it were, the petitioner erroneously equates
Ratio Decidendi the provisional grant of bail to respondent Jinggoy to his virtual acquittal in Criminal Case No. 26558. Petitioner
is wrong. Castelo and Ty Sui Wong contextually dealt with the guilt of culprits therein for the crimes of murder
Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of after all the evidence had been adduced. Unlike in this proceeding, the propriety of a grant of bail, given the
jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law evidence for or against the bail application, was not an issue in Castelo and Ty Sui Wong. And in the present
providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. case, respondent Sandiganbayan is still in the process of determining the facts and merits of the main case.

On the other hand, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights With the view we take of this case, the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its
extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation assailed resolutions, because the grant of bail therein is predicated only on its preliminary appreciation of the
of one’s liberty. evidence.

In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G. OKABE VS GUTIERREZ
Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo GR No.
153675 April 2007, that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, the DOCTRINE: Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is a new one, intended to modify
same being available only in criminal proceedings. The Court took cognizance of the following trends in previous rulings of the Court that an application for bail or the admission to bail by the accused shall be
international law: considered as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest on the legalities or irregularities
thereon; Curative statutes are by their essence retroactive in application.
1. the growing importance of the individual person in public international;
In determining the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused, the judge should
2. the higher value now being given to human rights; not rely solely on the said report.[The judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor
but also the affidavit/affidavits and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the
3. the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary
obligations; and investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.
The duty to make such determination is personal and exclusive to the issuing judge. He cannot abdicate his
4. the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and
duty and rely on the certification of the investigating prosecutor that he had conducted a preliminary
the law on extradition, on the other.
investigation in accordance with law and the Rules of Court, as amended, and found probable cause for the
filing of the Information.
The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine 3. that he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is meant such
set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the 4. that the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought
to be arrested. The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause for the arrest of the 5. that there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
accused is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged of crimes from the tribulations, expenses and
That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary pending appeal and it cannot be said that CA committed
anxiety of a public trial.
grave abuse of discretion. After conviction by the trial court, the presumption of innocence terminates and,
Under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends, from then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.
judge must make a personal determination of the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest
ENRILE VS SANDIGANBAYAN
of the accused. Under Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the investigating prosecutor, in
conducting a preliminary investigation of a case cognizable by the RTC, is tasked to determine whether there is DOCTRINE: Primary objective of bail – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good measure of the
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail,
therein is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is for the purpose of which is to ensure that the accused appears at trial.
securing the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open
and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial. Bail is a right and a matter of discretion – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and
repeted in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital
If the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause for the filing of the Information against the respondent, he offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
executes a certification at the bottom of the Information that from the evidence presented, there is a evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.”
reasonable ground to believe that the offense charged has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty thereof. Such certification of the investigating prosecutor is, by itself, ineffective. It is not binding on the 1. Bail as a matter of right – due process and presumption of innocence.
trial court. Nor may the RTC rely on the said certification as basis for a finding of the existence of probable
cause for the arrest of the accused. Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This right is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be
LEVISTE VS CA released on bail.

DOCTRINE: Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in pretrial liberty The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial and so the amount of bail should be
and society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial. An erroneously convicted accused who is high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but no higher than what may be
denied bail loses his liberty to pay a debt to society he has never owed; Under what circumstances an accused reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
may obtain bail pending appeal is a delicate balance between the interests of society and those of the accused;
In the exercise of discretion in the grant of bail pending appeal, the proper courts are to be guided by the Bail as a matter of discretion
fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending appeal should be exercised not with laxity but with
grave caution and only for strong reasons, considering that the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeted in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules
court. of Criminal Procedure to wit:

Under Sec 5 of Rule 114 bail is discretionary, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No person
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Under par. 3 of the same rule if the penalty impose is more charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be
than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
notice to the accused, of the following or other circumstances:
The general rule: Any person, before conviction of any criminal offense, shall be bailable.
1. that he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
Exception: Unless he is charged with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua [or life imprisonment] and
circumstance of reiteration;
the evidence of his guilt is strong.
2. that he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his
bail without a valid justification;
Thus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong. Where b) Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or
evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted according to the discretion of the court. not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose
of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
Thus, Sec. 5 of Rule 114 also provides: Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court
of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is c) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a
notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the d) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond (Section
decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.
bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
2. Petitioner's poor health justifies his admission to bail.
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during
the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman. The Supreme Court took note of the Philippine's responsibility to the international community arising from its
commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We therefore have the responsibility of protecting
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process and for detainees to avail of such remedies
bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. Quoting from Government of Hong Kong SAR vs. Olalia, the
following or other similar circumstances: SC emphasized:

a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. This
circumstance of reiteration; commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which provides: “The State values the
dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” The Philippines, therefore, has
b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring
bail without valid justification; that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide
without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine
c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which
safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail. (emphasis
d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or in decision)
e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. They arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the
appearance of the accused during the trial and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial
health and advanced age of Petitioner. As such the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the
Court after notice to the adverse party in either case.
Motion to Fix Bail. It acted whimsically and capriciously and was so patent and gross as to amount to an
Thus, admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua subject to evasion of a positive duty [to allow petitioner to post bail].
judicial discretion. In Concerned Citizens vs. Elma, the court held: “[S]uch discretion may be exercised only
RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he
should be granted provisional liberty.” Bail hearing with notice is indispensable (Aguirre vs. Belmonte). The DEL CASTILLO VS PEOPLE
hearing should primarily determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
DOCTRINE: While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person
The procedure for discretionary bail is described in Cortes vs. Catral: against whom the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing that the property is under
appellants control or possession.
a) In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as The records are void of any evidence to show that petitioner owns the nipa hut in question nor was it
amended); established that he used the said structure as a shop. The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that
petitioner used the said structure due to the presence of electrical materials, the petitioner being an
electrician by profession.
The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings
the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With the prosecution’s failure to have been filed against him.
prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner’s control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his
guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law’s own starting perspective on the status of Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a due process requirement, when an accused public official is given
the accused — in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is an adequate opportunity to be heard on his possible defenses against the mandatory suspension under R.A.
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to No. 3019, then an accused would have no reason to complain that no actual hearing was conducted. It is well
produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is settled that to be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard also through
indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, has been accorded, no
denial of procedural due process exists.
MIGUEL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
PEOPLE VS LARA
DOCTRINE: To be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings.
Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, has been accorded, no denial of DOCTRINE: The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins
procedural due process exists. and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial investigation.

In deference to the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and the cause of the There was no legal compulsion to afford him a counsel during a police line-up since the latter is not part of
accusation against him,[31] Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules) requires, custodial investigation and this does not constitute a violation of his right to counsel.
inter alia, that the information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute and the acts or
omissions imputed which constitute the offense charged. Additionally, the Rules requires that these acts or • That he stood at the police line-up without the assistance of counsel did not render Sumulong's identification
omissions and its attendant circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and in terms of Lara inadmissible. The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged x x x and for the investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial
court to pronounce judgment. investigation.

The test of the informations sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such • People v. Amestuzo: The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda
particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation starts
particular, whether an information validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
the complaint or information shall establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to
law. The raison detre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. the person to elicit incriminating statements.

In arguing against the validity of the information, the petitioner appears to go beyond the standard of a person Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the
of common understanding in appreciating the import of the phrase acting with evident bad faith and manifest Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
partiality. A reading of the information clearly reveals that the phrase acting with evident bad faith and
• The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the
manifest partiality was merely a continuation of the prior allegation of the acts of the petitioner, and that he
accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process.
ultimately acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted benefits and advantages
This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory
to his co-accused private individuals. This is what a plain and non-legalistic reading of the information would
and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of
yield.
the line-up.
Suspension is valid.
• An exception to this rule is when the accused had been the focus of police attention at the start of the
Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: investigation. In the case at bench, appellant was identified in a police line-up by prosecution witnesses from a
group of persons gathered for the purpose. However, there was no proof that appellant was interrogated at all
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a or that a statement or confession was extracted from him. During the police line-up, the accusatory process
valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in had not yet commenced.
court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or
gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries • Assuming there was interrogation, any allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation is
relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the
accused becomes the basis of their conviction. Here, appellant was convicted based on the testimony of a That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the judge, or other
prosecution witness and not on his alleged uncounseled confession or admission. officer presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of his right
against selfincrimination. It is a right that a witness knows or should know, in accordance with the well-known
SANICO VS PEOPLE axiom that everyone is presumed to know the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, in
the very nature of things, neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in advance the character
DOCTRINE: If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a result was so serious or effect of a question to be put to the latter.
that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be reopened to give to the
client another chance to present his case. The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed. If not
claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the protection does not come into play. It follows that the right may be
Without doubt, the petitioner could reasonably expect that his counsel would afford to him competent legal waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.
representation. The mere failure of the counsel to observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the protection
of the interests of the petitioner as the client — as manifested in the multiple defects and shortcomings VILLAREAL VS PEOPLE
discovered in the petition for review — was gross negligence in any language because the defects were plainly
avoidable by the simple application of the relevant guidelines existing in the Rules of Court. If the DOCTRINE: The right to a speedy trial is violated when the proceeding is attended with unjustified
incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a result was so serious that the client was postponements of trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the case being tried and for
prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be reopened to give to the client another no cause or justifiable motive.
chance to present his case. The legitimate interests of the petitioner, particularly the right to have his
conviction reviewed by the RTC as the superior tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the altar of technicalities. The SC did not see any grave abuse of discretion in the CAs dismissal of the case against accused Escalona,
Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the basis of the violation of their right to speedy trial.
PEOPLE VS AYSON
The absence of the records in the trial court [was] due to the fact that the records of the case were elevated to
DOCTRINE: The rights guaranteed a person under Art. III, Sec. 12 of the Constitution are not available when he the Court of Appeals, and the prosecutions failure to comply with the order of the court a quo requiring it to
is not under custodial investigation. Thus, a statement or confession voluntarily given by an employee during secure certified true copies of the same. What is glaring from the records is the fact that as early as September
an administrative investigation that he had malversed his employer’s funds is admissible although without a 21, 1995, the court a quo already issued an Order requiring the prosecution, through the Department of
prior information of said rights and without the assistance of counsel. Justice, to secure the complete records of the case from the Court of Appeals. The prosecution did not comply
with the said Order as in fact, the same directive was repeated by the court a quo in an Order dated December
The handwritten admission and statement of accused were declared to be admissible. 27, 1995. Still, there was no compliance on the part of the prosecution. It is not stated when such order was
complied with. It appears, however, that even until August 5, 2002, the said records were still not at the
Right Against Self-Incrimination disposal of the trial court because the lack of it was made the basis of the said court in granting the motion to
dismiss filed by co-accused Concepcion.
The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, is
accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any It is likewise noticeable that from December 27, 1995, until August 5, 2002, or for a period of almost seven
civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is NOT to "be compelled to be a witness against himself.” years, there was no action at all on the part of the court a quo. Except for the pleadings filed by both the
prosecution and the petitioners, the latest of which was on January 29, 1996, followed by petitioner Sarucas
The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning.It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer
motion to set case for trial on August 17, 1998 which the court did not act upon, the case remained dormant
incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry.” It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party
for a considerable length of time. This prolonged inactivity whatsoever is precisely the kind of delay that the
or not, the right to refue to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a
constitution frowns upon.
tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific
question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It RULE 116 – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time
appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as PEOPLE VS ESTOMACA
required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to
him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strength DOCTRINE: Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment should be made in open court by the judge
of the constitutional guaranty. himself or by the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or information with the list of
witnesses stated therein, then reading the same in the language or dialect that is known to him, and asking
him what his plea is to the charge. The requirement that the reading be made in a language or dialect that the Pangilinan assails his conviction because he was not properly arraigned. Since he was arraigned only after the
accused understands and knows is a mandatory requirement, just as the whole of said Section 1 should be case was submitted for decision, said irregularity, he argues, is a procedural error which is prejudicial to the
strictly followed by trial courts. This the law affords the accused by way of implementation of the all-important appellant and is tantamount to denial of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him.
constitutional mandate regarding the right of an accused to be informed of the precise nature of the He claims that his subsequent arraignment did not cure the defect in the trial proceedings because at the time
accusation leveled at him and is, therefore, really an avenue for him to be able to hoist the necessary defense the petition for bail was heard, the trial court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over his person.
in rebuttal thereof. It is an integral aspect of the due process clause under the Constitution.
The accused is mistaken. When the hearings for his petition for bail were conducted, the trial court had already
The transcript of the arraignment shows that it merely consisted of the bare reading of the 5 complaints. It was acquired jurisdiction over his person. Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
reported in the transcript that “Reading the information/complaint to the accused in Ilonggo/local dialect”. acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.19 In the case at bar, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over
Since it was stated in the singular, the court speculates whether all 5 complaints were actually ready, translated the person of the appellant when he was arrested on 19 March 1997. His arrest, not his arraignment,
or explained to him on a level within his comprehension considering his limited education. Parenthetically, conferred on the trial court jurisdiction over his person.
there was no statement of record that appellant fully understood that medium of expression. This assumes
added significance since Ilonggo, or properly called Hiligaynon, is a regional language, spoken in a major part of Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be
Iloilo province, Negros Occidental and, with variations, in Capiz. informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose of arraignment is, thus, to
apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime
Within a province or major geographical area using a basic regional language, there may be other local dialects imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against
spoken in certain parts thereof. If said indication in the aforequoted portion of the transcript intended to him.
convey that Ilonggo is merely a local dialect and was also the idiom referred to, the same is egregious error; it
would be different if local dialect was used to denote an alternative and different medium but, inexplicably, Admittedly, appellant was arraigned after the case was submitted for decision. The question is: Were
without identifying what it was. appellant’s rights and interests prejudiced by the fact that he was arraigned only at this stage of the
proceedings?We do not think so. Appellant’s belated arraignment did not prejudice him. This procedural
The significance of this distinction is found right in the provision of Section 1(a) of Rule 116 which, cognizant of defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial without raising any objection that his client had yet
the aforestated linguistic variations, deliberately required that the complaint or information be read to the to be arraigned. In fact, his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. His counsel’s active
accused in the language or the dialect known to him, to ensure his comprehension of the charges. participation in the hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the charges against him; otherwise,
his counsel would have objected and informed the court of this blunder. Moreover, no protest was made when
The Court takes judicial notice, because it is either of public knowledge or readily capable of unquestionable appellant was subsequently arraigned. The parties did not question the procedure undertaken by the trial
demonstration, that in the central and northwestern part of Iloilo province and all the way up to and court. It is only now, after being convicted and sentenced to two death sentences, that appellant cries that his
throughout Antique, including necessarily San Joaquin where the offenses were committed and of which constitutional right has been violated. It is already too late to raise this procedural defect. This Court will not
appellant and his family are natives, the local dialect is known as kinaray-a. Barring previous exposure to or as allow it.
a consequence of extended social or commercial intercourse, kinaray-a is not readily understandable to nor
spoken by those born to the Hiligaynon regional language or who have lived in the areas under its sway for an In People v. Cabale and People v. Atienza where the same issue was raised under similar circumstances, we
appreciable period of time. The converse is true for those whose native tongue is the dialect of kinaray-a, since held that while the arraignment of appellant was conducted after the cases had been submitted for decision,
they are generally not well-versed in Ilonggo, or Hiligaynon. Since all the complaints are not only in English but the error is nonprejudicial and has been fully cured. Since appellant’s rights and interests were not prejudiced
in technical legal language, we are again at sea as to whether and how the indictments were translated to by this lapse in procedure, it only follows that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
Ilonggo and/or to kinaray-a, or that the appellant was truly and honestly made aware of the charges and, the accusation against him was not violated.
especially, the consequences of his guilty plea thereto. The records are silent and do not reveal anything on
this point, nor how the dialogue between the presiding judge and appellant was translated. Yet a man's life is DAAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN
at stake while this Court wrestles with that dilemma created by an omission of official duty. Since no valid
judgments can be had upon an invalid arraignment, the cases were set aside and were remanded to the trial DOCTRINE: 1. Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out
court. a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval—it usually involves the defendant’s
pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return
PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.

DOCTRINE: Procedural defect of belated arraignment was cured when the counsel of the accused participated 2. Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings but it may also be made
in the trial without raising any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished presenting its evidence and rested its case.
Plea bargaining is authorized under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: SEC. to the sound discretion of the trial court. However, Villarama involved plea bargaining after the prosecution
2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and had already rested its case.
the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, as in the present case, the trial court's exercise of its
guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or discretion should neither be arbitrary nor should it amount to a capricious and whimsical exercise of
information is necessary. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98) discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by
Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118 of reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion
the Rules of Court, require plea bargaining to be considered by the trial court at the pre-trial conference,viz: of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
SEC. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional law.
Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires In the present case, the Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner's plea offer on the ground that petitioner and the
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of prosecution failed to demonstrate that the proposal would redound to the benefit of the public. The
the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following: Sandiganbayan believes that approving the proposal would "only serve to trivialize the seriousness of the
charges against them and send the wrong signal to potential grafters in public office that the penalties they are
(a) plea bargaining; likely to face would be lighter than what their criminal acts would have merited or that the economic benefits
they are likely to derive from their criminal activities far outweigh the risks they face in committing them; thus,
(b) stipulation of facts; setting to naught the deterrent value of the laws intended to curb graft and corruption in government."

(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties; Apparently, the Sandiganbayan has proffered valid reasons in rejecting petitioner's plea offer. However,
subsequent events and higher interests of justice and fair play dictate that petitioner's plea offer should be
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; accepted. The present case calls for the judicious exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction.
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and In the cases at bar, there is no dispute that JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN has already restituted the total amount
of P18,860.00 as per official receipt issued by the provincial government of Leyte dated February 26, 2002. In
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.
short, the damage caused to the government has already been restituted by the accused.
SEC. 2. Pre-trial agreement. – All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference
There is also no dispute that accused DAAN voluntarily surrendered in the instant cases. Moreover, the
shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the
accused is also willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense which to our mind, merits consideration.
accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the
court. PEOPLE VS JANJALANI
But it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished presenting its DOCTRINE:
evidence and rested its case. Thus, the Court has held that it is immaterial that plea bargaining was not made
during the pre-trial stage or that it was made only after the prosecution already presented several witnesses. 1. All trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused’s plea of guilty, for while justice
demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an
Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court presents the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining may be accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction;
made, i.e., that it should be with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor,10 and that the plea of The requirement for a judge to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment.
guilt should be to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The rules however use
word may in the second sentence of Section 2, denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on 2. The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in cases in which it was the
whether to allow the accused to make such plea.11 Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of defense counsel who explained the consequences of a “guilty” plea to the accused—the conduct of a
guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that the
compromise for the convenience of the accused. accused had not been under coercion or duress; mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the
significance, effects, and consequences of their guilty plea.
In People of the Philippines v. Villarama, the Court ruled that the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a
lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter that is addressed entirely
3. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing
judgment. office.

The SC ruled that the trial court judges are required to observe the following procedure under Section 3, Rule DOCTRINE: The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any
116 of the Rules of Court: disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital of ense; reception of evidence.—When the accused pleads guilty to a capital cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive
consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court
culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment
of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of
The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment. In People v. Galvez, Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.
the Court noted that since accusedappellant’s original plea was “not guilty,” the trial court should have exerted
careful effort in inquiring into why he changed his plea to “guilty.” The trial court should have proceeded with respondents Dela PeñaReyes and Manalastas’ arraignment after
the 60-day period from the filing of the Petition for Review before the Department of Justice. The trial court
Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in cases in which it erred when it did not act on the criminal case during the interim period. It had full control and direction of the
was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a “guilty” plea to the accused, as it appears in case.
this case. In People v. Alborida, this Court found that there was still an improvident plea of guilty, even if the
accused had already signified in open court that his counsel had explained the consequences of the guilty plea; The suspension of the arraignment should always be within the limits allowed by law. The doctrine in Crespo v.
that he understood the explanation of his counsel; that the accused understood that the penalty of death Judge Mogul was reiterated in Mayor Balindong v. Court of Appeals where this court reminded the Department
would still be meted out to him; and that he had not been intimidated, bribed, or threatened. of Justice Secretary to refrain from entertaining petitions for review when the case is already pending with this
court: In order to avoid a situation where the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of
The conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules to satisfy the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain
themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress; mistaken impressions; or a from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or
misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and consequences of their guilty plea. This requirement is information has already been filed in the Court. The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the
stringent and mandatory. Nevertheless, the High Court is not unmindful of the context under which the re- Court. The trial court should have proceeded with respondents Dela PeñaReyes and Manalastas’ arraignment
arraignment was conducted or of the factual milieu surrounding the finding of guilt against the accused. The after the 60day period from the filing of the Petition for Review before the Department of Justice on March 8,
Court observes that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty to another charge—multiple murder 2005. It was only on September 13, 2010 that the temporary restraining order was issued by the Court of
—based on the same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated murder charge. The Court further notes that Appeals. The trial court erred when it did not act on the criminal case during the interim period. It had full
prior to the change of plea to one of guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other confessions of guilt— control and direction of the case. As Judge Mogul reasoned in denying the motion to dismiss in Crespo, failure
one through an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews, as stipulated by both accused during to proceed with the arraignment “disregards the requirements of due process and erodes the Court’s
pretrial), and the other via judicial admission (pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing circumstances, independence and integrity.”
we deem it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the “searching inquiry” in this instance. Remanding the
case for rearraignment is not warranted, as the accused’s plea of guilt was not the sole basis of the ENRILE VS PEOPLE
condemnatory judgment under consideration.
DOCTRINE: The grant or denial of a motion for bill of particulars is discretionary on the court where the
ABS-CBN CORP. VS GOZON Information is filed. As usual in matters of discretion, the ruling of the trial court will not be reversed unless
grave abuse of discretion or a manifestly erroneous order amounting to grave abuse of discretion is shown.
TOPIC: SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment.—Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be The rule requires the information to describe the offense with sufficient particularity to apprise the accused of
suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition the crime charged with and to enable the court to pronounce judgment. The particularity must be such that
which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently persons of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what the Information means. The general function of a
thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such bill of particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard against surprises during trial. It is not the
purpose; (b) There exists a prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall not
prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided that the be required to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove
the elements of the offense charged or how the people intend to prove any item of factual information his arraignment and to prepare his defense for trial. Accordingly, the analysis involved in motion for bill of
included in the bill of particulars. particulars should go beyond a simple ultimate factsevidentiary facts dichotomy. If the Information is lacking, a
court should take a liberal attitude towards its granting and order the government to file a bill of particulars
The grant or denial of a motion for bill of particulars is discretionary on the court where the Information is elaborating on the charges. Doubts should be resolved in favor of granting the bill to give full meaning to the
filed. As usual in matters of discretion, the ruling of the trial court will not be reversed unless grave abuse of accused’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Notably, the government cannot put the accused in the position
discretion or a manifestly erroneous order amounting to grave abuse of discretion is shown. of disclosing certain overt acts through the Information and withholding others subsequently discovered, all of
which it intends to prove at the trial. This is the type of surprise a bill of particulars is designed to avoid. The
In the light of all these considerations, we hold that the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the petitioner’s motion for a accused is entitled to the observance of all the rules designated to bring about a fair verdict. This becomes
bill of particulars, on the ground that the details sought to be itemized or specified are all evidentiary without more relevant in the present case where the crime charged carries with it the severe penalty of capital
any explanation supporting this conclusion constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Some of the desired details punishment and entails the commission of several predicate criminal acts involving a great number of
are material facts that must be alleged to enable the petitioner to properly plead and prepare his defense. The transactions spread over a considerable period of time.
Sandiganbayan should have diligently sifted through each detail sought to be specified, and made the
necessary determination of whether each detail was an ultimate or evidentiary fact, particularly after Enrile RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH
stated in his Reply that the “desired details” could not be found in the bundle of documents marked by the
prosecution. We cannot insist or speculate that he is feigning ignorance of the presence of these desired PEOPLE VS LACSON
details; neither can we put on him the burden of unearthing from these voluminous documents what the
desired details are. The remedy of a bill of particulars is precisely made available by the Rules to enable an DOCTRINE: The interpretation of Sec. 8 of Rule 117 to the effect that in the event that the accused is
accused to positively respond and make an intelligent defense. prosecuted anew with the same offense, albeit under an identical information, the new proceedings being
conducted as if the accused has been charged afresh has in its favor the soundest policy considerations based
A bill of particulars guards against the taking of an accused by surprise by restricting the scope of the proof; it no less on the fundamental objectives of procedural rules.
limits the evidence to be presented by the parties to the matters alleged in the Information as supplemented
by the bill. It is for this reason that the failure of an accused to move for a bill of particulars deprives him of the Section 1 (g) of Rule 116—Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the
right to object to evidence which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person
less general terms which sufficiently charges the defendants with a definite crime. of the accused. The time of the pendency or a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes
justifying suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period.
Sec, 9 Rule 116, Bill of particulars.—The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to
enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal.—A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of
complaint or information and the details desired. the accused and with notice to the offended party.

In general, a bill of particulars is the further specification of the charges or claims in an action, which an The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
accused may avail of by motion before arraignment, to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial. In amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having
civil proceedings, a bill of particulars has been defined as a complementary procedural document consisting of been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their
an amplification or more particularized outline of a pleading, and is in the nature of a more specific allegation provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having
of the facts recited in the pleading. The purpose of a motion for bill of particulars in civil cases is to enable a been revived.
party to prepare his responsive pleading properly. In criminal cases, a bill of particulars details items or specific
conduct not recited in the Information but nonetheless pertain to or are included in the crime charged. Its Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals, the
purpose is to enable an accused: to know the theory of the government’s case; to prepare his defense and to respondent is burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first paragraph thereof, namely:
avoid surprise at the trial; to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same
1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin
offense; and to compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence. In dealing with a
perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of
motion for a bill of particulars in a criminal case, judges should observe that: (a) the remedy is distinct from a
the case;
motion to quash in the sense that it presupposes that the acts or offenses constituting the offense (or the
ultimate facts that comprise the crime’s component elements) are already stated in the Information, albeit 2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case;
may be couched in vague language; (b) the remedy is, as mentioned, not meant to supply evidential
information (or evidentiary facts); and (c) the particulars to be allowed are only those details that would allow 3. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally;
a man of ordinary intelligence, as may be reasonable under the circumstances, to, again, properly plead during
4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case. The respondent contended therein that until after the trial court shall have personally determined the
presence of probable cause, no warrant of arrest should be issued against the respondent and if one had
The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in the second already been issued, the warrant should be recalled by the trial court. He then prayed therein that: 1) a judicial
paragraph of the new rule. The raison d’ etre for the requirement of the express consent of the accused to a determination of probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the Constitution be conducted by this
provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting that the revival of the Honorable Court, and for this purpose, an order be issued directing the prosecution to present the private
criminal case will place him in double jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included complainants and their witnesses at a hearing scheduled therefor; and 2) warrants for the arrest of the
therein. accused-movants be withheld, or, if issued, recalled in the meantime until the resolution of this incident. Other
equitable reliefs are also prayed for.
Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one
year after the issuance thereof without the case having been revived, the provision should be construed to The respondent did not pray for the dismissal, provisional or otherwise, of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to
mean that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal on Q-99- 81689. Neither did he ever agree, impliedly or expressly, to a mere provisional dismissal of the cases.
the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution6 without the criminal case having been revived. The
public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order PANAGUITON VS DOJ
of dismissal.
DOCTRINE: The prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation
Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, against the accused. Petitioner’s filing of his complaint-affidavit before the office of the City Prosecutor on 24
unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning. Where the accused writes on August 1995 signified the commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and thus
the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of the case No objection or With my conformity, the effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under B.P. Blg. 22.
writing amounts to express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case. The mere inaction or
silence of the accused to a motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to. Act No. 3326 is the law applicable to offenses under special laws which do not provide their own prescriptive
periods.
A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express consent to such provisional
dismissal. If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused, the case may be Act 3326 provides: “Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of
revived only within the periods provided in the new rule. On the other hand, if a criminal case is provisionally the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
dismissed without the express consent of the accused or over his objection, the new rule would not apply. The proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
case may be revived or refiled even beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of the accused to instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons
oppose the same on the ground of double jeopardy or that such revival or refiling is barred by the statute of not constituting jeopardy.”
limitations.
It must be pointed out that when Act No. 3326 was passed on 4 December 1926, preliminary investigation of
The case may be revived by the State within the time-bar either by the refiling of the Information or by the criminal offenses was conducted by justices of the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law, "institution of
filing of a new Information for the same offense or an offense necessarily included therein. There would be no judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment," and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a
need of a new preliminary investigation. However, in a case wherein after the provisional dismissal of a complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for preliminary investigation, the prescription of the offense is
criminal case, the original witnesses of the prosecution or some of them may have recanted their testimonies halted. “the term ‘proceedings’ should now be understood either executive or judicial in character”. To rule
or may have died or may no longer be available and new witnesses for the State have emerged, a new otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not
preliminary investigation must be conducted before an Information is refiled or a new Information is filed. under his control.

In this case, the respondent has failed to prove that the first and second requisites of the first paragraph of the PEOPLE VS DUMLAO
new rule were present when Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissed Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689.
Irrefragably, the prosecution did not file any motion for the provisional dismissal of the said criminal cases. For DOCTRINE: Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a Motion to Quash—insufficiency of evidence
his part, the respondent merely filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for is a ground for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests its case.
examination of prosecution witnesses alleging that under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and the
Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a Motion to Quash. Insufficiency of evidence is a ground
decision of this Court in Allado v. Diokno, among other cases, there was a need for the trial court to conduct a
for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests its case. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
personal determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against respondent and to
Criminal Procedure provides:
have the prosecution’s witnesses summoned before the court for its examination.
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the Petitioners also contend that Soriano should be charged with one offense only, because all the charges filed
ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be against him proceed from and are based on a single act of obtaining fictitious loans. Thus, Soriano argues that
heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. he cannot be charged with estafa thru falsification of commercial document, considering that he is already
being prosecuted for obtaining a DOSRI loan.
In the case under consideration, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case against respondent for insufficiency of
evidence, even without giving the prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence. In so doing, it violated The contention has no merit.
the prosecutions right to due process. It deprived the prosecution of its opportunity to prosecute its case and
to prove the culpability of the accused. Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a single act or incident might offend two or more entirely
distinct and unrelated provisions of law, thus justifying the filing of several charges against the accused.
It was therefore erroneous for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case under the premises. Not only did it not
consider the ground invoked by respondent Dumlao; it even dismissed the case on a ground not raised by him, In Loney v. People, this Court, in upholding the filing of multiple charges against the accused, held: As early as
and not at the appropriate time. The dismissal was thus without basis and untimely. the start of the last century, this Court had ruled that a single act or incident might offend against two or more
entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than
SORIANO VS PEOPLE one offense. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense." In People v. Doriquez, we held that two (or more) offenses
DOCTRINE: The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3 (a),19 Rule 117 of arising from the same act are not "the same" — x x x if one provision [of law] requires proof of an additional
the1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the averments in the information; that is, whether fact or element which the other does not, x x x. Phrased elsewise, where two different laws (or articles of the
the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense charged as same code) define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other,
defined by law. although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an
essential element of the other.
The trial court may not consider a situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal complaint or information.
Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners against the charge under the information must be proved Consequently, the filing of the multiple charges against petitioners, although based on the same incident, is
by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the consistent with settled doctrine.
information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute the offense.
As aptly pointed out by the BSP in its memorandum, there are differences between the two (2) offenses. A
Petitioners assail the validity of the informations against them on the ground that more than one (1) offense is DOSRI violation consists in the failure to observe and comply with procedural, reportorial or ceiling
charged. They point that Soriano was charged with violation of DOSRI Rules and with estafa thru falsification of requirements prescribed by law in the grant of a loan to a director, officer, stockholder and other related
commercial document for allegedly obtaining loans from RBSM. Thus, they claim that the informations were interests in the bank, i.e. lack of written approval of the majority of the directors of the bank and failure to
duplicitous; hence, they should be quashed. enter such approval into corporate records and to transmit a copy thereof to the BSP supervising department.
The elements of abuse of confidence, deceit, fraud or false pretenses, and damage, which are essential to the
Indisputably, duplicity of offenses in a single information is a ground to quash the Information under Section prosecution for estafa, are not elements of a DOSRI violation. The filing of several charges against Soriano was,
3(e), Rule 11713 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rules prohibit the filing of a duplicitous therefore, proper.
information to avoid confusing the accused in preparing his defense.
Petitioners next question the sufficiency of the allegations in the informations, contending that the same do
By duplicity of charges is meant a single complaint or information that charges more than one offense.15 not constitute an offense.
Section 13 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure clearly states:
The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3 (a), Rule 117 of the1985 Rules
Duplicity of Offense. – A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in those cases in on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the averments in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged,
which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. Otherwise stated, there is duplicity (or if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law.
multiplicity) of charges when a single Information charges more than one offense. The trial court may not consider a situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal complaint or information.
Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners against the charge under the information must be proved
In this case, however, Soriano was faced not with one information charging more than one offense, but with
by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the
more than one information, each charging a different offense - violation of DOSRI rules in one, and estafa thru
information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute the offense.
falsification of commercial documents in the others. Ilagan, on the other hand, was charged with estafa thru
falsification of commercial documents in separate informations. Thus, petitioners erroneously invoke duplicity
of charges as a ground to quash the Informations.
We have reviewed the informations and find that they contain material allegations charging Soriano with DOCTRINE: Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the
violation of DOSRI rules and estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. sound discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the
trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice.
In Criminal Case Nos. 1719 & 1980 for violation of DOSRI rules, the informations alleged that Soriano was the It is the court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be
president of RBSMI, while Ilagan was then its general manager; that during their tenure, Soriano, with the embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the
direct participation of Ilagan, and by using the names of Virgilio Malang and Rogelio Mañaol, was able to ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.
indirectly obtain loans without complying with the requisite board approval, reportorial and ceiling
requirements, in violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 37722 as amended. Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound
discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial
Similarly, the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1720 & 1981 charge petitioners with estafa thru falsification of court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is
commercial document. They allege that petitioners made it appear that Virgilio J. Malang and Rogelio Mañaol the court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be
obtained loans and received the proceeds thereof when they did not in fact secure said loans or receive the embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the
amounts reflected in the promissory notes and other bank records. ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

The information in Criminal Case No. 1720 further alleges the elements of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b)23 of By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the trial
the RPC to wit: (i) that money, goods or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The said Orders were
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due process. They were
return the same; (ii) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, void, had no legal standing, and produced no effect whatsoever.
or denial on his part of such receipt; (iii) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another; and (iv) that there is demand made by the offended party to the offender. This Court must therefore remand the case to the RTC, so that the latter can rule on the merits of the case to
determine if a prima facie case exists and consequently resolve the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw
The information in Criminal Case No. 1981, on the other hand, further alleged the following essential elements Information anew. It is beyond cavil that double jeopardy did not set in.
of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a)24 of the RPC: (i) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; (ii) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (iii) that the offended party must have relied on second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as
the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means—that is, he was induced to part with his money or in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and (iv) that, as a result thereof, arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or
the offended party suffered damage. The informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1720 & 1981, thus, charge convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
petitioners with the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.
Since we have held that the Order granting the motion to dismiss was committed with grave abuse of
Verily, there is no justification for the quashal of the Information filed against petitioners. The RTC committed discretion, then respondents were not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the
no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions. case. Ergo, the fifth requisite which requires the conviction and acquittal of the accused, or the dismissal of the
case without the approval of the accused, was not met. Thus, double jeopardy has not set in.
In fine, the Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail
the denial of a motion to quash an information. The proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter CO VS NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS
a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion to
quash and if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner DOCTRINE: While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy
authorized by law.25 Thus, petitioners should not have forthwith filed a special civil action for certiorari with administration of justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.
the CA and instead, they should have gone to trial and reiterated the special defenses contained in their Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the
motion to quash. There are no special or exceptional circumstances in the present case that would justify right of the accused to speedy trial.
immediate resort to a filing of a petition for certiorari. Clearly, the CA did not commit any reversible error,
much less, grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. Co’s charge that his right to a speedy trial was violated is baseless. Obviously, he failed to show any evidence
that the alleged “vexatious, capricious and oppressive” delay in the trial was attended with malice or that the
CEREZO VS PEOPLE same was made without good cause or justifiable motive on the part of the prosecution. This Court has
emphasized that “‘speedy trial’ is a relative term and necessarily a flexible concept.”In determining whether
the accused's right to speedy trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
proceedings.The factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c)
assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. Surely, mere mathematical d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and,
reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial
proceedings which, after all, do not exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts and e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
circumstances peculiar to each case. “While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and
To require Parane and Salazar to corroborate the testimony of Abutin and Tampelix on the exact same points is
adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable
to render nugatory the other requisite that "there must be no other direct evidence available for the proper
opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of the state witness." The corroborative evidence
unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial.”
required by the Rules does not have to consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on by the
PEOPLE VS DE LEON proposed state witnesses. The Supreme Court ruled that a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a
fellow criminal than by any other method. If it is shown that the statements of the conspirator are
DOCTRINE: A Buy-bust operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug corroborated by other evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity. Even if the confirmatory testimony
peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. only applies to some particulars, we can properly infer that the witness has told the truth in other respects. It
is enough that the testimony of a co-conspirator is corroborated by some other witness or evidence. In the
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of case at bar, we are satisfied from a reading of the records that the testimonies of Abutin and Tampelix are
trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the corroborated on important points by each other’s testimonies and the circumstances disclosed through the
operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, and "to such extent that their trustworthiness becomes
regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. manifest."

The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and ruled that the As co-conspirators, Abutin and Tampelix can testify on the criminal plan of the conspirators. Where a crime is
elements of the crime were sufficiently established, thereby affirming the decision of the CA. contrived in secret, the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential because only they have knowledge of
the crime. The other prosecution witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the crime, as, in fact, there is none. No
RULE 119 – TRIAL one except the conspirators knew and witnessed the murder. The testimonies of the accused and proposed
state witnesses Abutin and Tampelix can directly link petitioner to the commission of the crime.
SALVANERA VS. PEOPLE
VDA. DE MANGUERRA VS. RISOS
DOCTRINE: In the discharge of an accused in order that he may be a state witness, the following conditions
must be present, namely: DOCTRINE: It is thus required that the conditional examination be made before the court where the case is
pending. It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so that he can attend the examination, subject to his
(1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an offense; right to waive the same after reasonable notice. As to the manner of examination, the Rules mandate that it be
conducted in the same manner as an examination during trial, that is, through question and answer.
(2) The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case;
It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in the presence of the judge. This
(3) The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at
is especially true in criminal cases in order that the accused may be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine
a hearing in support of the discharge;
the witnesses pursuant to his constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face. It also gives the
(4) The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and parties and their counsel the chance to propound such questions as they deem material and necessary to
support their position or to test the credibility of said witnesses. Lastly, this rule enables the judge to observe
(5) The trial court is satisfied that: the witnesses’ demeanor.

a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested; This rule, however, is not absolute. As exceptions, Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court provide for the different
modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party to an action. These rules are adopted either to
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, perpetuate the testimonies of witnesses or as modes of discovery. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and
except the testimony of said accused; 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, allow the
conditional examination of both the defense and prosecution witnesses.
It is thus required that the conditional examination be made before the court where the case is pending. It is absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at
also necessary that the accused be notified, so that he can attend the examination, subject to his right to waive arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification
the same after reasonable notice. As to the manner of examination, the Rules mandate that it be conducted in purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused
the same manner as an examination during trial, that is, through question and answer. may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and
cannot be waived.
PEOPLE VS. JIMENEZ
When the Decision was promulgated, only Estanislao was present. Subsequently thereafter, without
DOCTRINE: The requirement is that a state witness does not need to be found to be the least guilty; he or she surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined Estanislao in
should not only "appear to be the most guilty." their Joint Motion for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, RTC not only failed to cause the arrest
of the respondents who were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion.
By jurisprudence, "most guilty" refers to the highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in the
commission of the offense and does not necessarily mean the severity of the penalty imposed. While all the RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint MR with respect to the respondents who
accused may be given the same penalty due to conspiracy, yet one may be considered to have lesser or the were at large. It should have considered the joint motion as a MR that was solely filed by Estanislao. Being at
least guilt taking into account his degree of participation in the commission of the offense. What the rule large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their standing in court. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a
avoids is the possibility that the most guilty would be set free while his co-accused who are less guilty in terms foreign country, or escapes from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he
of participation would be penalized. surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from
the court.
Thus, as a rule, for purposes of resolving a motion to discharge an accused as a state witness, what are
controlling are the specific acts of the accused in relation to the crime committed. ASISTIO VS. PEOPLE

The SC ruled that from the evidence submitted by the prosecution in support of its motion to discharge DOCTRINE: “Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence
Montero, it appears that while Montero was part of the planning, preparation, and execution stage as most of does not show that the defendant's guilt is beyond reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case
his co-accused had been, he had no direct participation in the actual killing of Ruby Rose. While Lope allegedly on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court
assigned to him the execution of the killing, the records do not indicate that he had active participation in is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within
hatching the plan to kill Ruby Rose, which allegedly came from accused Lope and Jimenez, and in the actual the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and
killing of Ruby Rose which was executed by accused Lennard. Montero’s participation was limited to providing substance, etc."
the steel box where the drum containing the victim’s body was placed, welding the steel box to seal the
cadaver inside, operating the skip or tug boat, and, together with his co-accused, dropping the steel box In this case, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case not for insufficiency of
containing the cadaver into the sea. evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Notably, the RTC did not decide the case on the
merits, let alone resolve the issue of petitioner's guilt or innocence based on the evidence proffered by the
The discharge of an accused to be utilized as a state witness because he does not appear to be the most guilty prosecution. This being the case the RTC order of dismissal does not operate as an acquittal hence may still be
is highly factual in nature as it largely depends on the appreciation of who had the most participation in the subject to an appeal under Rule 41 of the ROC.
commission of the crime. The appellate courts do not interfere in the discretionary judgment of the trial court
on this factual issue except when grave abuse of discretion intervenes. The accused-appellee cannot also contend that she will be placed in double jeopardy upon this appeal. It must
be stressed that the dismissal of the case against her was premised upon her filing of a demurrer to evidence,
PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO and the finding, albeit erroneous, of the trial court that it is bereft of jurisdiction. The requisites that must be
present for double jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of competent
DOCTRINE: Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or
absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused. There is no double jeopardy in
innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the this case as the dismissal was with the accusedappellee's consent, that is, by moving for the dismissal of the
promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or case through a demurrer to evidence he is deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy.
representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived.
CABRADOR VS. PEOPLE
The RTC erred in taking cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration despite the absence of the other
accused during the promulgation of judgment. Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in
DOCTRINE: One can avail of a demurrer to evidence only after the plaintiff or the prosecution has rested its DOCTRINE: The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and
case. Resting one’s case requires a formal offer of evidence which has been commented on or has been substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had
opposed and the court has already ruled on the formal offer of evidence together with the opposition or pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his express
comment thereto. consent. The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion.
The SC ruled that Cabador filed a motion to dismiss, not a demurrer to evidence. He did not waive his right to
present evidence. There are 2 stages in the trial proper of a criminal case: (1) prosecution's presentation of Double jeopardy applies. In People v. Sandiganbayan, this Court explained the general rule that the grant of a
evidence against the accused; and (2) accused's presentation of evidence in his defense. If after the first stage, demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final and cannot be appealed.
the evidence appears insufficient to support a conviction, the trial court may at its own initiative or on motion
of the accused dispense with the second stage, and dismiss the criminal action. There is no point for the trial The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to
court to hear the evidence of the accused in such a case since the prosecution bears the burden of proving his sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The order of dismissal amounts to an acquittal. (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his express consent.

But because some have in the past used the demurrer in order to delay the proceedings in the case, the The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr., this Court stated that
remedy now carries a caveat. When the accused files a demurrer without leave of court, he shall be deemed to the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
have waived the right to present evidence and the case shall be considered submitted for judgment.
This exception is inapplicable to the factual milieu herein. RTC did not abuse its discretion in the manner it
To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, the Court must conducted the proceedings of the trial, as well as its grant of respondent’s demurrer to evidence.
consider the ff: the allegations in it were made in good faith; the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed; the
primary objective of the party filing it. Thus, the question to be resolved, given the factual molding of herein petition, is "did the RTC violate
petitioner’s right to due process?" Petitioner was given more than ample opportunity to present its case as
Cabador in his MTD pointed out how the trial dragged on for years; the gaps between hearings were long, with gleaned from the factual antecedents which led to the grant of respondent’s demurrer.
hearings often postponed due to the absence of the prosecutor. And it was compounded by the repeated
motions for extension by the prosecutor to make the formal offer, and its failure to make such offer. He invoked Lastly, even if this Court were to review the action taken by the RTC in granting the demurrer to evidence, no
his right to speedy trial. grave abuse can be attributed to it as it appears that the 29-page Order granting the demurrer was arrived at
after due consideration of the merits thereto. As correctly observed by the CA, RTC extensively discussed its
In criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the accused's right to speedy position on the various issues brought to contention by petitioner. One of the main reasons for the RTC’s
trail. This denial is characterized by unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delays without fault of the decision to grant the demurrer was the absence of evidence to prove the classes of shares that the Best World
accused, or by unjustified postponements that unreasonably prolonged the trial. This was the main thrust of Resources Corporation stocks were divided into, whether there are preferred shares as well as common shares,
Cabador’s motion to dismiss and he had the right to bring this up for a ruling by the trial court. or even which type of shares respondent had acquired.

Cabador did not state what evidence the prosecution had presented against him to show in what respects such Withal, it bears to stress that the fundamental philosophy behind the constitutional proscription against
evidence failed to meet the elements of the crime, something that is fundamental in ay demurrer. It did not double jeopardy is to afford the defendant, who has been acquitted, final repose and safeguard him from
touch on any particular testimony or documentary exhibit. He could not do so because he did not know that government oppression through the abuse of criminal processes.
the prosecution finally made its offer of exhibits on the same date he filed his MTD.
IMPERIAL VS. JOSON
A demurrer assumes that the prosecution has already rested its case. In this case, after the prosecution filed its
formal offer, the trial court still needed to give Cabador an opportunity to object to the admission of those DOCTRINE: The right to speedy trial is considered violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal offer. And only after such a ruling could the prosecution be capricious and oppressive delays.
deemed to have rested its case. The MTD was filed before he could object to the offer, before the trial court
The accused’s right to speedy trial was not violated. Designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by
could rule on the offer, and before the prosecution could rest its case. It cannot be said that he intended his
holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time and to prevent delays in the
MTD to serve as a demurrer. He cannot be declared to have waived his right to present evidence in his defense.
administration of justice, said right is considered violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
PEOPLE VS. TAN capricious and oppressive delays.

PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN


DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and the dismissal order DOCTRINE: Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups
may not be appealed because it would place accused in double jeopardy. It is still reviewable but only through where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots
certiorari under Rule 65. where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru lineups where a
witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose x x x In resolving the
Actual damage to government arising from non-liquidation of cash advance is not an essential element. admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
Instead, mere failure to timely liquidate is the gravamen of the offense. Even if Sandiganbayan proceeded from circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the
an erroneous interpretation of law, the error committed was an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. The criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
error committed is of such nature that can no longer be rectified on appeal by prosecution because it would description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
place accused in double jeopardy. Such error cannot be corrected because double jeopardy had already set in. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification
procedure.
BANGAYAN, JR. VS. BANGAYAN
At any rate, the appellants' respective convictions in this case were based on an independent in-court
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, acquittal of accused or dismissal of case against him can only be appealed by identification made by Edward and Jocelyn, and not on the out-of-court identification during the police lineup.
Solicitor General. Court cannot review an order granting demurrer to evidence. Acquitting the accused on
ground by insufficiency of evidence is of such based on the merits, thus to do so will place accused in double The illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all
jeopardy. other facts on record point to their culpability. It is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless
arrest after a valid information had been filed, the accused had been arraigned, the trial had commenced and
Double jeopardy already set in. All 4 elements of double jeopardy are present. A valid information for bigamy had been completed, and a judgment of conviction had been rendered against her.
was filed against petitioners. They pleaded not guilty to charges against them and subsequently case was
dismissed after the prosecution rested its case. If the court finds that the evidence is not sufficient and grants Applying the totality-of-circumstances test , there was thus ample opportunity for Edward - before and after
demurrer, such dismissal of the case is one on the merits, which is equivalent to acquittal of the accused. Even the gun had been pointed at him - to view the faces of the three persons who entered his office. In addition,
if trial court had incorrectly overlooked the evidence against petitioners, it only committed an error of Edward stated that Pepino had talked to him "[a]t least once a day" during the four days that he was detained.
judgment and not one of jurisdiction, which could not be rectified by certiorari. It must be shown that a party Edward also saw Gomez seated at the front seat of the getaway metallic green Toyota Corolla vehicle. In
was deprived of his opportunity to be heard. addition, the abductors removed the tape from Edward's eyes when they arrived at the apartment, and among
those whom he saw there was Gomez. According to Edward, he was able to take a good look at the occupants
PEOPLE VS. JOSE GO of the car when he was about to be released.
DOCTRINE: Court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to On the part of Jocelyn, she was firm and unyielding in her identification of Pepino as the person who pointed a
ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. To gun at her husband while going down the stairs, and who brought him outside the premises of Kilton Motors.
be sufficient, evidence must prove: (1) that commission of crime and (2) precise degree of participation by the She maintained that she was very near when Pepino was taking away her husband; and that she could not
accused. Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence forget Pepino's face.
is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Police lineup conducted at the NBI was not suggestive. We note that there were seven people in the lineup;
Trial court effectively failed and /or refused to weigh the prosecution’s evidence against Go, which it was duty- Edward was not compelled to focus his attention on any specific person or persons. While it might have been
bound to do as a trier of facts; considering that the case involved hundreds of millions of pesos of OCBC ideal if there had been more women included in the lineup instead of only two, or if there had been a separate
depositors’ money – not to mention that banking industry is impressed with public interest, the trial court lineup for Pepino and for Gomez, the fact alone that there were five males and two females in the lineup did
should have conducted itself with circumspection and engaged in intelligent reflection in resolving issues. not render the procedure irregular. There was no evidence that the police had supplied or even suggested to
Demand is not an element of the felony. Furthermore, as the beneficiary of the proceeds, Go is presumed to Edward that the appellants were the suspected perpetrators.
be the author of the falsification. It is irrelevant that the proceeds of supposed loans were made payable to
entities other than the alleged borrowers. The bottom line is that they are encashed using bank funds, and the Defense witness Reynaldo, however, maintained that Pepino and Gomez were among those already presented
proceeds were deposited in Go’s bank savings and current accounts and used to fund personal checks. to the media as kidnapping suspects by the DOJ a day before the police lineup was made. In this sense, the
appellants were already the focus of the police and were thus deemed to be already under custodial
PEOPLE VS. PEPINO investigation when the out-of-court identification was conducted.
Nonetheless, the defense did not object to the in-court identification for having been tainted by an irregular DOCTRINE: Mandamus is never available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or
out-ofcourt identification in a police lineup. They focused, instead, on the legality of the appellants' arrests. the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either. If petitioners believed that the
respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuance of Order denying Motion to Withdraw
The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is more favorable to him. Information, the proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition for certiorari against the
assailed order. Furthermore, once a criminal complaint or an information is filed in court, any disposition or
RULE 120 – JUDGMENT dismissal of the case or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the jurisdiction, competence, and
discretion of the trial court.
LLAMAS VS. CA
Remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not discretionary one. While
DOCTRINE: The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases.
judge refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw Information can be compelled by mandamus to act on the
Rule 47 limits the scope of the remedy to judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of RTC for same, he cannot be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e. to grant or deny such Motion. The trial court, when
which ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petitions for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer confronted with Motion to Withdraw Information on ground of lack of probable cause, is not bound by the
available through no fault of the petitioner. The remedy cannot be resorted to when RTC judgment being resolution of the prosecuting arm of the government, but is required to make an independent assessment of
questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not the merits of such motion, a requirement satisfies by the respondent judge in the case at bar.
permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of 1997 Revised Rules of
PEOPLE VS. LORENZO
Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases as stated in Sec 18 Rule 124: only Rules 42,
44 to 46 and 48 to 56. DOCTRINE: Presumption of innocence of accused is fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the
prosecution the burden of proving that an accused in guilty of offense charged by proof beyond reasonable
PEOPLE VS. MONTECLAROS
doubt. Conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness of the
DOCTRINE: When a crime is committed by many, each one has a distinct part in the commission of crime and defense.
though all the persons who took part in commission of the crime are liable, the liability is not equally shared
In both illegal sale and illegal possession prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a
among them. It becomes relevant to determine the particular amount for which each accused is liable when
persistent doubt on the identity of drug. It must be established with moral certainty. Non-compliance with the
they have different degrees of responsibility in the commission of crime and consequently, differing degrees of
stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
liability. The particular liability that each accused is responsible for depends on nature and degree of his
over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
participation in commission of crime.
the apprehending officers.
Finding guilt of Ida as an accomplice in rape is dependent on proving the guilt of principal accused. Ida
There must be a Chain of evidence. However, in this case, it was not certain when and where the said marking
participated in commission of crime by previous acts but her participation, not being indispensable, was not
was done nor who had specifically received and had custody of the specimens thereafter. Prosecution did not
that of a principal but as an accomplice. Community of design between acts of Tampus and Ida is present.
present poseur-buyer who had personal knowledge of the transaction. The lone witness of prosecution was at
Civil liability arising from the crime is shared by all the accused. The courts have discretion to determine the least four meters away from accused and poseur-buyer. With that distance, it was impossible for him to hear
apportionment of civil indemnity which the principal, accomplice, and accessory are respectively liable for, the conversation.
without guidelines with respect to basis of allotment. Each of the participants should be liable only for acts
Facts and circumstances create a doubt as to whether sachets of shabu seized were the same one that were
actually committed by him. The power of the courts to grant indemnity and damages demands factual, legal
released to Camp Crame and submitted for laboratory exam.
and equitable justification, and cannot be left to speculation and caprice.
PEOPLE VS. BARON
Since Tampus died before final judgment, his civil indemnity ex delicto is extinguished. His share in civil
indemnity and damages cannot be passed over to the accomplice. And even if Tampus were alive, Ida would DOCTRINE: Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to produce a conviction that the appellant conspired with his
only have been subsidiarily liable for his share of the civil indemnity. With death of Tampus, Ida’s subsidiary coaccused in committing the crime of robbery with homicide. His claim that he acted under the impulse of
liability with respect to this amount is also eliminated, following the principle that accessory follows the uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury could not be sustained because there was no genuine,
principal. imminent, and reasonable threat, preventing his escape that compelled him to take part in the commission of
the offense charged.
HIPOS SR. VS. BAY
There is no direct evidence proving that the appellant conspired and participated in committing the crime. DOCTRINE: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal
However, his complicity may be proved by circumstantial evidence, which consists of proof of collateral facts whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. (2) While certiorari may be availed of to correct an
and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial
common experience. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. (3)
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; (c) the combination An appellate court in a petition for certiorari cannot review a trial court s evaluation of the evidence and
of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction factual findings. Errors of judgment cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can only correct
based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion.
that results to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the
perpetrator. Certiorari is the proper remedy A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a
verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level.
The appellant had other opportunities to escape since he traveled with his co-accused for more than 10 hours
and passed several transportation terminals. However, he never tried to escape or at least request for Since appeal could not be taken without violating Abordo s constitutionally guaranteed right against double
assistance from the people around him. jeopardy, the OSG was correct in pursuing its cause via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the
appellate court. Exception to Finality-of-Acquittal Doctrine In our jurisdiction, we adhere to the finality-of-
ABELLANA VS. PEOPLE acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The rule, however, is not without
exception. In several cases, the Court has entertained petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the
DOCTRINE: Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done accused in, or the dismissals of, criminal cases. In People v LouelUy, the Court said that petition for certiorari
intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses under Rule 65 is appropriate upon clear showing by the petitioner that the lower court in acquitting the
Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses. accused: (1) Committed reversible errors of judgment (2) Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction or denial of due process. Such commission of the lower court renders its judgment void. No
It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acquittal shall state whether the evidence of double jeopardy When the order or dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original
the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.
reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist. When the exoneration is merely due to the failure to prove the guilt of the Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy. OSG s petition for certiorari
accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court should award the civil liability in favor of the offended party in before the CA, however, is bereft of merit While the CA was erroneous of dismissing the petition, the OSG s
the same criminal action. In other words, the extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the petition for certiorari if given due course is bereft of merit. While certiorari may be availed of to correct an
extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial
from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. In case of exoneration of the accused, the civil liability court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. A
may still arise when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes reading of the OSG petition fails to show that the prosecution was deprived of its right to due process. Also,
damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts what the OSG is questioning are errors of judgment. This, however, cannot be resolved without violating
he committed had caused damage to the spouses. Based on the records of the case, Court found that the acts Abordo s constitutionally guaranteed right against double jeopardy. An appellate court in a petition for
allegedly committed by the petitioner did not cause any damage to spouses Alonto. Moreover, the defective certiorari cannot review a trial court s evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. Errors of judgment
notarization does not ipso facto invalidate the Deed of Absolute Sale, the transfer of said properties from cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those
spouses Alonto to petitioner remains valid. Hence, when on the basis of said Deed of Absolute Sale, petitioner involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion. Error of Judgment v Error of Jurisdiction Any error
caused the cancellation of spouses Alonto’s title and the issuance of new ones under his name, and thereafter committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari.
sold the same to third persons, no damage resulted to the spouses Alonto.
An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of
The Court cannot sustain the alternative sentence imposed upon the petitioner, to wit: to institute an action jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
for the recovery of the properties of spouses Alonto or to pay them actual and other kinds of damages. with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is
Sentences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will botbe issued to cure errors by the trial
sentences in the alternative. While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and
impose both in the alternative. He must fix positively and with certainty the particular penalty. its conclusions of law.

PEOPLE VS. ASIS BASILONIA VS. VILLARUZ


The determination of whether respondent trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and
or excess of jurisdiction in granting a motion for execution which was filed almost twenty (20) years after a agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. Specifically, it
judgment in a criminal case became final and executory necessarily calls for the resolution of the twin issues of shall represent the Government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of
whether the penalty of imprisonment already prescribed and the civil liability arising from the crime already Appeals. Thus, as a general rule, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the
extinguished. appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State.

Prescription of Penalty There have been instances, however, where the Court permitted an offended party to file an appeal without
the intervention of the OSG, such as when the offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower
As early as 1952, in Infante v. Provincial Warden of Negros Occidental, the Court already opined that evasion of court, when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to act on
service of sentence is an essential element of prescription of penalties. Later, Tanega v. Masakayan, et al. the case to the prejudice of the State and the private offended party, when there is grave error committed by
expounded on the rule that the culprit should escape during the term of imprisonment in order for the judge, or when the interest of substantial justice so requires.
prescription of penalty imposed by final sentence to commence to run.
Corollary, a judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence of Court showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of
to run, the culprit should escape during the term of such imprisonment. judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial
of due process, thereby rendering the assailed judgment null and void. If there is grave abuse of discretion,
Applying existing jurisprudence in this case, the Court, therefore, rules against petitioners. For the longest granting the aggrieved party’s prayer is not tantamount to putting the accused in double jeopardy, in violation
time, they were never brought to prison or placed in confinement despite being sentenced to imprisonment by of the general rule that the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in
final judgment. Prescription of penalty of imprisonment does not run in their favor. Needless to state, favor of the defendant in a criminal case. This is because a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
respondent trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the motion for executory, and the prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition against double
execution and in eventually granting the same. jeopardy be violated.
Extinction of Civil Liability Thus, it may be argued that since the instant petition is one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, not under Rule 65, and was not filed by the OSG representing the interest of the Republic, the same
In the instant case, it is obvious that the heirs of Atty. Roblete did not file a motion for execution within the
should be summarily dismissed. The unique and special circumstances attendant in the instant petition,
five-year period or an action to revive the judgment within the ten-year period. Worse, other than the bare
however, justify an adjudication by the Court on the merits and not solely on technical grounds.
allegation that the judgment has not been enforced because the public prosecutor has not acted on the
request to file a motion for execution, no persuasive and compelling reason was presented to warrant the First of all, the Court stresses that the appellate court’s dismissal of the case is not an acquittal of respondent.
exercise of Our equity jurisdiction. Unfortunately for private respondent Roblete, the instant case does not fall Basic is the rule that a dismissal of a case is different from an acquittal of the accused therein. Except in a
within the exceptions afore-stated. It cannot be claimed that the delay in execution was entirely beyond their dismissal based on a Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused, or for violation of the right of the accused to a
control or that petitioners have any hand in causing the same. speedy trial, the dismissal of a criminal case against the accused will not result in his acquittal.
In so far as the civil liability arising from the offense is concerned, a motion for execution should be filed in This argument or reasoning is predicated on a confusion of the legal concepts of dismissal and acquittal.
accordance with Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules and existing jurisprudence. Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show
that defendant’s guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does tint decide the case on the merits or
MORILLO VS. PEOPLE
that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court of
It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within the territorial
some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance, etc.
territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and
The only case in which the word dismissal is commonly but not correctly used, instead of the proper term
material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first
acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented all its: evidence, the defendant moves for me dismissal
court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or transitory
and the court dismisses the ease on the ground that the evidence tails to show beyond a reasonable doubt
crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
that the defendant is guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the case is decided
It may be argued, however, that the instant petition ought to be dismissed outright due to certain procedural on the merits. If the prosecution fails to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction
infirmities. Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code provides that the OSG of the court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant
could not be again prosecuted before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative and remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan for new trial in
the defendant may again be prosecuted for the same offense before a court of competent jurisdiction. relation to the conviction of Estino and Pescadera for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

Thus, petitioner’s resort to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court cannot be struck down as improper. In a petition for We resolve to grant petitioners a chance to prove their innocence by remanding the case to the Sandiganbayan
review on certiorari under Rule 45, the parties raise only questions of law because the Court, in its exercise of for a new trial of Criminal Case No. 26192. Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of a new trial
its power of review, is not a trier of facts. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to before a judgment of conviction becomes final when new and material evidence has been discovered which
what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
evidence presented by the parties-litigants. introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

In the instant case; the lone issue invoked by petitioner is precisely “whether the Court of Appeals erred when Although the documents offered by petitioners are strictly not newly discovered, it appears to us that
it ruled that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City did not have jurisdiction over the case despite clear petitioners were mistaken in their belief that its production during trial was unnecessary. In their Supplemental
showing that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of said court.” Evidently, therefore, the instant Motion and/or Motion for New Trial, they stressed that they no longer presented the evidence of payment of
petition was filed within the bounds of our procedural rules for the issue herein rests solely on what the law RATA because Balabaran testified that the subject of the charge was the nonpayment of benefits under the
provides on the given set of circumstances insofar as the commission of the crime of BP 22 is concerned. 1999 budget, without mention of the RATA nor the 1998 reenacted budget. It seems that they were misled
during trial. They were precluded from presenting pieces of evidence that may prove actual payment of the
In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information, RATA under the 1998 reenacted budget because the prosecutions evidence was confined to alleged
in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty nonpayment of RATA under the 1999 budget.
provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its commission. Thus, when a case involves a proper
interpretation of the rules and jurisprudence with respect to the jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints BRIONES VS. PEOPLE
filed therewith, it deals with a question of law that can be properly brought to this Court under Rule 45.
DOCTRINE: For new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of the
Thus, when there exists meritorious grounds to overlook strict procedural matters, the Court cannot turn a following conditions must obtain: (a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial; (b) the evidence
blind eye thereto lest the administration of justice be derailed by an overly stringent application of the rules. could not have been discovered at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is
Rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) the evidence must affect the merits of
adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice. As long as their purpose is the case and produce a different result if admitted. In this case, although the firearm surfaced after the trial,
sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally the other conditions were not established.
construed. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to
encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very For new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of the following
rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far conditions must obtain: (a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could not have
better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a been discovered at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is material, not
review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) the evidence must affect the merits of the case and
cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually produce a different result if admitted. In this case, although the firearm surfaced after the trial, the other
resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. conditions were not established.

CA decision reversed. RTC decision affirming MeTC’s decision is reinstated. Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must be one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence,
have been discovered before the trial in the court below. The determinative test is the presence of due or
RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION reasonable diligence to locate the thing to be used as evidence in the trial.

ESTINO VS. PEOPLE Under the circumstances, Briones failed to show that he had exerted reasonable diligence to locate the
firearm; his allegation in his Omnibus Motion that he told his brothers and sisters to search for the firearm,
DOCTRINE: Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of a new trial before a judgment of conviction which yielded negative results, is purely self-serving. He also now admits having taken the firearm and having
becomes final when new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with immediately disposed of it at a nearby house, adjacent to the place of the incident.
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment. Hence, even before the case went to court, he already knew the location of the subject firearm, but did not do
anything; he did not even declare this knowledge at the trial below. In any case, we fail to see how the
recovery of the firearm can be considered material evidence that will affect the outcome of the case; the attended the out-of-court identification of the accused, the same was cured when all the accused-appellants
recovery of the subject firearm does not negate the commission of the crime charged. were positively identified by the prosecution eyewitness during the trial.

SALUDAGA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN PAYUMO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

DOCTRINE: The Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was DOCTRINE: New and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable
discovered after trial (in this case, after investigation); (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably
produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative change the judgment, as one of the grounds to grant a new trial; requisites.
or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.
On the propriety of the grant by the Special Fifth Division of the motion for new trial in Criminal Case No. 4219,
The Pornelos affidavit cannot qualify as newly-discovered evidence as it was already in existence prior to the the Court finds the same to be devoid of any legal and factual basis. Rule 121, Section 2(b) of the 2000 Rules
re-filing of the case. on Criminal Procedure provides that: new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could
not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted
Under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the would probably change the judgment, as one of the grounds to grant a new trial. The records of the JAGO
evidence was discovered after trial (in this case, after investigation); (b) such evidence could not have been relative to the February 26, 1980 incident do not meet the criteria for newly discovered evidence that would
discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely merit a new trial.
cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the
judgment. A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following requisites are
met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not have been discovered
The Pornelos affidavit, which petitioners claim as newly-discovered, was executed by affiant way back in and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely
November 29, 2000, as correctly found by the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, it cannot be considered as newly found cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, would
evidence because it was already in existence prior to the re-filing of the case. In fact, such sworn affidavit was probably change the judgment. It is essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking
among the documents considered during the preliminary investigation. It was the sole annexed document to to locate the evidence before or during trial but nonetheless failed to secure it. In this case, however, such
petitioners’ Supplement to Motion for Reinvestigation, offered to dispute the charge that no public bidding records could have been easily obtained by the accused and could have been presented during the trial with
was conducted prior to the execution of the subject project. the exercise of reasonable diligence. Hence, the JAGO records cannot be considered as newly discovered
evidence. There was nothing that prevented the accused from using these records during the trial to
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE substantiate their position that the shooting incident was a result of a military operation. The Court finds and
so rules that the Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it nullified the
DOCTRINE: To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of conviction on the basis of such evidence, it
November 27, 1998 Decision and granted a new trial for Criminal Case No. 4219. There is excess of jurisdiction
must be shown that the evidence was "newly discovered." Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must
where the respondent court, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as
be one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have been discovered before the trial in the court.
determined by law.
The affidavit of said police officer cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence as the defense failed to
RULE 122-125 - APPEALS
show that it has exerted efforts during trial to secure testimonies of Jurado and others.
MACAPAGAL VS. PEOPLE
To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of conviction on the basis of such evidence, it must be
shown that the evidence was "newly discovered" pursuant to Section 2,10 Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of DOCTRINE: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must contain a certified true
Criminal Procedure, as amended. copy or duplicate original of the assailed decision, final order or judgment. Failure to comply with such
requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must be one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence,
have been discovered before the trial in the court below.11 Movant failed to show that the defense exerted The Court notes that the instant case suffers from various procedural infirmities which this Court cannot ignore
efforts during the trial to secure testimonies from police officers like Jurado, or other persons involved in the and are fatal to petitioner’s cause. It appears that petitioner assails not only the denial by the RTC of her notice
investigation, who questioned or objected to the apprehension of the accused in this case. Hence, the of appeal but likewise seeks the reversal of her conviction for estafa. For reasons that will be discussed below,
belatedly executed affidavit of Jurado does not qualify as newly discovered evidence that will justify re-opening the petition is bound to fail, because of petitioner’s complete disregard of the procedural rules and the orders
of the trial and/or vacating the judgment. In any case, we have ruled that whatever flaw that may have initially of the Court.
First, petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her notice of appeal. Sections and it is shown by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its
2 and 3, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lay down the rules on where, how and when execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established.
appeal is taken.
It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to
Second, even if we treat this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for violation of the indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.
hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA to issue
writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute and unrestrained freedom of QUIDET VS. PEOPLE
choice of the court to which an application will be directed. Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there
are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not While, generally, factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect by this Court, the Court may look into
present in this case. such factual matters when the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which can affect the result of the case.
Third, even if we ignore the above non-compliance and consider the petition as an appeal of the trial court’s
decision convicting her of estafa, again, we cannot do so for yet another fatal procedural shortcoming The existence of conspiracy was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Quidet is criminally liable only for
committed by petitioner. As stated earlier, petitioner elevated to this Court not only the Order denying her his individual acts. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
notice of appeal but also the Decision convicting her of estafa and the Order denying her motion for commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose.
reconsideration. In utter disregard of the rules of procedure, petitioner attached to the petition only the June Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
29, 2010 RTC Order denying her notice of appeal but she failed to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or a When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by
certified true copy of the assailed decision convicting her of estafa and the order denying her motion for the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
reconsideration. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must contain a certified community of interests. However, in determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack
true copy or duplicate original of the assailed decision, final order or judgment. Failure to comply with such be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity
requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. of action and purpose, which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is
proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.
PEOPLE VS. MORALES
As a general rule, factual findings of the trial court, which is in a better position to evaluate the testimonial
DOCTRINE: "The accused must not have opportunity for escape of self-defense" evidence, are accorded respect by this Court. But where the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which can affect the result of the case, this
Since according to the ruling in the case of People v. Del Rosario. Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a Court is duty-bound to correct this palpable error for the right to liberty, which stands second only to life in the
person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the hierarchy of constitutional rights, cannot be lightly taken away. In the instant case, we find that the prosecution
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom. In failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Quidet conspired with Taban and Tubo in committing the crimes
Del Rosario, however, we held that for such defense to prosper the duress, force, fear intimidation must be of homicide and attempted homicide.
present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough -By not availing of the chance to BALABA VS. PEOPLE
escape (since the other accused were waiting for them at the distance of 1 kilometer) their allegation of fear or
duress becomes untenable, for it to apply: it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to Upon Balaba’s conviction by the trial court, his remedy should have been an appeal to the Sandiganbayan.
leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat. Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 (RA 8249), which further defined the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, reads:
The fear (threats against family members), were not of imminence as to prevent any chance of escape, and
that this fear they allegedly suffered does not suffice to grant them the exempting circumstance. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of
the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
The acts done by the appellants (was involved in the initial abduction, feeding/guarding the children while they jurisdiction as herein provided.
are w/ them, instructing the father to go to Gumi for the ransom) clearly shows that there was close
coordination, indicating a common purpose or design. There is nothing in said paragraph which can conceivably justify the filing of Balaba’s appeal before the Court
of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, the Court of Appeals is bereft of any jurisdiction to review
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony the judgment Balaba seeks to appeal.
and decide to commit it. Where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense,
In Melencion v. Sandiganbayan, we ruled: An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. are considered for the appeal to be given due course, such as: (1) the existence of special or compelling
However, the correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-day period to circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the
appeal. Once made within the said period, the designation of the correct appellate court may be allowed even party favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
if the records of the case are forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the second paragraph of Section 2, and dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby.
Rule 50 of the Rules of court would apply. The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court
reads: "An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court As a general rule, the statutory requirement that when no motion for reconsideration is filed within the
but shall be dismissed outright." reglementary period, the decision attains finality and becomes executory in due course must be strictly
enforced as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge
In this case, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing the appeal only after the expiration of the period of judicial business. The purposes for such statutory requirement are twofold: first, to avoid delay in the
to appeal. The trial court promulgated its Decision on 9 December 2002. Balaba filed his notice of appeal on 14 administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and,
January 2003. The Court of Appeals issued the Decision declaring its lack of jurisdiction on 15 December 2004. second, to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which are precisely why courts
Balaba tried to correct the error only on 27 January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day period to appeal from the exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in
decision of the trial court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it dismissed Balaba’s suspense for an indefinite period of time.
appeal because of lack of jurisdiction.
However, in exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the giving of due course to
PEOPLE VS. OLIVIO an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and mandatory rules of procedure. Certain elements
are considered or the appeal to be given due course, such as: (1) the existence of special or compelling
Trial courts are mandated not only to look at the direct examination of witnesses but to the totality of evidence circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the
before them. In every case, the court should review, assess and weigh the totality of the evidence presented by party favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
the parties. It should not confine itself to oral testimony during the trial. and dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby.

We cannot convict appellants for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide when the evidence A review of the records shows that the evidence to make a determination of petitioner’s civil liability is already
relied upon by the trial court is plainly erroneous and inadequate to prove appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable at the disposal of the trial court. For example, the checks covering the amounts owed by petitioner to
doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or respondent in the total amount of P3,300,000.00 were already submitted by petitioner to the trial court as
circumstantial evidence. Annexes to the Motion to Quash28 that she filed. Neither can it be said that petitioner’s right to due process
shall be violated if her civil liability be determined in the same case.
In view of the foregoing, acquittal of the accused-appellants is in order.
PEOPLE VS. TARUC
One final note. The other accused, Joey Zafra, who is identically circumstanced as the other appellants and
who was likewise convicted on the same evidence, does not appear to have perfected an appeal from the trial DOCTRINE: Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he
court’s judgment. The record does not show the reason therefor. loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to
have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
Be that as it may, the present rule is that an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those
who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the 1. The escape of the accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review
latter. Our pronouncements here with respect to the insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to convict jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital punishment. Automatic review being mandatory, it
appellants beyond reasonable doubt are definitely favorable and applicable to accused Joey Zafra. He should is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases. In this case, considering that the
not therefore be treated as the odd man out and should benefit from the acquittal of his co-accused. In fact, penalty imposed by the trial court was death, the Court of Appeals rightly took cognizance of the case. Upon
under similar conditions and on the same ratiocination, Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court has review by the appellate court, however, it modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.
justified the extension of our judgment of acquittal to the co-accused who failed to appeal from the judgment
of the trial court which we subsequently reversed. 2. By escaping prison, accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal. In People v. Ang Gioc,18 the
Court enunciated that: “There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the accused
GUASCH VS. DELA CRUZ himself, but the right of appeal is not one of them. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. He
may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. When the accused flees
DOCTRINE: In exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the giving of due course after the case has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be deemed to have waived his right to
to an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and mandatory rules of procedure. Certain elements appeal from the judgment rendered against him x x x.”
The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of
court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against him. While at large, he conviction. Since Arnel appealed his conviction for frustrated homicide, he should be deemed permanently
cannot seek relief from the court, as he is deemed to have waived the appeal. Thus, having escaped from disqualified from applying for probation.***
prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to its jurisdiction, he
is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. While it is true that probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that Arnel has the right to such privilege; he
certainly does not have. What he has is the right to apply for that privilege. The Court finds that his maximum
By putting himself beyond the reach and application of the legal processes of the land, accused-appellant jail term should only be 2 years and 4 months. If the Court allows him to apply for probation because of the
revealed his contempt of the law and placed himself in a position to speculate, at his pleasure on his chances lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether or not to grant him the privilege of probation,
for a reversal. In the process, he kept himself out of the reach of justice, but hoped to render the judgment taking into account the full circumstances of his case.
nugatory at his option. Such conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part of the appellate
court. VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE

Accused-appellant, in the case at bar, has remained at large for most of the proceedings before the RTC, as well DOCTRINE: The finality of a CA decision will not bar the state from seeking the annulment of the judgment via
as for the entirety of the pendency of his appeal before the Court of Appeals, and even until now when his a Rule 65 petition; finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule 120 does not confer blanket invincibility on
appeal is pending before this Court. He cannot so audaciously hope that his appeal before this Court would criminal judgments.
succeed.
Only the accused may appeal the criminal aspect of a criminal case, especially if the relief being sought is the
TIU VS. PEOPLE correction or review of the judgment therein. This rule was instituted in order to give life to the constitutional
edict against putting a person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. It is beyond contention
DOCTRINE: Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the that the accused would be exposed to double jeopardy if the state appeals the criminal judgment in order to
Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before this Court and the reverse an acquittal or even to increase criminal liability. Thus, the accused’s waiver of the right to appeal – as
Court of Appeals. when applying for probation – makes the criminal judgment immediately final and executory.

At the outset, the Court finds that the petition is defective since it was not filed by the Solicitor General. Our explanation in People v. Nazareno is worth reiterating: Further prosecution via an appeal from a judgment
Instead, it was filed by Tiu, the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 96-413, through his counsel. Settled is of acquittal is likewise barred because the government has already been afforded a complete opportunity to
the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the prove the criminal defendant’s culpability; after failing to persuade the court to enter a final judgment of
Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of conviction, the underlying reasons supporting the constitutional ban on multiple trials applies and becomes
Appeals.20 Tiu, the offended party in Criminal Case No. 96-413 is without legal personality to appeal the compelling. The reason is not only the defendant’s already established innocence at the first trial where he had
decision of the Court of Appeals before this Court. Nothing shows that the Office of the Solicitor General been placed in peril of conviction, but also the same untoward and prejudicial consequences of a second trial
represents the People in this appeal before this Court. On this ground alone, the petition must fail. initiated by a government who has at its disposal all the powers and resources of the State.

COLINARES VS. PEOPLE Unfairness and prejudice would necessarily result, as the government would then be allowed another
opportunity to persuade a second trier of the defendant’s guilt while strengthening any weaknesses that had
DOCTRINE: When an accused who appeals may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial attended the first trial, all in a process where the government’s power and resources are once again employed
court against the defendant’s individual means. That the second opportunity comes via an appeal does not make the
effects any less prejudicial by the standards of reason, justice and conscience. It must be clarified, however,
Ordinarily, Arnel Colinares would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he having appealed from the that the finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule 120 does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal
judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. judgments. We have already explained in our Decision that the rule on double jeopardy is not absolute, and
that this rule is inapplicable to cases in which the state assails the very jurisdiction of the court that issued the
But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum
criminal judgment.
of the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would In such instance, however, no review of facts and law on the merits, in the manner done in an appeal, actually
be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC. takes place; the focus of the review is on whether the judgment is per se void on jurisdictional grounds, i.e.,
whether the verdict was rendered by a court that had no jurisdiction; or where the court has appropriate
***Some in the Court disagrees. They contend that probation is a mere privilege granted by the state only to
jurisdiction, whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In
qualified convicted offenders. Section 4 of the probation law (PD 968) provides: That no application for
other words, the review is on the question of whether there has been a validly rendered decision, not on the justice, however, and due to the novelty of the issue presented, the Court deems it proper to open the whole
question of the decision’s error or correctness. Under the exceptional nature of a Rule 65 petition, the burden case for review.
— a very heavy one — is on the shoulders of the party asking for the review to show the presence of a
whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or of a patent and gross abuse Ultimately, the SC ruled against Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr, Affirming the findings of the CA.
of discretion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law
or to act in contemplation of law; or to an exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of MANANSALA VS. PEOPLE
passion and hostility.
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal
DUNGO VS. PEOPLE can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision
based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full
DOCTRINE: The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher court At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review
authority. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal
confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine
Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03, dated records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
October 15, 2004, governs the procedure on the appeal from the CA to the Court when the penalty imposed is law.
either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.31 According to the said provision, "[i]n cases where the Court
of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter The elements of Falsification of Private Documents under Article 172 (2) of the RPC are: (a) that the offender
judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in Article 171 (7) of the same Code; (b) that the
filed with the Court of Appeals." falsification was committed in any private document; and (c) that the falsification caused damage to a third
party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
Hence, an accused, upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment had been imposed by
the CA, can simply file a notice of appeal to allow him to pursue an appeal as a matter of right before the On the other hand the elements of Falsification under Article 171 (4) of the RPC are as follows: (a) the offender
Court. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to
by the parties.32 Section 13(c), Rule 124 recognizes the constitutionally conferred jurisdiction of the Court in disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.
all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
In the instant case, the MeTC, RTC, and CA all correctly found Manansala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
An accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to an appeal by certiorari to the Court via Rule 45 under the aforesaid crime, considering that: (a) as UMC's Petty Cash Custodian, she is legally obligated to disclose
the Rules of Court. An appeal to this Court by petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of only truthful statements in the documents she prepares in connection with her work, such as the subject
law.34 Moreover, such review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only report; (b) she knew all along that Siy never made any cash advance nor utilized the proceeds thereof for her
when there are special and important reasons. personal use; (c) despite such knowledge, she still proceeded in revising the subject report by inserting therein
a statement that Siy made such a cash advance; and (d) she caused great prejudice to Siy as the latter was
In other words, when the CA imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an accused may: terminated from her job on account of the falsified report that she prepared. Basic is the rule that findings of
(1) file a notice of appeal under Section 13(c), Rule 124 to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before the fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a
Court and open the entire case for review on any question; or (2) file a petition for review on certiorari under clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case or any clear showing
Rule 45 to resort to an appeal as a matter of discretion and raise only questions of law. of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when
affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court, as in this case.
In this case, the CA affirmed the RTC decision imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon the petitioners.
The latter opted to appeal the CA decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. Consequently, they could While the conviction of Manansala for the aforesaid crime was proper, it was error for the MeTC to appreciate
only raise questions of law. Oddly, the petitioners began to assail the existence of conspiracy in their reply,36 the "mitigating circumstance" of acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear and for the RTC and the CA to
which is a question of fact that would require an examination of the evidence presented. In the interest of affirm in toto the MeTC's ruling without correcting the latter court's mistake.
To begin with, "acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear" is not among the mitigating circumstances evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes
enumerated in Article 13 of the RPC, but is an exempting circumstance provided under Article 12 (6) of the may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must
same Code. Moreover, for such a circumstance to be appreciated in favor of an accused, the following lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In
elements must concur: (a) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) that the fear must be real and imminent; the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the
and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed. For such defense to prosper, accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to
induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since
injury is not enough. petitioner’s arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the
evidence seized from the petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which
In the instant case, while the records show that Manansala was apprehensive in committing a falsity in the incidentally was in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were
preparation of the subject report as she did not know the repercussions of her actions, nothing would show admissible in evidence to prove petitioner’s guilt of the offense charged.
that Lacanilao, or any of her superiors at UMC for that matter, threatened her with loss of employment should
she fail to do so. As there was an absence of any real and imminent threat, intimidation, or coercion that [Under Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II of RA No. 9165; and the implementing provision of Section 21
would have compelled Manansala to do what she did, such a circumstance cannot be appreciated in her favor. (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165], the failure of the law enforcers
Hence, as there should be no mitigating circumstance that would modify Manansala's criminal liability in this to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not render petitioner’s arrest illegal nor the evidence
case - and also taking into consideration the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law - she must be adduced against him inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum. accused."

RULE 126- SEARCH AND SEIZURE Here, the requirements of the law were substantially complied with and the integrity of the drugs seized from
the petitioner was preserved. More importantly, an unbroken chain of custody of the prohibited drugs taken
MICLAT VS. PEOPLE from the petitioner was sufficiently established. The factual antecedents of the case reveal that the petitioner
voluntarily surrendered the plastic sachets to PO3 Antonio when he was arrested. Together with petitioner, the
DOCTRINE: [Under Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II of RA No. 9165; and the implementing provision of evidence seized from him were immediately brought to the police station and upon arriving thereat, were
Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165], the failure of the law turned over to PO3 Moran, the investigating officer. There the evidence was marked. The turn-over of the
enforcers to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not render petitioner’s arrest illegal nor the subject sachets and the person of the petitioner were then entered in the official blotter. Thereafter, the Chief
evidence adduced against him inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the of the SDEU endorsed the evidence for laboratory examination to the National Police District PNP Crime
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or Laboratory. The evidence was delivered by PO3 Moran and received by Police Inspector Jessie Dela Rosa. After
innocence of the accused." a qualitative examination of the contents of the four (4) plastic sachets by the latter, the same tested positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
As to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls within the established exceptions. Verily, no
less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a An unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs had, therefore, been established by the prosecution from the
judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable, and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be arresting officer, to the investigating officer, and finally to the forensic chemist. There is no doubt that the
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is items seized from the petitioner at his residence were also the same items marked by the investigating officer,
subject to legal and judicial exceptions, namely: (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) Search sent to the Crime Laboratory, and later on tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
of evidence in "plain view"; (3) Search of a moving vehicle; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs
search; (6) Stop and Frisk; and (7) Exigent and emergency circumstances. PEOPLE VS. MARIACOS

The seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner was not only incidental to a DOCTRINE: Over the years, the rules governing search and seizure have been steadily liberalized whenever a
lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview of the "plain view" doctrine. moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a
warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to of the issuing judge – a requirement which borders on the impossible in instances where moving vehicle is
seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies used to transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. This exception is easy to understand. A
when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a mobile ship, on an
aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the be issued, it must be shown by substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being
warrant must be sought. connected with criminal activity, and that the items will be found in the place to be searched.

Given the discussion above, it is readily apparent that the search in this case is valid. The vehicle that carried A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by
the contraband or prohibited drugs was about to leave. PO2 Pallayoc had to make a quick decision and act fast. a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. Substantial basis means that
It would be unreasonable to require him to procure a warrant before conducting the search under the the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably
circumstances. Time was of the essence in this case. The searching officer had no time to obtain a warrant. discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with
Indeed, he only had enough time to board the vehicle before the same left for its destination. the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. Such substantial basis exists in this
case. Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the Search Warrant for Tuan’s residence after said
It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the drugs seized, that appellant was not accompanied judge’s personal examination of SPO2 Fernandez, the applicant; and Lad-ing and Tudlong, the informants. SPO2
by counsel, and that no representative from the media and the DOJ were present. However, this Court has Fernandez based his Application for Search Warrant not only on the information relayed to him by Lad-ing and
already previously held that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest Tudlong. He also arranged for a test buy and conducted surveillance of Tuan.
illegal, or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items. While it is true that the arresting officer failed to state explicitly the 2. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable
justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21, this does not necessarily mean that appellant’s arrest effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A
was illegal or that the items seized are inadmissible. The justifiable ground will remain unknown because designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on
appellant did not question the custody and disposition of the items taken from her during the trial. Even inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. In the
assuming that the police officers failed to abide by Section 21, appellant should have raised this issue before case at bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific enough.
the trial court. She could have moved for the quashal of the information at the first instance. But she did not. There was only one house located at the stated address, which was accused-appellant’s residence, consisting
Hence, she is deemed to have waived any objection on the matter. of a structure with two floors and composed of several rooms.

PEOPLE VS. TUAN ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE

DOCTRINE: A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with DOCTRINE: In a “stop-and-frisk,” it is essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests unusual
community. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about him. Such a “stop-and-frisk” practice serves a
and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the
In the case at bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
enough. There was only one house located at the stated address, which was accused-appellants residence, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and
consisting of a structure with two floors and composed of several rooms. (2) the more pressing interest of safety and selfpreservation which permit the police officer to take steps to
assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
1. The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors:(1) it must be issued upon unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.
probable cause;(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or
any other person;(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or The circumstances under which petitioner was arrested indeed engender the belief that a search on her
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and(4) the warrant issued must person was warranted: The police officers were on a surveillance operation as part of their law enforcement
particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. efforts when PO1 Cruzin saw petitioner placing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance into her
cigarette case. Given his training as a law enforcement officer, it was instinctive on his part to be drawn to
The only issue is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of probable cause; and particular curiosity and to approach her. That petitioner reacted by attempting to flee after he introduced himself as a
description of the place to be searched and things to be seized. Probable cause generally signifies a reasonable police officer and inquired about the contents of the plastic sachet all the more pricked his curiosity.
ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. It likewise refers to the From these standards, the Court finds that the questioned act of the police officers constituted a valid “stop-
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe and-frisk” operation. The search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in petitioner’s possession -
that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said later voluntarily exhibited to the police operative - was undertaken after she was interrogated on what she
offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched. Before a search warrant can placed inside a cigarette case, and after PO1 Cruz in introduced himself to petitioner as a police officer. And, at
the time of her arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact attempted to flee after the
police officer had identified himself. Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse petitioner of such a grave warrant was filed on February 15, 2002. They argue that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took
offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court effect on December 1, 2000, should have been applied, being the later law. Hence, the enforcement of the
with respect to the credibility of witnesses prevail over that of petitioner. search warrant in Angeles City, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC Manila, was in violation of
the law. The petitioners’ contention lacks merit. A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides that the guidelines on the
MARIMLA VS. PEOPLE enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall continue until further orders from this Court. In fact,
the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC entitled Guidelines On The
DOCTRINE: As a rule, search warrants should be filed with the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Selection And Designation Of Executive Judges And Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives And Duties, which
crime was committed (Sec. 2 (a), Rule 126, Rules of Court). explicitly stated that the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
The exceptions to the general rule are:
PEOPLE VS. PUNZALAN
(a) for compelling reasons, it can be filed with the court within whose judicial region the offense was
committed or where the warrant is to be served; I. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
(b) but if the criminal action has already been filed, the application for a search warrant can only be made in SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. - No search of a house,
the court where the criminal action is pending; and room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in
(c) in case of search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
the same locality.
ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual
Property Code, the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, the Executive Judges As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present during the initial search, the search
and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the was witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence, the search was valid since the rule that "two
ViceExecutive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality" must be present applies only in the
the NBI, PNP and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF), absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family.
and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF).
To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be
The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow the hierarchy of courts. However, in exceptional cases, established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
the Court, for compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised, may take cognizance of such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
petitions filed directly before it. In this case, the Court opts to take cognizance of the petition, as it involves the In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty the guilt of the accused-
application of the rules promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its rule-making power under the appellants for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellants were caught in actual
Constitution. At the heart of the present controversy are A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, Clarifying the Guidelines on possession of the prohibited drugs during a valid search of their house. It bears stressing that aside from
the Application for the Enforceability of Search Warrants, which was enacted on January 25, 2000; and A.M. assailing the validity of the search, accused-appellants did not deny ownership of the illegal drugs seized. They
No. 00-5-03-SC, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, specifically, have not proffered any valid defense in the offense charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Section 2, Rule 126 thereof. Drugs Act of 2002.
From the above, it may be seen that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive 2.This Court has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which
Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would include testimony about every link in the
NBI, PAOC-TF, and REACT-TF. On the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every
that the application for search warrant shall be filed with: (a) any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
crime was committed, and (b) for compelling reasons, any court within the judicial region where the crime was happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken
the warrant shall be enforced. to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same.
Petitioners also assert that the questioned Search Warrant was void ab initio. They maintain that A.M. No. 99-
10-09-SC, which was enacted on January 25, 2000, was no longer in effect when the application for search
It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect
is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering
exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. In this case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was
duly established from the time the heat-sealed plastic sachets were seized and marked by IO1 Pagaragan to its
subsequent turnover to Atty. Gaspe of the PDEA Office in Quezon City. IO1 Pagaragan was also the one who
personally delivered and submitted the specimens composed of 293 sachets of shabu to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for laboratory examination. The specimens were kept in custody until they were presented as
evidence before the trial court and positively identified by IO1 Pagaragan as the very same specimens he
marked during the inventory.

The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not undermine the
integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellants. The failure to strictly comply
with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal
or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused.