Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The accused-appellant Bernabe Pareja y Cruz (Pareja) Genital findings show Clear Evidence of Blunt Force or
is appealing the decision of the Court of Appeals which Penetrating Trauma.
affirmed in toto the conviction for Rape and Acts of
Lasciviousness meted out by Branch 113, Regional
After the results of the medico-legal report confirmed
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City.
that AAA was indeed raped, AAA’s mother then filed a
complaint for rape before the Pasay City Police
Pareja was charged with two counts of Rape and one Station.
Attempted Rape.
As his defense, Pareja offered both denial and ill
The victim, AAA, was thirteen (13) years of age when motive of AAA against him. He denied raping AAA but
the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse admitted that he knew her as she is the daughter of his
took place on three (3) different dates, particularly in live-in partner and that they all stay in the same house.
December 2003, February 2004, and March 27, 2004. He also averred that it would have been impossible
AAA’s parents separated when she was only eight that the alleged incidents happened. To justify the
years old. At the time of the commission of the same, he described the layout of their house and
aforementioned crimes, AAA was living with her mother argued that there was no way that the alleged sexual
and with herein accused-appellant Bernabe Pareja abuses could have happened. Further, the vicinity
who, by then, was cohabiting with her mother, together where their house is located was thickly populated with
with three (3) of their children. houses constructed side by side. Allegedly, AAA also
had no choice but to sleep beside her siblings.
The first incident took place on December 2003. AAA’s
mother was not in the house and was with her relatives All taken into account, [Pareja] asseverated that it was
in Laguna. Taking advantage of the situation, while hard to imagine how he could possibly still go about
AAA was asleep, Pareja placed himself on top of. with his plan without AAA’s siblings nor their neighbors
Then, Pareja, who was already naked, begun to noticing the same.
undress AAA. He then started to suck her breasts. Not
satisfied, he likewise inserted his penis into AAA’s
Verily, Pareja was adamant and claimed innocence as
anus. Because of the excruciating pain that she felt,
to the imputations hurled against him by AAA. He
AAA immediately stood up and rushed outside of their
contended that AAA filed these charges against him
house.
only as an act of revenge because AAA was mad at
him for being the reason her parents’ separation.
Despite such traumatic experience, AAA never told
anyone about the incident for fear that Pareja might kill
The RTC acquitted Pareja from the charge of
her. He threatened to kill AAA in the event that she
attempted rape for want of evidence but convicted him
would expose the incident to anyone.
of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness in the
December 2003 and February 2004 incidents,
AAA narrated that the incident happened more than respectively.
once. On February 2004, she had again been
molested by Pareja. With her mother not around and
The RTC, in convicting Pareja of the crime of Rape
her half-siblings asleep, he again laid on top of her and
and Acts of Lasciviousness, gave more weight to the
started to suck her breasts. He caressed her and held
prosecution’s evidence as against Pareja’s baseless
her vagina and inserted his finger in it.
denial and imputation of ill motive. However, due to the
failure of the prosecution to present AAA’s mother to
With regard to the March 2004 incident, it was AAA’s testify about what she had witnessed in March 2004,
mother who saw Pareja in the act of lifting the skirt of the RTC had to acquit Pareja of the crime of Attempted
her daughter AAA while the latter was asleep. Rape in the March 2004 incident for lack of evidence.
Outraged, AAA’s mother immediately brought AAA to The RTC could not convict Pareja on the basis of
the barangay officers to report the said incident. AAA AAA’s testimony for being hearsay evidence as she
then narrated to the barangay officials that she had had no personal knowledge of what happened on
been sexually abused by Pareja many times. March 27, 2004 because she was sleeping at that
time.
Subsequently, AAA, together with her mother,
proceeded to the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of
General Hospital for a medical and genital the RTC.
Page 3 of 19
ISSUES: Since human memory is fickle and prone to the
stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial
1. Whether or not the Trial Court seriously erred in account has never been used as a standard in testing
convicting Pareja of the crimes charged the credibility of a witness. The inconsistencies
notwithstanding that his guilt has not been proven mentioned by Pareja are trivial and non-consequential
beyond reasonable doubt. matters that merely caused AAA confusion when she
was being questioned. The inconsistency regarding the
year of the December incident is not even a matter
2. Whether or not the Trial Court gravely erred in
pertaining to AAA’s ordeal. The date and time of the
convicting Pareja based solely on the prosecution
commission of the crime of rape becomes important
witness’ testimony.
only when it creates serious doubt as to the
commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of the
RULING: evidence for purposes of conviction. In other words,
the "date of the commission of the rape becomes
As to the Credibility of AAA relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of
the complainant’s narration practically hinge on the
Pareja claims that AAA’s testimony cannot be the lone date of the commission of the crime." Moreover, the
basis of his conviction as it was riddled with date of the commission of the rape is not an essential
inconsistencies. element of the crime.
We find the argument untenable. As regards Pareja’s concern about AAA’s lone
testimony being the basis of his conviction, this Court
When the issue of credibility of witnesses is presented has held:
before this Court, we follow certain guidelines that
have overtime been established in jurisprudence. In Furthermore, settled is the rule that the testimony of a
People v. Sanchez, we enumerated them as follows: single witness may be sufficient to produce a
conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s reliable. If credible and convincing, that alone would be
evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, sufficient to convict the accused. No law or rule
considering its unique position in directly observing the requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single
demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage witness in a rape case.
point, the trial court is in the best position to determine
the truthfulness of witnesses. Improbability of sexual abuse
in their small house and in the
Second, absent any substantial reason which would presence of AAA’s sleeping siblings
justify the reversal of the RTC’s assessments and
conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by Pareja’s living conditions could have prevented him
the lower court’s findings, particularly when no from acting out on his beastly desires, but they did not.
significant facts and circumstances, affecting the This Court has observed that many of the rape cases
outcome of the case, are shown to have been appealed to us were not always committed in
overlooked or disregarded. seclusion. Lust is no respecter of time or place, and
rape defies constraints of time and space. In People v.
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if Sangil, Sr., we expounded on such occurrence in this
the CA concurred with the RTC. wise:
Inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s In People v. Ignacio, we took judicial notice of the
testimony are generally expected. interesting fact that among poor couples with big
families living in small quarters, copulation does not
seem to be a problem despite the presence of other
Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not
persons around them. Considering the cramped space
remembered in detail. For such an offense is not
and meager room for privacy, couples perhaps have
analogous to a person’s achievement or
gotten used to quick and less disturbing modes of
accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving;
sexual congresses which elude the attention of family
rather, it is something which causes deep
members; otherwise, under the circumstances, it would
psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the
be almost impossible to copulate with them around
victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her
even when asleep. It is also not impossible nor
conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget.
incredible for the family members to be in deep
Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to
slumber and not be awakened while the sexual assault
mechanically keep and then give an accurate account
is being committed. One may also suppose that
of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had
growing children sleep more soundly than grown-ups
undergone.
and are not easily awakened by adult exertions and
suspirations in the night. There is no merit in
appellant’s contention that there can be no rape in a
Page 4 of 19
room where other people are present. There is no rule [A] medical certificate is not necessary to prove the
that rape can be committed only in seclusion. We have commission of rape, as even a medical examination of
repeatedly declared that "lust is no respecter of time the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for
and place," and rape can be committed in even the rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in
unlikeliest of places. character and not essential to conviction. x x x.
Page 5 of 19
Under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal It is manifest that the RTC carefully weighed all the
Code, as amended, rape by sexual assault is "by any evidence presented by the prosecution against Pareja,
person who, under any of the circumstances especially AAA’s testimony. In its scrutiny, the RTC
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act found AAA’s declaration on the rape in the December
of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another 2003 incident credible enough to result in a conviction,
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or albeit this Court had to modify it as explained above.
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another However, it did not find that the same level of proof,
person." i.e., beyond reasonable doubt, was fully satisfied by
the prosecution in its charge of attempted rape and a
AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in second count of rape against Pareja. In Criminal Case
December 2003, inserted his penis into her anus. No. 04-1556-CFM, or the February 2004 incident, the
While she may not have been certain about the details RTC considered AAA’s confusion as to whether or not
of the February 2004 incident, she was positive that she was actually penetrated by Pareja, and eventually
Pareja had anal sex with her in December 2003, thus, resolved the matter in Pareja’s favor.
clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by sexual
assault. In other words, her testimony on this account This Court agrees with such findings. AAA, in her
was, as the Court of Appeals found, clear, positive, and Sinumpaang Salaysay, stated that aside from sucking
probable. her breasts, Pareja also inserted his finger in her
vagina. However, she was not able to give a clear and
However, since the charge in the Information for the convincing account of such insertion during her
December 2003 incident is rape through carnal testimony. Despite being repeatedly asked by the
knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by prosecutor as to what followed after her breasts were
sexual assault even though it was proven during trial. sucked, AAA failed to testify, in open court, that Pareja
This is due to the material differences and substantial also inserted his finger in her vagina. Moreover, later
distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus, the on, she added that Pareja inserted his penis in her
first mode is not necessarily included in the second, vagina during that incident. Thus, because of the
and vice-versa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of material omissions and inconsistencies, Pareja cannot
rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with be convicted of rape in the February 2004 incident.
was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to Nonetheless, Pareja’s acts of placing himself on top of
violate his constitutional right to be informed of the AAA and sucking her breasts, fall under the crime of
nature and cause of the accusation against him. acts of lasciviousness, which, as we have discussed
above, is included in the crime of rape.
Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser
crime of acts of lasciviousness under the variance Verily, AAA was again positive and consistent in her
doctrine embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section account of how Pareja sucked both her breasts in the
5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,52 to February 2004 incident. Thus, Pareja was correctly
wit: convicted by the courts a quo of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness.
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between
allegation and proof. – When there is a variance Liability for Acts of Lasciviousness
between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved, and the offense as The penalty for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336
charged is included in or necessarily includes the of the Revised Penal Code is prisión correccional in its
offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the full range. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
offense proved which is included in the offense the minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be
charged, or of the offense charged which is included in taken from the full range of the penalty next lower in
the offense proved. degree,i.e., arresto mayor, which ranges from 1 month
and 1 day to 6 months. The maximum of the
SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in indeterminate penalty shall come from the proper
another. – An offense charged necessarily includes the penalty that could be imposed under the Revised
offense proved when some of the essential elements Penal Code for Acts of Lasciviousness, which, in this
or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint case, absent any aggravating or mitigating
or information, constitute the latter. And an offense circumstance, is the medium period of prisión
charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, correccional, ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1
when the essential ingredients of the former constitute day to 4 years and 2 months.
or form part of those constituting the latter.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court modifies
Criminal Case No. 04-1556-CFM: the award of damages as follows: P20,000.00 as civil
indemnity; P30,000.00 as moral damages;
and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each
The February 2004 Incident
count of acts of lasciviousness. All amounts shall bear
legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of finality of this judgment.
Page 6 of 19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of In the instant case, the Sandiganbayan has not yet
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03794 is acquired jurisdiction over the subject criminal cases,
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. We find
as the informations were filed not before it but before
accused-appellant Bernabe Pareja y Cruz GUILTY of
two counts of Acts of Lasciviousness, defined and the Regional Trial Court. Even if we labor under the
penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal foregoing assumption that the informations in the
Code, as amended. He is sentenced to two (2) subject cases do charge the respondent PNP officers
indeterminate prison terms of 6 months of arresto with offenses committed in relation to their office so
mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prisi6n that jurisdiction thereof would fall under the
correccional, as maximum; and is ORDERED to pay
Sandiganbayan, and assuming further that the
the victim, AAA, P20,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, informations had already been filed with the said
and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each tribunal but hearing thereon has not begun yet, the
count of acts of lasciviousness, all with interest at the Sandiganbayan can no longer proceed to hear the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this cases in view of the express provision of Section 7 of
judgment. R.A. No. 7975. That section provides that upon the
effectivity of the Act, all criminal cases in which trial
6. GR 118013-14 | PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. has not yet begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be
HON. DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, as Presiding referred to the proper courts. Hence, cases which
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod were previously cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
City, and P/COL. NICOLAS M. TORRES, P/INSP. under P.D. No. 1606, as amended, but are already
ADONIS C. ABETO, PO MARIO LAMIS Y FERNANDEZ, under the jurisdiction of the courts by virtue of the
PO JOSE PAHAYUPAN, PO VICENTE CANUDAY, JR., amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7975, shall be
JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS, CHARLES referred to the latter courts if hearing thereon has not
DUMANCAS, DOMINADOR GEROCHE Y MAHUSAY, yet been commenced in the Sandiganbayan.
JAIME GARGALLANO, ROLANDO R. FERNANDEZ, It would, therefore, be a futile exercise to transfer the
EDWIN DIVINAGRACIA, TEODY DELGADO, CESAR cases to the Sandiganbayan because the same would
PECHA, and EDGAR HILADO anyway be transferred again to the Regional Trial
Court pursuant to Section 7 of the new law in relation
FACTS: to Section 2 thereof.
Two informations for kidnapping for ransom with
murder were filed in the Regional Trial Court of 7. GR L-46934 | ALFREDO CUYOS y TULOR vs. HON.
Bacolod City against fourteen persons, five of whom NICOLAS P. GARCIA, Presiding Judge, Municipal
are members of the Philippine National Police. The Court, San Fernando, Pampanga and THE PEOPLE OF
two cases was consolidated. THE PHILIPPINES
While the trial was on going, the prosecution file a
motion for the transmittal of the case to the FACTS:
Sandiganbayan on the ground that the trial court has Petitioner Alfredo Cuyos was charged with homicide
no jurisdiction over the cases because the offense withmultiple serious physical injuries and damage to
charged were committed in relation to the office of proeperty throughreckless imprudence before the
the accused PNP officers. Municipal Court of San Fernando,Pampanga. Cuyos
entered a plea of not guilty at the arraignment andthe
ISSUE: judge set the case for trial, but before it could
Whether or not the crimes charged falls under the commence, petitionerfiled a Motion to Remand the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Case to the Court of First Instance. Cuyosclaimed that
there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
HELD: Municipal Courtand contended that the damages
No, the case is no longer cognizable by suffered by the Volkswagen he hitamounted to
the Sandiganbayan. P18,000.00. He argued that under Art. 365, par. 3 of
Ordinarily, jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by theRevised Penal Code, the crime would carry a fine in
subsequent legislative enactment placing jurisdiction an amount rangingfrom the amount of the damage to
in another tribunal. It remains with the court until the three times the value of the damagealleged (i.e. 3 x
case is finally terminated. Hence, the Sandiganbayan P18,000.00=P54,000.00).Under §87 of the Judiciary
or the courts, as the case may be, cannot be divested Act of 1948, the Municipal Court of Pampanga only
of jurisdiction over cases filed before them by reason has jurisdiction over offenses punishable by a fine
of R.A. No. 7975. They retain their jurisdiction until notexceeding P6,000.00. Cuyos filed an Urgent Motion
the end of the litigation.
Page 7 of 19
to Postpone the Trial.The municipal judge denied the
motion to transfer and set the case for 8. GR 75079 | SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA vs. THE
trial. Cuyos‟ verbal motion for reconsideration was HONORABLE WENCESLAO M. POLO, Presiding Judge,
denied. Hence, the Branch XIX, Regional Trial) Court of Manila and the
present petition for certiorari. COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION
ISSUE: Facts:
Whether or not the respondent Municipal Court of Solemnidad Buaya is an insurance agent of private
San Fernando,Pampanga has jurisdiction to try the complainant of Country Bankers Insurance
case against Cuyos Corporation. Private respondent Buaya, was
authorized to transact and underwrite insurance
HELD: business and collect the corresponding premiums for
The Court agrees with the position of the Solicitor and in behalf of the private respondent. Under the
General that theMunicipal Court has no jurisdiction to terms of the agency agreement, the petitioner is
try the present case. The case at barinvolves a required to make a periodic report and accounting of
complex crime of homicide, multiple serious physical her transactions and remit premium collections to the
injuriesand damage to property resulting from principal office of private respondent located in the
reckless imprudence. Art. 365,par.2 of the Revised City of Manila. Allegedly, an audit was conducted on
Penal Code provides that the penalty imposableupon petitioner's account which showed a shortage. She
petitioner, if found guilty of homicide through reckless was charged with estafa before the Regional Trial
imprudence,would be prision correccional in its Court of Manila. Private respondent filed a motion to
medium and maximum periods. At thetime the dismiss, alleging that the Regional Trial Court of
complaint was filed, the Municipal Court had Manila has no jurisdiction over the offense since the
jurisdiction toimpose a penalty of imprisonment not collection was done in Cebu City and the offense
exceeding six(6) years or a fine not exceeding complained of is purely civil in nature. The RTC denied
P6,000.00 or both.Thus, because the penalty for the motion to dismiss.
damage to property throughimprudence or negligence
as provided in Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Issues:
Code is, “a fine ranging from the amount equal to the 1) Whether or not RTC Manila has jurisdiction over the
va case. 2) Whether of not the offense complained is
lue of damagesto three times such value, the case purely civil in nature, hence warrants the dismissal of
must be forwarded to the Court of FirstInstance. Art. the criminal case.
365 simply means that if there is only damage to
property,the amount fixed shall be imposed, but if Ruling:
there is also physical injuries,there should be an The Supreme Court reiterated that the averments in
additional penalty for the latter.The applicable rule on the complaint or information characterize the crime to
allocation of jurisdiction on cases involvingcases of be prosecuted and the court before which it must be
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or physical tried. Thus, in order to determine the jurisdiction of
injuries issummarized by justice Barrera. Barrera the court in criminal cases, the complaint must be
stated that in such cases, Art. 48of the Revised Penal examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or
Code is applicable, but there may be cases when not the facts set out therein and the punishment
theimposable penalty is within the jurisdiction of the provided for by law fall within the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Court, whilethe fine is under the jurisdiction court where the complaint is filed. The jurisdiction of
of the Court of First Instance. Since theinformation courts in criminal cases is determined by the
cannot be split into two, the jurisdiction of the court allegations of the complaint or information, and not
isdetermined by the fine imposable for the damage to by the findings the court may make after the trial.
property resultingfrom the reckless imprudence. The Further, Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
maximum fine imposable for the crimein this case is of Court provides: In all criminal — prosecutions the
P54,000.00 and the maximum imprisonment for action sh all be instituted and tried in the court of the
homicide issix (6) years. Therefore, the criminal charge municipality or province wherein the offense was
falls outside the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court committed or any of the essential elements thereof
and within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial took place. The subject information charges petitioner
Court.The order of the Municipal Court is SET ASIDE as with estafa committed "during the period 1980 to
null and voidand the Temporary Restraining Order is June 15, 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila,
made PERMANENT. Philippines . . . ." Clearly then, from the very allegation
Page 8 of 19
of the information the Regional Trial Court of Manila Sec. 1. Scope — This rule shall govern the procedure in
has jurisdiction. Besides, the crime of estafa is a the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
continuing or transitory offense which may be Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the
prosecuted at the place where any of the essential following cases:
elements of the crime took place. One of the essential
elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the B. Criminal Cases
offended party. The private respondent has its Xxx
principal place of business and office at Manila. The 3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
failure of the petitioner to remit the insurance 4. All other criminal cases where the penalty
premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prescribed by law for the offenses charged does not
prejudice to private respondent in Manila. As to the exceed six months imprisonment, or a fine of one
second issue, the contention that the subject matter is thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of
purely civil in nature, suffice it to state that evidentiary other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or
facts on this point have still to be proved. of the civil liability arising therefrom. . . . (Emphasis
supplied.)
9. GR 214925 | JOHN LABSKY P. MAXIMO AND xxx
ROBERT M. PANGANIBAN vs. FRANCISCO Z.
VILLAPANDO, JR. NEXT, petitioner argues that Act No. 3326, the law
establishing prescriptive periods for violations
penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances
10. GR 102342 | LUZ M. ZALDIVIA vs. HON. ANDRES which also provides when such periods begin to run
B. REYES, JR., in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge and when the same will be interrupted, accordingly
of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, treats the Information against her as having been filed
Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal, and PEOPLE OF THE way beyond the two-month statutory period from the
PHILIPPINES date of the alleged commission of the offense, the
charge against her should have been dismissed on the
FACTS: ground of prescription.
The petitioner is charged with quarrying for
commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in For its part, the prosecution contends that the
violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, of the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of
Municipality of Rodriguez, Rizal. the complaint against her with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. (NOTE: The position of the fiscal
Timeline: seems to be in accordance with the doctrine of
1. On May 11, 1990 - The offense was allegedly Brillante v. CA, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571. October
committed. 19, 2004 - - -That the filing of a complaint with the
2. On May 30, 1990 - The referral-complaint of fiscals office suspends the running of the prescriptive
the police was received by the Office of the Provincial period of a criminal offense). Agreeing with the
Prosecutor of Rizal. respondent judge, the Solicitor General also invokes
3. On October 2, 1990 (5 months after filing of Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
complaint in fiscal’s office) -The corresponding Procedure, providing as follows:
Information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of
Rodriguez. Sec. 1. How Instituted — For offenses NOT subject to
the rule on summary procedure in special cases, the
The petitioner moved to quash the information on the institution of criminal action shall be as follows:
ground that the crime had prescribed.
Lower Court Decision: MTC denies motion to quash. a) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the
Appellate Court Decision: RTC sustains denial. Regional Trial Court, by filing the complaint with the
appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting the
In the present petition for review on certiorari, the requisite preliminary investigation therein;
petitioner:
FIRST argues that the charge against her is governed b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the
by the following provisions of the Rule on Summary Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Procedure, whose scope includes: Courts, by filing the complaint directly with the said
courts, or a complaint with the fiscal's office. However,
in Metropolitan Manila and other chartered cities, the
Page 9 of 19
complaint may be filed only with the office of the municipal or city ordinances, it should follow that the
fiscal. charge against the petitioner, which is for violation of
a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is governed by
In all cases such institution interrupts the period of that Rule and not Section 1 of Rule 110.
prescription of the offense charged. (Emphasis Where paragraph (b) of the Section 1 Rule 110 of the
supplied.) Rules of Criminal Procedure does speak of "offenses
falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Emphasis is laid on the LAST PARAGRAPH. The Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts," the obvious
respondent maintains that the filing of the complaint reference is to Section 32(2) of B.P. No. 129, vesting in
with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor comes such courts. These offenses are not covered by the
under the phrase "such institution" and that the Rule on Summary Procedure.
phrase "in all cases" applies to all cases, without Rule on Summary Procedure provides that the case
distinction, including those falling under the Rule on shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in
Summary Procedure. court; Running of prescriptive period tolls on the date
of filing in court
ISSUE: Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure,
Whether or not Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules on "the complaint or information shall be filed directly in
Criminal Procedure applies to violations of municipal court without need of a prior preliminary examination
ordinances. (Specifically, whether or not the CA erred or preliminary investigation." Both parties agree that
in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from
Information on the ground of prescription, for having conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to.
applied Section 1, Rule 110, instead of the Rule on However, the case shall be deemed commenced only
Summary Procedure, as petitioner argues) when it is filed in court, whether or not the
prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary
HELD: investigation. This means that the running of the
No, Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the
Procedure DOES NOT APPLY to violations of municipal case is actually filed in court and not on any date
ordinances; it does not apply to offenses which falls before that.
under Summary Procedure. This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-
quoted Act No. 3326 which says that the period of
The LAST PARAGRAPH of Section 1, Rule 110 of the prescription shall be suspended "when proceedings
Rules on Criminal Procedure, as argued by are instituted against the guilty party." The
respondent, was an adoption of the doctrine in proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are
Francisco v. Court of Appeals - - - “that the filing of the "judicial proceedings," contrary to the submission of
complaint in the Municipal Court, even if it be merely the Solicitor General that they include administrative
for purposes of preliminary examination or proceedings. His contention is that we must not
investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period of distinguish as the law does not distinguish. As a matter
prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the of fact, it does.
court where the complaint or information is filed can In case of conflict, the Rule on Summary Procedure as
not try the case on its merits.” However, Section 1, a special law (SPECIAL RULE) prevails over Section 1,
Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; Rule 110
meaningfully begins with the phrase, "for offenses of the Rules on Criminal Procedure must yield to Act
NOT subject to the rule on summary procedure in No. 3326
special cases," which plainly signifies that the section At any rate, the Court feels that if there be a conflict
does NOT apply to offenses which are subject to between the Rule on Summary Procedure and Section
summary procedure. The phrase "in all cases" 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
appearing in the LAST PARAGRAPH obviously refers to former should prevail as the special law. And if there
the cases covered by the Section, that is, those be a conflict between Act. No. 3326 and Rule 110 of
offenses NOT governed by the Rule on Summary the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must again
Procedure. This interpretation conforms to the canon yield because this Court, in the exercise of its rule-
that words in a statute should be read in relation to making power, is not allowed to "diminish, increase or
and not isolation from the rest of the measure, to modify substantive rights" under Article VIII, Section
discover the true legislative intent. As it is clearly 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases
provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that is a substantive right.
among the offenses it covers are violations of
Page 10 of 19
Going back to the Francisco case, we find it relevant to crime of multiple frustrated murder but of the crime
observe that the decision would have been of multiple attempted murder.
conformable to Section 1, Rule 110, as the offense
involved was grave oral defamation punishable under
the Revised Penal Code with arresto mayor in its 12. GR 130605 | PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
maximum period to prision correccional in its FELIX UGANAP alias Commander Matador, FAUSTINO
minimum period. By contrast, the prosecution in the UGANAP, SALVADOR UGANAP, NONOY PANDAY,
instant case is for violation of a municipal ordinance, TIRSO ARANG and four (4) JOHN DOES
for which the penalty cannot exceed six months, and
is thus covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. FACTS:
The victim and some of the accused were close
Our conclusion is that the prescriptive period for the relatives. AccusedTirso Arang is the half-brother of the
crime imputed to the petitioner commenced from its victim, while accused-appellant Felix
alleged commission on May 11, 1990, and ended two Uganap is also the victim‟s cousin. Accused Faustino
months thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance Uganap is the
with Section 1 of Act No. 3326. It was not interrupted brother-in-
by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the law of the victim, being brother of the latter‟s wife,
Provincial Prosecutor on May 30, 1990, as this was not Leilani
a judicial proceeding. The judicial proceeding that Asang.The lone eye witness, Samuel Arang, cousin of
could have interrupted the period was the filing of the the victim,that ataround 8:30 in the evening, he was
information with the Municipal Trial Court of walking home when he stopped nearthe house of
Rodriguez, but this was done only on October 2, 1990, Salvador Uganap. He peeped through a hole in the
after the crime had already prescribed. wall of the house and saw the (5) five accused, Felix
Uganap had a .38 revolver,while Nonoy Panday had a
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. pistolized carbine. The room was illuminatedby a
lamp. Samuel Arang moved away from the house and
11. GR L-1477 | THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES hid behind acoconut tree. The accused went to the
vs.JULIO GUILLEN house of Pedro Arang, which was30 meters away from
where the witness was. Samuel stated that he
Facts sawFelix immediately shoot Pedro when the latter
Guillen was charged with the crime of murder of opened the door. Samuelfled because they were
Simeon Varela (Barrela)and to multiple frustrated afraid.Nolly Luchavez also testified that all of the
murder of President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, JoseFabio, accused was a member of vigilante religious group
Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang who were the called Ituman. That he was also recruited whenhe was
injured parties,as the information filed against him 14
provided.Guillen pleaded not guilty to the crime years old. Felix Uganap was the group‟s designated
charged against him, but waslater found after duly commanderas “Commander Matador”. Luchavez left
admitting his intention to kill the President, thelower the group.
court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and Luchavez revealed that the plan to kill Pedro Arang
wassentenced with the highest capital punishment, was proposed byFaustino Uganap at a coffee shop.
for the murder of SimeonVarela (Barrela) and to the Faustino paid Felix P 3,000.00 for thepurpose. The
multiple frustrated murder of President Roxasand group intended to effect the killing on December 24,
company. butaborted because Pedro left the town to visit his
wife. Hence, the plan wasset to January 6. Luchavez
Issue: was unable to go with the group because hehad a
Whether or not the court erred in finding Guillen fever.
guilty of the said crime.
ISSUES:
Ruling: Whether or not there is conspiracy and;Whether or
The court ruled that the lower court erred in finding not the price or reward as an aggravatingcircumstance
the accused guilty of the crime of multiple frustrated will be appreciated.
murderer because the act of Guillen wasnot fully
realized when the bomb was kicked out of the stage, HELD:
preventinghim from fulfilling his act of assassinating Salvador Uganap died before he could be arrested.
the President. Therefore, Guillenis not guilty of the The accusedappellant was convicted while the other
Page 11 of 19
accused were acquitted, by RTC.The review of criminal invited Anselmo Jr. He denied raping Roberta. Trial
cases necessitates a re-examination of theentire court finds theaccused guilty beyond reasonable
evidence on record. The Court is likewise not doubt with aggravating circumstances.The accused
prohibited frominstituting a finding of conspiracy, in was sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of
reversal of the findings of the lowercourt, when its death.
existence is manifest from the evidence at hand. In ISSUES:
theinstant case, however, nothing less than direct Whether or not appellant was sufficiently identified by
proof of a previousagreement to kill the victim, plus theoffended party based only on her recognition of
an eyewitness account of how theconspirators the sound of his voice;
effected their plan, was submitted into evidence Whether or not the prosecution‟s evidence suffices
butdisregarded by the trial court.The information for the
alleges that the crime was attended treacheryand conviction of rape and the imposition of the death
evident premeditation. Evidence fall short of penaltyon him.
treachery, but theevident premeditation is present. HELD:
Court also observes that another aggravating In People vs. Reyes, once a person gained familiarity
circumstance was proven by evidence. L withanother, identification becomes quite an easy talk
uchavez‟s testimonythat the taking of Pedro Arang‟s even from aconsiderable distance. In a number of
life carried the price of P3, 000.00 was cases, it is ruled that the sound of the voice of a
categorical, credible and unrebutted.However, person is an acceptable means of identification where
because under the Rules of Criminal Procedure thewitness and the accused knew each other
asrevised on Dec.1, 2000, generic aggravating personally and closely for anumber of years.In People
circumstances must bespecifically named in the vs. Amadore, it is held that the attendance of any of
information, the Court will allow for thisamendment the circumstances under the provisions of Section 11
to retroact for the benefit of accused appellant. of R.A. No.7659,mandating the death penalty are in
Hence, theaggravating circumstance of price or reward the nature of qualifyingcircumstances and the absence
shall not be appreciated.Reclusion Perpetua is of proper averment thereof in thecomplaint will bar
applicable and award of damages are the same. the imposition of that extreme penalty.While the
decision of the trial court held that dwelling and
13. GR 132169 | PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. theuse of a deadly weapon aggravated the crime
SANICO NUEVO @ “SANY" committed, court find thatthese were not averted in
Facts the information. Revised Rules of CriminalProcedure,
Roberta Cido recalled that about 9:00 o‟clock in the effective December 1, 2000, provides that every
evening of complaint orinformation must state not only the
December 4, 1994, Nuevo passed in their house and qualifying but also the aggravatingcircumstances with
invited her husbandfor the drinking spree at Anselmo specifity. This requirement has retroactive effect.The
Sr., his father. She was left at home withher 10 month result is that the crime committed by appellant is only
old daughter and her 9 years old niece. At around simplerape, which under Article 335 of the Revised
11:00 pm,appellant returned and entered their room. Penal Code amended byR.A. 7659, the law prevailing
She was awakened whenappellant held her neck, at the time of commission thereof, ispunished only
pinned down her arms and took off her clothing.She with Reclusion Perpetua.
struggled to extricate herself but to no avail.Appellant
lay on top of her and proceeded forcibly to havesexual 14. GR 145391 | AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO
intercourse with her, Gemma Atis who was present, CAPITULO vs. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA
witnessed whatwas being done to her. Appellant
threatened her and her niece. Robertatestified that FACTS:
she did not see him because it was very dark that Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Laroya
night, sheidentified him through his voice. and theother owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo
His husband corroborated part of his wife‟s story. He and driven by petitionerAvelino Casupanan, figured in
saw Sanicoleft his father‟s place at around 11:00 pm an accident. Two cases were filed, with theMunicipal
and returned only at around Circuit Trial Court of Capas , Tarlac. Laroya filed a
1:00 pm. Dr. Esmeralda Nadela testified that there is criminal caseagainst Casupanan for reckless
no fresh injury foundon the victim, that only old imprudence resulting in damage toproperty. On the
lacerations were present.Sanico Nuevo, declared that other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil
he knew Roberta since they wereschoolmates in grade caseagainst Laroya for quasi-delict.When civil case was
school and she was a former neighbor. He denied,he filed, the criminal case was then at itspreliminary
Page 12 of 19
investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case,
filed amotion to dismiss the case on the ground of 15. GR L-64261 | JOSE BURGOS, SR., JOSE BURGOS,
forum-shopping consideringthe pendency of the JR., BAYANI SORIANO and J. BURGOS MEDIA
criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion SERVICES, INC. vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED
anddismiss the civil case.Casupanan and Capitulo, filed FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE
a motion for reconsideration.They insisted that the CONSTABULARY, THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER,
civil case is a separate civil action which can PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND, THE JUDGE
proceedindependently of the criminal case. The MCTC ADVOCATE GENERAL, ET AL.
denied the motion forreconsideration. Casupanan and
Capitulo, filed a petition for certiorariunder Rule 65 Facts
before the RTC and still it was denied for lack of Assailed in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and
merit.They f iled a Motion for Reconsideration but RTC mandamuswith preliminary mandatory and
denied the same. prohibitory injunction is the validity of 2search
ISSUES: warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by respondent
Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case Judge ErnaniCruz-Pano, Executive Judge of the then
for recklessimprudence can validly file, simultaneously Court of First Instance of Rizal,under which the
andindependently, a separate civil action for quasi- premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project 6,
delict againstthe private complainant in the criminal QuezonCity, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building,
case;Whether or not there is forum-shopping. Quezon Avenue, Quezon City,business addresses of
HELD: the
The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on “
theground of forum-shopping under Supreme Court Metropolitan Mail
Administrative CircularNo. 04-94. MCTC did not state ”
in its order of dismissal that the dismissalwas with and
prejudice. Thus, the MCTC‟s dismissal, being silent on “
the matter, We Forum
is a dismissal without prejudice.Section 1 of Rule 41 ”
provides that an order dismissing an action newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office
without prejudice is not appealable. Clearly, the Capas and printingmachines, equipment, paraphernalia,
RTC‟s order motor vehicles and other articlesused in the printing,
dismissing the petition for certiorari, on the ground publication and distribution of the said newspapers,as
that the properremedy is an ordinary appeal, is well as numerous papers, documents, books and
erroneous. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing other writtenliterature alleged to be in the possession
of multiple suits involving the same parties for and control of petitioner JoseBurgos, Jr. Publisher-
thesame cause of action, either simultaneously or editor of the
successively. It is presentwhen in the two or more “
cases pending, there is identity of parties, rightsof We Forum
action and relief sought. There is no forum-shopping ”
in the instant casebecause the law and the rules newspaper, were seized.
expressly allow the filing of separate civilaction which
can proceed independently. Issue:
Under Section 1 of the Rule 111, what is “deemed Whether there was a valid search warrant?
instituted” with the
criminal action is only the action to recover civil Ruling:
liability arising from thecrime or ex-delito. All other The two search warrants were issued wihout probable
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the cause. Tosatisfy the requirement of probable cause a
Civil Code are no longer deemed instituted and may specific offense must bealleged in the application;
be filed separatelyand independently even without abstract averments will not suffice. In the caseat bar,
reservation. nothing specifically subversive has been alleged;
In no case, however, may the “offended party recover stated only is theclaim that certain objects were being
damages used as instruments and means of committing the
twice for the same act or omission charged in the offense of subversion punishable under P. D. No. 885,
criminal action. Clearly,Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to asamended. There is no mention of any specific
the offended party in the criminal action, notthe provision of the decree. Inthe words of Chief Justice
accused. Concepcion,
Page 13 of 19
“
It would be legal heresy, of thehighest order, to 17. 477 SCRA 409 | STATE PROSECUTOR RINGCAR
convict anybody PINOTE vs. JUDGE ROBERTO LAYCO
”
of violating the decree withoutreference to any Facts:
determinate provision thereof. The judge’s act of allowing the presentation of the
defense witnesses in the absence of public prosecutor
16. 160 SCRA 838 | RODOLFO DELA CRUZ vs. Hon. or a private prosecutor designated for the purpose is a
FELIX L. MOYA clear transgression of the Rules.
Judge Ayco’s lament about Pinote’s failure to inform 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified what
the court of his inability to attend the hearings or to civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal
file a motion for postponement thereof or to prosecution. When a criminal action is instituted, the
subsequently file a motion for reconsideration of his civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from
Orders allowing the defense to present its two the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
witnesses on said dates may be mitigating. It does not the criminal action unless the offended party waives
absolve Judge Ayco of his utter disregard of the Rules. the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
18. 461 SCRA 599 | ARTEMIO TORRES JR vs. SPS DRS. criminal action.
EDGARDO AGUINALDO & NELIA T. TORRES-
AGUINALDO Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the
crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a
19. GR 149472 | JORGE SALAZAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE criminal action; that is, unless the offended party
PHILIPPINES waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action.
20. GR 144037 | PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Hence, the subsidiary civil liability of the employer
NOEL TUDTUD y PAYPA and DINDO BOLONG y NARET under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be
enforced by execution on the basis of the judgment of
conviction meted out to the employee.
21. GR 147703 | PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC.
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES What is deemed instituted in every criminal
prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime
Facts: or delict per se, but not those liabilities arising from
Napoleon Roman was found guilty and convicted of quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact,
the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto
homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and
property and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment the offended party may -- subject to the control of the
and to pay damages. The court further ruled that in prosecutor -- still intervene in the criminal action, in
the event of the insolvency of accused, petitioner shall order to protect the remaining civil interest therein.
be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused.
Evidently, the judgment against accused had become The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of
final and executory. employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking,
they are not parties to the criminal cases instituted
Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at- against their employees. Although in substance and in
large. The CA ruled that the institution of a criminal effect, they have an interest therein, this fact should
case implied the institution also of the civil action be viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability.
arising from the offense. Thus, once determined in the While they may assist their employees to the extent of
criminal case against the accused-employee, the supplying the latter’s lawyers, as in the present case,
employer’s subsidiary civil liability as set forth in the former cannot act independently on their own
behalf, but can only defend the accused.
Page 15 of 19
Estipona was charged with an offense under RA 9165.
As a matter of law, the subsidiary liability of petitioner He wants to enter into a plea bargaining agreement
now accrues. Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to do so because
Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the Section 23 specifically prohibits plea bargaining in
adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the drugs cases. Estipona argues that Section 23 is
event of the latter’s insolvency. Thus, in the dispositive unconstitutional.
portion of its decision, the trial court need not
expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the ISSUE:
employer. In the absence of any collusion between the
accused-employee and the offended party, the Is Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea-
judgment of conviction should bind the person who is bargaining in drugs cases, unconstitutional?
subsidiarily liable. In effect and implication, the stigma
of a criminal conviction surpasses mere civil liability. HELD: Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional
for two reasons. First, it violates the equal protection
To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in clause since other criminals (rapists, murderers, etc.)
a criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify are allowed to plea bargain but drug offenders are
or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent not, considering that rape and murder are more
court. By the same token, to allow them to appeal the heinous than drug offenses. Second, it violates the
final criminal conviction of their employees without doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching upon
the latter’s consent would also result in improperly the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under
amending, nullifying or defeating the judgment. The the constitution. Plea-bargaining is procedural in
decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is nature and it is within the sole prerogative of the
binding and conclusive upon the employer not only Supreme Court.
with regard to the former’s civil liability, but also with
regard to its amount. The liability of an employer 26. GR 192799 | ROLEX RODRIGUEZ y OLAYRES vs.
cannot be separated from that of the employee. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALLIED DOMECQ
SPIRITS AND WINES, represented by ALLIED DOMECQ
The subsidiary liability of petitioner is incidental to PHILS., INC.
and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the
accused-employee. Since the civil liability of the latter FACTS:
has become final and enforceable by reason of his
flight, then the former’s subsidiary civil liability has RTC convicted Rolex Rodriguez of Unfair Competition.
also become immediately enforceable. Respondent is After promulgation of sentence, he filed for a motion
correct in arguing that the concept of subsidiary for reconsideration before the RTC on last day of the
liability is highly contingent on the imposition of the reglementary period to appeal. Fourteen days after
primary civil liability. receipt of the RTC denying his motion for
reconsideration, he filed his Notice of Appeal. Thus,
22. GR 145420 | A. RAFAEL DINGLASAN JR vs. HON. the denial of his Notice of Appeal on the ground of its
COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL being filed out of time under Sec. 6, Rule 122, Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure (29 days after
promulgation).
23. GR 182926 | ANA LOU NAVAJA vs. HON. MANUEL
DE CASTRO Rodriguez asserted that the fresh period rule should
be applied after the motion for new trial or
reconsideration.
24. GR 220953 | Gloria Macapagal Arroyo vs People
and Sandiganbayan ISSUE: Whether the fresh period rule should apply.
Page 19 of 19