Criminal Procedure Digests

People v Narvaez 59 Phil 738

Facts:
Narvaez accused of homicide, his appeal assigns the following errors; 1.)not holding self-defense 2.) ante
mortem declaration held inadmissible 3.) erred in not declaring accused true name is Primo instead of
Pedro 4.) error of sentence. Narvaez killed De Silva with 3 wounds, after De Silva had made an insulting
remark against him.

Issue:
Whether or not the true name of the accused need to be properly identified before the court

Ruling:
Weight of evidence shows true name of Pedro Narvaez, as evidenced by 2 baptismal certificates
showing Pedro and Primo, brothers of the same parents and grandparents, uncontested by the defense.
Pedro the son of Leoncio, Primo the son of Lucio, the only difference in the 2 being their father, the
difference may be a result of the carelessness of a clerk. As well as the record of the Calamba Sugar
Estate, census of tenants show appellant is Pedro Narvaez, elder son of Leoncio or Lucio Narvaez and
Teodora Castillo, not Primo Narvaez, the second son not even living with them. The same name in the
complaint and under which he pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. During which he should have
filled a demurrer based on court's lack of jurisdiction over his person, not having done so it is
understood that he has renounced it and is estopped from raising the same. Therefore there was no
error in considering the appellant as Pedro Narvaez instead of Primo Narvaez.

Co v Munoz, Jr.

Facts:
Munoz charged and arrested for perjury, suspecting Co to be behind the suit he made the following
statements, a.)Co influenced expedition of the warrant, b.) Co manipulated the government project for
the dredging project, c.) Co received 2M to subcontract the project which Co did not comply.
Consequently, Co filed 3 separate actions for libel and without reservation of separate civil action.
Munoz defense is public duty to reveal the anomaly in government bidding and Co’s status as a public
figure. RTC found Munoz guilty of libel, for failure to show good motives and justifiable ends, appeal to
the CA resulted in reversal of the RTC decision and acquittal of the accused.

Issue:
Whether or not the civil action will survive the resolution of the criminal action

Ruling:
The extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action, however if the civil
action is based on delict, it is deemed extinguished if there is a finding that act or omission from which
civil liability may arise does not exist. Last paragraph of Section 2 of Rule 111 of ROC governs situations
when offended party when the offended party opts to institute civil action separately from the criminal
action. There are two modes under procedural rules for civil liability ex delicto 1.) civil action deemed
impliedly instituted in the criminal action, 2.) civil action filed separately. Rules precisely require
declaration if there remains basis to hold the accused civilly liable despite acquittal. Judgment of
acquittal, civil action cannot be appealed for it will violate the right against double jeopardy, however
appeal of civil liability is allowed to save clogging of dockets. There are three instances where acquittal
there is still civil liability, a.) acquittal on reasonable doubt, b.) court declaration of accused liability
merely civil, c.) civil liability does not arise from the crime. CA declared that the remarks made were
privileged, and as public figure the remarks on Co were fair comments, therefore no libel committed. No
civil liability may be claimed ex delicto.

People v Oanis 74 Phil 257

Facts:
Chief of Police of Cabanatuan, Oanis and Corporal of Philippine Constabulary, Galanta, charged with the
murder of Serapio Tecson. Oanis accompanied the provincial inspector and members of the Philippine
Constabulary in its efforts to locate one Anselmo Balagtas supposedly with a bailarina named Irene. An
Irene of loose morals was located, her paramour shot from behind by Oanis and Galanta, the paramour
later identified as Tecson and not Balagtas. The accused offered incredible testimonies adding details
and uncorroborating details. The true fact ascertainable from testimony of both the witness and the
accused, the victim was still lain when shot to death.

Issue:
Whether or not officers were justified in use of force

Ruling:

An officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using force as is reasonably necessary to secure and
detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him upon escape, and
protect himself. Use of force unjustified where arrest could be effected otherwise, the officer cannot
claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force. The notoriety of the criminal sought
may be true, but absent resistance they cannot be justified. Here the precipitate action of the appellants
has cost an innocent life and there exist no circumstances whatsoever to warrant action of such
character in the mind of a reasonably prudent man, condemnation not condonation should be the rule,
otherwise we would offer a premium to crime in the shelter of official actuation.

People v Gako, Jr.348 SCRA 334

Facts:
After finality of challenge of dismissal by Judge Agana and inhibition, the murder case of Vicente Go and
Sonny Herodias and Leopoldo de la Pena was presided over by Hon. Judge Gako Jr., Urgent Motion to
Enforce Alias Warrant of Arrest filed praying for Go’s arrest, subsequently, Go’s application for bail was
granted. Motion to Inhibit by both prosecution and defense for delay and pre-judging evidence without
careful evaluation respectively. Urgent Motion denied because the grant and release under bail of the
accused.
Issue:
Whether the grant of bail was proper

Ruling:
The Order granting bail is legally infirm for failing to conform with the requirement that in cases when
bail is not a matter of right, a hearing for that purpose must be conducted. Section 13 of Article III of the
Constitution provides the instances when bail is a matter of right or discretionary. Bail is not a matter of
right with respect to persons charged with a crime the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment, or death, when evidence of guilt is strong. Thus, Go’s right to bail is merely discretionary.
When bail is discretionary, a hearing should first be conducted to determine the existence of the strong
evidence or lack of it. Judge Gako cannot have appreciated the evidence against the accused when there
was no hearing set on the petition for bail. The duties of the judge in an application for bail is 1.) notify
prosecutor or require submission of recommendations, 2.) conduct hearing for bail, 3.) decide on the
strength of evidence, 4.) if evidence is not strong, release on approval of bail bond.

People v Rondero 320 SCRA 383

Facts:
Mylene Doria goes missing the same day that Maximo Doria finds Rondero Delfin, pumping a well
washing off blood while equipped with an ice pick. Eventually the lifeless body of Mylene turns up on a
pavement near the school canteen. On investigation, Maximo disclosed his sighting of Rondero to the
police, and they acted on this lead. Charges were filed and accused was arrested. Hair strands were
found on the victim and NBI informed PNP Dagupan of inability to conduct proper examination due to
lack of proper comparative specimens, hair samples are needed from victim and accused. Accused was
allegedly convinced to give hair samples, these along with samples from Mylene were submitted and
accused hair strands were a match for those found on victim. Eventually found guilty of murder, upon
Motion for Reconsideration, modified to homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not the hair strands and reults of examination are admissible as evidence

Ruling:
Accused claims that the hair samples were taken without his consent and in violation of his right against
self-incrimination. Accused executed waiver of his rights as provided in Article 3 Section 12, however the
waiver appears to have been executed without the presence of counsel. Use of evidence against the
accused obtained by virtue of his testimony or admission without the assistance of counsel while under
custodial investigation is proscribed by Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the Constitution. This however
does not connote use of violence, but also pressure to overbear his will, disable him from making a free
and rational choice or impair his capacity for making rational judgment would be sufficient. What is
proscribed is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication, not the inclusion of his
body in evidence when it may be material. Substance emitted from the body may be received .
Samson v Daway GR Nos. 1600054-55

Facts:
Accused is charged with distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale CATERPILLAR products and
paraphernalia closely identical to and/or colorable imitations of the authentic Caterpillar products and
likewise using trademarks, symbols, and/or designs as would cause confusion, mistake or deception.
Accused filed motion to suspend arraignment and other proceedings in view of prejudicial question,
motion denied. Accused thereafter file twin motion to quash and motion for reconsideration on order
denying motion to suspend, now challenging jurisdiction of the court, twin motions denied.

Issue:
Whether or not Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to suspend arraignment

Ruling:
Accused failed to substantiate claim of prejudicial question. At any rate, there is no prejudicial question
if the civil and criminal action can according to law, proceed independently of each other. In present
case, the common element in the acts is fraud, in cases of fraud, a civil action for damages entirely
separate and distinct from criminal action may be brought by the injured party. While pendency of a
petition for review is ground for suspension of the arraignment, it is limited to a period of 60 days from
filing of petition with reviewing office, after which the court is bound to arraign the accused.

People v Relova 148 SCRA 292

Facts:
Members of Batangas City Police and personnel of Batangas Electric Company equipped with a search
warrant, searched the premises of Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage. There discovering
electric wiring, devices and contraptions had been installed without necessary authority from city
government, and concealed inside the walls. Manuel Opulencia admitted that he had caused the
installation of the devices. Information was filed against Opulencia for violation of Ordinance no. 1 s of
1974, plead of not guilty dismissed for action had already prescribed, second Information filed for theft.
Motion to quash filed before arraignment for violation of right against double jeopardy, motion granted
by the trial court. Motion for Reconsideration likewise denied.

Issue:
Whether or not there will be double jeopardy

Ruling:
The unauthorized installation punished by the ordinance of Batangas City is not the same as theft of
electricity under the Revised Penal Code, that the second offense is not an attempt to commit the first
or a frustration thereof and that the second offense necessarily included in the offense charged in the
first information. The second sentence of Article IV (22) embodies an exception, “…provided that both
offenses spring from the same act or set of acts.” The constitutional protection against double jeopardy
is available so long as the acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a municipal
ordinance are the same acts which constitute or have given rise to offense charged under a statute. The
identity of offenses that must be shown need not be absolute identity: the first and second offense may
be regarded as the “same” offense where the second offense necessarily includes the first offense or is
necessarily included in such first offense, or where the second offense is an attempt to commit the first
or a frustration thereof.

Cabarles v Maceda GR No. 161330

Facts:
Cabarles was charged with murder, he entered plea of not guilty, dates for pre-trial, presentation of
prosecution evidence and defense evidence have been set. Prosecution was unable to present evidence
through no fault of their own, prosecution rested its case and formally offered its evidence. Demurrer
filed by the defense, but was denied, defense presented two witnesses. Judge Maceda issued order
reopening the case, having observed the prosecution may not have had its day in court resulting in a
miscarriage of justice, accused filed motion for reconsideration, which was denied. In light of the
reopening, the prosecution was able to have the eyewitness take the witness stand, defense also
allowed to present further evidence.

Issue:
Whether or not the reopening constitute grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:
A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was not in the old rules but it was nonetheless a
recognized procedural recourse, deriving validity and acceptance from a long established usage. The
requirements for reopening a case: 1.) reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of
conviction, 2.) ordered by judge of his own initiative or upon motion, 3.) issued only after hearing is
conducted, 4.) intended to prevent a miscarriage of justice, 5.) presentation of additional evidence
terminated within 30 days from issuance. Motion to reopen may only be issued after the prosecution
and defense have formally offered their evidence and closed their cases. Judge Maceda committed
grave abuse of discretion upon failure to conduct a hearing prior to the issuance. Participation of the
defense in the examination of the witness of the prosecution is not a waiver of Cabarles’ objection.

Mapagay v People GR 178984

Facts:
Erlinda Mapagay accused of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 otherwise known as Bouncing Checks
Law, on arraignment she pleaded not guilty, was provisionally dismissed on the basis of amicable
settlement but was revived after failure to comply. Trial on the merits ensued. Complainant, sole
prosecution witness, testifies that the check was issued in consideration of a loan, and when encashed
was dishonored by the bank, demand letter was sent to accused but refused to receive it. Accused failed
to appear. Trial court found accused guilty, decision appealed to RTC which affirmed the MeTC decision,
Motion for Reconsideration was filed but denied by RTC. RTC decision appealed to Court of Appeals,
which dismissed the appeal for failure of the accused to file the Motion for Reconsideration with the
RTC during or within the reglamentary period, Motion for Reconsideration also filed but likewise denied.
Issue:
Whether Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to the appeal

Ruling:
Motion for Reconsideration of judgment of conviction may be filed within 15 days from the
promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. Failure to file a motion
within the reglamentary period renders subject decision final and executory. Once a judgment attains
finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by this
Court. Decisions final and executory cannot be annulled by courts and appellate court is deprived of
jurisdiction to alter trial court’s final judgment.

People v Buynay 128 SCRA 31

Facts:
October 21, 1973, Buynay, Chaves, and Arellano were able to escape the City Jail of Cagayan De Oro,
each either stabbed helped in the attack of a guard on the way out, guard stabbed by Buynay died, but
the 3 were caught the following day. Buynay and Arellano testified on the details of the escape, Chaves
did not. Appellants submit that the lower court erred in convicting them of complex crime of direct
assault with murder because the killing was not qualified by treachery. Chaves escaped in October 8,
1981.

Issue:
Whether or not the escape of Chaves will dismiss the appeal

Ruling:
Buynay held the hand of the deceased guard, posed a question and without waiting for an answer
immediately stabbed the guard. The suddenness of the assault made it impossible to parry or avoid,
Mode of attack employed was sought to insure the accomplishment of their purpose without the risk to
themselves arising from the defense of the victim. Being a death convict, Chaves’ escape will not
automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal

Quintero v NBI 162 SCRA 467

Facts:
Delegate Quintero delivered to the Constitutional Conference the aggregate amount of the “payola”, he
himself had received, the amount of eleven thousand one hundred fifty pesos in cash, preserved intact
for delivery to the proper officials of the Con Con. Pressure mounted on Quintero to reveal the identity
of those behind the payola scheme. After released from San Juan de Dios hospital, quintero released a
list of names, this list implicating the first lady Imelda Marcos, hours after the statement went public,
President Marcos made a public address stating how the list was prepared as an attack against him and
merely signed by Quintero. That evening Quintero’s house was raided by the NBI, by virtue of a warrant
issued by Judge Asuncion, they found P379000, criminal complaint for bribery filed, preliminary
investigation scheduled. Quintero sought recourse, court issued temporary restraining order enjoining
use of the objects seized

Issue:
Whether or not the objects seized are admissible as evidence

Ruling:
A search warrant may issue only upon finding of the judge of probable cause and the latter has been
defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to
believe an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with the offenses are in
the place sought to be searched. In the case, search warrant was issued upon application of NBI agent
Samuel Castro, accompanied by affidavit of the complainant Congressman Mate, made before the
judge. Based on interrogation, Samuel Castro knew nothing of his own personal knowledge to show that
Mr. Quintero had committed any offense.

The affidavit of Congressman Mate did not provide sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause,
there is no evidence to show that a.) the folder handed over contained the ‘expose’, b.) the document in
the folder was signed by Quintero, c.) the money supposedly given was payment for signing the
document. People swearing to, or supporting the application for, search warrants, must set forth the
facts they know personally and not the conclusions, or the beliefs of the affiant.

Disregarding for a moment the absence of “probable cause” the search itself was highly irregular, the
two occupants of the house were closeted in a room, no members of the household were in a position
to watch them and thus they conducted a search on their own. Such a procedure, wherein members of a
raiding party can roam unaccompanied by any witness, violative of both spirit and letter of the law that
“no search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of at least one
competent witness, resident of the neighborhood.”

Another irregularity was the failure of the officer seizing property under the warrant must give a
detailed receipt for the same to the person on whom or in whose possession it was found, or in absence
of any person must in the presence of at least one witness leave a receipt in the place in which he found
the seized property. Rule rendered nugatory when person attesting to receipt was himself a member of
the raiding party. Circumstances prevailing before the issuance of the questioned search warrant and
the actual manner of the search suggest an orchestrated movement designed to destroy Quintero’s
public image, with incriminating evidence, temporary restraining order now made permanent..