Sunteți pe pagina 1din 121

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales


a2010 page 1
that a repetition of the same act would merit a graver penalty.

Pro f.
accused spouses, observed several irregularities in the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the issuance of the

Ratio A court can only take cognizance of a case that falls within its jurisdiction. Reasoning - April 15, 1994 is the date NATURE of effectivity of RA 7691. Administrative matter in the Supreme Court RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first-level FACTS courts by providing that - This stemmed from an administrative case filed by first-level courts shall have Abbariao against Judge Beltran. Beltran was charged with gross ignorance of the law and jurisdiction over criminal knowingly rendering unjust judgment. cases in which the offense - Abarriao was the former branch manager of is punishable with Country Bankers Assurance Corporation. In October imprisonment not 1992, Joseph Abraham procured 2 insurance policies from him and issued a post-dated exceeding 6 years, check to serve as pasyment. But the cheque was subsequently dishonored. regardless of the amount of the fine. - Informations were filed before before Judge Beltran for estafa and violation of BP 22. - January 30, 1995 was Petitioners Claim the date the information - Petitioner claims that Beltrans ruling that there was no valid insurance contract with was filed. The case had to Abraham was erroneous and that he had no jurisdiction over the case in the first place. do with the violation of BP 22 which is penalized by Respondents Comments an imprisonment of not - Beltran claims that there was no valid insurance contract between Abbariao and Abraham less than 30 days but not because the insurance policy form of Abraham was disapproved. more than one year. Thus when the information was - He also claims he has jurisdiction over the case because the accused was arraigned in filed, RA 7691 was already his court and the prosecutor failed to withdraw the case. in effect. ISSUE 1. WON the judge is guilty of rendering unjust judgment - During the tenure of the former presiding judge, the issue of jurisdiction 2. WON Beltrans ruling showed gross ignorance of the law in terms of assuming over the case was already jurisdiction over the case pending resolution. He also displayed indecisiveness by relying HELD on the public prosecutors 1. NO, the judge must be absolved from this charge. Ratio The acts of judges pertaining to assurance that his court their judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power, unless such acts are commited had acquired jurisdiction. with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. In the absence of proof to the contrary, an - Aside from this instance, erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith. there were two other occasions when Beltran 2. YES. Beltran had no authority to rule over the case. was charged and found guilty of gross ignorance of the law (in De Austria v. Beltran and Andres v. Beltran). DISPOSITION Judge Beltran was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for which he is fined P20,000 as recommended by the OCA and is warned

NATURE Administrative case against Judge Aurora Binamira-Parcia of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Ligao City, Albay relative to Criminal Case No. 8617 (People v. Sps. Ribaya) FACTS Asst Provincial Prosecutor Pedro Vega, in his personal capacity, filed before the MTCC, Ligao City a criminal complaint for estafa against the Spes Ribaya on November 29, 2001. The spouses, after receiving P12,000 from Vega, allegedly misappropriated the amount to the latters prejudice. The preliminary investigation was then conducted by respondent judge. Complainant, daughter of the the

warrant of arrest. The spouses then filed a motion to quash and sought the nullification of - To support her claim, subsequent orders. They alleged that the MTCC had no jurisdiction and authority to respondent attached the conduct a preliminary investigation of a complaint filed by an offended party directly affidavit of OIC City with the court. The authority to conduct a preliminary investigation was vested Prosecutor Vasquez of the then newly-created Ligao solely on the Office of the City Prosecutor. City. Vasquez stated that the - While waiting for the resolution of their motion to quash, the spouses did not post bail. On City Prosecutors Office was still undergoing April 10, 2002 Corazon Ribaya was apprehended by arresting officers in the public market by virtue reorganization when the subject criminal complaint of a warrant of arrest issued by respondent judge. - The complainant filed this administrative case against Judge Parcia. The motions was filed. It had neither enough manpower nor basically questioned respondents authority to conduct a preliminary investigation. office space in the Hall of - In her answer, respondent judge claimed that complainant was not a party in Criminal Justice. Positions had not been filled. His Case No. 8617. Respondent explained that she conducted the preliminary yet as Asst investigation of the criminal complaint against the spouses because the Officer-in- workload Provincial Prosecutor and Charge (OIC) of the Office of the City Prosecutor was too busy to do so. OIC City Prosecutor was so heavy that time constraints did not permit

him to conduct preliminary investigations. Thus, it was the respondent judge who conducted the preliminary investigation. - the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that respondent erred when she conducted the preliminary investigation of the subject criminal complaint even after the Municipality of Ligao, Albay had been converted into a city.

The OCA recommended that: (1) the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (2) the respondent be reprimanded, directed to concentrate her time and effort on performing her judicial tasks and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely. A motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent on October 1, 2003. This time, respondent claimed that what she conducted

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 2
the subject criminal complaint. The officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigations in the then newly-created City of Ligao was its City Prosecutor. At that time, the duty devolved upon OIC City Prosecutor Vasquez, despite the administrative difficulties he was encountering. 2. YES - We noticed the contradiction between her answer and her motion for reconsideration as to what she actually conducted on November 29, 2001. In her answer, she justified her authority to conduct a preliminary investigation. In her motion for reconsideration of the OCAs resolution, however, she declared that she conducted a preliminary examination to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest -There appear just too many intriguing uncertainties surrounding the filing of the estafa case. We therefore direct our attention to respondent judges failure to erase our doubts over how she administers justice in her jurisdiction. - Respondent judge must be reminded that

Pro f.
she should do honor to her position not only by rendering just, correct and impartial decisions but doing so in a manner free from any suspicion as to their fairness and impartiality, and as to her integrity. A spotless dispensation of justice requires not only that the decision rendered be intrinsically fair but that the

instituted by filing the on November 29, 2001 was a preliminary examination to determine probable cause complaint only with the for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the spouses. Respondent also City Prosecutor. The rule claimed that the criminal complaint was governed by Sec. 9, Rule 112 of the Revised implies that the task of preliminary Rules of Criminal Procedure, the rule governing cases that did not require conducting in these preliminary investigation. Since the amount involved in the estafa case was P12,000, no investigation cities is now lodged with preliminary investigation was required. the Office of the City Prosecutor. Consequently, inferior ISSUES court judges of cities 1. WON respondent judge had the authority to conduct preliminary investigation whose charters 2. WON respondent judge is guilty of misconduct in office authorize only the fiscal to conduct preliminary investigation are no 3. WON preliminary investigation was not required for the estafa case longer allowed to 4. WON warrant of arrest was valid perform this function. - The Municipality of HELD Ligao was converted into 1. NO - Although judges of inferior courts are authorized to conduct preliminary investigation of all a city by RA 9008 which crimes within their jurisdiction, the task is essentially an executive function. As far back as took effect on Feb 21, 2001. This law, also Collector of Customs v. known as the charter of Villaluz, we already held that: the City of [w]hile we sustain the power of the x x x courts to conduct preliminary examination, Ligao, provides in Sec. 50 pursuant to Our Constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts, as a matter of policy, that: There shall be we enjoin x x x judge[s] x x x to concentrate on hearing and deciding before their (a) courts. x x x [Judges] should not encumber themselves with the preliminary established in the city a examination and investigation of criminal complaints, which they should refer to prosecution service to be by a city the municipal judge or provincial or city fiscal, who in turn can utilize the headed and such assistance of the state prosecutor to conduct such preliminary examination and prosecutor number of assistant investigation. prosecutors as may be necessary, who shall be - City judges then were clearly authorized to conduct preliminary investigation and organizationally part of the examination. But even then, we also held that the provisions of Rule 112 granting city DOJ judges the authority to conduct preliminary investigation did not apply to judges of cities the charters of which authorized the city fiscal only to conduct preliminary (b) The City Prosecutor shall handle the criminal investigation of criminal complaints. prosecution in the MTC in the city as well as in the - This ruling was, in fact, integrated into the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under Sec. 1, Rule 110, criminal actions in chartered RTC for criminal cases originating in the territory cities are of the city, and shall render to or for the city such services as are required by law, ordinance or regulation of the DOJ Clearly, respondent judge had no more authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of

judge rendering it must at all times maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality. The warrant of arrest she against the - Considering all this, respondent judge committed simple misconduct in office. Misconduct issued in office has a well- defined meaning. It refers to misconduct that affects the judges spouses Ribaya was, performance of her duties and not just her character as a private individual. To constitute therefore, justified and no of their an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the violation constitutional rights performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. occurred. DISPOSITION Respondent Judge Aurora 3. YES - Respondent correctly observed that it was not needed in the estafa case. The maximum Binamira-Parcia is hereby penalty for the crime allegedly committed there (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 found guilty of simple months) did not meet the minimum penalty (at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day) required misconduct and a fine of to make a preliminary investigation part of the spouses right to due process. P11,000 is imposed on her. She is hereby 4. YES directed to devote her - As long as the constitutional mandate was complied with, that is, the warrant of arrest was time and effort exclusively issued upon a finding of probable cause personally by the judge after an examination to discharging her judicial under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, the functions. She is warrant of arrest was valid. furthermore warned that a repetition of the same or - Respondent judge examined the complainant Pedro Vega on the day the complaint was filed and she was satisfied that probable cause existed. similar act will merit a

more severe penalty.

TUMAN Gv BAUTI STA 13 6 S C RA 68 2 ABADSANTOS; May 31 1985

NATURE Petition to review and annul orders of RTC Laguna FACTS - Emilio Javier filed a sakdal against Enrique Tumang and his daughter Georgia Tumang. - The sakdal was written in Tagalog and was unaccompanied by an English translation.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

The Tumangs prayed that Javier be ordered to file a copy of the complaint as translated in English, and a copy of the criminal complaint and Decision of acquittal in the unjust vexation case mentioned in Javiers complaint.

a2010 page 3
383 SC RA 449 SANDOVALreconsideration/retrial praying that the decision be set aside and that the case be heard again because of certain irregularities committed before and during the trial. She alleged that there were 2 other men involved in the commission of the crime and that the eyewitness deliberately withheld the information upon solicitation by a certain Mayor Dapulag and upon the eyewitnesses own belief that such inclusion would complicate the case and make it more difficult. - Petitioner opposed this motion, asserting that the decision can no longer be modified or set aside because it became final when he formally waived his right to appeal. - May 3, 2000: The trial court granted Rosalie Dapulags motion, set aside its previous Decision as well as ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for reevaluation of the evidence and filing of the corresponding charge. - Petitioner filed a MFR, contending that the trial court has no jurisdiction to issue the Feb.1 order as the Decision had

Pro f.
become final, and that the said order would place him in double jeopardy. - May 26, 2000: The trial court denied the MFR for the reason that the State is not bound by the error or negligence of its prosecuting officers, hence, jeopardy does not attach. - Petitioner now assails the May 3rd and May 26 orders with the Sol.Gen. agreeing that the challenged


TC ruled on Oct. 21 1982 that the complaint written in Pilipino, which is an official GUTIERREZ; language, is proper and is admitted. TC also ruled that it is not absolutely necessary that June 26, 2002 copies of the complaint and criminal case be attached as annexes. Javier should have, however, at least stated the docket number as well as name of the court and branch NATURE number. Review on certiorari on 3The Tumangs failed to answer the sakdal and were declared in default. They a decision of RTC of sought to reconsider, not only the order of default but also the order admitting the Catarman, Northern complaint in Pilipino. Samar 4TC set aside its order of default that refused to reconsider its order of FACTS October 21, 1982. 5The Tumangs filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the complaint did not state a - Dec.12,1999: Potot was charged with homicide cause of action and that the venue was improperly laid. TC denied the motion on both before the RTC for grounds. assaulting and stabbing a certain Rodolfo Dapulag with a ISSUE knife, thereby causing his WON the sakdal should have been in English and not Tagalog death. HELD - Feb.1, 2000: Upon YES arraignment, Potot - In the ponentes lecture, Writing Decisions, he said in part: pleaded guilty and What language should the judge use? The constitution says that until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages! (Art. XV, Sec. 3, invoked the mitigating Par 3.) If we are to be guided by this provision then either English of Pilipino can be circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary used. But in fact English is almost exclusively used and with good reason. For surrender. He was later Pilipino is still a gestating language. The constitution says so. It directs that the Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption convicted of homicide w/ the above stated of a common national language to be known as Pilipino. mitigating circumstances. - However, petitioner cannot now raise this question before the Supreme Court, As they have tacitly submitted to the TCs ruling that the sakdal did not have to be translated in - Feb.3, 2000: Potot filed a English; they analyzed the sakdal in arguing that it stated no cause of action. manifestation with motion Such analysis demonstrated that they understood its contents. informing the TC that he is DISPOSITION Denied for lack of merit. not appealing from the


Decision and praying that a commitment order be issued so he could immediately serve his sentence. - Feb.11, 2000: Private complainant Rosalie Dapulag (wife of the victim), with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed a motion for

orders should be set aside and that the Feb. 1 Decision should be reinstated. ISSUES 1. WON the trial court, upon motion by a private complainant, can set aside a previous judgment of conviction and remand the records of a case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for re-evaluation of the evidence and the filing of the corresponding charge 2. WON the manifestation by the accused that he is not appealing from the trial courts Decision render the judgment final 3. WON the trial court err in granting private complainants motion for reconsideration/retrial 4. WON the assailed orders violate petitioners constitutional right against double jeopardy HELD 1. NO Ratio Only the accused may ask for a modification or setting aside of a judgment of conviction which he must do before the said judgment becomes final or before he perfects his appeal. Reasoning - Sec. 7 Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides:

Sec. 7. Modification of judgment - A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused , be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has

waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. - It is thus clear that only the accused may ask for a modification or setting aside of a judgment of conviction. And this he must do before the said judgment becomes final or before he perfects his appeal. Such judgment becomes final in any of the following ways: (a) when no appeal is seasonably filed by the accused, except in case of automatic review of the

decision imposing capital penalty;


(b) when he has partially or totally served his sentence; (c) when he expressly waives his right to appeal the judgment, except when the death penalty is imposed; or (d) when he applies for probation. When a judgment becomes final, the trial court which rendered the judgment of conviction loses jurisdiction to alter, modify, or revoke it. 2. YES

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 4
FACTS - Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor Rossana S. MoralesMontojo of Quezon City Prosecutors Office issued her Resolution: there being PROBABLE CAUSE to charge respondent for ESTAFA under Article 315 paragraph 2(d) as amended by PD 818 and for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, it is respectfully recommended that the attached Information be approved and filed in Court. - As a consequence thereof, separate informations were separately filed against herein [p]etitioner before proper [c]ourts, for Estafa and [v]iolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 - petitioner through counsel filed in open court before the [p]ublic [r]espondent an Opposition to the Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private Prosecutor The [p]ublic [r]espondent court during the said hearing noted the Formal Entry of Appearance of Atty. Felix R. Solomon as [p]rivate [p]rosecutor as well as the Opposition filed thereto by herein [p]etitioner. - Ruling of the Trial

Pro f.
Court Noting petitioners opposition to the private prosecutors entry of appearance, the RTC held that the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted, unless the offended party (1) waives the civil action, (2) reserves the right to institute it separately, or (3)

pleaded guilty to the Ratio The waiver by the accused of his right to appeal from a judgment of conviction has charge. On the basis of the effect of causing the judgment to become final and unalterable. his plea, petitioner was convicted and meted the Reasoning corresponding penalty. As - It is an undisputed fact that after the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, petitioner petitioner has been placed filed a manifestation expressly waiving his right to appeal therefrom. His intention not to in jeopardy for the crime of appeal is further indicated by his prayer in the same manifestation for the immediate homicide, he cannot be issuance of a commitment order so he could serve his sentence. Such waiver has the prosecuted anew for the effect of causing the judgment to become final and unalterable. Thus, it was beyond the same offense, or any authority of the trial court to issue the order of May 3, 2000 setting aside its Feb.3, 2000 offense which necessarily Decision which had attained finality. includes or is necessarily included in the first offense charged. 3. YES Ratio When the MFR of the judgment of conviction is not initiated by the accused or at the DISPOSITION The instance of the trial court with the consent of the accused, the same should be denied petition is granted. The outright. assailed orders dated May Reasoning 3, 2000 and May 26, 2000 - Sec. 1 Rule 121 of the same Rules provides: issued by the trial court Sec.1. New trial or reconsideration At any time before a judgment of conviction are set aside. Its decision becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration. dated Feb. 1, 2000 is - Since the MFR of the judgment of conviction was not initiated by the accused or at the reinstated. instance of the trial court with his consent, the same should have been denied outright as RODRIGUEZ being violative of the above provision. At any rate, the records do not show any irregularity v in the preliminary investigation of the case before the Provincial Prosecutors Office. 4. YES PONFERRAD Ratio The right against double jeopardy prohibits any subsequent prosecution of any A person for a crime of which he has previously been acquitted or convicted. Reasoning - To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must be present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) he has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

- These requisites have been established. Records show that petitioner was charged with homicide under a valid information before the trial court which has jurisdiction over it. He was arraigned and NATURE Petition for Certiorari seeking to reverse the July 27, 2002 Order of the RTC of Quezon City: WHEREFORE, the appearance of a private prosecutor shall be allowed upon payment of the legal fees for these estafa cases pending before this Court.

465 SCR A 338 PANGANIB AN; July 29, 2005

institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Considering that the offended party had same civil liability in the paid the corresponding filing fee for the estafa cases prior to the filing of the BP 22 cases other criminal action. with the Metropolitan While the law allows two Trial Court (MeTC), the RTC allowed the private prosecutor to appear and intervene in the simultaneous civil remedies for the offended proceedings. party, it authorizes recovery in only one. In ISSUE short, while two crimes WON a private prosecutor can be allowed to intervene and participate in the proceedings arise from a single set of of the above-entitled estafa cases for the purpose of prosecuting the attached civil liability facts, only one civil liability arising from the issuance of the checks involved which is also subject mater of the pending attaches to it. B.P. 22 cases Reasoning - Petitioner theorizes that HELD the civil action necessarily YES. Settled is the rule that the single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to two arising from the criminal distinct criminal offenses: estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). The case pending before the Rules of Court allow the offended party to intervene via a private prosecutor in each of MTC for violation of BP 22 these two penal proceedings. However, the recovery of the single civil liability arising from precludes the institution of the single act of issuing a bouncing check in either criminal case bars the recovery of the the corresponding civil

action in the criminal case for estafa now pending before the RTC. She hinges her theory on the following provisions of Rules 110 and 111 of Rules of Court. Based on the foregoing rules, an offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a crime, except in the following instances: (1) when, from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a private

offended party; and (2) when, from the nature of the offense, the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity, but (a) they waive the right to institute a civil action, (b) expressly reserve the right to do so or (c) the suit has already been instituted. In any of these instances, the private complainants interest in the case disappears and criminal prosecution becomes the sole function of the public prosecutor. None of these exceptions apply to the instant case. Hence,

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 5
DISPOSITION Petition is DISMISSED and the the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. The presiding judge (leodegario Mogul) denied the motion through his order. - The accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction. In an order (Aug 17 1977), theHELD CA YES restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused until further orders from the Court - On May 15 1978, a decision was made by the CA granting the writ and perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the Dept of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review. - On March 22, 1978, The Undersecretary of Justice Hon Catalino Macaraig Jr, resolving the petition for review, reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against the accused. The Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of

Pro f.
evidence on April 10, 1978. On November 24 1978, The Judge denied the motion and set the arraignment - The accused filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the CA. On January 23

the private prosecutor cannot be barred from s ui t.

assailed order AFFIRMED

intervening in the estafa Ov True, each of the overt acts in these instances may MOGU give rise to two criminal liabilities -- one for estafa L and another for violation of BP 22. But every such act of issuing a bouncing check involves only one 151 civil liability for the offended party, who has SCR sustained only a single injury. A - criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if 462 the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate GANCAYC cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is O; June 30, evidently the foundation of the civil action. 1987 - Thus, the possible single civil liability arising from the act issuing a bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa case and the BP 22 violation NATURE Petition to review the prosecution. decision of the Circuit On Election of Remedies Criminal - In its broad sense, election of remedies refers to Court of Lucena City the choice by a party to an action of one of two or (petitioner prays that more coexisting remedial rights, where several such respondent judge be rights arise out of the same facts, but the term has perpetually enjoined from been generally limited to a choice by a party enforcing his threat to between inconsistent remedial rights, the assertion proceed with the of one being necessarily repugnant to, or a arraignment and trail of repudiation of, the other. In its more restricted and technical sense, the election of remedies is the petitioner, ordering adoption of one of two or more coexisting ones, with the effect of precluding a resort to the respondent Judge to others. dismiss the said case, and - no binding election occurs before a decision on the merits is had or a detriment to the declaring the obligation of other party supervenes petitioner as purely civil.) - it was not the intent of the special rule to preclude the prosecution of the civil action that corresponds to the estafa case, should the latter also be filed. The crimes of estafa and FACTS violation of BP 22 are different and distinct from each other. There is no identity of offenses - Assistant Fiscal Proceso involved, for which legal jeopardy in one case may be invoked in the other. The offenses de Gala filed an charged in the informations are perfectly distinct from each other in point of law, however information for estafa nearly they may be connected in point of fact against Mario Crespo in Circuit Criminal - In promulgating the Rules, this Court did not intend to leave the offended parties without Court of Lucena City. any remedy to protect their interests in estafa cases. Its power to promulgate the Rules of When the case was set for Court is limited in the sense that rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive arraignment, the accused rights. Private complainants intervention in the prosecution of estafa is justified not only filed a motion to defer for the prosecution of her interests, but also for the speedy and inexpensive administration arraignment on the ground that there was a pending of justice as mandated by the Constitution. petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of


1979, a restraining order was issued by the CA against the threatened act of arraignment of the accused. However, in a decision of October 25 1979, the CA dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order of Jan 23,1979. The motion for reconsideration of the accused was denied in a resolution. ISSUE WON the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits

Ratio Once an information is filed in court, the courts prior permission must be secured if fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court, whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court. DISPOSITION Petition dismissed

STA. ROSA MINING v ZABALA 153 SCRA 367 BIDIN; August 31, 1987
NATURE Mandamus to compel respondent Fiscal to prosecute Criminal Case No. 821 of the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte until the same is terminated. FACTS - On March 21, 1974, petitioner filed a complaint for attempted theft of materials (scrap iron) forming part of the installations on its mining property at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte against private respondents Romeo Garrido and Gil Alapan with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte, then headed by Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre. - The case was assigned to third Assistant Fiscal Esteban P. Panotes for preliminary investigation who, after conducting said investigation, issued a resolution dated August 26, 1974 recommending that an information for Attempted Theft be filed

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 6
Instance, supra). ISSUE WON the fiscal can be compelled to prosecute the case after his motion to dismiss has been denied HELD YES - This court is of the view that the writ prayed for should issue. Notwithstanding his personal convictions or opinions, the fiscal must proceed with his duty of presenting evidence to the court to enable the court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to the culpability of the accused. The fiscal should not shirk from his responsibility much less leave the prosecution of the case at the hands of a private prosecutor. At all times, the criminal action shall be prosecuted under his direction and control (Sec. 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court). Otherwise, the entire proceedings will be null and void (People vs. Beriales, 70 SCRA 361). - "In the trial of criminal cases, it is the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the government since an offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. IV, 1980 Ed., p. 10).

Pro f.
This is so because "the prosecuting officer is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy but of a sovereignty where obligation to govern impartially is as

disauthorized any private against private respondents on a finding of prima facie case which resolution was approved prosecutor to appear by Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre. Private respondents sought reconsideration of the therein. Hence, this resolution but the same was denied by Fiscal Ilustre in a resolution dated October 14, petition for mandamus. 1974. - In this action, petitioner prays for the issuance of - On October 29, 1974, Fiscal Ilustre filed with the the writ of mandamus Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte an "commanding respondent Information dated October 17, 1987 docketed as fiscal or any other person Criminal Case No. 821, charging private respondents with the crime of Attempted Theft. who may be assigned or - In a letter dated October 22, 1974, the private respondents requested the Secretary of appointed to act in his Justice for a review of the Resolutions of the Office of the place or stead to Provincial Fiscal dated August 26, 1974 and October 14, 1974. prosecute - On November 6, 1974, the Chief State Prosecutor ordered the Provincial Fiscal to elevate Criminal Case No. 821 of entire records the Court of First Instance PFO Case 577 against Garrido et al.The letter- request for review was opposed by of Camarines Norte" petitioner in a letter to the Secretary of Justice dated November 23, 1974 alleging, among There is no question that other things, that an information for the institution of a criminal Attempted Theft had already been filed against private respondents for which reason the action is addressed to the request for review has become a moot question as the Provincial Fiscal has lost jurisdiction sound discretion of the to dismiss the charge for attempted theft. investigating fiscal. He may or he may not file the - On March 6, 1975, the Secretary of Justice, after reviewing the records, reversed the information according to findings of prima facie case of the Provincial Fiscal and directed said prosecuting officer to whether the evidence is in immediately move for the dismissal of the criminal case. Petitioner sought reconsideration his opinion sufficient to of the directive of the Secretary of establish the guilt of the Justice but the latter denied the same in a letter dated June 11, 1975. accused beyond - A motion to dismiss dated September 16, 1975 was then filed by the Provincial Fiscal but reasonable doubt. the court denied the motion on the ground that there was a prima facie evidence against (Gonzales vs. Court of private respondents and set the case for trial on February 25, 1976. First Instance, 63 Phil. - Private respondents sought reconsideration of the court's ruling but in an Order dated February 13, 846) and when he decides 1976, the motion filed for said purpose was likewise denied. Trial of the case was reset to not to file the information, April 23, 1976. in the exercise of his - Thereafter, Fiscal Ilustre was appointed a judge in the Court of First Instance of Albay and discretion, he may not be respondent compelled to do so Fiscal Zabala became officer-in- charge of the (People vs. Pineda, 20 Provincial Fiscal's Office of Camarines Norte. SCRA 748). - On April 19, 1976, respondent Fiscal filed a Second However, after the case Motion to Dismiss the case. This second motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court in had already been filed in an order dated April 23, 1976. Whereupon, respondent fiscal manifested that he would not court, "fiscals are not clothed with power, prosecute the case and without the consent of the court, to dismiss or nolle prosequi criminal actions actually instituted and pending further proceedings. The power to dismiss criminal actions is vested solely in the court" (U.S. vs. Barredo, 32 Phil. 444, 450; Gonzales vs. Court of First

compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in criminal refusal of the fiscal to prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a prosecute the case. It is peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that the court where the case guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer" (Suarez vs. Platon, 69 Phil. 556). is filed and not the fiscal that has full control of it. - Accordingly, if the fiscal is not at all convinced that a prima facie case exists, he simply cannot move for the dismissal of the case and, when denied, refuse to prosecute the - In order therefore to same. He is obliged by law to proceed and prosecute the criminal action. He cannot avoid such a situation impose his opinion on the trial court. At least what he can do is to continue appearing for whereby the opinion of the the prosecution and then turn over the presentation of evidence to another fiscal or a Secretary of Justice who private prosecutor subject to his direction and control (U.S. vs. Despabiladeras, 32 Phil. reviewed the action of the 442; fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the U.S. vs. Gallegos, 37 Phil. 289). Where there is no other prosecutor available, he should Secretary of Justice proceed to discharge his duty and present the evidence to the best of his ability and let the should, as far as court decide the merits of the case on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties. practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for - The mere fact that the Secretary of Justice had, after reviewing the records of the case, review or appeal from the directed the prosecuting fiscal to move for the dismissal of the case and the motion to action of the fiscal, when dismiss filed pursuant to said directive is denied by the trial court, is no justification for the

the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the Court." DISPOSITION petition is hereby Granted Public respondent or any other person who may be assigned or appointed to act in his place or stead, is hereby ordered to continue prosecuting Criminal Case No. 821 until the same is terminated.

PEREZ v HAGON OY 327 SCR A 588 DE LEON; March 9, 2000

NATURE: Review on Certiorari

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 7
respondent, as private complainant, in a criminal case has the legal personality to question the dismissal by the trial judge of the criminal charges against herein petitioner upon the motion filed by the prosecutor HELD 1. YES, Judge Masadao acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the criminal charges against the petitioner on the basis solely of the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reasoning - As aptly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, in failing to make an independent finding of the merits of the case and merely anchoring the dismissal on the revised position of the prosecution, the trial judge relinquished the discretion he was duty bound to exercise. In effect, it was the prosecution, through the Department of Justice which decided what to do and not the court which was reduced to a mere rubber stamp in violation of the ruling in Crespo v. Mogul.. 2. YES Ratio While it is only

Pro f.
the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private offended party

on the ground of insufficient evidence. The FACTS private respondent filed a - Private respondent Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. owns the Hagonoy Money Shop which motion for reconsideration employed petitioner of the order of the Cristina O. Perez as Officer-In-Charge, Cashier and Teller, Alberto S. Fabian as Secretary of Justice, Bookkeeper, and Cristina which motion, however, Medina and Milagros Martin as Solicitors/Field was denied with finality by Managers. the latter.Pursuant to the - For the period starting August 3, 1992 up to said resolution, the December 5, 1993, the Laya, Manabat, Salgado and Company, an independent prosecutor filed a motion management, consultancy and accounting firm, conducted an audit of the financial affairs in the RTC praying for the of the Hagonoy Money Shop and found anomalies in more or less twenty-eight (28) dismissal of the case savings accounts consisting of withdrawals which were recorded in the subsidiary ledgers against herein petitioner of the money shop but not in the passbooks which were in the possession of the and the admission of an depositors. The audit also revealed that to cover -up the anomalous withdrawals, fake amended information deposits were recorded in the money shop's subsidiary ledgers whenever the remaining excluding petitioner as balance in a particular savings account went below the amount of legitimate withdrawals one of the accused which made by a depositor.This prompted the private respondent to file an affidavit-complaint for motion was granted by the estafa against the aforementioned employees of the money shop and two outsiders, Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas. RTC. Private respondent assailed the dismissal of the case against the Acting Provincial Prosecutor, Jesus Y. Manarang petitioner in a motion for (hereinafter "prosecutor"), issued a resolution finding prima facie evidence that the reconsideration filed in the petitioner and her co-employees had committed the crime of estafa thru falsification of RTC which motion was commercial documents, and recommending the filing of the corresponding information denied by the RTC after against them with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The charges against finding that the private Susan Jordan and Brigida Mangahas were, however, dismissed. respondent, as private - Perez filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice praying for the dismissal of complainant, had no legal the charges against her. On the other hand, private respondent moved for a personality to question the dismissal of the criminal reconsideration of the portion of the same resolution dismissing the complaint against charges against the Susan Jordan. - The prosecutor granted private respondent's motion for reconsideration.8 Hence, on April petitioner. 27, 1994, an information for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents was filed against herein petitioner, ISSUES Alberto Fabian, Milagros Martin, Cristina Medina and 1. WON Judge Susan Jordan, Masadao, presiding - On September 23, 1994, then Secretary of Justice, Franklin M. Drilon, issued Resolution No. 696, series of 1994 ordering the prosecutor to judge of RTC Branch 9, Malolos, cause the dismissal of the information against herein petitioner Bulacan, committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the criminal case against petitioner without an independent assessment of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence against the latter 2. WON the private

retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own name in criminal reconsideration of the proceedings before the courts of law. order of the trial court Reasoning dismissing the criminal - In the case of Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals,we held that: charges against the petitioner. In fact, as a "In a special civil action for certiorari filed under general rule, a special civil Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed action will not lie unless a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional motion for reconsideration grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such is first filed before the case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. respondent tribunal, to The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special allow it an opportunity to civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional correct its assigned errors. grounds. In so doing, the complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant." - Furthermore, our ruling in the case of Dee v. Court of Appeals allowing the private offended party to file a special civil action for certiorari to assail the order of the trial judge granting the motion to dismiss upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice is apropos. It follows, therefore, that if the private respondent in this case may file a special civil action for certiorari, then with more reason does it have legal personality to move for a

No . 16 68 95 VELASCO, JR; January 24, 2007

NATURE Petition for review decision of CA FACTS - Romeo accused of then 12 daughter 5 separate The Buban is raping his year old times, on occasions. medical

examination of the girl reveals that she was indeed raped. - Although the girls sworn statement mentioned five occasions of rape, the Complaint mentioned only the 5th incident. The charges of rape committed on other occasions were not supported with the required


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 8
from suspicion of bias and prejudice therefore, they interpose no objection to the remand of the aforementioned criminal cases "for the rendition of a new decision by another trial judge." - Jan 30, 1976 - private prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of the respondent Judge and objected to the remand of this case. - Feb 12, 1976, the petitioners moved to strike out the "Motion to Admit Attacked Comment" and the "Comment" of the private prosecutor on the ground that the latter has "absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings before this Honorable Court and, hence, without any personality to have any paper of his entertained by this Tribunal - private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court, to take part in the proceedings, and to adapt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor General. ISSUES 1. WON private prosecutors have the right to intervene

Pro f.
independently of the Solicitor General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter

NATURE complaints in accordance with Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Original action for Procedure. certiorari and prohibition - RTC found the accused guilty (sentence: death penalty plus moral damages, civil th indemnity, exemplary damages) but only with regard the 5 incident only. The other 4FACTS charges were dismissed for lack of legal basis to convict. The dispositive portion of the - Solicitor General RTCs decision was not specific as to which charge it found the accused guilty, but the Estilito P. Mendoza, body of the decision implies the dismissal of the other 4 charges, thus it can be deduced Assistant Solicitor General Alicia that the conviction pertains to the 5th incident only. CA affirmed. Simpio-Diy and Solicitor Eduardo L. Kilayko for ISSUES respondents. 1. WON CA erred in finding the accused guilty despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence Estanisloo A. Fernandez 2. WON the accused may be convicted for the other counts of rape, where the complaint and Dakila F. Castro & mentions only one instance of rape Associate as private prosecutors. HELD - petitioners seek the 1. NO annulment of respondent Ratio there is no error in the appreciation of evidence by the court. Judge's Orders in the Reasoning Criminal Case People of - the argument of the accused that the testimony of the girl is not reliable for the inconsistencies is untenable. Philippines v Jorge Tan, Jr, Cesar Tan, Teofanis People v. Antonio: Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness Bondoc, Osmundo referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do Tolentino, Mariano Bartido not impair her credibility. If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or and rehearsed. Librado Sode for frustrated murder and 2. As can be gleamed from the case, the complaint should contain all instances of the Double Murder of the son crime charged. The other 4 counts of rape were dismissed because the complaint did not and uncle of Mayor Inigo specify the same, and only mentioned the last instance of rape, despite the inclusion of the Larazzabal. other 4 in the sworn statement of the girl. The prosecution did not question anymore the - Judge Pedro Gallardo dismissal of the other 4 counts, so the court did not discuss it further. made the two life sentences to death DISPOSITION judgment affirmed with modification. penalty allegedly after Sentence changed to reclusion perpatua (pursuant to RA 9346, abolishing the deathmeeting with Mayor penalty) and higher damages. Larazzabal and receipt of other paraphernalia such as whisky and wine according to the court TAN, JR v GALLARDO stenographer.

73 SCRA 308 ANTONIO; October 5, 1976

- Jan 14, 1976 - SolGen, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, submitted his Comment to the petition. They are "persuaded that there are bases for stating that the rendition of respondent Judge's decision and his resolution on the motion for new trial were not free

2. WON respondent Judge should be disqualified from further proceeding with the criminal cases HELD 1. NO Ratio Private prosecutors cannot intervene independently of and take a position inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General. Reasoning - Participation of the private prosecution in the instant case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution of October 1, 1975, thus: "to collaborate with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this Court." To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor General. It was never intended that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand independent of or in contravention of the position taken by the Solicitor General. - Since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State, it is but natural that the representatives of the State should direct and control the prosecution. > Suarez v Platon: the prosecuting officer "'is the representative not of, an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as

compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall he done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigorindeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from

improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." > People v Esquivel: that there is an absolute necessity for prosecuting attorneys to lay "before the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their

evidence, to the end that the court's mind may not be tortured by doubts, that the innocent may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished. Obvious to all, this is the prosecution's prime duty to the court, to the accused, and to the state."

- It is for the purpose of realizing the aforementioned objectives that the prosecution of offenses is placed

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 9
criminal proceedings pending either in the Court of Appeals or in this Court. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 478, "Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General", provides: SECTION 1. Function and Organization, (1) The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. * * * The office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government, and as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: (a) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil

Pro f.
actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is the party. (k) Act and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court, tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or proceeding which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.

Islands in the prosecution under the direction, control, and responsibility of the prosecuting officer. of a public offense, or to - Role of the private prosecutors is to represent the offended party with respect to the control the proceeding civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. This civil action is once it is commenced, deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party either expressly and as his right to waives the civil action or reserves to institute it separately. Thus, "an offended party may intervene therein is intervene in the proceedings, personally or by attorney, specially in case of offenses which subject to the promotor can not be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended party The only exception to fiscal's right of control, it this is when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly reserves his right cannot be stated that an to institute it after the termination of the case, in which case he lost his right to intervene order of dismissal decreed upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution. in any event, upon petition of the whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action, his promoter fiscal himself intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the prosecuting official." deprives the offended party of his right to appeal from an order overrruling a complaint or information, > Herrero v Diaz: "intervention of the offended party or his attorney is authorized by which right belongs section 15 of exclusively to the Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, subject to the provisions of section 4 of the same Rule promotor fiscal by virtue of that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be the provisions of section 44 of General Orders, prosecuted under the direction and control of the Fiscal." No. 58. To permit a person - the position occupied by the offended party is subordinate to that of the promotor fiscalinjured by the commission because, as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to represent the public prosecution, orof an offense to appeal from an order dismissing a the People of the Philippine Islands, in the prosecution of offenders, and to control the proceeding, and as it criminal case issued by a is discretionary with him to institute and prosecute a criminal proceeding, being at liberty to Court of First Instance commence it or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not, depending upon whether or not upon petition of the there is, in his opinion, sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a promoter fiscal, would be tantamount to giving said reasonable doubt, except when the case is pending in the Court of First offended party of the Instance, the continuation of the offended party's intervention depends upon the direction and control of a continuation of the proceeding. Consequently, if the promotor fiscal desists from pressing criminal proceeding in the charge or asks the competent Court of First Instance in which the case is pending for violation of the provisions the dismissal thereof, and said court grants the petition, the intervention of the person of the above-cited section 107 of General injured by the commission of the offense ceases by virtue of the principle that the accessory follows the principal. Consequently, as the offended party is not entitled to represent the People of the Philippine Orders, No. 58. - from the nature of the offense, or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity, the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense. - Solicitor General represents the People of the Philippines or the State in

It is evident, therefore, that since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to represent the State or the People of the Philippines the interest of the private prosecutors is FACTS subordinate to that of the - Ernesto dela Cuesta was State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand inconsistent with that of the Solicitor charged on May 16, 1997 General, for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the with raping his minor criminal proceedings, contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the daughter, Irene, seven matter. times over a period of eight years beginning 1989 when the victim was 2. It is already moot because the judge is no longer in the judicial service DISPOSITION SC grants the petition and hereby remands the case to the trial court in seven years old. order that another Judge may hear anew petitioners' motion for new trial and to resolve the - The victim testified in open court about the issue accordingly on the basis of the evidence incidents of rape. However, prior to the rendering of judgment, the PEOPLE v DELA CERNA victim, on July 3, 1998, 390 SCRA 538 filed an affidavit of CORONA ; October 9, 2002 desistance stating among others that she was no NATURE longer interested in Automatic review of decision of Cebu City RTC

pursuing the case and that she had already forgiven her father. - The SC noted that the rape incidents in this case occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353, The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on October 22, 1997. Under this statute, the crime of rape was classified as a crime against person. It should be further noted that the law at the time the crimes were committed treated rape as a private crime

covered by Article 344 of the RPC. As provided for in the said article, offenses of seduction, abduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons. - The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to the supreme penalty of death.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 10
no capacity to sign the same considering her mental deficiency or abnormality. The defense also insisted on assailing the competency of JONALYN as a witness. It claimed that JONALYNs testimony, considering her mental state, was coached and rehearsed. - The trial court denied the Demurrer to Evidence and set the dates for the presentation of the evidence for the defense. Trial court convicted BIENVENIDO of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 1275-M96, but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96 for insufficiency of evidence. ISSUES 1. WON the complaint for rape filed was valid 2. WON Jonalyn was competent to testify 3. WON Jonalyn was credible as a witness 4. WON leading questions should have been allowed to be asked to Jonalyn HELD 1. YES - The pertinent laws existing at the time the crimes were committed were Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (prior to its

Pro f.
amendment by R.A. No. 8353 which took effect on 22 October 1997) and Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her

JONALYN had difficulty in - In his appeal, the offender claimed that he should no have been found guilty considering expressing herself, the that the affidavit of desistance created a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. trial court decided to suspend the proceedings to give the prosecution sufficient time to confer ISSUE with her. WON the trial court erred in convicting the defendant - Trial court allowed the prosecution to put on the HELD witness stand a Medical NO - The affidavit did not in fact contain any retraction on the claim of rape. Hence the guilty Officer of the National verdict was proper considering that the testimony of the victim was considered by the trial Center for Mental Health. Dr. Tuazon testified that court as credible and believable. There was as such no reasonable doubt to speak of. she found that JONALYN - Even using the old statute which considered rape as a private crime and the forgiveness was suffering from a of the victim or the parents, grandparents, or guardian as extinguishing the crime, the moderate level of mental and that Supreme court held that the pardon or forgiveness must be prior to the institution of the retardation criminal action. After the case has been filed the control of the prosecution is removed from although chronologically the offended partys hand and any change of heart by the victim will not affect the states the latter was already 20 years of age, she had the right to vindicate the atrocities committed against itself. mental age of an 8-yearchild under the - The Court also ruled that the death penalty is not applicable in this case as the old Wechsler Adult prosecution was not able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the alleged minority of the Intelligence Scale. victim. It cited its previous rulings to this effect. - The trial court issued an order allowing leading questions to be propounded to JONALYN. Thus, JONALYN took the FACTS witness stand. She - Upon a complaint signed by JONALYN with the assistance of her aunt Carmelita Borja, declared in open court two informations were filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC of that BIENVENIDO raped Malolos charging Bienvenido Dela Cruz with rape. BIENVENIDO entered a plea of not her twice. She stated that BIENVENIDO placed guilty. himself on top of her and - When JONALYN was presented as its first witness, the prosecution sought to obtain from inserted his private part the trial court an order for the conduct of a psychiatric examination to determine her mental into her womanhood. and psychological capability to testify in court. Trial court allowed the prosecutor to conduct - The defense filed a direct examination on JONALYN so that if in its perception she would appear to be demurrer to evidence, suffering from mental deficiency, the prosecutor could be permitted to ask leading which was granted. It admitted that it could have questions. Noticing that moved to quash the information but it did not because the complaint on which the information was based was on its face valid, it having been signed by JONALYN as the offended party. However, the undeniable truth is that JONALYN had

PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 384 SCRA 375 DAVIDE; July 11, 2002

parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly public view or to heated pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be. controversies in court the - Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal vices, fault, and Procedure states: The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness disgraceful acts occurring shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, in the family. grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above- named persons, as the case may be. In case the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint and has no known parents, - The complaint in the grandparents, or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf. The instant case has complied offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution for the with the requirement above offenses, independently of her parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is under the Revised Penal incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. Where the Code and the Rules of offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or Criminal Procedure, which guardian may file the same. vest upon JONALYN, as the offended party, the right to institute the - A complaint of the offended party or her relatives is required in crimes against chastity out criminal action. As signed of consideration for the offended woman and her family, who might prefer to suffer the by JONALYN, the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. The law deems it complaint started the the wiser policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether to expose to

prosecutory proceeding. The assistance of JONALYNs aunt, or even of her mother, was a superfluity. JONALYNs signature alone suffices to validate the complaint. - If a minor under the Rules of Court can file a complaint for rape independently of her parents, JONALYN, then 20 years of age who was found to have the mentality of an 8year-old girl, could likewise file the

complaint independently of her relatives. Her complaint can be rightfully considered filed by a minor. 2. YES - The determination of the competence of witnesses to testify rests primarily with the trial judge who sees them in the witness stand and observes their behavior or their possession or lack of intelligence,

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

as well as their understanding of the obligation of an oath.

a2010 page 11
NATURE Appeal from the decision of the RTC the commission of the crime, Jesus Mendoza remained at large. At their arraignment, the detained accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. - On 21 April 1995, the trial court, following his evaluation of the respective submissions of the prosecution and the defense, including their rebuttal and surrebuttal evidence, rendered its now assailed decision. ISSUES

Pro f.
HELD 1. YES, Quitlong is guilty of murder while the other 2 are only accomplices. 2. NO, the crime was qualified The crime committed was qualified by abuse of superiority. While superiority in number would not per se mean

- The prosecution has proved JONALYNs competency by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon. The finding of the trial court, as supported by the testimony of Dr. Tuazon that JONALYN had FACTS the understanding of an 8-year-old child, does not obviate the fact of her competency. Its - Calpito was a student only effect was to consider her testimony from the point of view of an 8-year -old minor. from Baguio city. One time, he wanted some fishballs so he and Gosil 3. YES bought some fishballs - The foregoing narrative has established not only worth P15. When Calpito JONALYNs competency but also her credibility. counted his change, he Considering her feeble mind, she could not have fabricated or concocted her charge found out that he only against received P35 for his P100. BIENVENIDO. Also, no improper motive was shown by the defense as to why JONALYN Confronted by Calpito and would file a case or falsely testify against BIENVENIDO. Gosil, the fishball vendor - Complainant has made herself clear about the sexual molestation she suffered in the would not admit that he hands of the accused. Plain and simple her testimony may have been, unembellished, as it had short-changed is, with details, yet, it is in its simplicity that its credence is enhanced. Calpito. The 3 men kept 4. YES arguing. Moments later, - It is usual and proper for the court to permit leading questions in conducting the Soriano saw eight men examination of a witness who is immature; aged and infirm; in bad physical condition; rushing towards Gosil and uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed to, court proceedings; inexperienced; feeble- Calpito. Calpito got minded; confused and agitated; terrified; timid or embarrassed while on the stand; lacking stabbed and fell to the in comprehension of questions asked; deaf and dumb; or unable to speak or understand ground. the English or imperfectly familiar therewith. - The leading questions were neither conclusions of facts merely put into the mouth of - The RTC found Ronnie JONALYN nor prepared statements which she merely confirmed as true. Quitlong, Salvador Quitlong and Emilio DISPOSITION RTC decision finding accused-appellant BIENVENIDO DELA CRUZ guilty Senoto guilty of murder for of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua isthe killing of AFFIRMED, with the modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim Jonathan Calpito. Accused JONALYN YUMANG civil indemnity in the reduced amount of P50,000 and moral damages-appellants, shortly after in the amount of P50,000. the filing of the information, submitted a motion for reinvestigation PEOPLE v QUITLONG alleging that it was a certain Jesus Mendoza 292 SCRA 360 who stabbed the victim. VITUG ; July 10, 1998 The trial court acted favorably on the motion. The City Prosecutor filed a motion to admit an amended information on the basis of affidavits. The information, as amended, included Jesus Mendoza among the named accused. But unlike accusedappellants who were immediately arrested after


WON the RTC abused its discretion and/or acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in finding that there was conspiracy between and among the accused -appellants


WON the RTC gravely abused its discretion and/or acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in finding the accusedappellants guilty of the crime of Murder instead of Homicide

superiority in strength, enough proof was adduced, however, to show that the attackers circumstances. In short, had cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their superiority in strength the complaint must certainly out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. contain a specific allegation of every fact - Article III, Section 14, of the 1987 Constitution, in particular, mandates that no person and circumstance shall be held answerable for a criminal offense without due process of law and that in all necessary to constitute criminal prosecutions the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the the crime charged accusation against him. The right to be informed of any such indictment is likewise explicit in procedural rules. DISPOSITION appellant - object of informing an accused in writing of the charges against him: First. To furnish the Ronnie Quitlong is found accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his guilty of the crime of defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a murder for the killing of further prosecution for the same cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, Jonathan Calpito. so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one Appellants Salvador should be had. (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S., 542). Quitlong and Emilio Senoto, Jr., are found In order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent; these must be set forth in the guilty as accomplices in complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant), and the commission of the


A; June 28, 2005 ROCO v CONT RERA S 46 1 S C RA 50 5 GARCI

NATURE Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the decision dismissing appeal and resolution denying motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1-

a2010 page 12
ISSUE WON the lower courts erred in denying the

Pro f.

books of accounts were Domingo Roco, engaged in buying and selling of dressed chicken, purchased hisalready burned, they did not maintain the supply from private respondent Cals Poultry Supply Corporation (Cals) requested sales ledger 2As payment for his purchase, petitioner drew 5 checks payable to Cals against and that other documents his account with PCIB. PCIB dishonored the checks for having been drawn from a closed could not be produced account. Cals then filed a criminal complaint for violation of BP22 because of the recent computerization of records 3Before trial could commence, Roco filed with the BIR a denunciation letter against Cals in that it failed to issue commercial invoices. BIR was still in the process of completion. They also found no prima facie evidence of tax evasion. maintained that the 4Trial for Rocos violation of BP 22 commenced. After the prosecution rested, the documents requested are MTCC declared the cases submitted for decision on account of petitioners failure to immaterial and irrelevant adduce evidence in his behalf. Later, to the crimes for which the MTCC rendered a judgment of conviction against petitioner. petitioner was being 5Petitioner went to appeal to the RTC contending that he was deprived of dueprosecuted. process. RTC agreed and vacated the MTCC decision. - In a resolution, the Pending the remanded cases, petitioner filed with the MTCC a Request for MTCC, thru its Judge Issuance of Subpoena Ad Edward B. Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum, requiring Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap, Contreras, denied both of Cals Corporation or their duly authorized representatives, to appear and testify in petitioners request on the court and to bring with them certain documents, records and books of accounts for the following grounds: (a) the requested documents, years 1993-1999 1. book ledgers and other records were immaterial in Prosecution did not object. resolving the issues posed 7Acting Judge Geomer C. Delfin, issued an order granting petitioners request and before the court; and (b) accordingly directed the issuance of the desired subpoenas. the issuance of the -Cals counsel manifested that it was improper for the trial court to have directed the subpoenas will only issuance of the requested subpoenas, to which the Roco countered by saying that Judge unduly delay the hearing Delfins had become final and hence, immutable. Nonetheless, the trial court issued an of the criminal cases. order allowing the prosecution to file its comment or opposition to petitioners request for the issuance of subpoenas. They argued that Deocampo had earlier attested that the Judge Contreras documents, records and similarly denied the MFR. RTC denied due course to 1 petition for failure to prove Sales Journal for the year 1993; grave abuse of discretion. Accounts Receivable Journal for the year 1993; Sales Ledger for the year 1993; Similarly, it denied MFR. Accounts Receivable Ledger for the year 1993 (in its absence, Accounts Receivable Ledger for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999); Petitioner went to CA via certiorari. The petition was Audited Income Statement for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and Income Statements as of still dismissed. MFR was February 1999; Audited Balance Sheet for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and pBalance Sheet as of February 1999; still dismissed. and Petitioners claim Income Tax Returns for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. The denial of the request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum is violative of his constitutional rights

petitioner requested to be subpoenaed are designated and described in his request with subpoena requested by definiteness and readily Roco identifiable. The test of definiteness, therefore, is satisfied in this HELD Ratio NO. Before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following requisites book document s, s must appear prima facie relevant to the issue t subje o h ct f e an relevancy); d (2) such books reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness). Reasoning - A subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or trial of an action or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or for the taking of his deposition. The first, subpoena ad testificandum, is used to compel a person to testify, while the second, subpoena duces tecum, is used to compel the production of books, records, things or documents therein specified. - The books documents and that


case. However, in the matter of relevancy of those books and documents to the pending criminal cases that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his burden. - Based on the records below and as correctly pointed out by the CA, petitioner had been issued by Cals with temporary receipts in the form of yellow pad slips of paper evidencing his payments, which pad slips had been validated by the corporation itself. It is clear that the production of the books and documents requested by petitioner are not indispensable to prove his defense of payment. DISPOSITION the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.


FACTS - Three (3) private offended parties who are members of the Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the DENR Tacloban City, together with two (2) members of Philippine National Police Regional Intelligence Group, were sent to the Island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. At around 4:305:00 p.m., the team found two boats measuring 18 meters in length and 5 meters in breadth being constructed at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of the boats. A heated altercation ensued between petitioner and the DENR team. Petitioner called for reinforcements and, moments later, a boat bearing ten armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The DENR team was then brought to petitioners house in Daram, where they had dinner and drinks. The team left at 2:00 a.m. - On the basis of the foregoing facts, petitioner was charged with and convicted of Arbitrary Detention by the Sandiganbayan. - SC affirmed the conconviction of Daram. Defendant filed MFR denied with finality Filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File 2nd MFR granted ISSUES Procedural WON filing of 2nd MFR is proper Substantive

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

WON the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt

a2010 page 13
petitioner before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Romano alleged that, on October 16, 1997, while his department was conducting a daily electronic report from Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) Dela Rosa, Makati Branch, one of its depositary banks, it was discovered that unknown to the department, a company check, Check No. 74001 dated October 13, 1997 in the amount of P5,790,570.25 payable to Dante R. Gutierrez, had been cleared through PCIB on October 15, 1997, notwithstanding two missing checks and two other check forgeries, one of which amounted to P1,790,757.25. All of these were never issued by Caltex.

Pro f.
informed of this development. After the requisite preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor filed two (2) Informations for estafa through falsification of commercial documents on June 29, 1998 against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 63.

DISPOSITION REVERSED. Petitioner Benito Astorga is HELD ACQUITTED of the crime Procedural of Arbitrary Detention on YES the ground of reasonable Ratio While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a general rule, a prohibited doubt. pleading, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to admit the same, provided it is filed PEOP with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better served thereby. LE v Reasoning


- The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the

Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation. Substantive NO Ratio When the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. For the prosecutions evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Furthermore, where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak, even if NATURE the evidence for defense is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of Petition for review on the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused certiorari of the Decision enjoys. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, of the one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible Court of Appeals with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man. FACTS - Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by Reasoning City Service Corporation, - No sufficient evidence to show that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private a domestic corporation offended parties. It appears that Darma merely extended his hospitality and entertained the engaged in messengerial services. He was assigned DENR team in his house. to the main office of Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex) in Makati City. His primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier. He also delivered invoices to Caltexs customers. - On November 6, 1997, Caltex filed a criminal complaint against

RICARZE v CA (PEOPLE, CALTEX) G.R. No. 1604 51 CALLEJO, SR; February 9, 2007

- Further investigation revealed that said savings account had actually been opened by petitioner; the forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him under Gutierrezs name. - In the meantime, the PCIB credited the amount of P 581,229.00 to Caltex on March 29, 1998. However, the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not

1Petitioner was arraigned on August 18, 1998, and pleaded not guilty to both original Informations. 8 He that the charges. Pre-trial ensued and the cases were jointly tried. The prosecution presented its insisted amendments of the witnesses, after which the Siguion Reyna, Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) as private prosecutor filed a Formal Informations to substitute PCIB as the offended Offer of party for Caltex would Evidence. 7 Petitioner opposed the pleading, contending that the private complainant was place him in double represented by the ACCRA Law Offices and the jeopardy. Balgos and Perez Law Office during trial, and it was only after the prosecution had rested 3-PCIB, through SRMO, its case that SRMO entered its appearance as private prosecutor representing the PCIB. Since the opposed the motion. It ACCRA and Balgos and Perez Law Offices had not withdrawn their appearance, SRMO contended that the PCIB re-credited the had no personality to appear as private prosecutor. Under the Informations, the private had complainant is Caltex and not PCIB; hence, the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by SRMO amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity; should be stricken from the records. hence, the PCIB had been to the rights 2- Petitioner further averred that unless the Informations were amended to change the subrogated and interests of Caltex as private complainant to PCIB, his right as accused would be prejudiced. He pointed out, private complainant. however, that the Consequently, the Informations can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the PCIB is entitled to receive any civil indemnity which

the trial court would adjudge against the accused. Moreover, the re-credited amount was brought out on crossexamination by Ramon Romano who testified for the Prosecution. PCIB pointed out that petitioner had marked in evidence the letter of the ACCRA Law Office to PCIBank dated October 10, 1997 and the credit memo sent by PCIB to Caltex

prosecutor for the substitution of PCIB as private complainant for Caltex. It however denied petitioners motion to have the formal offer of evidence of SRMO expunged from the record. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on November 14, 2001. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of


4On July 18, 2001, the RTC issued an Order granting the motion of the private

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 14
Identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name (Rule 110, Section 11, Revised Rules of Court; now Rule 110, Section 12 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.] In case of offenses against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or information can be properly identified. - Legal Basis: Section. 12. Name of the offended party. The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name. (a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged. (b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed is

Pro f.
thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and the record (c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its name, or any name or

the trial. Thus, he cannot Appeals (CA,) praying for the annulment of the RTCs Orders of July 18, 2001 and claim any surprise by November 14, 2001. virtue of the substitution. - According to petitioner, damage or injury to the offended party is an essential element of 2. YES estafa. The amendment of the Informations substituting the PCIBank for Caltex as the - The Court agrees with offended party would prejudice his rights since he is deprived of a defense available before respondent PCIBs the amendment, and which would be unavailable if the Informations are amended. comment that petitioner failed to make a distinction Petitioner further insisted that the ruling in the Sayson case did not apply to this case. between legal and - The appellate court declared that when PCIB restored the amount of the checks to conventional subrogation. Caltex, it was subrogated to the latters right against petitioner. It further declared that in Subrogation is the transfer offenses against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not of all the rights of the absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or creditor to a third person, information can be properly identified. The appellate court cited the rulings of this Court in who substitutes him in all People v. Ho and People v. Reyes. his rights. It may either be legal or conventional. Legal subrogation is that which takes place without ISSUE agreement but by 1. WON petitioners rights are prejudiced with the substitution of the complainant operation of law because of certain acts. Instances 2. WON there was a valid subrogation of rights by Caltex to PCIB of legal subrogation are 3. WON charges against him should be dismissed because the allegations in both those provided in Article Informations failed to name PCIB as true offended party 1302of the Civil Code. HELD Conventional subrogation, 1. NO on the other hand, is that - The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense which takes place by under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is agreement of the parties. made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the Thus, petitioners information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an information which does acquiescence is not not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the necessary for subrogation offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new to take place because the averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance. instant case is one of legal subrogation that occurs by - In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a operation of law, and substantial amendment. without need of the The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both Informations, nor did it result in debtors knowledge. any prejudice to petitioner. The documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks 3. NO remained the same, and all such evidence was available to petitioner well before - The rules on criminal procedure require the complaint or information to state the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known and if there is no better way of

designation by which it is known or by which it may be identified, without need of averring the keys to his car by Vergel that it is a juridical person or that it is organized in accordance with law. Bustamante. The of the Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution members household were then of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati made to enter a room and were tied. After the City, Branch 63, for further proceedings. robbery, Priscilla Cruz was forcibly boarded in her PEOPLE v GUEVARRA own car by 5 of her 179 SCRA 740 kidnappers where she was PADILLA: December 4, 1989 held at knife and gunpoint. She was then told she NATURE was being held for ransom Automatic Review of P50k but they had to stop in FACTS San Rafael Bulucan to -On or about April 8, 1980, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, several armed men namely Jaime hire a truck because the Guevarra y Arcega, Poncing Abergas, Dan Tolentino, Baldo de Jesus, car broke down. However, Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, Boy Pogi, Chotse Doe alias Bernabe Sulaybar y Hernandez, she was left at Valenzuela and Vergel Bulacan as the men said Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak", entered the house of the sps Cruz and robbed them of the kidnapping did not P3000 and jewelry. Thereafter, Luisito Cruz was threatened by the men and forced to give

materialize. The five men then boarded a taxi and the truck driver later took her home. On the same night, Luisito reported the incident which led to the detention of Vergel Bustamante who was positively identified by Priscilla. -Bustamante denied the allegations and interposed the defense of alibi, claiming to be in Caloocan at the time of the crime. His defense was rejected considering the proximity of Gapan and Caloocan and since

witnesses had positively identified him. -After a separate trial for Poncing Abergas and Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak," inasmuch as Dan Tolentino, who had previously entered of plea of "not guilty" could not be served with subpoenas, and the other accused were reported to have died, judgment was rendered finding the accused Vergel Bustamante

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 15
P h il . 3 3 0 STRE ET; July 15, 1918
NATURE Review of a decision of the CFI of Province of Iloilo, sentencing the defendants Pedro Lahoylahoy and Marcos Madanlog to death upon a complaint charging the crime of robbery with multiple homicide. FACTS - The information in a prosecution for robbery with quadruple homicide charged that the accused criminally and by force appropriated certain articles of value, the property of one Roman Estriba, and on occasion thereof killed the said Roman Estriba and three others. However, the proof showed that the money which was the subject of the robbery was taken from one Juana Seran who was robbed and killed separately from the other three victims.

Pro f.

issue of the credibility of alias "Dan Saksak" guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention and the witnesses cannot be sentenced to suffer the death penalty, and to indemnify the offended party, Mrs. Priscilla raised. Also, the evidence Cruz, in the amount of P5,000.00. presented by the The accused Poncing Abergas, upon the other hand, was acquitted of the charge. Hence, prosecution was sufficient to support a finding of guilt this appeal. even without the said ISSUES extra-judicial confession. 1. WON TC erred in ordering the amendment of the information to include Vergel 4. NO Bustamante alias Dan Saksak despite lack of proof that the 2 are 1 and the same person. -No element of ransom exists as no ransom note 2. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to justify the filing of the amended was presented in court. information Neither was there a 3. WON the TC erred in convicting Bustamante upon the prosecution witnesses demand for money in contradictory and improbable testimonies and the appellants extra-judicial confession exchange for Priscillas safe return. 4. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom Besides, the Amended Information failed to allege HELD that the kidnapping was 1. NO. for the purpose of - The ff circumstances led the RTC judge of Nueva extorting a ransom. The Ecija to believe that Vergel Bustamante and Dan Saksak are one and the same person asrule is that an accused the accused is mentioned in each as Vergel Bustamante alias cannot be convicted of a Dan Saksak: A subpoena issued by the MTC of higher offense than that Gapan; a Return of Service of one subpoena; an order issued by the Municipal Court of charged in the complaint Gapan finding a prima facie case against the accused; and the letter of transmittal of the or information. records of the cases to the RTC of Nueva Ecija stating Bustamante aka Dan -Hence, Bustamante can Saksak was detained in the Manila City Jail. only be convicted of -In, any case, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it is one affecting kidnapping of a female jurisdiction over the person and should have been raised before the trial court in a motion under Article 267 with the to quash the information. As the accused failed to do so, he is deemed to have waived his aggravating objection to the information and is assumed to be satisfied with its legality. circumstances of (a) the use of a motor vehicle and 2. NO (b) the aid of armed men - The reinvestigation is evidenced by the certification of the Fiscal stating that there was bringing the penalty up to reasonable ground to believe a crime had been committed and that the accused were the maximum. However, informed of the complaint and given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. due to Article 3 Sec. 19 of the 3. NO Constitution, the death - The said discrepancies in the testimonies were minor details which could not destroy the penalty is reduced to substance of said testimonies. As the highest degree of respect is accorded to the factual reclusion perpetua. findings of the TC, the Dispositive WHEREFORE, hereby AFFIRMED the judgment appealed from is

ISSUE WON the conviction for robbery HELD NO with quadruple homicide can be sustained


1Subsection 5 of section 6 of General Orders No. 58 declares that a complaint or information shall show, among others things, the names of the persons against whom, or against whose property, the offense was committed, if known. The complaint in this case 3- A complaint charging therefore properly contained an averment as to the ownership of the property; and upon the commission of the principle, in charging the crime of robbery committed upon the person, the allegation of the complex offense of owner's name is essential. But of course if his name cannot be ascertained, it may be robbery with homicide alleged that it is unknown. must necessarily charge each of the component 2From the fact that the name of the injured person may, in case of necessity, be offenses with the same precision that would be alleged as unknown it should NOT be inferred that the naming of such person, when necessary if they were known, is of no importance. Where the name of the injured party is necessary as matter of made the subject of essential description of the crime charged, the complaint must invest such person with separate complaints. individuality by either naming him or alleging that his name is unknown. It is elementary It is well recognized in this that in crimes against property, ownership must be alleged as matter essential to the jurisdiction that where a proper description of the offense. To constitute robbery, the property obtained must be that complex crime is charged of another, and indictments for such offenses must name the owner; and a variance in this and the evidence fails to respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. It is also necessary in order to support the charge as to identify the offense. one of the component offenses the defendant

can be convicted of the other. The mere circumstance that the two crimes are so related as to constitute one transaction in no way affects the principles of pleading involved in the case. To permit a defendant to be convicted upon a charge of robbing one person when the proof shows that he robbed an entirely different person, when the first was not present, is violative of the rudimentary principles of pleading; and in

addition, is subject to the criticism that the defendant is thereby placed in a position where he could not be protected from a future prosecution by a plea of former conviction or acquittal. If we should convict or acquit these defendants today of the robbery which is alleged to have been committed upon the property of Roman Estriba, it is perfectly clear that they could be prosecuted tomorrow for robbery committed upon

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 16
prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy; (3) that since it is malum prohibitum, the intention of the accused who commits it is immaterial; (4) that PD was enacted to eradicate lawless violence which characterized premartial law days; and (5) that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.

Pro f.
determined solely by the facts alleged therein. Where the facts are incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime, the quashing of the accusation is in order.

under arrest, the three the property of Juana; and the plea of former jeopardy would be of no avail. Judges ordered their - In the light of what has been said it is evident that, by reason of the lack of conformity immediate release unless between the allegation and the proof respecting the ownership of the property, it is held on other charges. : impossible to convict the two accused of the offense of robbery committed by them in this -ON PD 9 THIS CASE case; and therefore they cannot be convicted of the complex offense of robbery with INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION homicide. HOWEVER, the accused were sentenced by the Supreme Court for four AND THE EXPLANATION separate homicides. OF THE INTENT OF THIS P.D. The pertinent paragraphs of the said PD is its Whereas clause ("WHEREAS, subversion, PEOPLE v PURISIMA rebellion, insurrection, 86 SCRA 542 lawless violence, criminality, chaos and MUNOZ-PALMA; November 20, 1978 public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid NATURE Petitions for review (26 petitions consolidated) of the decisions of the Courts of First of Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and Manila and Samar. abetted by the use of firearms, explosives and FACTS -The private respondents were all charged with illegal possession of deadly weapons (oneother deadly weapons) and par3 (It is unlawful to (1) carving knife with a blade 1/2 inches and a wooden handle of carry outside of residence 5-1/4 inches, or an overall length of 11- 3/4 inches in the Information filed with J .Purisima; any bladed, pointed or ice pick with an overall length of about 8 1/2 inches in the Information filed with J. Maceren; blunt weapon such as 'fan socyatan in the Information filed with J. Polo) in violation of PD 9, Par. knife,' 'spear,' 'dagger,' 3. Informations were filed with respondent judges in their respective courts (2 Branches of 'bolo,' 'balisong,' CFI, then CFI Samar) but upon motion to quash filed by the several accused, the said 'barong,' 'kris,' or club, judges dismissed the Informations on the common ground that the said Informations did except where such articles not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by PD 90 failed to state 1 of the 2 are being used as essential elements of the crime punished (the necessary tools or implements to earn a carrying outside of the accused's residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in livelihood and while being furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, or used in connection rebellion, organized therewith; and any person lawlessness or public disorder.) found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of - In the 2 cases filed before the different branches of ranging CFI Manila, the orders of dismissal were given before arraignment of the accused. Inimprisonment the criminal case before the CFI Samar the accused was arraigned but at the same time from five to ten years as a Military moved to quash the Information. In all the cases where the accused were Court/Tribunal/Commissio n may direct.) -Petitioners Contention: (1) Par 3, PD 9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to the subversive activities; that the act proscribed is essentially malum

ISSUE WON the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon penalized under PD 9 HELD NO. The two elements of the offense covered by P.D. 9(3) must be alleged in the information in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. Ratio. The sufficiency of an Information is

1It is a constitutional right of any person who stands charged in a criminal essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. afford him the opportunity Reasoning. The offense carries two elements: first, the carrying outside one's residence of to prepare his defense any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a accordingly. It is livelihood; and second that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or necessary that the to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, particular law violated criminality, chaos, or public disorder. There are other statutes (SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. 1780, be specified as there exists a substantial ORDINANCE NO. 3820 OF THE CITY OF MANILA ) which may be difference between the charged against the accused for their acts to constitute a crime. It is the second element statute and city which removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon, if concealed, outside of the scope ordinance on the one of the statute or the city ordinance mentioned above. In other words , a simple act of hand and P.D. 9 (3) on carrying any of the weapons described in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense the other regarding the in itself. What makes the act criminal or punishable under the decree is the motivation circumstances of the behind it. Without that motivation, the act fans within the purview of the city ordinance or commission of the some statute when the circumstances so warrant. crime and the penalty imposed for the offense. -ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION: for a complaint or (PD 9 punishes the information to be sufficient it must, inter alia, state the designation of the offense by the offender with 5-10 yrs statute, and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. This is

imprisonment; Sec26, Act 1780 with a fine of P500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both; Ordinance 3820 with a fine of not more than P200 or imprisonment for not more than 1 month or both). But since it was specified in the Informations that the accused were charged with violation of Par3, PD 9, it was necessary for the Court to elucidate the elements of the said PD to differentiate it from

other statutes (see above) the rest of the discussion was on the intent of the PD: to justify their decision that

Par3 should be interpreted with the Whereas clause.

2there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a construction of which the

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 17
ISSUES 1. WON CFI erred in convicting them for 2 crimes of rape 2. WON CFI erred in holding that the rape was attended by the aggravating circumstance of cruelty or ignominy 3. WON CFI erred in sentencing death HELD 1. NO Ratio The imposition on each of the accused of the penalty corresponding to 2 crimes of rape is proper, because of the existence of conspiracy. In multiple rape, each defendant is responsible not only for the rape personally committed by him, but also for the rape committed by the others, because each of them cooperated in the commission of the rape perpetrated by the others, by acts without which it would not have been accomplished. Reasoning CFI is accused of violating the rule against duplicity of offenses in that, the accused were convicted for 2 crimes of rape even when under the criminal complaint against them, there is each to suffer 2 penalties of

Pro f.
only 1 crime of rape alleged. The rule invoked is Sec 13, Rule 110 of the ROC which states that there should be only 1 offense charged in a criminal complaint or information, the purpose of which is to afford the

the house to report the statute is fairly susceptable is favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, tragic incident to Amelita, indefensible, Teofilos daughter. wrongful, evil, and injurious consequences. It is to be presumed that when P.D. 9 was- TEOFILO stated that promulgated by the upon being informed that President of the Republic there was no intent to work a hardship or an oppressive result, a his housemaid Rebecca raped by the possible abuse of authority or act of oppression, arming one person with a weapon to was they all impose hardship on another, and so on. Penal statutes are to be construed strictly accused, proceeded to the office of against the state and liberally in favor of an accused. the INP Police Station of Malasiqui to report the -ON OTHER REMEDIES OF THE PEOPLE: Under Rule 117, Sec 7 crime and had Rebecca and Rule 110, Sec 13, Information may be amended or ordered by the court to be physically examined in amended. Or, the that same afternoon. People could have filed a complaint either under Sec 26 of Act 1780 or under Manila City - In defense, the 2 denied Ordinance 3820 since most of the cases were dismissed prior to arraignment of the any involvement in the accused and on a motion to quash. offense, both claiming they were nowhere at the Dispositive. WHEREFORE, We DENY these 26 Petitions for Review and We AFFIRM the scene of the crime when it was committed. Orders of respondent Judges dismissing or quashing the Information concerned, subject however to Our observations made in the preceding pages - CFI decision: Each of the 23 to 25 of this Decision regarding the right of the State or Petitioner herein to file either an accused MELQUIADES amended FERNANDEZ and Information under Presidential Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, or a new one under other FEDERICO CONRADO is guilty beyond reasonable existing statute or city ordinance as the facts may warrant. doubt of two crimes of Without costs. SO ORDERED. rape, aggravated by cruelty or ignominy. Court PEOPLE v FERNANDEZ sentences each of them to 183 SCRA 511 suffer 2 penalties of death. PADILLA; March 22, 1990 - Appeal before SC: The accused filed this appeal NATURE to reduce penalty from Appeal from CFI Pangasinan decision death to reclusion perpetua. FACTS However, in light of the - Criminal complaint filed before the CFI alleged that the accused, conspiring and mutually1987 Consti specifically helping one another, had sexual intercourse with the 15-yr old Sec Rebecca SORIANO, by means of force and intimidation. Assisted by counsel, the accused 19(1), Art III, under which FERNANDEZ and CONRADO pleaded not guilty on arraignment and underwent trial. a death penalty already - REBECCA is Teofilo Malongs househelper. Ater she had just taken a bath and still naked, imposed is reduced to the two accused, both in short pants, surreptitiously entered the bathroom and sexually reclusion perpetua, abused her. Fernandez then got a handful of mud near the bathroom and placed it on herFernandez withdrew his appeal. The lone appellant vagina . She ran to the upper floor of therefore is Conrado who insists on his appeal, notwithstanding the advice of his counsel de officio to discontinue.

defendant a necessary knowledge of the charge so that he may not be confused in his defense. (a) BUT it is likewise the rule that if ever duplicity of offenses is committed, the same constitutes a ground for a motion to quash the complaint; failure of the accused to interpose the objection constitutes waiver. Neither can he claim that he was denied information that he was to be tried for two crimes. The acts complained of were stated in ordinary and concise language that any person of common intelligence would be able to understand and thereby know what acts he was to defend himself against. (b) As clearly found by the trial court: Both accused have, obviously, conspired and confederated to commit the crime, considering that they entered the bathroom where Rebecca was, together and at the same time. Accused Fernandez then tied her with a piece of cloth tightly around her neck , while accused Conrado held her hands placing them behind her body. Then after Fernandez had raped Rebecca, Conrado raped her. Both fled from the scene of the crime together and at the same time. 2. NO - Appreciating the aggravating circumstance of ignominy is correct because of the greater perversity displayed by the offenders . The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina right after she was raped is adequately described as "ignominy" (rather than cruelty or ignominy) 3. NO - The original death sentence was correctly imposed: Art 335 RPC states that when the crime of rape is committed by 2 or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death; Art 63 RPC states that when the penalty prescribed is composed of 2 indivisible penalties and the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. - However, since the original death penalties imposed by the trial court are no longer imposable under the present Constitution and are reduced to reclusion perpetua, the sentence on appellant Conrado has to be reduced to 2 penalties of reclusion perpetua. But the indemnity he has to pay to the victim must be increased to P20T in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Dispositive Appeal has no merit. Decision affirmed.

PEOPLE v LUMILAN 323 SCRA 170 DE LEON; June 25, 2000

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

NATURE Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela

a2010 page 18
change was introduced to Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866 by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294, such that now, where an accused uses an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder, he may no longer be charged with what used to be the two separate offenses of homicide or murder under the Revised Penal Code and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in homicide or murder under P.D. No. 1866. -As amended by R.A. No. 8294, P.D. No. 1866 now mandates that the accused will be prosecuted only for the crime of homicide or murder with the fact of illegal possession of firearms being relegated to a mere special aggravating circumstance. The Information charging appellants with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder, violates Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, which obliterated the now obsolete concept of qualified illegal possession of firearms or illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form, i.e., where the penalty for illegal possession is increased to reclusion perpetua or death by the attendance of homicide or murder. In

Pro f.
fact, qualified illegal possession of firearms, which used to be a distinct offense, no longer exists in our statute books. - Whether considered in the light of our ruling in Tac-an and its progeny of cases or in the context of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 to P.D. No. 1866, the Information charging appellants with

firearm or ammunition, whether or not homicide or murder resulted from its use, on one hand, and FACTS murder or homicide, on - Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan, Isabela, found accused-appellants Leon Lumilan the other, are offenses and Antonio Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of murder, two (2) different and separate counts of frustrated murder, and three (3) counts of attempted murder, under an from and independent of, Information charging them and accused Fred Orbiso with the crime of Qualified Illegal each other. While the Possession of former is punished under Firearms Used in Murder, in violation of Presidential a special law, the latter is Decree (P.D.) No. 1866. penalized under the - The evidence of the prosecution reveals that in the early evening of October 12, 1987, Revised Meliton Asuncion, Modesto Roque, Eliong dela Cruz, Jerry Palomo, Penal Code. Simeon Pacano, Benito Alonzo, Nolasco Estrada, Consequently, the Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho were drinking liquor inside the house of Policarpio prosecution for one will Palomo when it was sprayed with bullets. The successive gunshots emanated from the not bar prosecution for the fence about six (6) meters away from where they were drinking, killing Meliton other, and double Asuncion, Modesto Rogue, and Eliong dela Cruz and seriously wounding Jerry Palomo, jeopardy will not lie. Simeon Pacano, Nolasco Estrada, Mario Palomo and Romeo Pacho. - Sec. 4. Rule 120 of the - Upon being arraigned, both Lumilan and Garcia entered the plea of not guilty, and during Revised Rules of Court trial, they interposed the defense of alibi. provides that an accused - After an assessment of the evidence, the trial court declared that no proof beyond may not be convicted of reasonable doubt was adduced by the prosecution to justify the conviction of appellants for an offense other than that Qualified Illegal Possession of with which he is charged Firearms Used in Murder. However, the trial court convicted the appellants for Murder, in the Information, unless Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder. such other offense was - Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration which was, however, denied - Hence, the both established by evidence and is included instant appeal. in the offense charged in ISSUE the Information. Since WON the appellants may be properly convicted of murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder or homicide murder under an Information that charges them with qualified illegal possession of firearms neither includes or is used in murder in violation of Section 1 of presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as necessarily included in amended. qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, the trial court HELD may not validly convict an YES accused for the former - At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment of conviction in September 1990, it crime under an had already been six (6) months since the Court held in People v. Tac-an that the unlawful possession of an unlicensed Information charging the latter offense. Conversely, an accused charged in the Information with homicide or murder may not be convicted of qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, for the latter is not included in the former. -Further, a significant

Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder, is defective, and their conviction as are alleged in the information and proved for Murder, Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder, is irregular. during the trial. In the - However, such defect in the Information and the irregular conviction of appellants, doessame vein, failure to not invalidate the criminal proceedings had in the trial court because the appellants waived interpose any objection their right to quash the Information, and they effectively defended themselves against the to the defect in the information constitutes charges for murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder. waiver. - While the Information specifically states that appellants are being accused of the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder in violation of P.D. No. 1866, its text is so worded that it describes at least three (3) - In the instant case, crimes: illegal possession of firearms, murder, and attempted/frustrated murder. appellant did not file any - The Information is undeniably duplicitous. Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules motion to quash the More of Court provides that a complaint or information must charge but one offense, Information. except only in cases where the law prescribes a single punishment for various significantly, the bulk of offenses. Duplicity or multiplicity of charges is a ground for a motion to quash underthe evidence that they Sec. 2 (e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court. The accused, however, may presented during the trial choose not to file a motion to quash and be convicted of as many distinct charges was intended to disprove

their complicity in the murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder of the victims. -As such, appellants cannot pretend that the Information did not fully apprise them of the charges against them as to cause them surprise in the event of conviction. The appellation of the crime charged as determined by the provincial fiscal may not exactly correspond to the actual crimes

constituted by the criminal acts described in the Information to have been committed by the accused, but what controls in the description of the said criminal acts and not the technical name of the crime supplied by the provincial fiscal. Since appellants defended themselves not only against the offense of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder as specified in the Information, but also, and more

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 19
who is still at large, all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent of gain, grave abuse of confidence, and without the knowledge and consent of the said firm, its President and General Manager, Marciano K. Espiritu, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following, to wit: . . ." - When the informations were amended from Qualified Theft to Simple theft and deleting from the body of Information the phrase Grave abuse of confidence, Matilde pleaded GUILTY but the Court imposed the penalty under PD 133 and not those by Article 309 (3) of the RPC. From this decision, Matilde sought from the Court a quo a reconsideration contending that in the absence of any allegation in the body of information alleging specifically all the elements of the offense defined and penalized under PD. 133, he cannot be conviceted and penalized under the aforesaid decree. ISSUE WON the information that the accused is

Pro f.
charged with the crime of simple theft in relation to PD 133 suffices HELD NO - The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the judgment, and directed that another one be rendered. It held that since the

mutually aided one seriously against the crimes of Murder, Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder as another, with intent of gain described in the body of the Information, it cannot be said that their conviction for the latter and without knowledge crimes is infirm and invalid and consent of their ***Appellants in this case were nonetheless acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. employer, in stealing the The constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellants was not over-turned articles mentioned therein by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Court entertained doubts as to the belonging to their prosecutions witnesses testimony that they were able to identify the appellants as the employer. Although the authors of the crime considering that it was dark outside, and the only source of light were preamble of said two kerosene lamps inside the house. They also took note of the fact that Pacano, one of informations stated that the witnesses, only executed his sworn statement more than five petitioner was charged with the crime of simple months atfer the incident. theft "in relation to Disposition The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela is REVERSED and Presidential SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants, Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia, are hereby Decree No. 133," nowhere ACQUITTED on the ground that their alleged guilt was not proven beyond reasonable was it alleged in the body of said information that the doubt. articles stolen were materials or products MATILDE v JABSON which petitioner was "working on, or using or 68 SCRA 456 producing" as employee ANTONIO; December 29, 1975. or laborer of the complainant, as provided NATURE for in Presidential Certiorari to nullify the judgment of respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch Decree No. 133. Except XXVI, in Criminal Cases Nos. 9552, 9553 and 9554, imposing upon the accused Crisanto for the dates of Matilde, Jr. y Cruz, for the crime of simple theft, the penalty prescribed in Presidential commission and the Decree No. 133 (which imposes a heavier penalty) instead of that imposed by Article 309, amounts involved, the paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code. aforesaid three (3) informations uniformly stated that said accused FACTS were charged with the - An Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three informations in Criminal Cases Nos. crime of qualified theft, in 9552, 9553 and 9554 against Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz, Patricio relation to Presidential Guiruela y Luna, Ricardo Abener y San Pascual, Edgardo Cape y Atienza, Servando Calpo Decree No. 133, y Caballero, and Ireneo Belver y Bale. committed as follows: In three criminal cases, respondent court imposed upon petitioner, for the crime of simple "That on or about the theft, the penalty prescribed in Presidential Decree No. 133, instead of that imposed by 14th day of November, Article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code. The information charged that 1973 in the Municipality petitioner and his co-accused, being then laborers, conspired and confederated with, and of Pasig, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, being then laborers working at the Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises, conspiring and confederating together with one Renato Matuto y Ann,

objective of Presidential Decree No. 133 is to place a strong deterrent on workers from sabotaging the productive efforts of the industry where they are employed, it is essential, to qualify the offense and to justify the imposition of the heavier penalty prescribed by said Decree, that the information should aver that the articles stolen were materials or products which the accused was "working on or using or producing," and that a statement in the preamble of the information that the accused is charged with the crime of simple theft "in relation to Presidential Decree No. 133," does not suffice for the purpose envisioned by the constitutional guarantee that the accused should be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Supreme Court said that the appropriate penalty is that under Article 309 (3) of the RPC -prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods if value of property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos. But with the mitigating plea of guilty, penalty is in its minimum period.

BALITAAN v CFI (DE LOS REYES) 115 SCR A 729. GUERRER O; July 30, 1982
FACTS - Luz Balitaan baby dresses shop. Rita de los the manager

owns a mending Reyes is of her

business. - Luz, thru Special Counsel Aguila, filed with the MTC of Bauan, Batangas an Information charging Rita of the crime of estafa. The information contains that Rita misappropriated P127.58, through grave abuse of confidence, despite of repeated demands of Luz. (See original for exact wording of Information.) - During trial at the MTC , Luz testified that Rita delivered the baby

dresses to Uniware, and for this she (Rita) obtained 3 checks totaling P1,632.97. A cash voucher evidencing the receipt of said amount was entered into evidence. The lawyer for the defense moved: (1) to strike the testimonies with regard to the voucher evidence on the ground that said testimonies are at variance with the allegations in the information, that there is no allegation in the

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 20
disclosing the facts to the complainant, the estafa committed is by abuse of confidence although deceit coexists in its commission. - The presence of deceit would not change the whole theory of the prosecution that estafa with abuse of confidence was committed . Dispositive CFI decision to strike out testimonies is reversed and set aside.

Pro f.
Decision 1 dated June 13, 1995, rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 24) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No. 95129. Hence, this automatic review. - A rape charge was initiated by Neddy Calayca through a sworn complaint with supporting affidavits and documents 3 filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial

or to return the same, information whatsoever regarding these checks and this cash voucher; and even though the obligation (2) in the nature of an objection to any other question or questions regarding these is guaranteed by a bond; checks that were allegedly received by the herein accused from the Uniware Incorporated (b) that there is conversion because there is no allegation in the information. or diversion of such The court overruled such objections as the lawyer of the complainant told the judge that property by the person the evidence was presented to prove that the P127.58 was misappropriated from the who has so received it; P1,632.97. The testimony thus continued. [It turns out that Rita told Luz that (c) that such conversion, P127.58 was due a Cesar Dalangin for some of the dresses he made. Luz then instructed diversion or denial is to Rita to encash the checks and pay Cesar. Rita gave Luz the encashed amount minus the the injury of another and P127.58. Three weeks later, when she noticed that many baby dresses were lost, she (d) that there be demand verified the receipts of the payments. Cesar said he did not make the baby dresses Rita for the return of the said he did, and he didnt receive the amount (he didnt even know Rita). Luz then property. demanded from Rita the said amount; but Rita kept the money.] - The position of the - The defense then filed a petition for certiorari in the CFI of Batangas against the MTC defense is that the judge for denying the motions to strike out the testimonies relating to the evidence. CFI testimonies tend to prove another kind of estafa --granted the petition and ordered the testimonies stricken out of the record. using false pretenses or ISSUE fraudulent acts (Art 315 WON the testimonies are at variance with the allegations in the information. par 2a RPC)--and not thru abuse of HELD confidence (Art 315 par 1b NO RPC). The elements of - It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in these two are different. the complaint or information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated Under par 2a, demand is must be determined by reference to the definitions and the essentials of the specific not necessary and deceit crimes. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an or false representation information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to must be shown. But this have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. doesnt mean that proof of deceit is not allowed for par 1b. - Inasmuch as the crime of estafa through misappropriation or with grave abuse of Abuse of confidence and confidence is charged, the information must contain these elements: deceit may co-exist. Even if deceit may be present, (a) that personal property is received in trust, on commission, for administration or under the abuse of confidence any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of will characterize the estafa as the deceit will be merely incidental or, is absorbed by abuse of confidence. - As long as there is a relation of trust and confidence between the complainant and the accused and even though such relationship has been induced by the accused thru false representations and pretense and which is continued by active deceit without truthfully

PEOP LE v CALA YCA 30 1 S C RA 19 2 MARTINE Z; January 20, 1999

NATURE Automatic review FACTS - A daughter was again allegedly raped by her own father, herein appellant Artemio Calayca, who is now facing a death sentence after having been found guilty of said crime in a

Court of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental on January 9, 1995. MCTC Judge Alfredo Cain found sufficient ground to prosecute the appellant for the crime of rape. This was the same "CONTRARY TO finding of the Office of the and in VIOLATION OF Article Provincial Prosecutor of Misamis Oriental upon examination of the records of the preliminary investigation forwarded to it. Consequently, on March 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as 21, 1995, the corresponding Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court reading as amended by follows: Republic Act No. "INFORMATION 7659. "The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor II, upon sworn complaint of the "Cagayan de Oro offended party, City, Philippines, Neddy Calayca, accuses ARTEMIO CALAYCA of the crime of RAPE, committed as March 6, follows: 1995. That on or about the 29th day of January, 1994 at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Solo, Municipality of (SGD.) ROBERTO S. CASIO Balingasag, Province of Misamis Oriental, "Asst. Provincial Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Prosecutor II" Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal - When arraigned under above-quoted knowledge (sexual intercourse) with her (sic) own daughter, Neddy Calayca, the Information, the appellant against her will and consent. entered a plea of "Not

guilty" to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. - The evidence for the prosecution was anchored mainly on the testimony of 16-year old Neddy Calayca who, on May 2, 1995, narrated that at about 1:00 o'clock in the morning of January 29, 1994, she was sound asleep inside their house at Barangay Solo, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental when she was awakened by

the weight of her father, herein appellant Artemio Calayca, who was already on top of her, naked and armed with a bolo. He forcibly undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull motion. Feeling the pain in her vagina, she resisted his onslaught by kicking and hitting him, telling him with bitter tears, "I wish you would die. You are a father without good morals." But she was helpless to resist his lustful desire as he threatened her with a knife saying, "I will kill you if

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

you will not agree." After the sexual assault, she picked up her clothes, dressed up and was left

a2010 page 21
WON the correct penalty was imposed

Pro f.
Having been informed only of the elements of simple rape, the appellant can be convicted only of such crime and be punished accordingly with reclusion perpetua.

enumerated in Section 11 which, as we have held in the recent case of People v. Garcia, HELD 32 are considered NO weeping. She was then 15 years old when this special qualifying - While the Court agrees incident happened. 7 circumstances that the penalty of death - Neddy Calayca first thought of immediately filing a case against appellant but was specifically this is not inapplicable prevented by his threat to kill her. She, however, reported her awful experience with the should be imposed on him, regrettably to jurisprudence. the crime of rape. accord with the law and appellant to her relatives in There being no Although the matter of the Mambayaan. She informed them that even before the January 29, 1994 incident, appellant allegation of the had sexually abused her many times. Her relatives, who were also afraid of appellant, proper imposition of the minority of the victim in penalty is not assigned as merely advised her to sue him. the Information under She immediately went home in Solo because she feared her father. When she reached an error by the appellant, which the appellant was home, her eldest sister Betty Lani Calayca also arrived from Manila. Informed of the rape nevertheless, it is a wellarraigned, he cannot be established rule in criminal incident, Lani and convicted of qualified Neddy decided to leave the appellant. The two then traveled to Don Carlos, Bukidnon and procedure that an appeal rape as he was not in a criminal proceeding worked as servants of the mayor, thinking their father could no longer find them there. properly informed that However, appellant was able to locate them. While in the house of the mayor, appellant throws the whole case he is being accused of harassed them, so Betty Lani had him arrested by the police. While appellant was in jail, open for review and it qualified rape. becomes the duty of the Appellant's conviction Neddy reported to the police authorities that he raped her. The police then took her sworn appellate court to correct of qualified rape statement on the rape incident. Thereafter, Neddy filed her complaint for rape against the an error as may be found violates his in the appealed judgment, appellant. constitutional right to be - Appellant Artemio Calaycadid not deny the imputation of her daughter Neddy Calayca that whether it is made the properly informed of the subject of assignment of he raped her in the early morning of January 29, 1994. nature and cause of All that he testified to was that he was a widower in 1998 and has six children by his late errors or not. accusation against him. wife, two of whom he identified as Neddy, the private complainant, and Betty Lani. He In a criminal claimed that Neddy was only nine years old when his wife died. The private complainant prosecution, it is the stayed with him together with his five other children, while Betty Lani stayed with his - The trial court imposed fundamental rule that the death penalty on (appellant's) brother at San Juan, Misamis every element of the appellant because of the crime charged must be of the Oriental. Betty Lani and Neddy left his house on August 19, 1993. They took his savings presence alleged in the circumstance of minority from the proceeds of the sale of his pig in the amount of P5,000.00. He then looked for his Information. two daughters and found them at Bocboc, Don Carlos, Bukidnon. When he asked them of the victim (she was only why they took his money, his two daughters did not say a word, forcing him to slap them. 15 years old at the time The main purpose of she was raped on January this constitutional 29, 1994) as well as the - The defense did not present any other witness nor any documentary evidence. A requirement is to judgment convicting the appellant of the crime charged and imposing upon him the penalty relationship of the offender enable the accused to (father) and the victim of death was rendered by the trial court. properly prepare his (daughter), pursuant to defense. He is Section 11 of Republic Act presumed to have no No. 7659 30 which ISSUE independent knowledge amended Article 335 of of the facts that the Revised Penal Code. constitute the offense. Section 11 provides, inter - The failure to allege alia, that where the victim the fact of minority of of the crime of rape is the victim in the under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent of Information for rape is the victim, the death fatal and consequently penalty shall be imposed. bars the imposition of This is among the seven the death penalty. (7) circumstances

Dispositive Judgment modified

Isabel gave birth to a child on August 5, 1912. - The Demurrer alleged that the facts set forth in the Information did not constitute a public offense and that the criminal complaint did not conform substantially to prescribed form and that complaint was vague and ambiguous.

US v JAVIER DICHAO 27 Phil 421 MORELAND; March 30, 1914

NATURE Appeal From CFI Davaos Decision

FACTS - Said CFI sustained a Demurrer to an INFORMATION and dismissed the case of rape ISSUE against Antonio Javier Dichao. WON CFI committed an - The Information stated that Dichao committed the crime of rape on or about and during error in dismissing the the interval between October 1910, to August 1912 (vague di ba?) in Davao and thatcase based upon the Dichao was, at that period, the legal guardian, being the stepfather, of Isabel de la CruzDemurrer who was under 12 years old when he raped her; that as a result of said carnal knowledge

HELD NO. CFIs decision must be affirmed. Ratio The allegations of an information should, if possible, be sufficiently explicit and certain as to TIME to inform the defendant of the date on which the criminal act is alleged to have been committed. Unless the accused is informed of the day, or about the day, he may be, to an extent deprived of the opportunity to defend himself.

Reasoning - While Sec 7 of the Code of CrimPro provides that except when time is a material ingredient of an offense, the precise time of commission need not be stated in a complaint or information, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time before the filing thereof, this DOES NOT MEAN that the prosecuting officer may be careless in fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 22
Appeal from decision of CFI FACTS - Molero was charged with rape by daughter in complaint filed in CFI Negros Oriental. Molero told daughter to go with him to the river to catch shrimps and fish. She was barely 17. She was hugged fr behind by Molero and she fell to the ground. He unsheathed his bolo. He succeeded in having sexual intercourse and warned her not to tell anyone. - The mother learned of the incident and told daughter to keep quiet for the moment; they were secretive of their plan to report because Molero is a fierce man. - Mother and daughter went to Station Commander. They were advised to report to the PC Headquarters. At the PC Headquarters, complaint was investigated, but accused didnt want investigation to continue because accdg to him, this was their own problem. - Internal and external exam of victim showed she had previous sexual intercourse. - Molero denied the charge, saying he couldnt have done it because he was already committed in the provincial jail that

Pro f.
time. He also denied the sworn statement he made, saying hes illiterate. He said he was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel; that he was not assisted by counsel during investigation.

- It does not authorize the the date altogether, or that he may make the allegation indefinite as to amount to the same total omission of a date or thing. - Where the exact date cannot be fixed, or where the prosecuting officer is NOT such an indefinite thoroughly satisfied that he can prove a precise date, he should allege in the information allegation with reference that the crime was committed ON or thereto as amounts to the ABOUT a DATE NAMED. same thing. - Under such an allegation he is not required to prove any precise date but may prove any - SC: the variance bet the date which is date of the commission of NOT SO REMOTE as to surprise and prejudice the defendant. the crime as alleged in the - In case of SURPRISE, the Court may allow an amendment of the information as to time info and that as proved on and an adjournment to the accused, if necessary to meet the amendment. trial DOES NO warrant necessarily the acquittal of - SC then cited cases: the accused. IF such US v De Castro~ While it is not necessary, unless time is a material ingredient variance occurs and it is of the offense, that the precise time of the commission of the offense should be stated, still shown that the defendant the act should be alleged to have been committed at some time before the filing of the is surprised thereby, and complaint. that, by reason of that surprise, he is unable to US v. Enriquez- question of time as alleged in the information was discussed in defend himself properly, an incidental way for the purpose of determining whether it of itself or in connection with the court may in the the other allegations sufficiently identified the transaction which constituted estafa so as to exercise of sound notify the defendant of the transaction referred to; Time is not a matl ingredient in the crime discretion based on ALL circumstances, order the estafa. of US v. Cardona- question of time was raised in the demurrer (on appeal) as to information amended so the variance bet the date of the crime in the info and that proved on the trial; Court here as to set forth the correct said that time being not an ingredient of the theft of a carabao, it did not have to be proved date and may grant an as laid. adjournment for such a length of time as will enable the defendant to - The question whether the allegations of the info are sufficiently definite as to time and theprepare himself to meet the variance in date which question which arises on a variance between the allegations and the proof are different in nature and legal was the cause of his surprise. effect, and are decided on different principles. - In this case, the statement of the time when the crime was committed is too indefinite to give the accused an opportunity to prepare his defense, and that indefiniteness is not Dispositive Decision cured by setting out the date when a child was born as a result of such crime. affirmed. - Sec 7 Rules of CrimPros purpose is to permit the allegation of a date of the commission of a crime as PEOPL NEAR to the ACTUAL date as the information of the prosecuting officer will permit and Ev when that has been done, any date proved which does not surprise and substantially MOLER prejudice the defense.

144 SCR A 397 GUTIERREZ JR.; September 24, 1986


- Section 9, Rule 117 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Trial court found Molero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. Procedure: Conviction or acquittal of the defendant A double jeopardy issue arose because there were two complaints filed: or the dismissal of the 1- filed March 22, 1977: rape was committed Feb case shall be a bar to 13, 1976 another prosecution for the 2- filed March 30, 1978: rape was committed Feb offense charged 5, 1976 - Here, the case was not 4Molero was arraigned under the first complaint, he pleaded not guilty. - During terminated because the trial, the provincial fiscal filed motion for leave to amend the complaint. This was granted. dispositive portion of the order expressly directed Thus, the new complaint. the nd 5Molero filed motion to quash 2 criminal complaint on ground of double Provincial Fiscal and/or jeopardy. This was denied. prosecuting fiscal to file a new complaint and/or ISSUES information. 1. WON Molero was under double jeopardy - The case was dismissed 2. WON Molero committed the rape for no other reason except to correct the date of the HELD crime. 1. NO - This dismissal did not


Moleros alibi was readily refuted.

amount to an acquittal. - There was no need for trial court to have used such procedure. It should just have denied motion for reconsideration of the order granting the prosecutions motion for leave to amend the complaint. After arraignment and where appellant pleaded not guilty, is it still proper to amend date of commission of crime? Applying Sections 10 and 13 of Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Court, amendment sought by prosecution should

have been granted. The precise time is not an essential element of rape. The amendment was only a matter of form and did not prejudice the rights of the appellant. 2. YES - Molero argues that if a crime was committed by him at all, it was qualified seduction. SC didnt agree. Appellant was shown to have employed force and intimidation against daughter. Also, he had moral ascendancy and influence over the victim. The victim is illiterate and unschooled,

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

and Molero threatened her with a bolo and rendered her practically helpless.

a2010 page 23
the same date, executed a joint affidavit to the same effect to him by the offended party, her mother, and grandmother extinguished his criminal liability, in spite of the objection of the victim's father. HELD 1. YES Ratio Discrepancies between the accusation and the complaint as to time of occurrence of the carnal copulations in rape do not affect any essential right of the accused, where the acts occurred within the period of time alleged in both writings and the difference noted in other respects was of a formal, rather than a substantial, character. Reasoning - Appellant contends that the complaint is void because it charges at least three crimes of rape, namely: (1) that which was committed "on or about the month of June, 1978;" (2) that which was committed "sometime prior to said period;" and (3) that which was committed "subsequent thereto." - Argument has no merit. Attached to Josephine's complaint was her sworn statement wherein, she categorically affirmed that Vicente abused her before the start of classes in June 1978. That affidavit, which

Pro f.
may be considered part of the complaint required by law, cures any ambiguity in the complaint regarding the number of offenses committed by the accused.

- The Prosecuting Fiscal filed an Addendum to the PEOPLE v LUALHATI Opposition to the Motion 171 SCRA 277, 283 to Dismiss. He alleged that the express pardon GRINO-AQUINO; March 16, 1989 given the accused was invalid for the offended NATURE party did not have "a will Petition for review of the Decision of the Trial court of her own," being merely eleven years old when the FACTS crime was committed; that - Complainant Josephine Dimaunahan was born on January 7, 1967 - In 1970, her mother separated from her father and started to live with appellant Vicente the father of the offended executed an Lualhati without the benefit of marriage. She likewise lived with appellant who supported party, affidavit objecting to the her, took care of her studies and treated her like his own daughter. - Sometime in June, 1978, while complainant's mother was at work, appellant and pardon given to the complainant were alone in the house. Appellant had sexual intercourse with complainant. It accused; and that, as the appeared that even prior to June, 1978, appellant had already several sexual relations with father, he still possessed the "patria potestas" over complainant the offended party in spite of his having abandoned - Upon arraignment on, the accused pleaded not guilty her. - The defense filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint charged more - Trial court denied the than one offense, namely: motion to dismiss on account of the insistence That on or about the month of June, 1978, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, ... the accused Vicente Lualhati wilfully, of the victim's father to unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant Josephine M. prosecute the accused, absent judicial Dimaunahan ... pronouncement depriving - Fiscal alleged that the accused was being tried on the Information which charged only him of parental authority one offense committed "in or about the month of June 1978." over the offended party, a - Trial judge denied motion to dismiss. child below twelve years - The accused filed another Motion to Dismiss, alleging that he had been pardoned by the old. offended party, her mother and grandmother. Attached, to the - Accused filed Motion to Motion to Dismiss was the joint affidavit of desistance signed by the offended party, her Quash, which was denied mother and grandmother by the trial court - Trial court convicted the - -The offended party executed and filed an affidavit alleging that her father abandoned her at the age of two years and three months, without providing for her support and studies, accused of rape, and imposed upon him the and that the same were provided by her mother and grandmother who, on penalty of perpetua. reclusion

ISSUES 1. WON there was a valid complaint against the appellant 2. WON the pardon given

Reasoning Furthermore, Section 10, Rule 110 of the 1964 Rules of Court provided: The rationale of Sec. 10. Time of the commission of the offense. -It is not necessary to state in the 2complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except the law on the prosecution when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have of private crimes is simple: been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense' was The law deems it the wiser policy to let the aggrieved committed as the information or complaint will permit. woman and her family decide whether to expose to public view or to heated 2. NO Ratio Art. 344(3) of the Revised Penal Code prohibits a prosecution for seduction,controversies in court the faults and abduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness, except upon a complaint made by the offended vices, party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been disgraceful acts occurring expressly pardoned by the above- named persons, as the case may be. It does not prohibit in the family. However, the continuance of a prosecution if the offended party pardons the offender after the cause when, as in the case at has been instituted, nor does it order the dismissal of said cause. The only act that riding tobar, the pardon is given Article 344 extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may have been imposed, is after the filing of the complaint in court, it the marriage between the offender and the offended party. comes too late to hide the shameful occurrence from


public notice. Dispositive Decision of trial court affirmed

CRA 562 PUNO; April 12, 2000

NATURE - Appeal from a decision by the RTC of Camarines Norte, dated May 3, 1996, finding appellant Benjamin Razonable guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his daughter, Maria Fe Razonable, and sentencing


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 24

Pro f.
to remain in their house if it was true that she was threatened and intimidated; and (3) there was an unreasonable delay in the filing of the complaint which rendered the rape charges doubtful. - It is highly inconceivable that Maria Fe would not recognize her own father with whom she has been

Ratio The rationale of the him to suffer the penalties of 3 reclusion perpetua and to pay the amount of P200,000 as rule (Section 11, Rule 110 of the ROC) is to inform moral damages. the accused of the nature and cause of the FACTS accusation against him. To - Razonable was charged in 3 separate Informations with the crime of rape, which are claim this substantive right identically worded, as follows: protected by no less than the "That sometime in the year 1987, at Purok I, Brgy. IV, Bill of Rights, the accused Mantagbac, Municipality of Daet, Province of Camarines Norte, and within the jurisdiction is duty bound to follow our of this procedural rules which Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and were laid down to assure feloniously have carnal knowledge of his own daughter MARIA FE H. RAZONABLE, against the latter's will and by means of force and intimidation, to her an orderly administration of justice. damage and prejudice. "The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of relationship, the accused Reasoning is the father of the offended party and that said offense was committed in their own - Firstly, it behooved the dwelling and the offended party not having given provocation for it." accused to raise the issue Razonable pleaded not guilty and his case was tried on the merits. of a defective information, - Although Maria Fe was raped on 3 consecutive days in the middle of June 1987, she was on the ground that it does able to disclose the dastardly acts of her father to her elder sister only in February of 1993 not conform substantially because her conscience would not allow her any peace of mind. She also feared to the prescribed form, in recurrence of the bestial acts. Her father often drank with friends inside their house and a motion to quash said she was wary that appellant might give her to his friends. Thus, accompanied by her sister information or a motion for Ana Marie, complainant went to the police station and filed a complaint. Then they bill of particulars. An proceeded to the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital where she was examined. Based on accused who fails to take the medical certificate, she had, at the time of examination, incompletely healed hymenal this seasonable step will lacerations at 5, 6, 7, and 9 o'clock positions. be deemed to have waived the defect in said information. The only defects in an information ISSUE that are not deemed 1. WON the RTC erred in not considering the information insufficient to support a judgment waived are where no of conviction for its failure to state the precise date of the alleged commission of the offense is charged, lack of jurisdiction of the offense offense, it being an essential element of the crime charged charged, extinction of the 2. WON the lower court erred in finding that the guilt of Razonable of the three counts of offense or penalty and double jeopardy. rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt Corollarily, we have ruled that objections as to HELD matters of form or 1. NO substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. Razonable did not raise either in a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars the defect in the Information regarding the indefiniteness of the allegation on the date of the commission of the

- Secondly, during the trial, the defense never objected to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution to prove that the offense was committed in the middle of June 1987. It has not been shown that Razonable was taken by surprise with the testimony of Maria Fe that she was raped in the middle of June 1987, and hence could not properly defend himself. On the contrary, he was able to give an alibi as to his whereabouts at that particular time. In fine, he cannot pretend that he was unable to defend himself in view of the vagueness of the allegation in the information as to when the crimes were committed.

2. NO Reasoning Appellant claims that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt on the following grounds: (1) the identity of the perpetrator has not been established with certitude since the room was dark and it has not been shown that it was properly illuminated; (2) it was unnatural for Maria Fe

living alone for a long time. It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to the trial court correctly strive to see the appearance of their assailant and observe the manner in which the crime imposed the penalty of was committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailant create a lasting reclusion perpetua in each impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory. The impression becomes of the three cases. However, consistent with more profound where the malefactor is the victim's own father. recent rulings, the amount - The fact that Maria Fe continued to live with Razonable will not likewise crumple her of P50,000 for each count rape should be credibility. At the time of the incident, she was a simple, nave and hapless child of twelve of years. She was living by her lonesome self with her father, entirely dependent on him for all awarded by way of moral her needs. Her mother was in Isabela and her nearest sibling lived in another town. It could damages, and hence the hardly be expected that such a child of tender age would know what to do and where to go award given by the trial under the circumstances. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have court should be reduced undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the to P150,000. Likewise, current case law dictates circumstances from mature persons. that the victim shall be - The delay in the filing of the cases does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim. entitled to civil indemnity Experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges in the amount of P50,000 against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal for each count of rape. their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good on his threats. Dispositive Considering that the acts were committed prior to the effectivity of RA 7659,

- Decision of the RTC AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.


SC RA 21 GUERRERO; February 24, 1981


NATURE Automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court imposing upon Casey and Felix the capital c\punishment for the death of Alfredo Valdez.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1.

a2010 page 25
appellant Casey. Conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength are similarly alleged in both informations. No extenuating circumstance is likewise alleged in both. Thus the amendment of the information as far as accused-appellant Casey is concerned is one of form and not of substance as it is not prejudicial to his rights. - The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an information has been said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. A look into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that an amendment to an information introduced after the accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense

Pro f.
or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance not prejudicial to the accused and, therefore, not prohibited by Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court.

WON the Court a quo erred in illegally trying FACTS appellant Casey on the - On May 22, 1968, Assistant Fiscal Herminio I. information Benito filed an Information for Murder against accused- appellant Joseph Casey alias amended without arraignment "Burl", alleging: That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in the municipality of San Juan, 2. WON the Court a quo province of Rizal, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable erred in holding that Court, the above- named accused, being then armed with a knife, together with one appellants acted with Ricardo evident premeditation and Felix alias "Carding Tuwad" who is then armed with a firearm and who was (sic) still at abuse o of superior large, and the two of them conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping strength, and in qualifying and aiding one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery and the crime committed as taking advantage of superior strength, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and aggravated murder feloniously attack, assault and shoot and stab with the said firearm and knife one 3. WON whether or not Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting upon the latter fatal wounds which directly caused his there is conspiracy death. between the two accused in the commission of the - In June, 1968, upon arraignment, Casey pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the crime said complaint. - September, 1968, accused ' appellant Ricardo Felix alias "Carding 4. WON the Court erred Tuwad" was arrested. Accordingly, an in discounting Caseys Amended Information was filed by the same fiscal to include Ricardo Felix as an accused, defense that he acted in stating: That on or about the 31st day of March, 1968, in the municipality of San Juan, legitimate self-defense province of Rizal, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused Joseph Casey alias "Burl" being then armed with a HELD 1. NO knife, Reasoning together with the accused Ricardo Felix alias "Carding Tuwad" who was then armed with a firearm, and the two of them conspiring- The lack of arraignment the amended and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to under kill, evident premeditation and treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, information is objected to did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot and by accused -appellant stab with the said firearm and knife one Alfredo Valdez, thereby inflicting upon the Joseph Casey allegedly on the ground that there is latter fatal wounds which directly a violation of his - The court a quo rendered the aforementioned judgment of conviction. It found that two constitutional right to be informed of the charge aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, namely: employing or against him. There can be taking advantage of superior strength and evident premeditation, one of which qualified the a violation of such right, killing to murder. however, only when the amendment pertains to matters of substance. In ISSUES the case at bar, the alterations introduced in the information refer to the inclusion of accused appellant Ricardo Felix to the same charge of murder. They do not change the nature of the crime against accused-

2. YES

Reasoning - Indeed, accused- appellant Joseph Casey gave an extrajudicial sworn statement that he met accused-appellant Ricardo Felix and another person named - From the answers of Rudy in Cubao, Quezon City on that fateful day. However, there is no showing that this accused- appellant Casey meeting was purposely arranged to plan the killing of the victim. in said sworn statement, it In fact, the following questions and answers in the said sworn statement show that there can be gleaned that the was no preconceived design to kill the victim. killing was not a - There is evident premeditation when the killing had been carefully planned by the offender preconceived plan. It was or when he had previously prepared the means which he had considered adequate to carrynot preceded by any it out, when he had prepared beforehand the means suitable for carrying it into execution, reflection or deep thought. when he has had sufficient time to consider and accept the final consequences, and when It was just a spontaneous there had been a concerted plan. 16 It has also been held that to appreciate the decision reached when circumstances of evident premeditation, it is necessary to establish the following; (1) the the victim started to run upon being time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) the act manifestly indicating away that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the approached by accuseddetermination and execution to snow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and appellant Ricardo Felix. to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its warning. - There are indeed two accused-appellants in this

case charged with the murder of not one victim but superiority in number does not necessarily mean superiority in strength. It is necessary to show that the aggressors "cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength." 3. YES Reasoning - Although there is no direct showing that the accused had conspired together, but their acts

and the attendant circumstances disclose that common motive that would make accused Ricardo Felix as a coprincipal with the actual slayer, Joseph Casey. Without doubt, he performed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. - Ricardo Felix's overt acts consist in instigating the pursuit of the deceased, in firing a shot at him and in giving Joseph Casey encouragement by his armed

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 26
Francisco Estrella and three others, with qualified theft. This time the information contained Aug. 1969 instead of Aug. 1964 in the previous information and alleged grave abuse of confidence and that accused dismantled the vehicle. - On January 28, 1970, private respondent Francisco Estrella was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty. During the arraignment, respondent-Judge required his clerk to read the information to Francisco Estrella. From January 28, 1970, up to May 21, 1970, the latter date being the scheduled trial of the case, the prosecution never moved to amend the information. - On May 21, 1970 when the prosecution was scheduled to present its evidence, it verbally moved that it be allowed to amend the information so as to change the date of the commission of the offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964." Private respondent Francisco Estrella, having come to the trial court ready to defend himself from an offense allegedly committed in "August 1969", vigorously objected to the verbal motion.

Pro f.
Respondent Judge withheld his ruling on the prosecution's motion to amend, and instead, required the prosecution to present its first witness, to determine whether the sought amendment in the information would constitute a change of substance affecting the rights of the accused or merely of form. Florentino Alcantara, originally a co-accused but discharged as a prosecution witness, testified that

in the Municipal Court of presence while the latter inflicted the fatal wounds on the deceased. From the extrajudicial San Jose, Nueva Ecija, confession of the accused- appellant Joseph Casey, it can also be inferred that Ricardo pertinent portion as Felix was the moving factor of the evil act perpetrated by the former against the victim. follows: While it was Joseph Casey who inflicted the mortal wounds that caused the death of the That in the month of victim, he did so out of his perverted sense of friendship or companionship with Ricardo August, 1964, in the Felix. municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva 4. YES Ecija, Reasoning Philippines and within - claim is uncorroborated and contrary to the testimony of the eyewitness, Mercedes the jurisdiction of this Palomo. Honorable Court, the - The fact that the victim sustained four stab wounds while the accused complained merely above named accused of abrasions on his back indicates the falsity of the claim. Narciso Mananing being Dispositive the judgment of the trial court under automatic review is MODIFIED in that the the driver of accused-appellants Joseph Casey and Ricardo Felix are found guilty beyond reasonable complainant doubt of the crime of homicide without any attending circumstances and should be Maria Ignaciosentenced to reclusion temporal in its medium period. But applying the Indeterminate Francisco, Florentino Sentence Law, each of the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years Alcantara, repair shop of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, owner where the truck described as maximum. The accused are likewise sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased hereinafter found and Alfredo Valdez in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS jointly and severally, and to was recovered, Francisco pay the costs. Estrella, a Philippine Constabulary soldier stationed at Bulacan, PEOPLE v REYES and Melecio Guevarra, 108 SCRA 203 all conspiring together, CONCEPCION, JR; October 23, 1981 without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, NATURE Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction on the order dated July 10, 1970, steal and carry away of the respondent Judge, (Hon. Alfredo C. Reyes of the Circuit Criminal Court, 4th Judicial one (1) Bedford truck with District, Cabanatuan City) in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170NE, "People v Francisco Estrella," which denied petitioner's verbal motion for the Chassis No. 153559, amendment of the information in said case, by deleting the year "1969" as alleged therein, with Motor No. 2/54/5/6, with Plate No. T- 35049, and in lieu thereof to put the year "1964 ". Series of 1964, to the damage and prejudice of the owner, Maria FACTS - Sometime in October, an information for qualified theft was filed against private Ignacio-Francisco in the amount of respondent Francisco Estrella and three others, as Criminal Case No. 6799, P23,000.00, value of said vehicle. - On November 15, 1969, the Acting City Fiscal of San Jose City, (converted into city) Nueva Ecija, filed an information (Crim. Case No. CCC-IV-170) with the respondent Court, charging private respondent

the offense was committed in 1964. The defense refused to cross- examine witness the precise time of Alcantara, asked respondent Court to strike off the testimony of commission need not be Alcantara because it referred to an offense not mentioned in the information, and asked for stated in the information, a ruling by respondent Court on the prosecution's verbal motion to amend the information. this Court stated that this does not mean that the - Respondent Judge required the prosecution and the defense to submit memoranda. The prosecuting officer may be contested order of July 22, 1970, denying the prosecution's verbal motion to amend careless about fixing the information on the ground that said amendment would prejudice the substantial rights of date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit the the accused was issued. date altogether, or that he may make the allegation ISSUE so indefinite as to amount WON the respondent Court abused its discretion when it refused an amendment to the to the same thing. The information to change the date of the alleged commission of the offense from "August prosecution is given the 1969" to "August 1964", on the ground it would constitute an impairment of the substantial chance to allege an approximation of time of rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution. the commission of the offense and the precise HELD date need not be stated NO but it does not mean that it Ratio While it has been held that except when time is a material ingredient of an offense,

can prove any date remote or far removed from the given approximate date so as to surprise and prejudice the accused. Reasoning - The period of almost five years between 1947 and 1952 covers such a long stretch of time that one cannot help but be led to believe that another theft different from that committed by the codefendants in 1952 was also perpetrated by them in 1947. Under

this impression the accused, who came to Court prepared to face a charge of theft of large cattle allegedly committed by them in 1952, were certainly caught by sudden surprise upon being confronted by evidence tending to prove a similar offense committed in 1947. The variance is certainly unfair to them, for it violates their constitutional rights to be informed before the trial of the specific charge

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 27
murder be filed? The answer, again, is, No. For the petitioner having pleaded not guilty to homicide, to dismiss the charge against him so as to file another charge for murder will place him thereby in double jeopardy. Aquino concur: - respondent Judge relied on Dimalibot vs. Salcedo - The Dimalibot case is different from the instant case. The plea in the Dimalibot case was made during the preliminary investigation to a complaint for homicide filed in the justice of the peace court. That is not the plea contemplated in Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The plea in the instant case was made to an information filed in the Court of First Instance.

Pro f.
7 3 3 RELO VA: April 28, 1983
NATURE Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to review the decision and resolution of the CA FACTS

WON an information for against them and deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, they the crime of homicide can cannot be convicted of an offense of which they were not charged. (People v Opemia) be amended so as to Dispositive WHEREFORE, the questioned orders dated July 10, 1970 and September 14,charge the crime of 1970, by respondent Judge are hereby AFFIRMED, the preliminary injunction issued on murder after the accused September 24, 1970 dissolved, and this petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. Without had entered a plea of not costs. guilty HELD NO. - The provision which is relevant to the problem is SEPARATE OPINION BARREDO [concur] Rule 110, Sec. 13 of the I concur, but I believe this decision cannot bar another prosecution of private respondent Rules of Court under another information charging theft committed in - The petitioner invokes 1964. the first paragraph, whereas the respondent DIONALDO v DACUYCUY relies on the second. To amend the 108 SCRA 736 information so as to ABAD SANTOS; October 30, 1981 change the crime charged from homicide to the more NATURE serious offense of murder Petition to nullify orders of respondent judge after the petitioner had pleaded not guilty to the FACTS former is indubitably -Petitioner Rolando Dionaldo stands charged with the crime of homicide. After he entered a proscribed by the first plea of not guilty, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to amend the information, paragraph of the aboveattaching thereto an amended information charging the accused with murder qualified by quoted provision. For treachery and evident premeditation-a more serious offense. certainly a change from homicide to murder is not -No explanation was given in the motion for alleging evident premeditation but as to the a matter of form; it is one allegation of treachery it was explained that, "the affidavit of the complaining witness of substance with very indicates that the attack was sudden and it was only after they sustained the wounds serious consequences. consequent to the treacherous attack that they were forced to fight back to repel further aggression." It can thus be seen that all along this claimed circumstance was known to the - Can the amendment be prosecution but it was not alleged. justified under the second paragraph? The answer -Counsel for the accused opposed the motion to amend the information but the respondent is, No. For the provision judge granted the motion speaks not of amendment but of dismissal of the information. in other words ISSUE the provision contemplates the filing of a substitute, not an amended information Voting Fernandez,* Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur. - Can not the information for homicide against the petitioner be dismissed since no judgment has yet been rendered and another information for

PEO PLE v CA (RUIZ ) 1 2 1 S C R A


As a result of a shooting incident, two informations for frustrated homicide were filed against Sixto Ruiz in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In Criminal Case No. 4747, Ernesto Bello was named as the victim, while in Criminal Case No 4748, Rogelio Bello was the complainant. Upon arraignment, Sixto Ruiz pleaded not guilty to the two informations. A reinvestigation of these two cases was made in the Dept. of Justice, following which 8State Prosecutor filed a motion for leave of court to amend the informations on the ground that the evidence disclosed a prima facie case against Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco who acted in conspiracy with Ruiz. Ruiz filed his opposition to the motion.

9674) alleging that the two conspired with Ruiz who was referred to as accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748. Padilla and Ongchenco moved to quash the two new informations. The motion was denied by the lower court.


The trial Judge denied the motion to amend the information saying that allowance of 9- Ruiz also filed in Criminal Cases Nos. the amendment alleging conspiracy would be amending the manner of committing the 9673 and 9674 a crime and thereby would constitute substantial amendment. motion to permit to quash and/or strike As a consequence, State Prosecutor filed two new informations for frustrated out the allegation of homicide against Luis Padilla and Magsikap conspiracy in the two Ongchenco (Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and

informations. The trial Judge ordered the striking out from the records the aforesaid motion and clarified that the allegation of conspiracy does not alter the theory of the case, nor does it introduce innovation nor does it present alternative imputation nor is it inconsistent with the with the original allegations.

orders of the lower court, Ruiz, Padilla, and Ongchenco went to the CA on a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction alleging that the trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his judicial discretion in issuing the orders in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.

10- From


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1-

a2010 page 28
opposed the admission of the Amended Information. The respondent court resolved to deny the proposed amendments contained in the Amended Information. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the respondent court denied said motion; hence, this petition. ISSUE WON the amended information should be admitted HELD - Amendment of an information under Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (formerly, Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules on Criminal Procedure) may be made at any time before the accused enters a plea to the charge. Thereafter and during the trial, amendments to the information may also be allowed, as to matters of form, provided that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the accused. - The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or

Pro f.
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended. On the other hand, an amendment which

Antonio Cimarra, Ulpiano CA granted petition. The motion for reconsideration by herein petitioners to the Villar, Bayani Catindig and Avelino de Leon. Said foregoing decision of the CA was denied for lack of merit. accused (now private respondents) were all ISSUE members of the police WON the CA erred in granting the petition of (Ruiz, force of Padilla, and Ongchenco) Quezon City and were HELD charged as accessoriesYES after-the-fact in the robbery committed by the First and foremost, the trial Judge should have allowed the amendment in minor Ricardo Cabaloza, Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 considering that the amendments sought were only who had already pleaded guilty and had been formal. The amendments of Criminal Cases Nos. convicted in a crimial case 4747 and 4748 would not have prejudiced before the Ruiz whose participation as principal in the crimes charged did not change. But the fact that the trial court erred in denying the motion of the prosecution to Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon amend the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 was no bar to the filing of the new informations. The City. Ricardo Cabaloza was convicted for the allegation in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 filed against Padilla and Ongchenco that robbery of the same items, the two conspired and confederated with Ruiz merely describe the fact that the articles and pieces of latter was already charged with the same offense. It is incorrect to say that the jewelry belonging to Ding allegations of conspiracy include Ruiz as a defendant in the said case. Thus, he Velayo, Inc. valued at P75,591.40. cannot file a motion to quash the same. - Upon arraignment, all of Dispositive Decision and resolution of the CA are SET ASIDE. Decisions ofthe accused (now private lower court allowing retention of the allegation of conspiracy and the reference to respondents) entered a Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 in the informations filed in Criminal Cases plea of "not guilty" to the charge filed against them. Nos. 9673 and 9674 are SUSTAINED. - However, before the trial could proceed, the prosecuting fiscal filed a PEOPLE v MONTENEGRO Motion to Admit Amended 159 SCRA 236 Information seeking to PADILLA; March 25, 1988 amend the original information by: (1) changing the offense NATURE charged from "Robbery" to Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order "Robbery in an FACTS Uninhabited - The City Fiscal of Quezon City, thru Assistant Fiscal Virginia G. Valdez, filed an Place," (2) alleging Information for "Robbery" before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against conspiracy among all the accused, and (3) deleting all items, articles and pieces of jewelry alleged to have been stolen in the original Information and substituting them with a different set of items valued at P71,336.80. Private respondents

merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original be allowed by the Court. information, and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime. The allegation of - The proposed amendments in the amended information, in the instant case, are clearly conspiracy among all the substantial and have the effect of changing the crime charged from "Robbery" punishable private respondents under Article 209 to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" punishable under Art. 302 of the -accused, which was not Revised Penal Code, thereby exposing the private respondents- accused to a higher previously included in the penalty as compared to the penalty imposable for the offense charged in the original original information, is information to which the accused had already entered a plea of "not guilty" during their likewise a substantial arraignment. amendment saddling the respondents with the need - Moreover, the change in the items, articles and pieces of jewelry allegedly stolen into of a new defense in order entirely different articles from those originally complained of, affects the essence of the to meet a different imputed crime, and would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all the allegations situation in the trial court. in the amended information, in the preparation of their defenses to the charge filed against To allow at this stage the them. It will be observed that private respondents were accused as accessories-after-the- proposed amendment fact of the minor Ricardo Cabaloza who had already been convicted of robbery of the items alleging conspiracy among listed in the original information. To charge them now as accessories-after-the-fact for a all the accused, will make crime different from that committed by the principal, would be manifestly incongruous as to all of the latter liable not

only for their own individual transgressions or acts but also for the acts of their co- conspirators. Dispositive Petition is DISMISSED. Orders of the respondent court AFFIRMED. TRO lifted.

SC RA 420 ANTONIO; August 31, 1973

NATURE Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, petitioners' damages respondents, dismissing action for against


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 29
termination of the criminal case

Pro f.
deemed to abandon his/her right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case. Reasoning - In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police against respondent Pedro Tumala, much less has the said criminal action been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of said accused. - It is, therefore, evident that by the institution of the present civil action for damages, petitioners have in

filed by the Chief of Police Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and Pedro Tumala, "without prejudice to refiling the said civil and that, with the filing of action after conviction of the defendants in the criminal case filed by the Chief of Police of the aforesaid criminal Sindangan, Zamboanga del case, no civil action could Norte", and from the order of said Court dated January 21, 1972, denying petitioners' be filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal motion for reconsideration. case has been finally adjudicated, pursuant to FACTS Sec. 3 of Rule - On August 4, 1971, petitioners, German C. Garcia, Chief of the Misamis Occidental 111 of the Rules of Court, Hospital, together with his wife, Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester and, therefore, the filing of Francisco, bookkeeper of said hospital, hired and boarded a PU car with plate No. 241-8 G the instant civil action is Ozamis 71 owned and operated by respondent, Marcelino Inesin, and driven by premature, because the respondent, Ricardo Vayson, for a roundtrip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City, for the liability of the employer is purpose of attending a conference of chiefs of government hospitals, hospital merely subsidiary and administrative officers, and bookkeepers of Regional Health Office No. 7 at Zamboanga does not arise until after City. final judgment has been rendered finding the - At about 9:30 a.m., while the PU car was negotiating a slight curve on the national driver, Pedro Tumala, highway at kilometer 21 in Barrio Guisukan, Sindangan, guilty of negligence; that Zamboanga del Norte, said car collided with an oncoming passenger bus (No. 25) with Art. 33 of the New Civil plate No. 77-4 Code, is not applicable W Z.N. 71 owned and operated by the Mactan Transit because Art 33 applied Co., Inc. and driven by defendant, Pedro Tumala. As a result of the aforesaid collision, only to the crimes of petitioners sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical treatment physical injuries or and hospitalization. homicide, not to the negligent act or - Alleging that both drivers of the PU car and the passenger bus were at the time of the imprudence of the driver. accident driving their respective vehicles at a fast clip, in a reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of The lower court the passengers aboard the PU car, petitioners, German C. Garcia, Luminosa L. Garcia, sustained Mactan Inc. et. and Ester Francisco, filed on September 1, 1971 with respondent Court of First Instance of Al. and dismissed the Misamis Occidental an action for damages (Civil Case No. complaint 2850) against the private respondents, owners and drivers, respectively, of the PU car and ISSUES the passenger bus that figured in the collision, with prayer for preliminary attachment. - The principal argument advanced by Mactan Inc. et. al to in a motion to dismiss was that 1. WON the lower the petitioners had no cause of action for on August 11, 1971, or 20 days before the filing court erred in of the present action for damages, respondent Pedro Tumala was charged in Criminal dismissing the Case No. 4960 of the Municipal Court of complaint for Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, in a complaint damages on the ground that since no express reservation was made by the complainants, the civil aspect of the criminal case would have to be determined only after the


WON the lower court erred in saying that the action is not based on quasi-delict since the allegations of the complaint in culpa aquiliana must not be tainted by any assertion of violation of law or traffic rules or regulations and because of the prayer in the complaint asking the Court to declare the defendants jointly and severally liable for moral, compensator y and exemplary damages

HELD 1. YES Ratio An action based on quasi-delict may be maintained independently from a criminal action. By instituting a civil action based on a quasi-delict, a complainant may be

effect abandoned their right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case, and have drafted . . . opted instead to recover them in the present civil case. and are intended to - As a result of this action of petitioners the civil liability of private respondents to the former constitute as exceptions to has ceased to be involved in the criminal action. the general rule stated in Undoubtedly an offended party loses his right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal what is now Section 1 of case, not only when he has waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to Rule institute, but also when he has actually instituted the civil action. For by either of such 111. The proviso, which is procedural, may also be actions his interest in the criminal case has disappeared. regarded as an - As we have stated at the outset, the same negligent act causing damages may produce a unauthorized amendment civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual. of substantive law, Articles The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and independent 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil negligence, having always had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal writers are Code, which do not of the view that in accordance with Article provide for the reservation 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proceed independently of the criminal required in the proviso." proceeding for criminal negligence and regardless of the result of the latter. Hence, "the - But in whatever way We proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 with reference to . . . Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil view the institution of the Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles, for these articles were civil action for recovery of

damages under quasidelict by petitioners, whether as one that should be governed by the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules which require reservation by the injured party considering that by the institution of the civil action even before the commencement of the trial of the criminal case, petitioners have thereby foreclosed their right to intervene therein, or one where

reservation to file the civil action need not be made, for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of the Civil Code) already makes the reservation and the failure of the offended party to do so does not bar him from bringing the action, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, We find no legal justification for respondent court's order of dismissal. 2. YES, because the action in fact satisfies the elements of quasi- delict.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 30
because of its inconsistency with Article 2177, an enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of 1940.

Pro f.
A; July 17, 2006
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - Thomasita Rodriguez (petitioner) was the private complainant in a criminal case filed against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. (respondents), for violation of B.P. 22. The MTC hearing the complaint had suspended the criminal proceeding on the ground that a prejudicial question was posed in a separate civil case then pending. On 28 Feb. 2001, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

however, that neither Ratio An action shall be deemed to be based on a quasi- delict when all the essential Section 1 nor Section 2 of averments under Articles 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code are present, namely: (a) act or Rule 111 fixes a time limit omission of the private respondents; (b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus No. 25 by respondent Pedro Tumala resulting in when such reservation the collision of the bus with the passenger car; (c) physical injuries and other damages shall be made. sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision; (d) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private S respondents; and (e) the absence of pre-existing contractual relations between the parties.

Reasoning E - The circumstance that the complaint alleged that respondents violated traffic rules in that the driver drove the vehicle "at a fast clip in a reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent OPINIO manner in violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car" does not detract from the nature and character of the action, as one N based on culpa aquiliana. The violation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to observe for the protection of the interests of others, that degree of care, BARRE precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, which failure resulted in the injury on petitioners. Certainly excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear DO indication of negligence. Since the same negligent act resulted in the filing of the criminal [concur] action by the

3Besides, the actual filing of Civil Case No. 2850 should be deemed as the reservation required, there being no showing that prejudice could be caused by doing so. 4Accordingly, I concur in the judgment reversing the order of dismissal of the trial court in order that Civil Case No. 2850 may proceed, subject to the limitation mentioned in the last sentence of Article 2177 of the Civil Code, which means that of the two possible judgments, the injured party is entitled exclusively to the bigger one.

1I would like to Chief of Police with the Municipal Court (Criminal limit my concurrence. Case No. 4960) and the civil action by petitioners, it is inevitable that the averments on the Article 2176 and drivers' negligence in both complaints would substantially be the same. It should be 2emphasized that the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability 2177 definitely create a arising from a crime under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code or create an action for civil liability distinct and quasi-delict or culpa extra -contractual under Arts. 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code. This different from the civil distinction has been amply explained in Barredo vs. Garcia, et all (73 Phil. 607, 620-621). action arising from the offense of negligence - It is true that under Sec. 2 in relation to Sec. 1 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court under the Revised Penal which became effective on January 1, 1964, in the cases provided for by Articles 31, 33, 39 Code. Since Civil Case and 2177 of the Civil Code, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from No. 2850 is predicated on the civil action, may be instituted by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal the above civil code case, provided said party has reserved his right to institute it separately, but it should be articles and not on the civil liability imposed by the noted, Revised Penal Code, I cannot see why a reservation had to be made in the criminal case. As to the specific mention of Article 2177 in Section 2 of the Rule 111, it is my considered view that the latter provision is inoperative, it being substantive in character and is not within the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate, and even if it were not substantive but adjective, it cannot stand


before the RTC, Branch 12, seeking to set aside the MTC order of suspension. The petition has no authority to act for was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-26195. the People of the - Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was filed Philippines. It is the by the private complainant, instead of the government prosecutor representing the People governments counsel, the of the Philippines in criminal cases. RTC dismissed the petition for lack of conformity or Sol-Gen, who appears in signature of the government prosecutor. Petitioner moved MFR but was denied. From criminal cases or incidents these orders, petitioner filed the instant petition for review. before SC. Petitioners Claim That a person aggrieved may file a special civil action for certiorari and ISSUE that person includes the complainant or the offended party. A special action on an order WON a private offended party in a criminal issued by a lower court in a criminal case may be filed by the private offended party. proceeding may file a Respondentss Comment In all criminal cases, all initiatory pleadings, as well asspecial civil action for subsequent proceedings, must be initiated by the government counsel because the injured certiorari under Rule 65, party is the People of the Philippines and the private complainant is a mere witness to the assailing an interlocutory offense allegedly committed by the accused. People v. Dacudao and Metropolitan Bankorder, without the and Trust Company v. Veridiano II apply, such that a private prosecutor in a criminal case conformity of the public

prosecutor HELD YES Ratio If criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. The capability of the private complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil

aspect of the case. (Metrobank v. Veridiano II). But if the order which is assailed is not one dismissing the case or acquitting respondents / defendants, there is no limitation to the capacity of the private complainant to seek judicial review of the assailed order. Reasoning - [1] A special civil action for certiorari may be filed by an aggrieved party alleging grave abuse of

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 31
13, 14 and 15. A corresponding receipt for said amount was also issued by TSDC to the petitioner. -Thereafter, from December 1983 up to June 1984, petitioner demanded from TSDC the issuance in his favor of the certificates of title for the three (3) lots, last paid for, but the private respondents (TSDC and Lazatin) refused on the ground that the petitioner had not fully paid for said three (3) lots. -Sometime in January, 1983, TSDC's Board of Directors approved the petitioner's contemplated purchase of the aforesaid lots. To confirm the agreement, respondent Lazatin wrote petitioner a letter reiterating standard conditions of the sale, which the petitioner allegedly accepted by affixing his conformity to said letter. The conditions for the sale of the lots were among others, "(i) 10% down payment with a commitment to commence construction therefrom (thereon) in one month's time; (ii) said construction to be finished within a period of six (6) months; and, (iii) the effective price was P70 per square meter with a rebate of P10.00 per square meter upon completion

Pro f.
of the house in six (6) months." But, as alleged by the private respondents, petitioner commenced the construction of a house on one lot but failed to finish it within the stipulated period of six (6) months. And as to the other lots, petitioner allegedly failed altogether to construct houses on them.

"Timog Park," located in discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. In a long Angeles City, with Manuel line of cases, this Court construed the term aggrieved parties to include the State and the P. Lazatin (Lazatin, for private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of short) as its President. the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the - Antolin T. Naguiat respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the purchased, on installment action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name basis, four (4) lots from of said complainant. TSDC, identified as Lots Nos. 13, - [2] In this case, there is no doubt that petitioner maintains an interest in the litigation of 14, 15 and 16, of Block 26 the civil aspect of the case against respondents. Section 1(b), of Timog Park. Each lot Rule 111 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the criminal action for violation of consists of 300 square B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. meters. The four (4) lots Hence, the possible conviction of respondents would concurrently provide a judgment for have a total area of 1,200 damages in favor of petitioner. The suspension of the criminal case which petitioner decries square meters, with a would necessarily cause delay in the resolution of the civil aspect of the said case which price of precisely is the interest and concern of petitioner. Such interest warrants protection from P60.00 per square the courts. meter. On the same date (7 Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of RTC are SET ASIDE. Civil February 1983) petitioner Case No. CEBmade a down payment of 26195 is REINSTATED P7,200.00, representing 10% of the alleged total price of P72,000.00 for the four (4) lots. A corresponding receipt for the downpayment was issued by TSDC to the petitioner. While the Contract to Sell between TSDC and the petitioner stipulated a two-year period within which to pay the total contract price, the NAGUIAT v IAC (TIMOG SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT CORP) latter made substantial 164 SCRA 505 payments in the months of PADILLA; August 18, 1988 June to August 1983. On 10 August NATURE Petition to review on certiorari the decision of the 1983, he paid the sum of Intermediate Appellate Court P12,529.30 as his alleged full payment for Lot. No. FACTS 16, after which, TSDC -Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC, for short) is a domestic corporation caused to be issued in the engaged in the business of developing and selling subdivision lots in name of the petitioner the title to said lot. On 7 November 1983, petitioner paid TSDC the amount of P36,067.97, which was allegedly his full payment for the remaining three (3) Lots, namely, Lots Nos.

-Private respondents contend that since petitioner did not comply with the agreement, he provides: was not entitled to the 10% rebate in price, and as a consequence, the previous payments "PRESIDENTIAL made by petitioner did not amount to full payment as required for all the lots and which DECREE NO. 957 would have entitled petitioner to the issuance and delivery of the certificates of title to all REGULATING THE the lots. SALE OF SUBDIVISIONS LOTS -On 26 July 1984, petitioner, filed a complaint for specific performance with damages, with AND the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch LX, docketed as Civil Case No. 4224. In CONDOMINIUMS, his complaint, petitioner prayed, among others, that judgment be rendered ordering private PROVIDING respondents to deliver to him the transfer certificates of title covering the three (3) lots PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS which he had allegedly fully paid for, and which private respondents had refused to do so. THEREOF. Also, it was prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the private respondents to jointly SEC. 25. Issuance of and severally pay the petitioner, actual damages equal to P320,000.00, representing Title. The owner or unrealized gross profits; moral damages at the discretion of the court; and, attorney's fees developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit equal to P15,000.00, plus the costs of the action. to the buyer upon full -Before the civil action was filed, petitioner also filed on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except Angeles City a criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel Lazatin, for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957, specifically Section 25 thereof, which those required for the

registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit

may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. SEC. 39. Penalties. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation that may be issued pursuant to this Decree, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years: Provided, that in the case of

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 32
Court." Based on the aforequoted ruling of the Habaluyas case, motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may no longer be filed before all courts, lower than the Supreme Court. The rule in Habaluyas applies even if the motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended, because the fifteen (15) day period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration with said courts, is nonextendible. But as resolved also in the Habaluyas case, the rule that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court, shall be strictly enforced "beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution." The Court promulgated the Habaluyas resolution on 30 May 1986. Thus, the Habaluyas ruling became effective, and strictly enforced, only beginning 1 July 1986. 2. YES - In the cases at bar, the nature of the issues involved, at least, the

Pro f.
factual issues in the civil and criminal actions are almost identical, i.e., whether or not petitioner had fully paid for the lots he purchased from the private respondents, so as to entitle him to the delivery of the certificates of title to said lots. The evidence in both cases, likewise, would virtually be

2. WON the civil and corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or associations, the President, Manager or criminal case should be Administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall consolidated be criminally responsible for any violation of this Decree and/or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto." HELD -On 13 September 1984, an information was filed against respondent Lazatin. 1. NO -Petitioner filed on 23 February 1985 a motion to consolidate Civil Case No. 4224 and - In the case at bar, the Criminal Case petitioner filed his motions No. 6727. Despite the objection and opposition of the private respondents, in an Order for extension of time to file dated 20 March a motion for 1985, the trial court granted the motion and ordered consolidation of the two (2) cases. reconsideration on 30 -At the pre-trial hearing of both cases, petitioners's counsel appeared as counsel for the October 1985 and 15 plaintiff in Civil November 1985, both Case and as private prosecutor in the Criminal Case. within the periods sought Private respondents objected, and filed their Motion and Opposition to Appearance of to be extended. Hence the Plaintiff as Private Prosecutor with respect to the trial of the Criminal Habaluyas ruling did not Case; the opposition was overruled by the trial court. yet apply to bar said -Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the respondent motions for extension. As appellate court, seeking the annulment of the orders of the trial court, dated 20 March 1985 admitted by petitioner and 29 May 1985. In due course, the respondent appellate court rendered a decision himself, he filed with the favorable to herein private respondents. respondent appellate -The decision of the respondent appellate court was received by petitioner's counsel on 16 court two (2) motions for October 1985. extension of time to file On 30 October 1985, petitioner's counsel filed with the respondent appellate court a Motion motion for reconsideration for of the latter court's Extension of Time to file a motion for reconsideration of aforesaid decision, praying for decision, with the fifteen (15) days from 31 October 1985, within which to file said motion. justification that the two (2) motions were timely -On 15 November 1985, petitioner's counsel filed a and properly presented, Second Motion for Extension of Time to file a motion for reconsideration, praying for since they were filed another fifteen (15) days from 15 November 1985, within which to file said motion for before the expiration of reconsideration. It was denied stating among others that the fifteen (5) days period to file a the respective periods motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. sought to be extended. -On 2 December 1985, petitioner's counsel still filed his motion for reconsideration it was also denied. - The case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. ISSUES Japzon, has ruled that: 1. WON no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may "Beginning one month be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the after the promulgation of Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court as applied in the Habaluyas this rule Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate

the same, which are, the Contract to Sell, the letter which contains the conditions for the purchase of the lots and, to which petitioner allegedly affixed his conformity, the official receipts for the alleged payments made by the petitioner, and other related documents. - Based on the foregoing, and considering that the criminal action filed is one for violation of a special law where, irrespective of the motives, mere commission of the act prohibited by said special law, constitutes the offense, then the intervention of the petitioner's counsel, as private prosecutor in the criminal action, will not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. - The consolidation of the two cases in question, where petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the plaintiff in the civil case and private prosecutor in the criminal case, will instead be conducive to the early termination of the two (2) cases, and will redound to the benefit and convenience of the parties; as well as to the speedy administration of justice. - As a ground for the consolidation of the criminal and civil cases, petitioner invokes Rule 111, Sec. 3(a), Rules of Court, which provides: "Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the civil action to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense, as

contemplated in the first paragraph of Section 1 hereof, the following rules shall be observed: (a) 'After a criminal action has been commenced, the pending civil action arising from the same offense shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the same may be

consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the criminal action. If the application is granted, the evidence presented and admitted in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action, without prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that any party may wish to present.

Under the aforequoted provision, the civil action that may be consolidated with a criminal action, is one for the recovery of civil liability arising from the criminal offense, or ex delicto. In the case at bar, the civil action filed by the petitioner was for specific performance with damages. The main relief sought in the latter case, i.e., the delivery of the certificates of title to the lots which petitioner had allegedly fully paid for, was grounded on the

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the private respondent. Hence the civil action filed by the petitioner was for the enforcement of an obligation arising from a contract, or ex contractu, and not one for the recovery of civil liability arising from an offense; hence, the law invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable. - But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, the consolidation of a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex delicto, may still be done, based upon the express authority of Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which provides: "Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay."

a2010 page 33
REYES v SEMPIODIY 141 SCR A 208 PATAJO; January 29, 1986
which were the subject of the information in the Criminal action. - At the pre-trial plaintiff admitted that she was represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal case against defendant Cristina Malicsi and in said case she did not reserve the right to file a separate action for damages. There was also admission that the private prosecutor was for proving damages against the accused. - The issue in the RTC was WON the plaintiff, represented by a private prosecutor and the failing to make a reservation to file a separate action, was barred from filing a separate civil action for damages against the accused Cristina Malicsi. RTC ruled in favor of the defendant. - RTC : There is no question that in defamation cases (such as the present) as in cases of fraud and physical injuries, a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party, and such action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. An exception to the

Pro f.
above rule; when the offended party actually intervenes in the criminal action by appearing therein through a private prosecutor for the purpose of recovering indemnity for damages, he is deemed to have waived his right to file a separate civil action for damages if he failed to make a

- In Canos v. Peralta, where the Court sustained the order of a trial court to consolidate a NATURE appeal on a civil action (an action for the recovery of wage differential, overtime and termination pay, Direct plus damages) with a criminal action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law), it was held question of law from a that: resolution of the Regional "A Court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise Trial Court (Malabon). from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend FACTS largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over - MTC (Navotas): Cristina the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue Malicsi was charged with advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties . . . the crime of intriguing against honor. Zenaida - The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against Cruz oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work Reyes (petitioner) was the of the trial court; in short the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to aggrieved party. In said the parties litigants." criminal case, Reyes was represented by a private Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent prosecutor named Atty. appellate court, dated Barayang. 9 October 1985, is SET ASIDE. The Orders of the trial court, in Civil Case No. 4224 and - Malicsi pleaded guilty to Criminal Case No. the information and was 6727, dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985 are REINSTATED. sentenced to pay P50. SO ORDERED. Because of her plea of guilty, the aggrieved party CORPUS v PAJE was unable to present evidence to prove damages against the accused. Reyes was not BORDAS v CANADALLA able to make a reservation of her right to file a separate civil action for damages. - Instead, she filed a new action against Cristina Malicsi and her husband with the Regional Trial Court for damages arising from defamatory words

reservation therefore (Judgment in such a proceeding becomes binding as res judicata, private prosecutor in said case clearly indicated her according to Roa v Dela Cruz. Thus, plaintiff is barred). intention to have her claim for damages litigated in the criminal action against the accused. It was only ISSUE after the trial of the case WON intervention of private prosecution and failure to make a reservation bars plaintiff on the merits that a from filing a separate civil action for damages against the accused decision was rendered finding the accused guilty of slight slander and HELD sentencing her to pay a NO, plaintiff is not barred. fine of P50.00 but making Ratio The mere appearance of a private prosecutor in the criminal case does not no award of damages in necessarily constitute such intervention on the part of the aggrieved party as could only favor of the aggrieved import an intention on her part to press her claim for damages in said criminal case and a party. The reason for the waiver of her right to file a separate civil action for damages. Court's not making any award of damages is Reasoning because of the failure of - In the Roa case, there was a full-blown hearing where a private prosecutor participated the aggrieved party to actively and there could be no question that the aggrieved party's participation through the submit evidence to

support her claim for damages. - In the present case, while it is true that Reyes was represented by a private prosecutor for the purpose of proving damages, the unexpected plea of guilt by the accused and her being sentenced immediately to a fine of P50.00 prevented petitioner from proving her claim for damages and making a reservation to file a separate civil action. Controlling case should be

Meneses v Luat, and not Roa v Dela Cruz. In the Roa case, not only was the offended party represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal action, the action went through trial on the merits. In the Luat case, defendant Luat did not proceed to trial, as he pleaded guilty upon arraignment. The mere appearance of private counsel in representation of the offended party did not constitute such active intervention as could only import an intention to press a claim for damages in the same action.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 34
-December 15, 1983: Judge Fortun issued an order voluntarily inhibiting himself from further proceeding in the case and leaving the resolution of the motion to set aside the order of dismissal to Judge Lising, "to preclude any suspicion that he (Judge Fortun) cannot resolve [the] aforesaid pending motion with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge and to put an end to plaintiffs assertion that the undersigned has no authority or jurisdiction to resolve said pending motion." -Plaintiffs resolved an amplificatory motion for reconsideration signed in the name of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of Mabini Legal Aid Committee. -May 2,1984: defendants filed a comment on said amplificatory motion for reconsideration. -May 11, 1984: RTC Judge Esteban Lising, without acting on the motion to set aside order of November 8, 1983, issued an order declaring that since certain plaintiffs failed to file a motion to reconsider the Order of November 8, 1983, dismissing the complaint, nor interposed an appeal therefrom within the reglementary period, as

Pro f.
prayed for by the defendants, said Order is now final against said plaintiffs. -on May 28,1984: plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that it was not true that the plaintiffs mentioned in the order of May 11, 1984

-Defendants filed motion - The failure of petitioner to make a reservation to file a separate civil action did not to dismiss alleging that (1) foreclose her right to file said separate complaint for damages. Under plaintiffs may not cause a Article 33 of the Civil Code there is no requirement that as a condition to the filing of a judicial inquiry into the separate civil action for damages a reservation to file said civil action be first made in the circumstances of their criminal case and such reservation is not necessary, the provision of Rule detention in the guise of a 111, Section 2 notwithstanding. damage suit because, as Dispositive Petition is granted. to them, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ABERCA v VER is suspended; (2) assuming that the courts 160 SCRA 590 can entertain the present YAP; April 15, 1988 action, defendants are immune from liability for NATURE acts done in the Petition for certiorari performance of their official duties; and (3) the FACTS complaint states no cause -This case stems from alleged illegal searches and seizures and other violations of the of action against the rights and liberties of plaintiffs by various intelligence units of the AFP, known as Task defendants. Force Makabansa (TFM) ordered by General Fabian Ver "to conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro -Plaintiffs filed two separate oppositions to Manila," the motion to dismiss. -Plaintiffs allege, among others, that complying with said order, elements of the TFM raided -Defendants filed a several places, employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants; that Consolidated Reply. during these raids, certain members of the raiding party confiscated a number of purely -RTC NCR Branch 95 personal items belonging to plaintiffs; that plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants Judge Willelmo C. Fortun issued by the courts; that for some period after their arrest, they were denied visits of issued a resolution relatives and lawyers; that plaintiffs were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence granting the motion to and counsel; that military men who interrogated them employed threats, tortures and other dismiss. "After a careful forms of violence on them in order to obtain incriminatory information or confessions and in study of defendants' order to punish them; that all violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights were part of a arguments, the court finds concerted and deliberate plan to forcibly extract information and incriminatory statements the same to be meritorious from plaintiffs and to terrorize, harass and punish them, said plans being previously known and must, therefore, be to and sanctioned by defendants. granted. On the other hand, plaintiffs' arguments in their opposition are lacking in merit." -Plaintiffs filed motion to set aside the order dismissing the complaint and a supplemental motion for reconsideration. -Defendants filed a comment on the aforesaid motion of plaintiffs, furnishing a copy thereof to the attorneys of all the plaintiffs.

-Plaintiffs sought damages (actual/compensatory, moral, exemplary), and attorney's fees.

failed to file MR within the reglementary period. Plaintiffs claimed that the motion to set 1. WON the suspension of aside the order of November 8, 1983 and the amplificatory motion for reconsideration was the privilege of the writ of filed for all the plaintiffs, although signed by only some of the lawyers. habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages for -September 21, 1984: RTC issued order dealing with both motions (1) to reconsider itsillegal searches conducted order of May 11, by military personnel and 1984 declaring that with respect to certain plaintiffs, the resolution of November 8, 1983 other violations of rights had already become final, and (2) to set aside its resolution of and liberties guaranteed November 8, 1983 granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. In effect, the case against under the Constitution the defendants (except for Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and Master Sgt. 2. WON a superior officer Bienvenido Balabaere) was dismissed. under the notion of -March 15, 1985: petitioners (plaintiffs below) filed the instant petition for certiorari seekingrespondent superior be to annul and set aside RTC's resolution of November 8, 1983, its order of May 11, 1984, answerable for damages, and its resolution dated jointly and severally with September 21, 1984. his subordinates, to the -Respondents filed comment on the petition, person whose November 9, 1985. constitutional rights and -A reply was filed by petitioners on August 26, 1986. liberties have been violated ISSUES

3. WON RTC was correct in dismissing the complaint with respect to plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca, Danilo de la Puente, Marco Palo, Alan Jazminez, Alex Marcelino, Elizabeth ProtacioMarcelino, Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin, on the basis of the alleged failure of said plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's resolution of November 8, 1983,

granting the respondent's motion to dismiss HELD 1. NO - The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners' right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention and other violations of their constitutional rights. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 35
inhuman treatment. -However, we find it unnecessary to address the constitutional issue pressed upon us. On March 25, 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 2, revoking Proclamation Nos. 2045 and 2045-A and lifting the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The question therefore has become moot and academic. 2. YES -The doctrine of respondent superior has been generally limited in its application to principal and agent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and employee) relationship. No such relationship exists between superior officers of the military and their subordinates. -Be that as it may, however, the decisive factor in this case, in our view, is the language of Article 32. The law speaks of an officer or employee or person 'directly' or "indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly responsible) who must answer for

Pro f.
damages under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. -By this provision, the principle of accountability of public officials under the Constitution added acquires

constitute a violation of seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of the Penal Code or other obtaining his liberty. penal statute. - In carrying out this task - At the heart of petitioners' complaint is Article 32 of the Civil Code. It is obvious that the and mission to protect the purpose of the above codal provision is to provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights Republic from its enemies, and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Its message is clear; no man may seek to constitutional and legal violate those sacred rights with impunity. safeguards must be Certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the transient observed. needs or imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of law must prevail, or else -Moreover, petitioners' liberty will perish. Our commitment to democratic principles and to the rule of law compels right and cause of action us to reject the view which reduces law to nothing but the expression of the will of the for damages are explicitly predominant power in the community. Democracy cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, recognized in P.D. No. of justice, unless the law is respected by him who makes it and by him for whom it is made. 1755 which amended Now this respect implies a maximum of faith, a minimum of Idealism. On going to the Article 1146 of the Civil bottom of the matter, we discover that life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment Code by adding the which is not derived from reason, but which reason following to its text: However, when the action 2 nevertheless controls. (for injury to the rights of - We find respondents' invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit totally the plaintiff or for a quasimisplaced. The cases invoked by respondents actually involved acts done by officers in the delict) arises from or out of performance of official duties written the ambit of their powers. It may be that the any act, activity or conduct respondents, as members of the AFP, were merely responding to their duty, as they claim, of any public officer "to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion" in involving the exercise of powers or authority arising accordance with Proclamation No. from Martial Law including arrest, detention 2054 of President Marcos, despite the lifting of martial law on January 27, 1981, and in the pursuance of such objective, to launch pre-emptive strikes against alleged communist and/or trial of the plaintiff, terrorist underground houses. But this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a roving the same must be brought commission untramelled by any constitutional restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the within one (1) year. rights and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land to which all officials, high or low, -Even assuming that the civilian or military, owe obedience and allegiance at all times. suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas suspends - Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public officer or employee or any private corpus individual liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another, as petitioners' right of action enumerated therein, does not exempt the respondents from responsibility. Only judges are for damages for illegal arrest and detention, it excluded from liability under the said article, provided their acts or omissions do not does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes of action for injuries suffered because of respondents' confiscation of their private belongings, the violation of their right to remain silent and to counsel and their right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and against torture and other cruel and

meaning and a larger dimension. No longer may a superior official relax his vigilance or of action the complaint abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates, secure in the thought that he does not against all the defendants, have to answer for the transgressions committed by the latter against the constitutionally except protected rights and liberties of the citizen. Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt. who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors. Bienvenido -RTC was therefore mistaken in dropping defendants General Fabian Ver, Col. Fidel Balaba. The complaint contained allegations Singson, Col. Rolando Abadilla, Col. Gerardo Lantoria, Jr., Col. Galileo against all the defendants which, if admitted Kintanar, Col. Panfilo Lacson, Capt. Danilo Pizarro, lst hypothetically, would be Lt. Pedro Tango, Lt. Romeo Ricardo and Lt. Ricardo sufficient to establish a Bacalso from the acts of their subordinates. -The responsibility of the defendants, whether direct or indirect, is amply set forth in the cause or causes of action complaint. It is well established in our law and jurisprudence that a motion to dismiss on theagainst all of them under ground that the complaint states no cause of action must be based on what appears on the Article 32 of the Civil face of the complaint. To determine the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts Code. alleged in the complaint, and no others, should be considered . For this purpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. 3. NO -Applying this test, it is difficult to justify the trial court's ruling, dismissing for lack of cause -A timely motion to set

aside said order of November 8, 1983 was filed by plaintiffs, through counsel. True, the motion was not signed by all the counsels for the several plaintiffs but the body of the motion itself clearly indicated that the motion was filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs.This must have been also the understanding of defendants' counsel himself for when he filed his comment on the motion, he

furnished copies thereof, not just to the lawyers who signed the motion, but to all the lawyers of plaintiffs. -In filing the motion to set aside the resolution of November 8, 1983, the signing attorneys did so on behalf of all the plaintiff. They needed no specific authority to do that. The authority of an attorney to appear for and in behalf of a party can be assumed, unless questioned or challenged by the adverse

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 36
private respondent Cristina Vegafria for allegedly openly, publicly and maliciously uttering the following insulting words and statements: "Gago ikaw nga Barangay Captain, montisco, traidor, malugus, Hudas," which, freely translated, mean: "You are a foolish Barangay Captain, ignoramus, traitor, tyrant, Judas" and other words and statements of similar import which caused great and irreparable damage and injury to his person and honor. - Private respondent as accused therein entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued, at which petitioner, without reserving his right to file a separate civil action for damages actively intervened thru a private prosecutor. - After trial, private respondent was convicted of the offense of Slight Oral Defamation and was sentenced to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos (P50.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. - No damages were awarded to petitioner. - Disagreeing, petitioner sought relief from the RTC, which denied his petition. - Petitioners Claim

Pro f.
The RTC decision is contrary to Article 100 of the RPC providing that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, and Article 2219 of the New Civil Code providing that moral damages may be recovered in libel, slander or any other form of defamation.

the precepts of the United party or the party concerned, which was never done in this case. Nations Charter and the Dispositive Petition granted. SC annuled and set aside the resolution of the respondent Universal Declaration of court, dated Human Rights. More than November 8, 1983, its order dated May 11, 1984 and its resolution dated September 21, this, pursuant to our 1984. Case remanded to the respondent court for further proceedings. Costs against Constitution which the private respondents. people decisively ratified on February 2, 1987, the SEPARATE OPINION TEEHANKEE [concur] independent office of the Commission on Human 1All persons, be they public officers or employees, or members of the military or Rights has been created police force or private individuals who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat, violate or in any and organized with ample manner impede or impair the constitutional rights and civil liberties of another person, stand powers to investigate liable and may be sued in court for damages as provided in Art. 32 of the Civil Code. human rights violations and take remedial 2The decision herein upholds and reinstates the civil action for damages filed in measures against all such the court below by petitioners- plaintiffs for illegal searches conducted by military personnel violations by the military and other violations of their constitutional rights and liberties. At the same time it rejects the as well as by the civilian automatic application of the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility that groups. would hold a superior officer jointly and severally accountable for damages, including moral and exemplary, with his subordinates who committed such transgressions. However, the judgment gives the caveat that a superior officer must not abdicate his duty to properly OCCEN supervise his subordinates for he runs the risk of being held responsible for gross Av negligence and of being held under the cited provision of the Civil Code as indirectly and ICAMIN solidarily accountable with the tortfeasor.

Brandeis:"In a government of laws, existence of the government be imperilled following it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means ... would bring terrible retribution."


It need only be pointed out that one of the first acts of the present government NATURE under President Corazon Petition for certiorari to C. Aquino after her assumption of office in February, 1986 was to file our government's ratification and access to all human rights instruments review the decision of adopted under the auspices of the United Nations, declaring thereby the government's RTC commitment to observe FACTS - Petitioner Eulogio Occena instituted before the Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sibalom, San Remigio Belison, Province of Antique, Criminal Case No. 1717, a criminal complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against


181 SCR A 328 FERNAN; January 22, 1990

- Respondents Comment The decision of the trial court carries with it the final actions; while the adjudication of her civil liability. Since petitioner chose to actively intervene in the criminal complainant may appeal action without reserving his right to file a separate civil action for damages, he assumed the with respect only to the risk that in the event he failed to recover damages he cannot appeal from the decision of civil action, either because the lower court has the lower court. refused to award damages or because the ISSUES award made is 1. WON the decision of the MCTC constitutes the final adjudication on the merits of private unsatisfactory to him. respondent's civil liability The right of either to 2. WON petitioner is entitled to an award of damages appeal or not to appeal in the event of conviction of HELD the accused is not 1. NO dependent upon the other. - The decision of the MCTC has not yet become final due to the timely appeal filed by Petitioner may, as he did, petitioner with respect to the civil liability of the accused in said case. It was only the appeal from the decision unappealed criminal aspect of the case which has become final. on the civil aspect which is - People vs. Coloma: from a judgment convicting the accused, two (2) appeals may, deemed instituted with the accordingly, be taken. criminal action and such The accused may seek a review of said judgment, as regards both civil and criminal

appeal, timely taken, prevents the decision on the civil liability from attaining finality. 2. YES Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are governed by Article 100 of the RPC which provides that "Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable," in relation to Article 2177 of the Civil Code on quasidelict, the provisions for independent civil actions in the Chapter on Human

Relations and the provisions regulating damages, also found in the Civil Code. - Underlying the legal principle that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable is the view that from the standpoint of its effects, a crime has dual character: (1) as an offense against the state because of the disturbance of the social order; and

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 37
criminal action. HELD YES Ratio When the accused in a criminal case is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may still be instituted against him, and only a preponderance of evidence is required to hold the accused liable. The civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal of the accused, where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt (based on Article 29 of the Civil Code). Reasoning - In the criminal case against Abamonga, the accused was acquitted because there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly, the Bonite heirs have the right to file an independent civil action for damages despite the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case. - Aside from basing their action for damages in Article 29 of the Civil Code, the petitioners may also rely on Article 2176 which provides that acquittal of the

Pro f.
accused from a charge of criminal negligence,

NATURE (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime unless it involves the Petition for certiorari to crime of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein no civil liability arises review the order of the on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to be compensated or Court of First Instance of there is no private person injured by the crime. Misamis Occidental, Br. III. In the ultimate analysis, what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of Zosa, J. everyone to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission, whether done intentional or negligently and whether or not punishable by law. FACTS - September 24, 1968, 2 - As a general rule, a person who is found to be criminally liable offends two (2) entities: the PM Bonite, a caminero state or society in which he lives and the individual member of the society or private person of the Bureau of Public who was injured or damaged by the punishable act or omission. The offense of which Highways was killed when private respondent was found guilty is not one of those felonies where no civil liability he was hit by a truck results because either there is no offended party or no damage was caused to a private driven by Abamonga. A person. complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in - There is here an offended party, whose main contention precisely is that he suffered homicide was filed by the damages in view of the defamatory words and statements uttered by private respondent, in surviving heirs of Bonite the amount of Ten but Abamonga was Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and the further sum of Ten Thousand acquitted because of Pesos (P10,000) as exemplary damages. insufficient evidence. - Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case of - In the course of the trial, libel, slander or any other form of defamation This provision of law establishes the right of the petitioners actively an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages for participated in the injury to his feelings and reputation. The offended party is likewise allowed to recover proceedings through their punitive or exemplary damages. lawyer, private prosecutor Atty. Dulalas. Calling petitioner who was a barangay captain an ignoramus, traitor, tyrant and Judas is - December 28, 1970 clearly an imputation of defects in petitioner's character sufficient to cause him The Bonite heirs filed an embarrassment and social humiliation. Petitioner testified to the feelings of shame and action for recovery of anguish he suffered as a result of the incident complained of. damages against Abamonga based on the - Petitioner is entitled to moral damages in the sum of P5,000.00 and a further sum of same act but the court P5,000.00 as exemplary damages. dismissed the complaint Dispositive The petition was granted. for damages because the Court believes that the BONITE v ZOSA Bonite heirs did not 162 SCRA 180 reserve the right to do so.

PADILLA; June 20, 1988

ISSUE WON an independent civil action for damages, under Article 29 of the Civil Code, is deemed barred by petitioners' failure in the criminal action to make a reservation to file a separate civil action and by their active participation in the prosecution of such

whether on reasonable doubt or not, is not a bar to a subsequent civil action for recovery of Criminal Procedure (i.e., civil liability, arising not from criminal negligence, but from a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. that a reservation be - It has been held that Article 2176 of the Civil Code, in referring to "fault or negligence" made in the criminal case covers acts "not punishable by law" as well as acts that may be criminal in character, of the right to institute an whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. A separate civil action lies against the independent civil action) is offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or not applicable because acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both Article 29 does not require it. scores. - The requirement in - Article 29 of the Civil Code does not state that the right to file an independent civil action Section 2 of Rule 111 of for damages (under said article) can be availed of only in offenses not arising from a the former Rules on tortious act. The only requisite for the exercise of the right to file a civil action for damages Criminal Procedure, that is that the accused must have been acquitted in the criminal action based on reasonable there be a reservation in the criminal case of the doubt. right to institute an - The respondents argument that the applicable provision is Article 33 is devoid of merit independent civil action, has been declared as not because of the abovementioned argument. In addition, Article in accordance with law. It 33 assumes defamation, fraud, or physical injuries were intentionally committed. is regarded as an - In the case at bar, Rule 111 of the former Rules of unauthorized amendment

to the substantive law, in this case the Civil Code. In fact, the reservation of the right to file an independent civil action has been deleted from Section 2, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, in consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring such requirement of a reservation as ineffective. The active

participation of the Bonite heirs does not act as a bar from pursuing a civil action for damages because the civil action based on criminal liability and a civil action under Article 29 are two separate and independent actions. Dispositive WHEREFORE, the orders of the respondent court are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered reinstating the complaint in the civil case directing said court to

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

proceed with the trial of the case. Costs against private respondent.

a2010 page 38
court as the punishment for his crime, and after the sentence for civil damages and in case of his insolvency, he would have to return to prison to serve the subsidiary imprisonment by reason of his insolvency, being argued that this would constitute double jeopardy. It is well settled that execution against the person will issue in civil actions in case of personal injuries, and that this is not imprisonment for debt or punishment for crime. It is in lieu of the payment of the indemnity and is considered as a discharge thereof. If the payment of the indemnity is not punishment for the crime, the imprisonment in lieu thereof is not punishment for the crime. - As the civil liability is no part of the punishment for the crime, there would have been no question of double jeopardy... In the present case, the civil liability of the defendant was established, and the sole question determined upon the second trial was the amount of civil damages. The plea of double jeopardy can not be allowed. -On civil liability of persons accused of

Pro f.
crime: - Springer vs. Odlin: "By General Orders, No. 58, section 107, the privileges secured by the Spanish law to persons claiming to be injured by the commission of an offense to take part in the prosecution of the offense and to recover damages

defendant are to be considered as a modification of the SEPARATE OPINION punishment, by increasing the penalty or otherwise, meted out to the MELENCIO-HERRERA [concur] defendant for the 14 of them merely concurred in the result- If there has been active participation in commission of the crime. the prosecution of a criminal case by the offended party, the civil action arising from the (WON there is double crime is deemed to have been also brought in the criminal case. Consequently, a judgment jeopardy) finding the accused guilty and granting him damages is binding upon the offended party and he may not file a separate civil action under Article 2. WON award was excessive 33. 2However if the accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, as in this HELD case, the civil action for damages for the same act may be instituted under Article 29 of the 1. NO. Civil Code, notwithstanding the fact that the offended party had actively participated in the - Civil damages are no part of the punishment for criminal action. the crime.

3The rule in Corpus vs. Paje which states that reckless imprudence is not - What was the effect of included in Article 33 of the Civil Code, was note deemed as authoritative doctrine the action of this court in because, of 11 justices, only 9 took part in the decision and affirming that judgment as to the guilt and punishment of the accused and of reversing US v HEERY it as to the question of civil 25 Phil 600 damage, with instructions TRENT; Oct 22, 1913 to execute the punishment imposed and to try the civil FACTS branch of the case? -Heery was charged with attempted murder, but was convicted of the lesser crime of Bearing in mind the broad maliciously inflicting serious injury upon Alex Sternberg, and was sentenced to one year line of demarcation and three months of prision correccional by the trial court. between the civil liability of the accused and his -On appeal, the decision was affirmed but case was remanded because it did not include criminal liability, the bare the evidence of civil damages suffered by the offended party. fact that his civil liability -Then lower court, in its ruling, restated the conviction (of one yr to 3 months of prision was determined and fixed correccional) and then included P50,500 for indemnity, with subsidiary imprisonment, in had nothing whatever to case of insolvency. do with the punishment imposed. The latter was -Heery raised the question of double jeopardy, and the award being excessive. not thereby affected. This time intervening ISSUES between the judgment of 1. WON remanding the case for determination of civil damages and their assessment guilt and the judgment of against the civil damages could in no way give to the latter the character of the former.
- (That) the defendant might serve the term of imprisonment fixed by the

for the injury sustained by reason of the same, are preserved and remain in force, and it unless the damaged or is therein expressly provided that the court, upon conviction of the accused, may enter prejudiced person waives judgment in favor of the injured person, against the defendant in the criminal case for the the same or expressly damage occasioned by the wrongful act." reserves the right to institute the civil action - Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co.: "According to article 112 (Spanish Code of after the termination of the Criminal Procedure) the penal action once started, the civil remedy should be sought criminal case, if there be therewith, unless it had been waived by the party injured or been expressly reserve by any reason therefor. (Art. him for civil proceedings for the future. 112 of the said Law of If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out of a crime that could be enforced Criminal Procedure.) only on private complaint, the penal action thereunder should be extinguished." - "The right to bring the - Almeida vs. Abaroa (8 Phil. Rep., 178), was a civil action for damages brought the civil action, as reserved by plaintiff against a person who had been previously acquitted on a criminal charge. It was the person damaged or after the held that his acquittal in the criminal action was a complete bar to a civil action for prejudiced, damages based upon the alleged criminal act of which the defendant had been accused. termination of the criminal case, is only permitted, if In the course of this decision it was said: there be any reason - "Instituting a criminal action only, it will be understood, brings the civil action as well, therefore, and so says the

law, in the event that the judgment rendered in the criminal cause is a finding of guilt against the accused; but if the accused be acquitted, then the compliant in the civil action must be based on some fact and or cause distinct and separate from the criminal act itself." - The court then quotes from article 114 of the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "When a criminal

proceeding is instituted for the judicial investigation of a crime or misdemeanor, no civil action arising from the same act can be prosecuted; but the same shall be suspended, if there be one, in whatever stage or state it may be found, until final sentence in the criminal proceeding is pronounced.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 39
FACTS - Asuncion Parker and her minor daughter Kathleen filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Air Lines, Inc., based on the alleged failure of PAL to carry safely Richard Parker from Daet, Camarines Norte to Manila. - PAL set up as special defense that the plane exploded in mid-air due to dynamite surreptitiously introduced into said air craft by criminal hands. A criminal case was already filed in CFI Camarines Norte against the supposed guilty parties. - When the case was set for the continuation of the hearing, PAL presented an oral motion for the suspension of the hearing, invoking (then) sec 1 Rule 107, of the Rules of Court, which provides that no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. Parker vehemently opposed. - CFI suspended the hearing until the final determination of the criminal case which was then pending appeal in the SC. Petitioners Claim It was a mistake on the

Pro f.
part of respondent judge to consider and apply Sec 1, Rule 107 of the Rules of Court, as her cause of action in the civil case is based on culpa contractual and not on the civil liability arising from the offense involved in the criminal case. Respondents Comments When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged is

introduced as evidence "To prosecute a penal action it shall not be necessary that a civil action arising from the and was not, therefore, same crime or misdemeanor be previously instituted." considered by that court. If - Under the Spanish criminal law, an injured person had the right to intervene in the it had been introduced as prosecution of the accused for the purpose of having his damages ascertained. The trial evidence, the government court was required to include the amount of these damages in the judgment of conviction. would have had the right The plain provisions of section 107 of our criminal procedure, quoted supra, expressly to meet it and be heard preserves this right to the injured person. The refusal of the trial court to allow the injured upon it in that court. To person to introduce evidence as to his damages is, therefore, clearly prejudicial error. permit the question to be raised here for the first time, and in the resolution 2. YES. thereof, to consider - There can be no objection to allowing the physicians' fees of P500 and P1,300 for the evidence that was never three months' salary, being the time the injured party was incapacitated from performing introduced in the trial court the work in which he was then engaged. The remainder, P48,700, appears to have been and which the government allowed on account of the permanent diminution of Sternberg's ability to earn money. The has never had an evidence of record does not establish such disability with that degree of certainly which will opportunity to meet in an justify an award for that purpose. We have reached this conclusion after a most careful orderly way, is not only to examination of all the testimony upon this point. take the prosecution by surprise but is to establish a precedent which may be Dispositive The award of damages is reduced to P1,800, the defendant to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, which in no event can exceed dangerous in practice and subversive of orderly one-third of the principal penalty, in case of insolvency. procedure.

SEPARATE OPINION MORELAND [concurring and dissenting]

The record being in this condition, I am inclined to believe that this court should not take up and discuss, much less decide, the question of former jeopardy. To do so it must not only hold, in violation of the provisions of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that it is unnecessary to plead the defense in the trial court but must also hold that it is unnecessary to introduce evidence in that court to substantiate the plea. The plea of former conviction or once in jeopardy should, according to established rules and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be substantiated by the production of the record of the former trial and the introduction of the same in evidence. That was not done in this case. While the evidence taken in the former trial was introduced in the present case for the purpose of establishing the extent of defendant's civil liability, the remaining part of the record was not


NATURE Certiorari and mandamus

impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the liability of the accused. civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately, and that, inasmuch as petitioner had failed to expressly reserve her right to institute the civil action separately, she may not - Rule 107 contemplates a now institute another action under articles 1902- 1910 of the Civil Code based on the act or case where the offended party desires to press his omission complained of in the criminal action. right to demand indemnity from the accused in the criminal case which he ISSUES may assert either in the 1. WON CFI was correct in considering and applying same criminal case or in a Sec 1, Rule 107, of the Rules of Court separate action. 2. WON respondent judge erred in suspending the hearing - The failure of Parker to reserve her right to HELD institute the civil action in 1. NO the criminal case cannot in - The present civil case is based upon a cause of action not arising from the civil liability any way be deemed as involved in the criminal case instituted against the accused. The civil case is based on waiver on her part to alleged culpa contractual incurred by PAL because of its failure to carry safely institute a separate civil Richard Parker to his place of destination, whereas the criminal case involves the civil action against PAL based

on its liability.


2. NO - The present civil case is directly interwoven with the criminal case in the sense that the main issue involved in both cases is the determination of the failure of Richard Parker to reach safely his destination or the determination of the cause of his death. This was the main reason that guided the lower court in postponing the

hearing of the civil case until final judgment in the criminal case has been rendered. - Inasmuch as the power to grant or refuse continuances is inherent in all courts unless expressly limited by statute, and there is no showing that the lower court has abused its discretion is suspending the hearing, the petition for certiorari must fail. Dispositive Petition denied

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 40
action was duly informed thereof, such that no damages was awarded in the disposition of the criminal action. purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. Dispositive petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.

Pro f.
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioners driver, Herminio Andaya, with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City - A month later, a civil case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner himself

Reasoning - Under the aforecited provisions of the rule, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with NATURE the criminal action unless Petition for review of decision of the CA the offended party waives the civil action, reserves FACTS his right to institute it - 5 year old Roy Camaso (standing on a sidewalk) was sideswiped by a motorcycle owned separately or institutes the by Yakult civil action prior to the Philippines and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado on Dec.1982. criminal action. - An information was then filed on Jan.1983 against Salvado charging him with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical - Such civil action includes injuries. recovery of indemnity - On Oct. 1984, a complaint for damages was filed in the RTC of Manila by Roy Camaso under the Revised Penal (represented by his father, David) against Yakult and Salvado. The Code, and damages RTC decided in favor of the Camasos and held the defendants (herein petitioners) jointly under and severally liable for damages, which then moved said defendants Yakult and Salvado toArticles 32, 33, 34 and appeal the judgment. They also filed a peitition for certiorari in the CA challenging the2176 of the Civil Code of RTCs jurisdiction in the civil case. Their argument was that the civil action for damages for the injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence, there being no malice, cannot be filed Philippines arising from independently of the criminal action and that under Rule 111 Sec.1 of the 1985 Rules of the same act or omission Crim. Pro., such a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is of the accused. expressly made. It is also provided that the


MANIAG O vCA (BOADO ) 25 3 S C RA 67 4 MENDOZA ; February 20, 1996

FACTS Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments, Inc. from Baguio City proper to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in Loakan, Baguio City. - One of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road, Baguio City. As a result of the accident, a criminal case for

reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made ISSUE before the prosecution WON a civil action instituted after a criminal action was filed can prosper even if there was starts to present its no reservation to file a separate civil action evidence and under circumstances affording HELD the offended party a YES - Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. criminal case, it was nevertheless instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in ** The SC considered the the criminal action, and the presiding judge handling the criminal actual filing of the civil action far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence. It added that the - The CA on Nov. 1989, dismissed the petition and the subsequent MFR.

the dismissal of the 1- Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him,action, criminal case brought with citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. But the trial court denied it the dismissal of the civil petitioners motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code, the action could proceed action.) independently of the criminal action, in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. 5Private respondent admits that he 2CA dismissed his petition did not reserve the right to 3There is no dispute that private respondent, as offended party in the criminal institute the present civil case, did not reserve the right to bring a separate civil action, based on the same accident, action against Andayas either against the driver, employer. He contends, Herminio Andaya, or against the latters employer, herein petitioner Ruben Maniago. however, that the rights 4petitioner argues that the civil action against him was impliedly instituted in the provided in Arts. 2176 and 2177 of the Civil criminal action previously filed against his employee because private respondent did not Code are substantive reserve his right to bring this action separately. (The records show that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the criminal action was dismissed on July 10, 1992 for rights and, as such, their failure of the prosecution to file a formal offer of its evidence, with the consequence that the enforcement cannot be on a prosecution failed to prosecute its case. Accordingly, it seems to be petitioners argument conditioned that since the civil action to recover damages was impliedly instituted with the criminal

reservation to bring the action to enforce them separately. ISSUE WON despite the absence of reservation, Boado may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner under the Art.2176, 2180 and 2177 of the Civil Code and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

NO Ratio The right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule 111, 1, otherwise it should be dismissed. 1 quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 41
filing of a complaint which is allowed to proceed independently of the outcome of the criminal case. B. There is a practical reason for requiring that the right to bring an independent civil action under the Civil Code separately must be reserved. It is to avoid the filing of more than one action for the same act or omission against the same party. Any award made against the employer, whether based on his subsidiary civil liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code or his primary liability under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, is ultimately recoverable from the accused. - In the present case, the criminal action was filed against the employee, bus driver. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent, his employer would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. But if the right to bring a separate civil action (whether arising from the crime or from quasidelict) is reserved, there would be no possibility that the employer would be held liable because in such a case there would be no pronouncement as to the civil liability of the accused. In such a case the institution of a

Pro f.
separate and independent civil action under the Civil Code would not result in the employee being held liable for the same act or omission. The rule requiring reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission .

arising from the same act have been instituted with the criminal case. The right of the injured party to sue separately or omission, which is the for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes or from quasi delict under subject of the criminal Art. 2176 of the action, is waived; (2) the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal right to bring it separately action. is reserved or (3) such Reasoning action has been instituted A. There are statements in some cases implying that prior to the criminal action. Rule 111, 1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking power of the Supreme Court under the Even if an action has not Constitution. A careful examination of the cases, however, will show that approval of the been reserved or it was filing of separate civil action for damages even though no reservation of the right to institute brought before the such civil action had been reserved rests on considerations other than that no reservation institution of the criminal is needed. case, the acquittal of the accused will not bar - In Garcia v. Florido the right of an injured person to bring an action for damages even if recovery of civil liability he did not make a reservation of his action in the criminal prosecution for physical injuries unless the acquittal is through reckless imprudence was upheld on the ground that by bringing the civil action the based on a finding that the injured parties had in effect abandoned their right to press for recovery of damages in the act from which the civil criminal case. liability might arise did not exist because of Art. 29 of - In Abellana v. Marave in which the right of persons injured in a vehicular accident to bring the Civil Code. a separate action for damages was sustained despite the fact that the right to bring it separately was not reserved. - Through all the shifts or But the basis of the decision in that case was the fact that the filing of the civil case was changes in policy as to the equivalent to a reservation because it was made after the decision of the City Court civil action arising from the convicting the accused had been appealed. same act or omission for which a criminal action is - In Jarantilla v. CA the ruling is that the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case for brought, one thing is clear: physical injuries through reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonable doubt is not a The change has been bar to the filing of an action for damages even though the filing of the latter action was not effected by this Court. The reserved. This is because of Art. 29 of the Civil Code which provides that when an new rules require accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable reservation of the right to doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. This recover the civil liability, ruling obviously cannot apply to this case because the basis of the dismissal of the criminal otherwise the action will case against the driver is the fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case as a result of be deemed to have been its failure to make a formal offer of its evidence. instituted with the criminal action. - Contrary to private - the rulings in these cases are consistent with the proposition herein made that, on the respondents contention, basis of Rule the requirement that 111, 1-3, a civil action for the recovery of civil liability is, as a general rule, impliedly before a separate civil action may be brought it instituted with the criminal action, except only (1) when such action must be reserved does not impair, diminish or defeat substantive rights, but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly procedure. - It is the conduct of the trial of the civil action - not its institution through the

- Nor does it matter that the action is against the employer to enforce his vicarious liability NATURE under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Though not an accused in the criminal case, the Petition for review after a employer is very much a party, as long as the right to bring or institute a separate action motion for reconsideration (whether arising from crime or from quasi delict) is not reserved. The ruling that a decision respondent court convicting the employee is binding and conclusive upon the employer not only with regard of to its civil liability but also with regard to its amount because the liability of an employer judgment was denied cannot be separated but follows that of his employee is true not only with respect to the FACTS civil liability arising from crime but also with respect to the civil liability under the Civil - In the afternoon of June 24, 1991, a Toyota Lite Code. Dispositive The decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint against Ace Van being driven by its owner Annie U. Jao petitioner is and a passenger bus of DISMISSED. herein petitioner San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. SAN ILDEFONSO LINES, INC. v CA (PIONEER INSURANCE AND (hereafter, SILI) collided SURETY CORPORATION) with each other at the intersection of Julia 300 SCRA 484 Vargas Avenue and MARTINEZ; April 24, 1998 Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila,

totally wrecking the Toyota van and injuring Ms. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process. - A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18, 1991 charging the driver of the bus, herein petitioner Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries. - About four (4) months later, or on January 13, 1992, herein private

respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (PISC), as insurer of the van and subrogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages, totaling P564,500.00 ( P454,000.00 as actual/compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees;

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 42
only recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, but also damages under Article 2176 (quasidelicts) of the said code. - It should be noted that while it was ruled in Abella vs. Marave (57 SCRA 106) that a reservation of the right to file an independent civil action is not necessary, such a reservation is necessary under the amended rule. Without such reservation, the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless previously waived or instituted . - Far from altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation is, to borrow the words of the Court in "Caos v. Peralta":" to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court; in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties -litigants." 2. NO - Private respondent PISC, as subrogee, is

Pro f.
not exempt from the reservation requirement with respect to its damages suit based on quasi-delict arising from the same act or omission of petitioner Javier complained of in the criminal case. As private respondent PISC merely stepped into the shoes of Ms. Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota van), then it

evidence." P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; and P500.00 as appearance fees.) - Even though these so- With the issues having been joined upon the filing of the petitioners' answer to the called "independent civil complaint for damages and after submission by the parties of their respective pre-trial actions" based on the briefs, petitioners filed on aforementioned Civil Code September 18, 1992 a Manifestation and Motion to articles are the exceptions Suspend Civil Proceedings grounded on the pendency of the criminal case against to the primacy of the petitioner criminal action over the Javier in the Pasig RTC and the failure of respondent PISC to make a reservation to civil action as set forth in file a separate damage suit in said criminal action. This was denied by the Manila Section 2 of Rule 111, it is Regional Trial Court in its Order dated July 21, 1993 easily deducible from the - After their motion for reconsideration of said July 21, 1993 Order was denied, petitioners present wording of Section elevated the matter to this Court via petition for certiorari which was, however, referred to 3 as brought about by the public respondent Court of 1988 amendments to the Appeals for disposition. On February 24, 1995, a decision adverse to petitioners once Rules on Criminal again was rendered by respondent court, upholding the assailed Manila Regional Trial Procedure -- particularly Court Order. Hence, this petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of said the phrase " which has been reserved" -- that the respondent court judgment was denied. "independent" character of these civil actions does ISSUES not do away with the reservation requirement. 1. WON an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code can be filed if no reservation was made In other words, prior reservation is a condition in the said criminal case sine qua non before any of these independent civil 2. WON a subrogee of an offended party can actions can be instituted maintain an independent civil action during the pendency of a criminal action when no and thereafter have a reservation of the right to file an independent civil action was made in the criminal action continuous determination and despite the fact that the private complainant is actively participating through a apart from or simultaneous private prosecutor in the aforementioned criminal case with the criminal action. - According to Justice Jose Y. Feria, remedial law expert and a member HELD of the committee which 1. NO drafted the 1988 - On the chief issue of "reservation", at the fore is amendments, whose Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which reads: learned explanation on the matter was aptly pointed "Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. -- In the cases provided for in out by petitioners, the Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the amendment Philippines, the independent civil action which has been reserved may be brought by the 1988 offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall require only expands the scope of the civil action which is a preponderance of deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved or previously instituted. Under the present Rule as amended, such a civil action includes not

is bound to observe the procedural requirements which Ms. Jao ought to follow had she herself instituted the civil case. Dispositive The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24, 1995 and the Resolution dated April 3,1995 denying the FACTS - On December 23, 1956, motion for reconsideration thereof are reversed. The in the municipality of "manifestation and motion to suspend civil proceedings" filed by petitioners is granted. Lubao, Pampanga, a passenger bus operated MARCIA v CA (PAJE and VICTORY by private respondent LINER) Victory Liner, Inc. and 120 SCRA 190 driven by its employee, RELOVA; January 27, 1983 private respondent Felardo Paje, collided with a jeep driven by Clemente NATURE Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Marcia, resulting in the latter's death and in Court of First Instance of Rizal, which dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners against private physical injuries to herein respondents in the concept of an independent civil action for damages for physical injuries petitioners, Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. resulting from reckless imprudence. Thereupon, an information

for homicide and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed against Felardo Paje in the CFI of Pampanga. - On January 23, 1957, an action for damages was filed in the CFI of Rizal by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap, together with their respective parents, against the Victory Liner, Inc. and Felardo Paje, alleging that the mishap was due to the reckless imprudence and negligence of the latter in driving the passenger bus.

- While said Civil Case was in progress in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the criminal action proceeded in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The accused Felardo Paje was convicted of the offense charged. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, he was acquitted with the CA holding that "CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is WANTING in this case, and that appellant was NOT even guilty of CIVIL NEGLIGENCE.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 43

Pro f.
vicinity of San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City and brought her to a motel where she was raped. Afterwhich he said that he would not let her go unless they get married, as he intended to marry her , so much so that she promised not to make any scandal and to marry him. They went to his gradmothers house and lived together as husband and wife for 21 days until Bunag Jr. left and never

finding that the facts upon Insofar as appellant was concerned, the CA held that this was a case of PURE which civil liability did not ACCIDENT." exist, bars the filing of an - As a consequence, herein private respondents, defendants in Civil Case of the Court of independent civil action if First Instance of Rizal, moved for the dismissal of the complaint invoking the decision of the it is based on the crime. Court of Appeals acquitting Felardo Paje and citing Section 1 (d), Rule As early as 1952, We 107 of the Rules of Court (now Section 3 (c), Rule have held in the case of 111 of the New Rules of Court). On August 10, 1966, the Court of First Instance of Rizal Tan vs. Standard Vacuum rendered a decision dismissing plaintiffs' complaint against the defendants Victory Liner, Oil Inc. and Felardo Paje. Company, 91 Phil. 672, Petitioners appealed the case to the CA, which basically affirmed the RTC decision. that "the acquittal of the accused from the criminal Hence, this recourse. charge will not necessarily extinguish the civil liability ISSUE unless the court declares WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting the accused in reckless imprudence in the judgment that the on the ground that the incident was accidental, extinguished by implication the civil action fact from which the civil liability might arise did not for damages exist. Where the court HELD states 'that the evidence YES throws no light on the Ratio Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the cause of fire and that it extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil was an unfortunate might arise did not exist. accident for which the Since, the CA found that this case was of pure accident, it is as good as saying as if he did accused cannot be held not commit the crime charged. There being no crime committed, no civil liability arises. responsible,' this declaration fits well into Reasoning the exception of the rule - It is the stand of herein petitioners that Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, notwhich exempts the Section 3 (c) thereof, should apply in the case at bar. accused, from civil "Sec. 2. Independent civil action. - In the cases provided for in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and liability." 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party during the - Also, the charge against pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is reserved as required in the Felardo Paje was not for preceding section. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal homicide and physical prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence." injuries but for reckless imprudence or criminal - We do not agree. Section 2 of Rule 111 merely refers to the institution of an independent negligence resulting in civil action without waiting for the filing or termination of the criminal action and requires homicide (death of only preponderance of evidence to prosper and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as Clemente Marcia) and physical injuries suffered required for conviction in criminal cases. However, an acquittal based on the by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. They are not one of the three (3) crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code and, therefore, no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution.

BUNAG JR. v CA (CIRILO) 21 1 S C RA 44 0 REGALA DO; July 10, 1992

NATURE Petition for review from the decision of the CA FACTS - On Sept. 8, 1973 Conrado Bunag Jr. brought Zenaida Cirilo to a motel or hotel where they had sexual intercourse and later that evening he brought Zenaida to the house of his grandmothers house where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 days until Sept. 29, 1973. They filed their application for marriage license with the Local Civil Registral of Bacoor, Cavite. However, after a few days, Conrado filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license. Plaintiffs Claim Conrado Bunag Jr. abducted her in the

returned which humiliated Zenaida and compelled her to go back to her parents. the civil liability of Conrado Respondents Comment Conrado Bunag Jr.and Bunag Jr Zenaida Cirilo had earlier made plans to elope and get married (same as first set of facts) . And that the reason why Conrado broke off their plan to get married was their bitter HELD NO disagreements over money and Zenaidas threats to his life. - The dismissal did not in any way affect the right of - The Cirilos filed a complaint for damages against Conrado Bunag Jr. and his father Conrado Bunag Sr. (Zenaidas uncle claims that Bunag Zenaida Cirilo to institute a civil action arising from the Sr. assured them that the couple were to be married). The Trial Court ordered Bunag Jr. to pay damages (80K-moral damages,20K-exemplary offense. damages, 20k-temperate damages and 10k attorneys fees) Bunag Sr. was absolved from - Extinction of the penal any and all liability.CA affirmed in toto action does not carry with - Bunag Jr contends that both the trial court awarded the damages on the basis of a finding it the extinction of civil unless the that he is guilty of forcible abduction with rape,despite the prior dismissal of the complaint liability extinction proceeds from a therefore filed by declaration in a final Zenaida with the Pasay City Fiscals Office. judgment that the fact from which the civil case ISSUE WON the Fiscals dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape extinguished might arise did not exist.

Reasoning -Generally, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Criminal Liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. -The two proceedings involved are not between the same parties (the criminal action is between the State and the defendant

and the civil case is between the offended party and the defendant). Also, there are different rules as to the competency of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal and civil proceedings.(criminal action proof beyond reasonable doubt; civil actionpreponderance of evidence)

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 44
of, can file a separate action for civil liability arising from the same act or omission where the herein petitioner was acquitted in the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of acquittal

Pro f.
charged criminally, to recover damages on both scores; and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (c) of Sec. 3 Rule 111, refers

1Thereafter, - In this case the dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape was by mere acting on a motion to resolution of the fiscal at the preliminary investigation stage. dismiss of therein There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise defendant, the trial court did not exist. issued on April 3, 1975 an order of denial. Petitioner thereafter filed in this JARANTILLA v CA (SING) Court a petition for 171 SCRA 429 certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, which was REGALADO; March 21, 1989 docketed as G.R. No. L40992, assailing the NATURE Appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the trial court aforesaid order of the trial court. Said petition was awarding damages to the private respondent. dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's resolution of FACTS - Private respondent Jose Kuan Sing was "side-swiped by a vehicle in the evening of July July 23, 1975, and a 7, 1971 in lznart Street, Iloilo City" The respondent Court of Appeals concurred in the motion for reconsideration thereof was denied for the findings of the court a quo that the said vehicle which figured in the mishap, a reason in a Volkswagen (Beetle type) car, was then driven by petitioner Edgar Jarantilla along said same street toward the direction of the provincial capitol, and that private respondent sustained resolution of October 28, 1975. physical injuries as a consequence.
- Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then 2After trial, the City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence in Criminal Case court below rendered No. 47207 thereof. Private respondent, as the complaining witness therein, did not reserve judgment on his right to institute a separate civil action and he intervened in the prosecution of said May 23, 1977 in favor of criminal case through a private prosecutor. Petitioner was acquitted in said criminal case the herein private "on reasonable doubt". respondent and ordering herein petitioner to pay - On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 9976, damages. Thus, petitioner and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act complained of in Criminal appealed said decision to CA but said Case No. 47027. In his answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special and the affirmative detenses that the private respondent had no cause of action and, additionally, respondent court affirmed that the latter's cause of action, if any, is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. in toto the decision of the 47207 inasmuch as when said criminal case was instituted the civil liability was also trial court with a few deemed instituted since therein plaintiff failed to reserve the civil aspect and actively changes in the amount of the damages to be paid. participated in the criminal case. ISSUE WON the private respondent, who was the complainant in the criminal action for physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and who participated in the prosecution thereof without reserving the civil action arising from the act or omission complained

HELD YES - The action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the respondent to reserve his right to file a separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case did not bar him from filing such separate civil action for damages. Ratio The allegations of the complaint filed by the private respondent supports and is constitutive of a case for a quasi-delict committed by the petitioner. The Court has also heretofore ruled in Elcano vs. Hill that: ... a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is also actually

exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas reasonable doubt, it could well make a the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is very not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged pronounce ment on the civil liability of the accused has not happened or has not been committed by the accused . . . and the complainant could file a petition for - The aforecited case of Lontoc vs. MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., et al . involved virtually the same factual situation. The Court, in arriving at the mandamus to compel the conclusion hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that the failure of the therein plaintiff to trial court to include such liability in the reserve his right to file a separate civil case is not fatal; that his intervention in the criminal civil case did not bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages, especially considering judgment of acquittal. And that the accused therein was acquitted because his guilt was not proved beyond that the failure of the court make any reasonable doubt; that the two cases were anchored on two different causes of action, the to criminal case being on a violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code while the pronouncement, favorable subsequent complaint for damages was based on a quasi- delict; and that in the judgment or unfavorable, as to the in the criminal case the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. civil liability of the accused amounts to a reservation Consequently, said civil case may proceed as authorized by Article 29 of the Civil Code. of the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate - Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where the trial court acquits the accused on action. The rules nowhere

provide that if the court fails to determine the civil liability it becomes no longer enforceable. Dispositive Decision of CA affirmed, petion denied.

RA 380 DIZON; March 29, 1968

FACTS - Ofelia V. Tang and Estefania de la Cruz Olanday were charged with estafa in the CFI of Cavite with the information alleging that they misappropriated P20,000 received from Manuel Jimenez for the purchase of a fishing boat named Basnig. They also


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 45
(ALIKPALA ) 5 7 S C R A 2 4 3 FERNAN DO; May 31, 1974
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS - Rojas was charged w/ violation of Art.319 (Removal, sale, pledge of mortgaged property) of RPC for executing a new chattel mortgage on personal property (Caterpillar Tractor) in favor of another party w/o the consent of the previous mortgagee. After the criminal case was instituted, a civil case was filed against him by the offended party (CMS Estate) for the termination of a management contract, one of the causes of action of which consisted of petitioner having executed a chattel mortgage when a prior chattel mortgage was still valid and subsisting, thus giving lie to his express

Pro f.
manifestation that the property was free from all liens and encumbrances. - Note: the trigger for the filing of information re: art.319 violation was the filing of 5 estafa cases against Rojas. - CFI Judge Alikpala ordered the arraignment, then the trial for the criminal case. Rojas filed an action for certiorari against the arraignment order, and prohibition against the order setting the trial, based

parties charged with have the obligation to return the money if they do not purchase the boat, which they did not estafa, because even on do. the assumption that the - Before arraignment, the accused filed a civil suit against Jimenez in the Quezon CFI execution of the receipt contesting the validity of a certain receipt signed by them on October 26, 1962 whereinwhose annulment they they acknowledged having received from him the sum of P20,000.00 with which to sought in the civil case purchase for him a fishing boat and its accessories, and the further sum of P240.00 as was vitiated by fraud, agent's commission, with the obligation, on their part, to return the aforesaid amounts on duress or intimidation, January 30, their guilt could still be established by other 1963 in case they were unable to buy the fishing boat. They assert now that they never evidence showing, to the received any amount from Jimenez and that they signatures were taken through the means degree required by law, that they had actually of fraud and deceit by Jimenez received from the - After a few days, they filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case complaint the sum of P20,000.00 with which to pending the resolution of the prejudicial question in the civil case whether or not their signatures were taken through means of fraud and deceit by buy for him a fishing boat, and that, instead of doing Jimenez. so, they misappropriated - Judge Averia granted the motion and hence this certiorari petition - Pre-ratio: Jimenez erred in the filing of a certiorari petition, and should have filed a the money and refused or otherwise failed to return it mandamus to the SC instead to compel the lower court to proceed with the case. to him upon demand. The contention of the private respondents herein would ISSUE WON the determination of the issue raised in the civil case mentioned heretofore is a be tenable had they been prejudicial question, in the sense that it must be first resolved before the proceedings in the charged with falsification of the same receipt criminal case for estafa may proceed involved in the civil action.

HELD - If the ruling were NO - The issue of fraud and deceit raised in the civil case does not constitute a prejudicial otherwise, there would hardly be a case for estafa question. The criminal court must now try the estafa case against the two accused. that could be prosecuted speedily, it being the Reasoning - A prejudicial question has been define to be one which arises in a case, the resolution of easiest thing for the which, accused to block the (question ) is a logical antecedent of the issued involved in said case, and the cognizance proceedings by the simple of which pertains to another tribunal. Simply put, the questions must be determinative of expedient of filing an the case before the court, and that jurisdiction to try and resolve said question must be independent civil action lodged in another tribunal. against the complainant, raising therein the issue - Applying these to the case, it will be readily seen that the alleged prejudicial question isthat he had not received not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the from the latter the amount alleged to have been misappropriated.


on the civil action for the revocation of the management contract. He contended that a prejudicial question was involved, thus he could no longer be tried pending the termination Reasoning: of the civil suit. The respondents, in turn, contended that the resolution of the civil case will - It is indispensable then not determine the liability of Rojas in the criminal case (not a prejudicial question); and for this petition to succeed even granting that there was a prejudicial question, the cases could proceed independently that the alleged prejudicial question must be pursuant to Art.33 of CC, which provides: In cases of defamation, fraud and physical determinative of the case before injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action criminal may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the respondent Judge. It is not so in this criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. case. ISSUE - Pisalbor. v. Tesoro: CFI WON the is a prejudicial question, thus requiring the resolution of the civil action for the erred in holding that the criminal case should be determination of the criminal case suspended. In the present HELD proceedings, the civil case NO does not involve a Ratio: A prejudicial question, which is must be determinative of the case before the court, question prejudicial to the and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court, is not present in this case.

criminal case, for to whomsoever the land may be awarded after all the evidence has been presented in the civil case, may not affect the alleged crime committed by the notary public, which is the subject of the criminal case. But, even supposing that both the civil and the criminal case involve the same question and one must precede the other, it should be the civil case which should be

suspended rather than the criminal, to await the result of the latter. - Dela Cruz v City Fiscal: Regardless of the outcome of the pending civil case for annulment of the affidavit of adjudication, determination of the charge of falsification would be based on the truth or falsity of the narration of facts in the affidavit of adjudication, * * *. Therefore, the civil case

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

aforementioned does not involve a prejudicial question.

a2010 page 46

Pro f.
considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the criminal action pending the determination of the civil, it must appear not only that the civil case

> therefore the alleged deed of sale in Pichel's favor sought to be - Benitez v. Concepcion, Jr (more analogous): the fact that the principal issues in both declared valid was cases are the same and did arise from the same facts would not show any necessity that fictitious and inexistent the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case. - Isip v. Gonzales: there is a prejudicial question only when the matter that has to be priorly - September 5, 1978 decided by another authority is one the cognizance of which pertains to that authority and while Civil Case was being should not, under the circumstances, be passed upon by the court trying the criminal case. TRIED before CFI Basilan, the Provincial Fiscal of - Moreover, Art.33 explicitly provides that in cases of xxx fraud, xxx, a civil action for Basilan filed an damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the INFORMATION for Estafa injured party. Such civil action (criminal case) in the SHALL proceed independently of the criminal prosecution xxx. same court against Ras - in this case, fraud is the basis for both the civil and criminal actions, thus they are to arising from the same proceed independently. The invocation of the doctrine of prejudicial question is thus double sale subject matter attended with futility. of the civil complaint filed Personal note: ang pangit ng case. theres realy no discussion, puro citations, thats why by Luis Pichel. this digest is also full of it. Dispositive Petition DENIED. - November 6, 1978 petitioner filed a MOTION RAS v RASUL FOR SUSPENSION OF ACTION in said Criminal 100 SCRA 125 Case claiming that same TEEHANKEE; September 18, 1980 facts and issues were involved in both the civil NATURE and criminal case and that Petition to review and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated December 12, 1978 the resolution of the of criminal case in CFI Basilan denying petitioner's motion as accused therein to suspend issues in the civil case proceedings due to the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil would necessarily be Case of the same court determinative of the guilt or innocence of the FACTS accused. - April 27, 1978 - Luis Pichel filed a COMPLAINT against Alejandro Ras and Bienvenido Martin before CFI Basilan praying for the nullification of the deed of sale executed by Ras - December 4, 1978 in favor of Martin and for the declaration of the prior deed of sale allegedly executed in his Provincial Fiscal of favor by the defendant Alejandro Ras as valid. Basilan filed his opposition - RAS ANSWER > they never sold the property to Pichel > the signatures appearing in the deed of sale in favor of plaintiff Pichel were forgeries on - December 12, 1978 respondent judge saw no prejudicial question and accordingly denied the motion ISSUE WON civil case would be prejudicial to the criminal case given that they would discuss same facts and issues

HELD YES - there appears to be a prejudicial question in the case at bar, considering that Ras' defense in Civil Case of the nullity and forgery of the alleged prior deed of sale in favor of Pichel (plaintiff in the civil case and complaining witness in the criminal case) is based on the very same facts which would be necessarily determinative of Ras' guilt or innocence as accused in the criminal case. Ratio A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. Reasoning - For a civil case to be

involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action would be necessarily determinative of the NATURE guilt or innocence of the accused. Petition for certiorari to review Negros CFI order - If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is void or fictitious, then there would be no double sale and petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged. FACTS A conviction in the criminal case (if it were allowed to proceed ahead) would be a gross - Felipe Rivera died injustice and would have to be set aside if it were finally decided in the civil action that leaving certain properties indeed the alleged prior deed of sale was a forgery and spurious. in San Carlos, Negros Dispositive Order of respondent judge in Criminal Occidental. His estate was Case dated December 12, 1978 is hereby set aside. The temporary restraining order settled in a special issued by this Court on May 16, 1979 is hereby made permanent and respondent judge is proceeding on November 1976 and was enjoined from proceeding with the arraignment and trial of the criminal case unless the civil 24, terminated on the basis of case shall have been finally decided and terminated adversely against petitioner. a Project of Partition among Rufino Rivera LIBRODO v COSCOLLUELA, JR. (GUANTERO) Damandaman, Democrata Guantero, and Zosimo 116 SCRA 303 Guantero.

MELENCIO-HERRERA; August 30, 1982

- Rufinos share of the estate comprise of lots designated as Lots 559B, 1906-B, 1910-B, and a901B which were all sugar lands. On January 18, 1977, Rufino leased the properties to Dr. Librodo, the petitioner, for a period of ten agricultural crop years. On August 31, Democrata filed a petition to re-open the intestate proceeding on the ground that she was not present when the

subdivision plan was submitted and that the judgment has not become final as the boundaries on the partition have not been platted. In the meantime, according to the petitioner, private respondents, Guanteros, harvested the sugar canes he planted on the land he leased from Rufino. On August 10, 1978, a Criminal Case (the Criminal Case) was filed against the respondents for theft

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 47
civil Case to be determined ahead of the Criminal Case. Dispositive In the absence of a prejudicial question, the order of the judge is set aside and he is instructed to proceed without delay with the trial of the criminal case. investigation.

Pro f.

that in the resolution of demanding damages amounting to Pesos 15,120.00. During the pendency of the Criminal the issue or issues Case, another case for damages (the Damages Case) against the private respondents raised in the civil case, alleging damages to the petitioner caused by the private respondents theft of the sugar the guilt or innocence of canes and their occupation of the leased properties thus preventing him from cultivating or the accused would taking possession of the same. He alleged that this resulted in his being deprived of necessarily be income for two years amounting to Pesos 78,280.00. determined. - In their answer, respondents asserted that the lots are still under co-ownership among the - In the case at bar, the issues raised would not heirs and that this is the subject of another special proceeding (the Intestate Case). That said, Democrata contended that Rufino could not execute the constitute a prejudicial lease contracts without her conformity without her conformity as co- owner. The Guanteros question to the Criminal Case. filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the Criminal The Intestate Case Case on the ground of pendency of the Damages Case, the Intestate Case, and the ejectment case (the Ejectment Case) which was filed by involves only the co- heirs and the facts involved are Rufino against Democrata on January 13, 1977. - The respondents took the position that the various cases focused on the issues of totally unrelated to the possession and ownership of the lots involved as well as of the improvements thereon, Criminal Case. Even if the Intestate hence, determinative of their guilt in the criminal action and hence constitutive of Court should annul the a prejudicial question. - Despite the objections made by the petitioner, the lower court issued the order finding that division and uphold the a prejudicial question existed and suspending the Criminal case proceeding. Hence this co-ownership, that would not be determinative of appeal. the criminal responsibility ISSUE of private respondents for WON the issues raised in the three cases mentioned involve a prejudicial question that theft of the sugar cane, which petitioner claims he warrants a suspension of the Criminal Case planted in good faith by HELD virtue of the valid lease NO agreement. The Ejectment The issues raised in the three cases do not involve the pivotal question of who planted the Case also does not sugar can and, therefore, are not determinative juris et jure of guilt or innocence in the constitute a prejudicial Criminal Case. question to the Criminal Reasoning Case. It involves the issue - A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime of possession between cobut so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the owners. A decision therein accused., and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said in favor of Democrata case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would not affect the rights of would be based but also Librodo, which spring from the lease contract. With regard the Damages case, it is actually the civil aspect of the Criminal Case as the two cases are of the same facts, and the entitlement to damages being predicated on the unlawful taking treated of in the Criminal Case, no necessity arises for that

BALGOS v SANDIGAN BAYAN 17 6 S C RA 28 7 GANCAYC O; August 10, 1989

NATURE Petition to review the decision of Sandiganbayan FACTS - Balgos et al were charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act, as amended, in an information that was filed with the Sandiganbayan by the Special Prosecutor which was approved by the Deputy Tanodbayan, after a preliminary

- Lim, the plaintiff and prevailing party in Civil Case No. 4047 filed a complaint for rescission of the sale of the car by Juanito Ang to private respondent Leticia Acosta -Ang for being allegedly in fraud of creditors. The said complaint was filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya. On the same day, petitioners filed

a motion for reinvestigation in the Tanodbayan. The same was granted. offenses, once the - The Tanodbayan ordered to dismiss the case for lack of merit and to withdraw the complaint or information is filed in court, the court Information filed in thereby acquires Criminal Case No. 11414 as soon as possible in the interest of justice. - Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to withdraw the information against jurisdiction over the case and all subsequent petitioners. This was denied. - BAlgos et al filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case against them on actions that may be taken by the public prosecutor in the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil Case relation to the disposition No. 5307. This was likewise denied by the of the case must be Sandiganbayan. subject to the approval of the said court. Before a ISSUE WON the denial by the Sandiganbayan of the motion to withdraw the information and of re- investigation of the another motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question in a case may be conducted by the public prosecutor, pending civil action constitute a grave abuse of discretion. the permission or consent of the court must be secured. And if after such HELD reinvestigation the NO. - While the public prosecutor has the sole direction and control in the prosecution of prosecution finds a cogent

basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of action must be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. - The only instance when the appellate court should stay the hand of the trial court in such cases is when it is shown that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or otherwise committed a

grave abuse of discretion amounting to such lack or excess of jurisdiction. - Petitioners are public officers charged with having violated Section 3(c) of RA 3019, for evident bad faith and manifest partiality in enforcing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 4047 against a Mustang car registered in the name of Leticia Acosta-Ang (complainant) who is not the judgment thereby causing debtor undue

injury to said complainant

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 48
June 21, 1990
NATURE Review on certiorari FACTS - Petitioners (Umali, Calleja, Ledesma) are officers of the Orosea Devt Corporation. Sometime on Sept. 4, 1979, Umali purchased from spoused Homorio and Solina Edano a lot in Mulanay, Province of Queazon for P1, 036,500 payable on 4 installments (P225,000, P271,500, P270,000, P 270,000) They issued for this purpose 4 checks drawn against the Chartered Bank, Manila Branch. The first check for P225,000.00 was honored upon its presentment. By arrangement the petitioners made with the Edano spouses, a deed of absolute sale in the name of Orosea Devt Corp. was executed even of the full purchase price has not yet been fully paid. Thereafter, OROSEA secured a loan of P1,000,000.00 from the Philippine Veterans Bank using this property as security. When the check for the second installment fell due, petitioners twice asked for deferment. The checks they have issued were dishonored. As a

Pro f.
consequence of the dishonor of these checks, the Edano spouses filed a complaint for estafa against petitioners. - The information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal against petitioners on May 21, 1981, and it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1423-I. Arraignment

civil action is resolved and giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor in said case. would be determinative - Upon reinvestigation of the criminal case by the juris et jure of the guilt or Tanodbayan, he found evidence tending to show that the sale of said car to the innocence of the accused complainant by Juanito Ang, the judgment debtor, was a sham intended to defraud his in the criminal case. creditors; that the deed of absolute sale which ostensibly was executed before a notary public appeared to be fictitious inasmuch as the entry of the document in the notarial - The pending civil case register of said notary public on said date referred to a catering contract of other parties; for the annulment of the that the certificate of registration of the car was issued to complainant only on June 13, sale of the car to Leticia 1984 which showed that the document of sale was actually executed only on or about the Ang is not determinative of same date, that is, seven days after Juanito Ang received copy of the adverse decision in the guilt or innocence of Civil Case No. 4047; and that upon the execution of the judgment, the car was found in the the petitioners for the acts possession of Alvin, the son of Juanito allegedly committed by Ang, who admitted that the car belonged to his father by showing the receipt of its repair in them in seizing the car. the name of Juanito Ang. This is the basis of the motion for withdrawal of the information of Even if in the civil action it the Tanodbayan. is ultimately resolved that - The respondents are aware that the complainant is not a party to the civil case filed by the the sale was null and void, creditor against spouses Juanito and Lydia Ang and that a writ of execution cannot be it does not necessarily implemented validly against one who is not a party to the action. All these, coupled with the follow that the seizure of under haste in which the levy on the Mustang car was made without first ascertaining the the car was rightfully true owner thereof demonstrate quite convincingly the evident bad faith and manifest undertaken. The car was partiality of the respondents, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the judgment creditor registered in the name of to the damage and prejudice of the complainant. Leticia Ang six months before the seizure. Until the nullity of the sale is - Although at the reinvestigation, the Tanodbayan was persuaded that in fact the sale of the declared by the courts, the car to same is presumptively Leticia Ang was fraudulent, this did not necessarily clear petitioners of the aforesaid Anti- valid. Thus, petitioners Graft charge against them. Still the burden is on the petitioners to establish that they acted must demonstrate that the in good faith in proceeding with the execution on the car even they were presented seizure was not attended evidence tending to show it did not belong to Juanito Ang anymore. by manifest bad faith in order to clear themselves - The denial of the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of the of the charge in the pendency of a prejudicial question in Civil Case No. 5307 is well taken. The doctrine of criminal action. prejudicial question comes into play usually in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because whatsoever the issue raised in Dispositive The petition is the DENIED for lack of merit and the restraining order dated June 6, 1989 is hereby lifted. No costs.


was set on September 4, 1981 but petitioners failed to appear. It was reset to October 5, 8769 involves a prejudicial 1981 but this was postponed upon motion of petitioners. question. - On October 14, 1981, OROSEA filed a Complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon HELD against the Edano spouses for the annulment/rescission of the Contract of Sale for which the petitioners issued the checks, subject of the criminal case. NO. - The estafa case was again set for arraignment. This was postponed. With the entry of a - CV No. 8769 seeks the new counsel, petitioners filed a motion to quash the estafa case, on ground of improper annulment of the deed of sale in favor of Orosea on venue, but this motion was withdrawn by petitioners before it could be resolved. the gound that there was - The arraignment was again postponed thrice. fraud in misrepresenting Petitioners then filed a 'Motion to Suspend Arraignment and Further Proceedings, with a Supplemental Motion To Suspend Proceedings. This was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal that the land is free from all liens and of Quezon. Resolving the motion to suspend, respondent Judge issued his orders, now under encumbrances, and that it question, denying the motion. CFI of Zambales also denied the same motion. A petition for is not tenanted, when in truth and fact, the land is certiorari is filed with CA and covered by the land CA affirmed. reform program and that vast portions thereof are ISSUE land, hence, WON proceedings should be suspended until the civil case is disposed of, since CV No. timber

allegedly indisposable public land. Therefore, according to petitioners, CV No. 8769 involves issues, the resolution of which will determine whether or not petitioners are criminally liable in CR No. 1423- I. They further argue that, if and when the court hearing CV No. 7869 annuls the subject deed of sale, then, their obligation to pay private respondents under the said deed would be extinguished, resulting in the

dismissal of CR No. 1423-I. The contracts are thus voidable with the existence of fraud vitiating their consent. - However, it cannot be denied that at the time the acts complained of in the estafa case were committed, the deed of sale they seek to be annulled, was still binding to the parties.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1-

a2010 page 49
him implied, not merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof, but also, that he urged the courts to exercise the authority thereof over his person. - On the other hand, it is well settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is and may be conferred only by law. That jurisdiction over a given crime, not vested by law upon a particular court, may not be conferred thereto by the parties involved in the offense; and that, under an information for forcible abduction, the accused may be convicted of abduction with consent. Art 344 (3) RPC states that: ". . . the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, if the offended has been expressly pardoned by the abovenamed persons, as the case may be". - Art 344 RPC does not determine the jurisdiction of our courts over the offense therein enumerated. It could not affect said jurisdiction, because the same is governed by the Judiciary Act of

Pro f.
1948, not by RPC, which deals primarily with the definition of crimes and the factors pertinent to the punishment of the culprits. The complaint required in said Article 344 is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the

matter of the action wrt The two (2) essential elements for a prejudicial question to exist are: (a) the civil the offense of abduction action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal with consent. MFR was action; and (b) the resolution of such issue in the civil action determines whether or not the denied Petitioners claims criminal action may proceed. there was no complaint for abduction with consent 2Given the nature of a prejudicial question, and considering the issues raised in filed and that the lower CV No. 8769 and CR acquired no No. 1423-I, we agree with the ruling of the respondent Court of Appeals that the resolution court jurisdiction over his person of the issues in CV No. 8769 is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the or over the crime of petitioners-accused in CR abduction with consent. No. 1423-I, hence, no prejudicial question is involved between the said two (2) cases. Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated 23 SeptemberISSUE WON CA erred in not 1982 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 14504 is hereby reversing he decision of AFFIRMED. the TC for lack of jurisdiction over the VALDEPENAS V PEOPLE accused and the subject 16 SCRA 871 matter of the action for the CONCEPTION; April 30, 1966 offense abduction with consent NATURE Appeal by Maximino Valdepenas from a decision of the CA, affirming that of the CFI of Cagayan, convicting him of the crime of abduction with consent. HELD NO. - Jurisdiction over the FACTS person of an accused is - Jan 25, 56 Ester Ulsano filed with the justice of peace a criminal complaint charging acquired upon either his Valdepenas with forcible abduction with rape of Ester Ulsano. After the preliminary apprehension, with or investigation, the second stage of which was waived by Valdepenas, the justice of peace without warrant, or his found that there was probable cause and forwarded the complaint to the CFI. submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It - CFI found him guilty as charged and sentenced him accordingly. is not claimed that - On appeal, CA modified the decision, convicting him of abduction with consent. petitioner had not been - Valdepenas filed MFR and new trial contesting the findings of CA, to the effect that apprehended or had not complainant was below 18 y/o at the time of the occurrence. Motion was granted. The submitted himself to the decision was set aside and the case was remanded to the CFI jurisdiction of the court. His actions show that he - CFI rendered decision reiterating findings of CA. never questioned the Petitioner again appealed to CA which affirmed the judicial authority of the CFI decision. CFI, the justice of peace - MFR was filed on the ground that lower court had no jurisdiction over the person and the and the CA. He is deemed subject to have waived whatever objection he might have had to the jurisdiction over his person, and, hence, to have submitted himself to the Court's jurisdiction. His behavior - particularly the motions therein filed by

guilty parties. And such condition has been imposed "out of consideration for the offended party against her will, woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go using force, intimidation through with the scandal of a public trial." and violence, with lewd designs." This allegation - The gist of petitioner's pretense is that there are some elements of the latter which are not implies that Ester is a included in the former, and, not alleged, according to him, in the complaint filed herein, minor living under patria namely: 1) that the offended party is a virgin; and 2) that she is over 12 and under 18 years protestas, thus leading to of age. The second element is clearly set forth in said complaint, which states that Ester the presumption that she Ulsano is "a minor . . . 17 years of age . . .", and, hence, over 12 and below 18 years of is a virgin apart from being age. virtuous and having a - As regards the first element, it is settled that the virginity mentioned in Art 343 RPC, as an good reputation. The essential ingredient of the crime of abduction with consent, should not be understood in its presumption of innocence material sense and does not exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of good includes that of morality reputation because the essence of the offense "is not the wrong done to the woman, but and decency, and of the outrage to the family and the alarm produced in it by the disappearance of one of its chastity. members." - The complaint in the case at bar alleges not only that Ester Ulsano is a minor 17 years of Dispositive Wherefore, age, but also that petitioner "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously" took her by force and the decision violence . . . against her will and taking advantage of the absence of her mother" from their appealed from is dwelling and carried "her to a secluded spot to gain carnal intercourse with the offended

hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner Maximino Valdepenas. It is so ordered.

A 401 AQUINO; May 30 1978

FACTS - One night, Pedro Candel together with other pedicab drivers and Tomas Metucua, a second year college student drank beer in the kitchenette. Seated at another table were Warlito Plateros and Murillo Lahoy who were also drinking beer.


Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Metucua and Plateros were rivals for the affection of Estrella Silamro, the cashier in the kitchenette. When Metucua was talking with Estrella, his alleged sweetheart, Plateros went near them and refused to leave them, thereby annoying Metucua.

a2010 page 50
imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those involving other offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion, as that giving rice to the more serious offense, regardless of whether the accused are charged as principals, accomplices or accessories, or whether have been tried jointly or separately; x x x." homicide only and not murder HELD 1. NO. Ratio: The rule in section 17(1) is designed to avoid conflicts between the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals in cases involving offenses which arose from the same occurrence or which were committed on the same occasion usually by the same accused. However, that general rule has an exception. Where, by allowing the Court of Appeals to decide a can involving an offense, which is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua but which arose out of the same occurrence or was committed on the same occasion, as the case involving an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua pending in this Court, there will be no conflict between the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals, the former case need not be elevated to this Court (People vs. Cario, 101 Phil. 1206). The rationale of that exception to the general rule is found in the maxim: Cessanie ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex. (The reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases.) Reasoning: - The doctrine Cario applied case in

Pro f.
of the be case


may this

2- At about midnight. Piquero, Candel and Aora, accompanied by Metucua, left the kitchenette and went to their pedicab. Candel was seated in the sidecar of the tricycle. Metucua sat on the driver's seat. Lahoy and Plateros came out of the kitchenette. Lahoy appeared to be angry, hostile and menacing. Without any warning, he stabbed Candel (maybe thinking that it was Metucua who was inside the pedicab because Candel is the driver abberatio personae) two times. Plateros also stabbed Candel. Moved by the instinct of selfpreservation, Candel jumped out of the sidecar. He fell on the ground face down. Lahoy allegedly stabbed Metucua. Then, Plateros and Lahoy fled from the scene of the assault, 3Candel was brought to the hospital but he died on that same morning. Procedure

because here there can be no conflict

4Two informations were filed in the Court of First Instance of Bohol accusing Plateros and Lahoy of (1) Murder of Candel and (2) Attempted Murder of Metucua. - In other words, the 5The trial court tried the two cases jointly and rendered only one decision. attempted murder case Plateros and Lahoy were found guilty of murder, sentencing each of them of reclusion like the instant murder perpetua. In that same decision, the trial court convicted Lahoy of attempted murder case, comes within the (Plateros, his co-accused, was acquitted) of Metucua. exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the SCt and 6Lahoy appealed to the Court of Appeals and the CA acquitted him. should have been decided 7The murder case was elevated to SC for review. Together with it, the Solicitor together with the instant General elevated the attempted murder case be he believed that the decision of CA is void murder case. because Lahoys appeal ought to have been certified to the Supreme Court by the CA because the attempted murder imputed to Lahoy was committed on the same occasion ISSUES and arose out of the same occurrence as the murder imputed to him and Plateros in this On Attempted Murder case, as contemplated in section 17(1), formerly section 17(4) of the Judiciary Law, which Case reads: 1. WON the decision of the Court of Appeals acquitting Lahoy of "SEC. 17, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. -x x x " x x xx x x x x x "The Supreme Court attempted murder should shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, as be set aside for lack of the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts appellate jurisdiction or as herein provided, in "(1) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty a lawless thing
On Murder case 2. WON the guilt of Lahoy and Plateros was proven beyond reasonable doubt 3. WON there was conspiracy between Lahoy and Plateros 4. WON the crime should be categorized as simple

between the decision of the Court of Appeals and this Court's decision in the instant Aora and Piquero, that murder case inasmuch as the victims in the two cases are different. The attempted murderthe appellants were the case decided by the Court of authors of the stab Appeals involved the wounding of a certain Tomas Metucua whereas, in the instant murder wounds which caused case the victim was Pedro Candel. The acquittal of Lahoy in connection with the wounding Candal's death. Their guilt of Metucua would not affect the determination of his guilt or innocence in connection with was proven beyond the death of Pedro Candel. reasonable doubt. - This holding does not in anyway emasculate the rule in section 17(1) that criminal cases appealed to the Court of Appeals, involving offenses which arose out of the same 3. YES. occurrence, or which were committed on the same occasion as the offense punished by There was a conspiracy death or reclusion perpetua should be certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals. It is between Plateros and this Court that would determine whether or not the cases appealed to the Court of Appeals Lahoy as shown in their should be decided together with the case appealed to this Court. concerted efforts to injure Candel. Plateros and Lahoy, as 2. YES boon companions, had The feeble denials of Plateros and Lahoy (who admittedly were near the owns of the crime, been together since four when it was perpetrated) cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal declarations of o'clock in the afternoon. the eyewitnesses,

They had gone to different places and repaired twice to the kitchenette. They were together when they left the scene of the stabbing. 4. NO Lahoy and Plateros, who could have stabbed Candel or Metucua inside the kitchenette, did not do so. They waited for Metucua and the pedicab drivers to leave the kitchenette. Their intention was to make a

surprise attack without any risk to themselves. The assault was deliberate, sudden and unexpected. That is the characteristics manifestation of treachery (alevosia). Hence, the killing was properly categorized as murder by the trial court (Art. 14(16), Revised Penal Code). Dispositive WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellants. They are entitled to credit for their preventive

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

imprisonment under the conditions laid down in article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

a2010 page 51
of 1988, of the Municipality of Rodriguez, in the Province of Rizal, allegedly committed on May 11, 1990. The referralcomplaint of the police was received by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Rizal on May 30, 1990 and the information was filed with the MTC of Rodriguez, presided by Judge Andres Reyes, Jr., on October 2, 1990. - The petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed, but the motion was denied. On appeal, the RTC of Rizal affirmed the denial of the motion. Petitioners claims In this petition, the petitioner argues that the charge against her is governed by the following provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP): Section 1. Scope. This rule shall govern the procedure in the MetTC, the MTC, and the MCTC in the following cases: B. Criminal Cases:

Pro f.
Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run," reading as follows: Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,

offense which carries a penalty that would otherwise fall within the PEOPLE v LAGON jurisdiction of an inferior 185 SCRA 442 court. -In the instant case, FELICIANO.: May 18, 1990 should the information be refiled with the RTC, the FACTS court may not impose a -On July 7 1976 a criminal action was filed with the City Court of Roxas charging Lagon with estafa for allegedly issuing a P4,232 check as more onerous penalty payment for goods knowing she had insufficient funds. However on Dec. 2, as the trial upon Lagon. Although the RTC retains subjectcommenced, the City Court dismissed the information on the ground that the penalty matter jurisdiction to try prescribed by law for estafa was beyond the courts authority to impose. Hence this petition and decide the refiled for review. case under PD 818, given the date of the commission of the crime ISSUE (before effectivity of PD WON the City Court had jurisdiction over the case 818), the lower penalty provided in Art 315 HELD (otherwise within the NO - It is settled doctrine that jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is determined by the jurisdiction of the City law in effect at the time of the commencement of the criminal action and not the law in Court) should be imposed. Dispositive effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged. WHEREFORE, the Court -Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, municipal judges in the capitals of provinces resolved to and sub -provinces and judges of city courts shall have like jurisdiction as the CFI to try DENY the petition parties charged with an offense within their respective jurisdictions, in which penalties provided do not exceed prision correccional or fines no exceeding P6,000 or both. -At the time of the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty under Art 315 of the RPC was arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional it is minimum period, falling well within the jurisdiction of the City Court. But when the information was filed, PD 818 had increased the imposable penalty to prision mayor in its medium period.

-The real question raised by petitioner is whether the said doctrine disregards the rule against retroactivity of penal laws. It has been repeatedly held that in criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender in after trial but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the Court in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless of whether the evidence proves a NATURE lesser Petition for review on certiorari

ZALDIVIA V REYES, JR. 211 SCR A 277 CRUZ; July 3, 1992

3. 2-

FACTS - The petitioner Lus Zaldivia is charged with quarrying for commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series

Violations of municipal or city ordinances; .

Petitioner also invokes Act No. 3326, "An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations

prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . . . Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months. Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. - Petitioner concludes that as the information was filed way beyond the two-month statutory period from the date of the alleged commission of the offense, the charge against her should have been dismissed on the ground prescription. Prosecutions position The prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was suspended upon the filing of the complaint against her with the OPP. The SolGen invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (RCP), providing as follows: Section 1. How Instituted For offenses not subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases, the institution of criminal action shall be as follows: b) For offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the MTC and MCTC, 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 complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal. In all cases such institution interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged. - Respondent maintains that the filing of the complaint with the OPP comes under the phrase "such institution" and that the phrase "in all cases" applies to all cases, without distinction, including those falling under the RSP. ISSUE WON the offense has prescribed HELD YES - The filing of the complaint in the MTC, even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed can not try the case on its merits. Even if the court where the complaint or information is filed may only

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 52
already prescribed. Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. Case is DISMISSED on the ground of prescription.

Pro f.
gross and willful violation of its terms. -Respondents (Lazatin and TDC) filed with Fiscals Office of City of Angeles a complaint against petitioners for violation of A172 in relation to A171, par4, RPC. Preliminary investigation conducted. Fiscal filed with Court in Angeles City information

prescription shall be proceed to investigate the case, its actuations already represent the initial step of the suspended "when proceedings against the offender. proceedings are instituted - It is important to note that this decision was promulgated on May 30, 1983, two months against the guilty party." before the promulgation of the RSP on August 1, 1983. On the other hand, Section 1 of The proceedings referred Rule 110 is new, having been incorporated therein with the revision of the to in Section 2 thereof are RCP on January 1, 1985, except for the last paragraph, which was added on October 1, "judicial proceedings," 1988. contrary to the submission - Sec. 1 of the RCP begins with the phrase, "for offenses not subject to the rule on of the SolGen that they summary procedure in special cases," which plainly signifies that the section does not include administrative apply to offenses which are subject to summary procedure. The phrase "in all cases" proceedings. appearing in the last paragraph obviously refers to the cases covered by the Section, that is, those offenses not governed by the RSP. - At any rate, the Court feels that if there be a - The charge against the petitioner, which is for violation of a municipal ordinance of conflict between the RSP Rodriguez, is governed by the RSP and not the RCP. and the RCP, the former - Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of should prevail as the "offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the MTC and MCTC," the obvious reference is to special law. And if there be Section 32 (2) of B.P. No. 129, vesting in such courts: a conflict between Act No. (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not 3326 and the RCP, the exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or latter must again yield both such fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other because this Court, in the penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, exercise of its rule-making irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof; Provided, however, That in offenses power, is not allowed to involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original "diminish, increase or jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not modify substantive rights" under Article exceed twenty thousand pesos. VIII, Section 5 (5) of the - These offenses are not covered by the RSP. Under Section 9 of the RSP, "the complaint Constitution Prescription or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination in criminal cases is a or preliminary investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the substantive right. prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the case- The prescriptive period shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the prosecution for the crime imputed to decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means that the running of the the petitioner commenced prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actual filed in court and not on from its alleged any date before that. commission on May 11, 1990, and ended two - This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-quoted Act No. 3326 which says that months thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance the period of with Section 1 of Act No. 3326. It was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the OPP on May 30, 1990, as this was not a judicial proceeding. The judicial proceeding that could have interrupted the period was the filing of the information with the MTC of Rodriguez, but this was done only on October 2, 1990, after the crime had

LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE 1 8 S C R A 6 1 6 DIZON, October 29, 1966

NATURE Petition for review on Certiorari and Prohibition FACTS -Petitioners (Roy Villasor, Angelina Meijia Lopez and Aurora Mejia Villasor) and other heirs of spouses Manuel Meijia and Gloria Lazatin entered into a contract with respondent Trinidad Lazatin for the development and subdivision of 3 parcels of land belonging to the intestate estate. Lazatin transferred his rights to Terra Devt Co (TDC). -Petitioners and co -heirs filed an action in CFI QC for rescission of said contract with Lazatin for alleged

charging petitioners with crime of falsification of private document. Allegedly, Aurora and to quash, set arraignment. Angelina made it appear that they were the guardians of minors George and Alexander So petitioners filed present Meijia (sons of the spouses?) when they werent the guardians at the date of the execution action. of the document, a certain Carolina M. de Castro was the judicial guardian of the said minors). ISSUE -Petitioners asked for a reinvestigation. Angeles City Fiscal reinvestigated to give them opportunity to present exculpatory evidence. After 1. WON City Court of City had reinvestigation, parties charged moved for the dismissal of the case mainly on the groundAngeles that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the offense because the jurisdiction to try and private document that contained the alleged false statement of fact was signed by decide the criminal case for alleged falsification of a them outside the territorial limits of said city (One in Makati, the other one in QC). private document -However, the resolution of their motion to dismiss was delayed and the City Court already allegedly done by the set their criminal case for arraignment. Petitioners secured several postponements of the parties named in the info even if the acts of arraignment. But since City Fiscal continually failed to act on their motion to dismiss, petitioners filed a motion to falsification was allegedly quash instead, on the ground that court had no jurisdiction. Respondents (with conformity done in Makati and QC, of City Fiscal) filed an opposition to the motion to quash. Respondent judge denied motion and thus outside the

jurisdiction of said court Other procedural issues 2. WON the motion to quash was improper, and should not be allowed since by filing the said motion, the petitioners necessarily assumes the truth of the allegation of the information to the effect that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Angeles City

3. WON the prayer for writs of certiorari and prohibition is proper HELD 1. NO. Ratio. The place where the criminal offense was committed not only determines the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction [US vs. Pagdayuman].

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 53
Caloocan City), payable to Freeway Tires Supply. The checks were dishonored because of insufficient funds. Yabut failed to deposit the necessary funds to cover the checks. - Instead of entering a plea, YABUT filed a MOTION TO QUASH contending that: (1) the acts charged do not constitute the offense as there is no allegation that the postdated checks were issued and delivered to the complainant prior to or simultaneously with the delivery of the merchandise; (2) estafa is not indictable when checks are postdated or issued in payment of preexisting obligations; (3) venue was improperly laid because checks were issued and received by complainant in Caloocan, Yabuts office. - The People opposed and maintained that new law on checks, RA 4885, amending Art. 315 par.2(d) RPC, penalizes the postdating and that Malolos court can exercise jurisdiction since the last ingredient of the case, damage, transpired in Bulacan (residence of the complainant) after the dishonor of the checks for lack of funds. - The judge quashed

Pro f.
the information for the reason of improper venue. The other issue was not resolved by the judge. - Peoples MFR for this dismissal was denied. ** This is actually a decision for two petitions: the other case involved Cecilias husband, GEMINIANO

undergo trial in said court Reasoning. Petitioners are charged with having falsified a private document, not using a and suffer all the falsified document, so it is essential to determine when and where the offense of embarrassment and falsification of a private document is deemed consummated or committed. The crime of mental anguish that go falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually with it. Dispositive falsified with the intent to prejudice a 3 rd person, whether such falsified document is or is WHEREFORE, judgment not put to use illegally. The improper and illegal use of the document is not material or is hereby rendered essential element of the crime of falsification of a private document [US vs. declaring that the offense charged in the information Infante, US vs. Barreto] filed in Criminal Case No. 2. NO C-2268 of the City Court Ratio. The motion to quash now provided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court is of Angeles City is not manifestly broader in scope than the demurrer, as it is not limited to defects apparent upon within the jurisdiction of the face of the complaint or information but extends to issues arising out of extraneous said court and that, facts, as shown by the circumstance that, among the grounds for a motion to quash, therefore, said court is Section 2 of said Rule provides for former jeopardy or acquittal, extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of the accused etc., which necessarily involve questions of fact in the hereby restrained and prohibited from further determination of which a preliminary trial is required. proceedings therein. Costs against the private Reasoning. The argument of the respondents refer to the now obsolete demurrer to anrespondents. information. 3. YES Ratio. The general rule is that a court of equity will not issue a writ of certiorari to annul an order of a lower court denying a motion to quash, nor issue a writ of prohibition to prevent said court from proceeding with the case after such denial, it being the rule that upon such denial the defendant should enter his plea of not guilty and go to trial and, if convicted, raise on appeal the same legal questions covered by his motion to quash. In this as well as in other jurisdictions, however, this is no longer the hard and fast rule. -The writs of certiorari and prohibition, as extraordinary legal remedies, are, in the ultimate analysis, intended to annul void proceedings; to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.

Reasoning. In several cases, the court already took cognizance of said writs, overlooking the flaw in the procedure followed in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice. The lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Angeles is patent and it would be highly NATURE Petition for review on unfair to compel the petitioners to certiorari of Orders of CFI Bulacan

PEOP LE v YABUT 76 SC RA 624 MARTIN; April 29, 1977

FACTS - Cecilia YABUT was accused of ESTAFA by means of false pretenses before the CFI Bulacan. She, as treasurer of the Yabut Transit Lines, made out 3 checks in the total sum of P6, 568.94 drawn against the Merchants Banking Corp (located in

who was also charged with estafa, in his capacity as the President of Yabut Transit Lines. shall be instituted and The exact same thing happened in his case (motion to quash -> improper venue reason - > tried in the Court of the municipality or province quashed -> MFR denied). wherein the offense was ISSUE committed or any one of 1. WON CFI Bulacan had jurisdiction over the case the essential ingredients 2. WON new law punishes the postdating or issuance thereof in payment of a pre-existing thereof took place. obligation 3. WON facts charged in the informations constitute estafa - The estafa charged in the 2 informations involved here appear to be transitory or continuing in nature. HELD Deceit has taken place in 1. YES Ratio Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315 par 2(d) of the RPC mayMalolos (thru issuance be a transitory or continuing offense . Its basic elements of deceit and damage may and delivery of worthless independently arise in separate places. In the event of such occurrence, the institution of checks), while the damage in the criminal action in either place is legally allowed. Caloocan, where the - The venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered to checks were dishonored by the drawee banks the payee. Reasoning Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the ROC: In all criminal prosecutions the action there.

- The place where the bills were written, signed or dated does not necessarily fix the place where they were executed. What is decisive is the delivery of the instrument which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation. - The receipt of the bad checks by a certain Yambao in Caloocan cannot be taken as delivery of the checks to Freeway Tires because he did not take delivery of the checks as holder.

- Place of business of Freeway Tires is at Malolos, Bulacan from where the tire and gas purchases were made by the private respondents. Payment should then be considered effected there. 2. YES - Due to the absence of concrete evidence on the specific nature of the obligation assumed or supposedly discharged by the issuance of the bad checks, resolution of this controversial issue on the

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

basis of the averments in the informations alone is not ripe.

a2010 page 54
provincial fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya had no authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and to file the information. -It was denied by the trial court in its order of April 25, 1977 on the ground that Mahinan was not a public officer within the meaning of article 203 of the Revised Penal Code since the insurance business of the GSIS is not an inherently governmental function. -After petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of that order was denied, they filed in this Court the instant petition. ISSUE WON the CFI of Nueva Ecija was the proper venue of the criminal action for written defamation filed by Mahinan HELD NO -There is no issue as to whether Mahinan is a public officer. As GSIS branch manager, he is unquestionably a public officer. -Article 360, which lays down the rules on venue in cases of written defamation and which specifies the officer or court that should conduct the

Pro f.
preliminary investigation, reads as follows: ART. 360.Persons responsible. . . .

made defamatory imputations against Mahinan on or about 3. YES February 17, 1976 in Reasoning In considering a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts charged Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. do not constitute an offense, the point of resolution is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would meet the essential elements of the offense as defined in the -Quoted in the information law. Facts alleged should be taken as they are. were the affidavits of Pascual and Bautista Dispositive Appealed orders ordering the quashal of the estafa informations against the signed at Cauayan, two private respondents are reversed and set aside. Arraignment of the private Isabela, Bautista's respondents in the criminal cases should be set at the earliest date, and thereafter, the trial undated letter asking for Mahinan's dismissal, and on the merits to proceed immediately. Agbayani's "unusual SEPARATE OPINION incident report" subscribed and sworn to before a Manila notary and TEEHANKEE [concurring] documentary - The motion to quash on the ground of improper venue must yield to the express enclosing allegations of the informations, bearing in mind that what determines jurisdiction are the evidence to support his charges of malversation allegations in the information and that venue is sufficiently conferred wherein any one of and falsification against the essential ingredients of the offense charged took place. It also imports on the part of Mahinan and praying for the accused a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. the latter's separation from the service. -According to the information, all those documents allegedly depicted Mahinan "as an incorrigible managerial NATURE misfit, despoiler of public Instant petition for certiorari and prohibition office, spendthrift of GSIS funds, inveterate gambler, FACTS -Conrado B. Mahinan, a lawyer, was the manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of the chronic falsifier", and an Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) stationed at Cauayan, Isabela. Among his "unreformed ex-convict". -The four accused filed a subordinates were motion to quash Wilson Agbayani, Carmelo N. Bautista, Pablo R. contending that the Court Pascual, and Renato Romeo P. Dugay. -On March 8, 1976, Mahinan filed with the fiscal's office at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya a of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya has no jurisdiction complaint for written defamation against Agbayani, Bautista, over the offense charged Pascual and Dugay. because Mahinan was a -On July 23, 1976, the provincial fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya filed in the Court of First Instance of that province an information for libel charging public officer holding office at Agbayani, Bautista, Pascual and Dugay with having maliciously Cauayan, Isabela when the alleged libel was committed and, under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense charged comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Isabela. They argued that the

AGBAYANI v SAYO 89 SCRA 699 AQUINO; April 30, 1979

"The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: "Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published

province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such actions may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article. ". . . ." (As amended by Republic Act Nos. 1289 and 4363)

published or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or printed. Under that rule, the criminal action is transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue. -Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant place. -Republic Act No. 4363 was enacted so as to

prevent the offended party in written defamation cases from inconveniencing the accused by means of outof-town libel suits, meaning complaints filed in remote municipal courts -The rules on venue in article 360 may be restated thus: 1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city

- Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in "Preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written defamations as provided any jurisdiction where the article was for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the libelous

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

where the libelous article is printed and first published. 2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. 3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

a2010 page 55
CATINGU B v CA (PCSO) 121 SCR A 106. GUERRERO ; March 25, 1983.
explain the shortage in writing and to produce the missing amount. He failed to do so. His services were terminated without prejudice to whatever court action the PCSO will take for the recovery of the amount involved. In a letter, petitioner proposed to the General Manager of the PCSO, Manila, to settle his shortages by making monthly payments in the amount of at least P200.00, which proposal was, however, denied by the General Manager (there was already an admission in this letter). -Catingub, was charged with the crime of malversation (take note: crimes of estafa and malversation are similar in nature: difference is that the funds in malversation are public in character) in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He filed motion to dismiss after arraignment on the sole ground that "the prosecution made a wrong choice of jurisdiction." He contended that "on the basis of the prosecution's evidence, the offense charged, together with all its essential ingredients occurred and the consummation thereof (was) completed, in Cagayan de Oro.

Pro f.
-TC and CA dismissed motion hence this petition before the SC ISSUE

4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the NATURE time of the commission of the offense. This is an appeal by -As a corollary, the preliminary investigation of the criminal action for written defamation certiorari from the decision shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38698-R court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted. entitled "PEDRITO L. -Applying the foregoing rules, the proper venue of Mahinan's criminal action for written defamation against the petitioners is the Court of First CATINGUB, Petitioner, Instance of Isabela, since as a GSIS branch manager, he was a public official stationed at versus HON. C. PUNO, Cauayan, Isabela and the alleged libel was committed when he was (as he still) in the RICARDO public service. The preliminary investigation of the complaint should have been conducted Judge of the CFI Manila, by the provincial fiscal of Isabela, or by the municipal judge of Ilagan, the provincial capital, Branch 24, and the PHILIPPINE CHARITY or by the Court of SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE, Respondents." First Instance of the same province. -The criminal action could have been filed also in the Court of First Instance of the province FACTS or in the city court of the city where the libel was printed and first published. - Catingub was designated Sales -The information in this case is defective or deficient because it does not show that the Temporary of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, where it was filed, has jurisdiction to entertain the Supervisor Charity criminal action for written defamation initiated by Mahinan against the petitioners and that Philippine the provincial fiscal of that province had the authority to conduct the preliminary Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) assigned investigation. at the Cagayan de Oro Branch. As such, he -Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction sweepstakes Dispositive Petition granted. The trial court's order denying petitioners' motion to quash is received set aside. It is directed to dismiss Criminal Case No. 509, the libel case against the tickets on consignment, with the express obligation petitioners, without prejudice to the filing of another criminal action for written defamation in to turn over the proceeds the Court of First Instance of Isabela of the sales of these tickets to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. Later, he was informed by the Auditing Examiner of the PCSO, Cagayan de Oro Branch that he has been found short of P12,307.45. Petitioner was ordered to

WON CFI of Manila has jurisdiction to continue with the trial of the offense as charged in prosecuting officer and not with the accused. view of the evidence presented by the prodecution HELD YES. - Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, Sec. 14(a) provides: Dispositive Decision of "Sec. 14. Place where action is to be instituted. CA Affirmed. Remand to (a) In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential the trial court for further proceedings in the ingredients thereof took place. ordinary course of law -Petitioner could have been charged and tried in Cagayan de Oro City for it is not disputed that he received the sweepstakes tickets from the PCSO, Cagayan de Oro branch. The essential ingredient of receiving the sweepstakes tickets took place in PEOPL Cagayan de Oro City. He could also be charged in the City of Manila since the final Ev accounting must be rendered in the Central Office, Manila. This is therefore, a case GROSP of concurrent jurisdiction by the proper court of the place wherein "anyone of the E essential ingredients thereof took place." But the choice of venue lies with the

15 7 SC RA 15 4. MELENCIOHERRERA ; January 20, 1988

FACTS - Manuel Parulan is a wholesale dealer of San Miguel Corp (SMC). He issued

two checks in favor of SMC (P86,071.20 and P11,918.80) that were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. - The checks were received at the SMC Bulacan branch, then forwarded to the SMC Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga. - SMC Finance Officer deposited the check in BPI San Fernando, Pampanga branch. - (Parulans bank is Planters Development Bank in Bulacan)

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1-

a2010 page 56
The case was dismissed not on merits but on the erroneous conclusion of the judge that his court had no jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal being null and void, the proceedings before the RTC cant be said to have been lawfully terminated. Therefore, there is no second proceeding to place the accused in double jeopardy. Dispositive Petition granted. Judge is ordered to reassume jurisdiction over Criminal Cases Nos. 2800 and 2813 of his Court and to render judgment of either conviction or acquittal in accordance with the evidence already adduced during the joint trial of said two cases.

Pro f.
Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila FACTS - The petitioner had been indicted for removing and substituting the picture of Diazen which had been attached to her United States of America passport, with that of Notarte, in effect falsifying a genuine

1In respect of the (2ndBouncing Checks Case, the offense also appears to be continuing in nature. 2After hearing the facts and evidence, Judge Grospe of the Pampanga RTC It is true that the offense is dismissed the case because he said that the two essential elements, deceit and damage, committed by the very fact of the offenses charged occurred and took place in Bulacan. DECEIT took place whenof its performance; and Parulan gave the checks to SMC in Bulacan, with the false assurance that it had sufficient that the Bouncing Checks funds. DAMAGE occurred at the moment the checks issued by the accused were Law penalizes not only the fact of dishonor of a check dishonored by the Planters but also the act of making or drawing and issuance Development Bank, the drawee bank, at Santa Maria, of a bouncing check. The Bulacan which received them from the BPI, San case, therefore, could Fernando, Pampanga branch for clearing purpose. have been filed also in Bulacan. The ISSUES 1. WON any of the essential elements of the offenses charged occurred or took place determinative factor within the jurisdiction of RTC Pampanga. (in determining venue) is 2. WON this petition for Certiorari places accused in double jeopardy. the place of the issuance HELD of the check. However, it 1. YES is likewise true that - A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or knowledge on the part of province where the offense was in part committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in the maker or drawer of the which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation check of the insufficiency occur in one province and some in another, the Court of either province has jurisdiction to of his funds, which is an try the case, it being understood that the first essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a Court taking cognizance of the Case will exclude the others. continuing eventuality, whether the accused be ESTAFA under par 2d within one territory or - Elements: another. Accordingly, (1) Deceit took place in Pampanga, where it was uttered and delivered. The rule is that jurisdiction to take the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as a cognizance of the offense holder, which means the payee or indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or also lies in the Regional the bearer, thereof, who in this case is the Financial Officer of SMC Trial Court of Pampanga.
SMC filed for violation of BP22 (1 st check) and for estafa under par. 2d check) with the RTC in Pampanga.

(2) Damage took place in Bulacan, where the check was dishonored by the drawee 2- Jurisdiction or venue is bank. determined by the - Therefore, jurisdiction may be entertained by either the Bulacan or the Pampanga allegations in the court. Information, which are BP 22 violation controlling. The Information filed 2 Art. 315, par. 2(d) states: 'By postdating a check, or issuing a check herein specifically alleges in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not that the crime was sufficient to cover the amount of the check committed in San Fernando, Pampanga, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Court below. 2. NO

BALA v MAR TINE Z 18 1 S C RA 45 9 MARTINE Z; January 20, 1999


public or official document. The trial court adjudged petitioner Bala in Criminal Case No. Regional Trial Court (RTC) 24443, guilty of the crime of falsification of a public document. The petitioner seasonably of Manila, presided over appealed, but the Court of by the respondent judge. Appeals, on April 9, 1980, affirmed in toto the lower court's decision. After the case had The motion alleged that been remanded to the court of origin for execution of judgment, the petitioner applied for the petitioner had violated and was granted probation by the respondent judge in his order dated August 11, the terms and conditions 1982. The petitioner was then placed under probation for a period of one (1) year, subject of his probation. to the terms and conditions enumerated therein. - The probationer (petitioner) asked his supervising probation officer for permission to - On January 4, 1984, the transfer his residence from BF Homes to Phil-Am Life Subdivision in Las Pias specifically petitioner filed his 33 Jingco Street. The probation officer verbally granted the probationer's request as he opposition to the motion found nothing objectionable to it. on the ground that he was - By the terms of the petitioner's probation, it should have expired on August 10, 1983, one no longer under probation, year after the order granting the same was issued. But, the order of final discharge could his probation period not be issued because the respondent probation officer had not yet submitted his final having terminated on report on the conduct of his charge. August 10, 1983, as Subsequently, the respondent People of the Philippines, through Assistant City Fiscal Jose previously adverted to. As such, no valid reason D. Cajucom of Manila, filed a motion to revoke the probation of the petitioner before Branch existed to revoke the same, he contended. As if XX of the

to confirm the Manila Assistant City Fiscal's motion to revoke the petitioner's probation, the respondent probation officer filed on January 6, 1984, a motion to terminate Manuel Bala's probation, at the same time attaching his progress report on supervision dated January 5, 1984. The same motion, however, became the subject of a "Manifestation," dated January 10, 1984, which stated that the probation officer was

not pursuing the motion to terminate dated January 6, 1984; instead, he was submitting a supplemental report which recommended the revocation of probation "in the light of new facts, information, and evidences." - Thereafter, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion probation, strike to out the revoke

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 57
SO LA 10 3 S C RA 39 3 FERNAN DO; March 17, 1981
FACTS - September 15, 1980: acting on the evidence presented by the Philippine Constabulary commander at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, the CFI issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the hacienda of Pablo Sola at Sta. Isabel, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. - September 16, 1980: elements of the 332nd PC/INP Company proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings made in a canefield yielded two common graves containing the 7 bodies. - September 23 and October 1, 1980: the PC provincial commander filed 7 separate complaints for murder against the accused Pablo Sola, Francisco Garcia, Ricardo Garcia,

Pro f.
Jose Bethoven Cabral, Florendo Baliscao and 14 other persons of unknown names. - After due preliminary examination of the complainant's witnesses and his other evidence, the municipal court found probable cause against the accused. It thus issued an order for their arrest. - Without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong, the court granted them the right to post bail for their

compels change of venue, questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his case inasmuch as his probation period had and necessarily, control already expired. Moreover, his change of residence automatically transferred the venue of over the petitioner, to the the case from the RTC of Manila to the Executive. Judge, of the RTC of Makati which latter Executive Judge of the court include under its jurisdiction the Municipality of Las Pias the probationer's place of RTC of his new residence. residence, invoking Section 13, Thus, in the apportionment of the P.D. No. 968, which provides regional trial courts under Sec. 13. Control and Supervision of Probationer. ... Batas Pambansa Blg. Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another 129, otherwise known as court, control over him shall be transferred to the the Judiciary Executive Judge of the, Court of First Instance of that place, and in such a case a copy Reorganization Act of of the probation order the investigation report and other pertinent records shall be 1980, Las Pias is one furnished to said among the municipalities Executive Judge. included in the National Thereafter. the Executive Judge to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred Capital Judicial shall have the power with respect to him that was previously possessed by the court Region (Metro Manila) with a seat at Makati. 18 which granted the probation. Needless to say, the - The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Hence, this petition. Regional Trial Court in Makati, like the Manila Regional Trial Court, ISSUE WON his transfer of residence automatically transferred jurisdiction over his probation from forms part of the Regional Trial Court of the National the Capital Region. 19 Manila Regional Trial Court to the same court in his new address. Accordingly, the various HELD branches of the regional trial courts of Makati or NO - In criminal cases, venue is an element of jurisdiction. Such being the case, the Manila Manila under the National RTC would not be deprived of its jurisdiction over the probation case. To uphold the Capital petitioner's contention would mean a depreciation of the Manila court's power to grant Region, are coordinate probation in the first place. It is to be remembered that when the petitioner- accused and co-equal courts, the applied for probation in the then CFI of Manila, he was a resident of Las Pias as he is up totality of which is only to now, although in a different subdivision. As pointed out earlier, he merely moved from BF one Regional Trial Court. Jurisdiction is vested in Homes to Philam Life Subdivision 33 Jingco Street, also in Las Pias. the court, not in the On the other hand, pursuing the petitioner's argument on this score to the limits of it logic judges. would mean that his probation was null and void in the place, because then the Manila CFI In other words, the case was without jurisdiction to grant him probation as he was a resident of Las Pias. It is does not attach to the branch or judge. therefore incorrect to assume that the petitioner's change of abode Therefore, in this case, RTC Branch XX of Manila, which granted the probation, has not lost control and supervision over the probation of the petitioner. Dispositive Petition dismissed


temporary release. Sola, Garcia and Cabral posted bail and have since been released. 'subject to the control and -The witnesses informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFIsupervision of the Fiscal' Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized. will not, therefore, improve At least two of the accused are officials with power and influence in their legal standing." Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition, most of the accused Nonetheless, it adopted the two-pronged trusts of remained at large. Indeed, there have been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families the petition: 1. the setting aside, by certiorari, of the of the witnesses. order of the Municipal - February 11, 1981: petition for cancellation of bail bonds and change of venue was filed. - February 12, 1981: the Court required the comment of the Solicitor General as well as of Court of Kabankalan, presided over by Judge the private respondents. Gasataya, granting bail to the accused in the criminal - March 4, 1981, the Comment was submitted by Solicitor General Mendoza. It opened with this preliminary statement: "The present petition cases mentioned above, and 2. the petition for a was filed by the private prosecutors in Criminal Cases Nos. 1700-1706, People v. Pablo Sola, et al., pending trial before the CFI of Negros change of venue or place of trial of the same Occidental. Rightly, any petition before this Honorable Court on behalf of the People of the Philippines can, under the law, be instituted only by the Solicitor General. criminal cases to avoid a The assertion of the petitioner private prosecutors that they are instituting the action miscarriage of justice.

- March 15, 1981: The Court Resolved to: (a) [Note] the comment of the Solicitor General on the urgent petition for change of venue and cancellation of bail bonds, adopting the plea of the petition, namely, (1) the setting aside, by certiorari, of the order of the Municipal Court of Kabankalan, presided over by Judge Rafael Gasataya, granting bail to the accused in the 7 Criminal Cases, and (2) the petition for a change of venue or

place of trial of the same criminal cases to avoid a miscarriage of Justice; (b) [Transfer] the venue of the aforesaid criminal cases to Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental at Bacolod City, presided by Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio, considering that District Judge Ostervaldo Emilia of the Court of First Instance, Negros Occidental, Branch VI at Himamaylan has an

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

a2010 page 58
Negros Occidental, to whose sala the cases had been transferred is directed forthwith to hear the petitions for bail of private respondents, with the prosecution being duly heard on the question of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the respondents is strong. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.

Pro f.
Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. - The crime was said to have been committed on September 30, 1974, starting in Plaridel, Bulacan, thru Pulilan, and thence to Talavera, Nueva Ecija (in a hut where she was detained for 9 days and sexually abused during the night. She was made to lose her consciousness first by waiving a hankerchief on her face before they abducted her and eventually taking her to said place.)

1People v. approved leave of absence covering the period from January 12 to March 12, 1981 due to a mild attack of cerebral thrombosis and that the said Branch V is the nearest court station Gutierrez: To compel the to Himamaylan: and (c) [Await] the comment of respondents on the petition to cancel bail, prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its without prejudice to the public officials concerned taking the necessary measures to assure witnesses will not be at the safety of the witnesses of the prosecution." Thus, the issue of a change of venue has liberty to reveal what they become moot and academic . know is to make a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been ISSUE established." WON the bail bonds should be cancelled
HELD 2It may be added YES that there may be cases Ratio Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be where the fear, objectively resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must viewed, may, to some be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may individuals, be less than desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal terrifying, but the question case involved in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should be denied such an must always be the effect opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the it has on the witnesses court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. (People v who will testify. The primordial aim and intent San Diego) of the Constitution must Reasoning ever be kept in mind. In - Bail was granted to the accused without hearing the prosecution case of doubt, it should be -Justice Cardozo: "The law, as we have seen, is sedulous in maintaining for a defendant resolved in favor of a charged with crime whatever forms of procedure are of the essence of an opportunity to change of venue . As a defend. Privileges so fundamental as to be inherent in every concept of a fair trial that matter of fact, there need could be acceptable to the thought of reasonable men will be kept inviolate and inviolable, not be a petition of this however crushing may be the pressure of incriminating proof. But justice, though due to the character filed before this accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is Court. Such a plea could narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true." have been done administratively. In this - It does not suffice that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was particular case, however, granted could be characterized as searching. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a there is justification for the jurisdictional character. procedure followed in view On change of venue of the fact that along with - 1973 Constitution: The Supreme Court could order the change of venue, the "a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice." cancellation of the bail bonds was also sought. Dispositive The assailed order of Judge Gasataya granting bail to private respondents is nullified, set aside, and declared to be without force and effect. Exec. Judge Alfonso Baguio of the CFI of

FACTS - In a verified Complaint filed on October 8, 1974 with the Municipal Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, Anastacia de Jesus (14 yrs old) accused Gerardo Fajardo, Rufino

filed with the CFI 1- Municipal Judge Alfredo V. Granados of the Municipal Court of Pulilan received the Kliatchko of Bulacan an Information complaint and conducted a preliminary investigation, first stage. for forcible Abduction with 2October 25, 1974: the Complaint was amended. Rape against Gorospe 3Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe were again named but Gerardo Fajardo and Bulanadi. But said information was later on was dropped and Oscar amended. Alvaran was named instead. -Judge Nelly L. Romero -The date when the crime was said to have been committed was changed from September Valdellon started the trial 30, 1974 to of the case on October 15, September 25, 1974. 1975. 4Again Judge Granados conducted a preliminary investigation and on November -The accused and their 18, 1974, he issued an order for the arrest of Bulanadi, Gorospe and counsel de parte had long Alvaran and fixed their bail at P15,000.00 each. been notified that the case -Bulanadi and Gorospe posted the requisite bail. Alvaran remained at large. was to be tried on that day -The second stage of the preliminary investigation was set on February 5, 1975, but on that but they did not appear so day, neither the former were tried Bulanadi or Gorospe appeared for which reason, in absentia. Judge Granados declared that they had waived their right thereto and elevated the case to -After hearing part of the the CFI of testimony of Anastacia de Bulacan. Jesus, the complainant, Judge Valdellon was 5- March 19, 1975: Provincial Fiscal Pascual C.

transferred to Metro Manila and she was replaced by Judge Fidel P. Purisima who finished the trial. -But Judge Purisima inhibited himself from deciding the case because J. Granados is his first cousin by affinity (to make sure that the decision to be rendered in this case shall be above suspicion) -So it was Judge Jesus R. de Vega who decided the case CFI: found Gorospe and Bulanadi guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of Rape committed against Anastacia de Jesus as charged in the information; sentenced each of the accused to suffer 2 perpetual penalties of reclusion perpetua to be served in accordance with Art. 70 of the RPC, with all the accessory penalty of the law; to indemnify de Jesus in the amount of P40,000.00 for actual exemplary and moral damages, and to pay the costs. ISSUES

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1. WON there was error in filing the complaint since it was not filed in Plaridel, Bulacan orfiscal,

a2010 page 59
- Sec 2, Act No 612: In cases triable only in CFI, defendant shall have speedy trial, but shall not be entitled as of right to a prelim investigation where prosecuting attorney, after investigation, shall have presented an information against him. - THE RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS STATUTORY, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Its purpose is to secure the innocent against hasty prosecutions and protect him from public accusation, and also to protect the State from useless prosecutions. - This investigation is called preliminary, to be followed by trial proper. Investigating judge or prosecuting officer acts upon probable cause and reasonable belief, not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In this case, to ask for abstract of testimony at that stage for no other purpose than to scrutinize the same is, in effect, to ask for another prelim investigation.

Pro f.
SC RA 37 PADILL A; July 5, 1989

and after investigation of information was Case was Talavera, Nueva Ecija but in Pulilan, Bulacan (and if yes, then WON an error was by the lodged. docketed and Judge CFI of Bulacan in hearing the said case and not by the CFI of Nueva Ecija) issued arrest warrant. 2. WON Judge Vega had authority to hear the case (***there are other issues but no longer related to the topic venue so I didnt include them Petitioners counsel filed motion asking fiscal to anymore ~ eoc) furnish clerk of court w/ testimony of witnesses HELD who testified at preliminary 1. NO investigation. Fiscal - The Municipal Court of Pulilan had jurisdiction because the abductors and their captive opposed. passed - Counsel for petitioner put Pulilan on their way from Plaridel to Talavera. And the CFI of Bulacan [as well as the CFI of in motion that should his Nueva Ecija] had jurisdiction because essential elements of the offense took place in first motion be acted upon Bulacan [and also in Nueva adversely, that Court itself Ecija]. conduct the investigation Reasoning Abduction is a persistent and continuing offense. (U.S. vs. Bernabe, 23 Phil. under Sec 4 of Rule 108. 154 [1912]). Fiscal opposed. - Hence it may be "tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was Petitioners counsel committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place." (Rules of Court, Rule asked that warrant of 110, Sec. 14[a]). arrest be cancelled and the court conduct 2. YES. preliminary investigation. - Judge de Vega had the power to decide the case. Judge denied motions and Reasoning "Where a court of first instance is divided into several branches, each of the the MFRs. branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others. Jurisdiction is vested in the Hence the instant court, not in the judges, so that when a complaint or information is filed before one branch certiorari and mandamus or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to said branch or judge alone, to the exclusion of the petition. others. Trial may be had or proceedings may continue by and before another branch or judge." ISSUE WON in prelim [Lumpay, et al. vs. Moscoso, 105 Phil. 968 (1959)]. investigation by fiscal, Dispositive The judgment of the Court a quo is hereby affirmed in all respects. accused is entitled to be informed of substance of HASHIM v CITY FISCAL OF MANILA testimony and evidence 71 Phil 216 against him

LAUREL; January 13, 1941

HELD NO - Prelim investigation by fiscal is not within purview FACTS of Sections 13 and 11 of - Hashim was caught in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates, but was released Rule 108. Sec 13 deals with transmission of upon filing of bond. Complaint was filed with Office of City Fiscal records requirements and Sec 11 deals with prelim investigation by justices of peace and judges for purpose of issuance of warrant. NATURE Certiorari and mandamus


Petition for certiorari to annul orders of the City Court of San Carlos

Syloria. - 2 December 1980: FACTS Arnulfo Payopay and his - October 19, 1980: Respondents entered the store and dining room of the Pacita Tandoc father without her permission. There was an altercation between Conrado Payopay, Sr., Tandoc and respondent, Arnold Payopay, regarding the stoning of the store and house. together with Manuel Payopay picked up stones and struck Tandoc but instead her helper, Bonifacio Menor, was Cancino, also filed a hit and suffered physical injuries which according to the medico -legal certificate will heal in complaint with the Office more than 30 days. Beda of the City Fiscal, against Pedro Acosta, who was behind Arnold Payopay, picked up the stone and struck Tandoc but her Tandoc, Pacita Tandoc, helper, Fred de la Vega, was hit instead and suffered injuries which injury will heal in less Rudy than 9 days. Diaz, Fred Menor, Rogelio - 19 October 1980: a criminal complaint was lodged with the Office of the City Fiscal with Ercella, Juan Rosario and the charges of Fred de la Vega, with the Serious Physical Injuries, filed by Bonifacio Menor against Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay; Slight charges of Trespass to Physical Dwelling, Serious Oral Injuries, filed by Fred de la Vega against Beda Defamation, Grave Acosta, and Trespass to Dwelling, filed by Pacita Threats Tandoc against Arnulfo Payopay, Beda Acosta, and Physical Injuries Manuel Cancino, Nadong Fernandez and Arturo - 10 December 1980: the

investigating fiscal found reasonable ground to believe that respondents Arnulfo Payopay, Beda Acosta, Manuel Cancino, Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria committed the crimes charged. Informations were filed with the City Court. - With respect to the criminal complaint filed by Arnulfo Payopay and Manuel Cancino against petitioners for Serious Oral Defamation, Grave Threats and Physical

Injuries, the Office of the City Fiscal recommended the dropping of said charges because they "were found to be in the nature of a counter charge, the same having been filed after more than 1 month from the date of the alleged incident." However, as to the charge of Trespass to Dwelling filed by Conrado Payopay, Sr. against Pedro Tandoc, a prima facie case was found by the investigating fiscal. Thus, an information was filed with the City Court.

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales 1-

a2010 page 60
same not only for purposes of preliminary investigation but for trial on the merits, the Office of the City Fiscal has no authority to reinvestigate. On Preliminary Investigation: - Purpose: to protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer; and to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. - Stages: (1) the preliminary examination of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused to determine whether or not there is ground to issue a warrant of arrest; (2) preliminary investigation proper, wherein the accused, after his arrest, is informed of the complaint filed against him and is given access to the testimonies and evidence presented, and he is also permitted to introduce evidence in his favor. The purpose of this stage of investigation is to determine whether or not the accused should be released or held before trial.

Pro f.

investigation proper 28 July 1981: Arnulfo Payopay, Conrado Payopay, Sr. and Manuel Cancino, conducted by the City directly lodged with the City Court of San Carlos City the following criminal complaints: (1) Fiscal could have been dispensed with. Neither against Pedro Tandoc, Rogelio did the earlier order of Ercella, Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario and Fred Menor for dismissal of the Serious Physical Injuries, filed by Arnulfo (Arnold) complaints by the Payopay; (2) against Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario and investigating fiscal bar the Fred Menor for Trespass to Dwelling, filed by Conrado filing of said complaints Payopay, Sr.; (3) against Pedro Tandoc, Rudy Diaz, Juan Rosario and Fred dela Vega for Less Serious Physical Injuries, filed by Manuelwith the city court on the ground of double jeopardy. Cancino; (4) against - The prescriptive period Pedro Tandoc, Rudy Diaz, Rogelio Ercella, Juan of a crime depends upon Rosario & Fred Menor for Grave Threats to Kill, with the penalty imposed by Arnulfo Payopay as private complainant. law . The penalties for the 213 August 1981: City Court, after conducting a preliminary examination of the 4 crimes charged are: aforementioned cases, found reasonable ground to believe that the offenses charged may arresto mayor for have been committed by the herein petitioners and that the latter were probably guilty Trespass to thereof. Dwelling, Grave Threats 3The issuance of warrants of arrest was ordered against them, although said and Less Serious Physical Injuries ; and arresto warrants were later suspended upon motion of the petitioners. mayor in its maximum 4A motion for reconsideration was denied. period to prision correccional in its 5Petitioners moved for a re-investigation of the cases by the Office of the City minimum period for Fiscal. The court a quo denied said motion. Petitioners sought a reconsideration of said Serious order, but it was likewise denied. Physical Injuries. The prescriptive period of offenses punishable by ISSUE arresto mayor is 5 years, WON the city court has the power and authority to conduct a new a preliminary while crimes punishable examination of charges, which were previously the subject of a preliminary investigation by correctional penalties conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal and thereafter dismissed by the latter. prescribe in 10 years. The complaints were filed with HELD the City Court only 9 YES from said Ratio As long as the offense charged has not prescribed, the city court has the power and months authority to conduct a preliminary examination and proceed with the trial of the case occurrence. - The re-investigation properly within its jurisdiction. sought by petitioners applies only to instances Reasoning where a case is - The offenses charged against petitioners for cognizable by the Trespass to Dwelling, Grave Threats and Physical Court of First Instance but Injuries were all within the jurisdiction of the City filed with the City Court for Court. The complaints could be filed directly with the purposes of preliminary City Court which is empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for purposes of investigation only and issuance of warrants of arrest, and thereafter to proceed with the trial of the cases on the thereafter dismissed by merits. The preliminary the latter on the ground that no prima facie case exists. However, for cases cognizable by inferior courts and filed with the

Nature: merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information; not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does

not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy. - The result of a - Under Section 10, Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior preliminary investigation court, as well as in cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the city courts or municipal can neither constitute nor give rise to the defense of courts with Courts of First Instance, the accused was not entitled to be heard in a preliminary investigation proper.double jeopardy in any because such The reason behind this rule is as follows: " The loss of time entailed in the conduct of case, preliminary investigations, with the consequent extension of deprivation of the accused's preliminary investigation is liberty, in case he fails to post bail, which at times outlasts the period of the penalty not and does not in itself provided by law for the offense, besides the mental anguish suffered in protracted constitute a trial or even litigations, are eliminated with the assurance of a speedy and expeditious trial for the any part thereof. In order accused, upon his arraignment (without having to undergo the second stage of the that the defense of preliminary investigation), and of a prompt verdict on his guilt or innocence. On the other jeopardy may lie, there be a former hand, the so - called first stage of preliminary investigation or the preliminary examination, must either of conducted by the duly authorized officer, as borne out by the examination and sworn judgment, written statement of the complainants and their witnesses, generally suffices to establish acquittal or of conviction, the existence of reasonable ground to charge the accused with having committed the rendered by a court competent to render the offense complained of." same, not only by reason of the offense committed,

which must be the same or at least comprised within it, but also by reason of the place where it was committed. Dispositive Petition dismissed.

66 6 CARSON; December 9, 1916

FACTS - CASIANO MARFORI was convicted of the crime of injurias graves (aggravated slander), and sentenced to six months and one day of destierro (banishment) for a distance of 25 kilometers from the municipality where the crime was committed, to pay a fine of P65,