Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

1. ANTONIO M. CARANDANG V. HONORABLE ANIANO A.

DESIERTO
Q:
X Co. is a private corporation duly registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). A, a stockholder thereof, entered into a compromise agreement
with the Presidential Commission on Good Governance(PCGG) whereby he ceded to
the government his shares of stock in RPN with an outstanding capital of 72.4%
(which was later discovered to be only 32.4%). Meanwhile, B assumed office as a
general manager and chief operating officer of RPN by virtue of Presidential
appointment. B and the other officials were charged with grave misconduct before
the Ombudsman on the ground of him, as general manager of RPN, entered into
contract with D Broadcasting, Inc. despite his being an incorporator, director
and stockholder of this said corporation; that he help financial and material
interest in a contract that had required the approval of his office, thereby rendering
him administratively liable for grave misconduct. Given the case, did the
Ombudsman have jurisdiction over the case?
A: No. RPN is not considered as a government-owned or controlled corporation
because it doesnt fall with the purview of the definition of what a governmentowned or controlled corporation is. Thus, B should be subjected to the
administrative authority of the Ombudsman and the criminal jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

2. LUZ M. ZALDIVIA VS. HON. ANDRES B. REYES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL
REGION, BRANCH 76, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992
Q: Is filing of the case in the prosecutor's office sufficient to interrupt the running of
the prescriptive period for all criminal cases?
A: No, because this rule admits exception. As a general rule, the filing of the case in
the prosecutor's office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescriptive period
except when the case is covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.

3. MARIO FL. CRESPO vs. HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge,


CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, 9th Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, RICARDO
BAUTISTA, ET AL.,

Q: An information for Estafa was filed by the Fiscal against A in the Criminal
Circuit Court of Lucena. When the case was set for arraignment, A filed a Motion To
Defer Arraingment on the ground that there was a pending Petition for Review with
the Department of Justice. Said Motion was denied by Judge Mogul. As Motion For

Reconsideration also having been denied, he filed a TRO with the CA, which granted
the same. Thereafter, the CA granted As Writ of Injunction and perpetually
restrained Judge from having A arraigned until the Sec. of Justice finally made his
decision and ordered the Fiscal to move for dismissal of the case. The Fiscal then
filed a Motion attaching the Secretarys Resolution calling for the dismissal of the
case. The Judge denied the Motion and set As arraignment. Hence, his recourse to
the SC. Is it correct that the trial court judge refuse to grant a Motion to Dismiss
filed by the Fiscal under orders from the Secretary of Justice and instead insist on
arraignment?

A: No, the contention of the judge is untenable. The law provides that in the rule on
jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court, the ultimate
disposition thereof lies solely on its sound discretion. Instead, the Secretary of
Justice should refrain from entertaining a petition for review when the complaint or
information has already been filed in court.

4.

STATE PROSECUTOR RINGCOR B. PINOTE V. JUDGE ROBERTO L. AYCO

A.M. No. RTJ 05 1944, December 13, 2005


Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J.
Q: Judge M, in a certain case, allowed the defense to present evidence consisting of
the testimony of two witnesses even in the absence of the State Prosecutor R who
was prosecuting the case. R, during his absence was undergoing medical treatment
at the Philippine Heart Center. On the subsequent hearings, he refused to crossexamine the two defense witnesses despite being ordered by the judge, maintaining
that the proceedings conducted in his absence were void. Judge M considered the
prosecution to have waived its right to cross-examine. Is judge M correct?
A: No, the act of judge M in allowing the presentation of the defense witnesses in
the absence of the state prosecutor or a private prosecutor designated for the
purpose is thus a clear transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by
subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses. As a
general rule in all criminal actions, said action shall be prosecuted under the control
and direction of the public prosecutor. Moreover, if the schedule of the public
prosecutor does not permit, however, or in case there are no public prosecutors, a
private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution
Office to prosecute the case, subjects to the Courts approval

5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS,


PENDATUM AMPUAN, AND BAGINDA PALAO G. R. No. 179497, January 25,
2012 Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J

Q: Is minor inconsistencies between the sworn statements and the testimonies in


open court do not right away justify the acquittal of the accused?
A: No, in one case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that testimony given in
open court is given more weight than sworn statements taken out of court.
Q: Can an issue regarding the defect on the Information be filed for the first time on
appeal?
A: No, the failure of the defense to raise the defect in the Information before the
trial court through a motion for a bill of particulars or a motion to quash in the
Information amounted to their waiver of the defect. Failure to raise the defect prior
to the entering of plea of the accused was held to be a waiver.
6. HECTOR TREAS V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Q: A, an old man, with poor health and live is Ilo Ilo was charged with estafa before
the RTC of Makati City. He failed to appear in the pre-trial conference and trial of the
case. The court found him guilty of estafa and the decision was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. A asserts that nowhere in the evidence presented by the
prosecution shows that the P150000 was given to and received by A in Makati and
that the receipt issued by A is without any indication of place it was issued. Even
the Deed of Sale was signed and notarized in Iloilo. Is RTC of Makati has the
jurisdiction over the case?
A: No, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction
over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. The
place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction.

7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROBERTO P. BALAO, VIRGILIO V. DACALOS


AND SANDIGANBAYAN
G. R. No. 176819

Q: On October 1, 2015, Ombudsman Prosecutor D filed an information against G and


among others for violation of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019 with the Sandiganbayan, G, in
their capacity as high-ranking officers of the National Housing Authority entered into
a contract with AC Construction for excavation and road filling in Cauayan City.
Later, it was found that no works had been done. The Sandiganbayan found the
information inadequate, thus, assistant Prosecutor A filed a memorandum with the
former that such information be maintained. G, prayed for reinvestigation of the
case which was granted. Sandiganbayan granted respondents' motion to quash on
the ground that the information failed to state the acts of ommissions of G which
would constitute an offense. Is Sandiganbayan correctly decided the case?
A: No, Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the information. In one case decided by the
Supreme Court, the fundamental test in determining the adequacy of the averments
in the information is whether the facts alleged, if hypothectically admitted would

establish the essentialelements of the crime. Clearly, the allegations in the


information filed would establish the essential elements of the crime as provided in
Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019. Hence, respondents be reinstated as accused in the criminal
case

8. Rodriquez v. Ponferrada
Q: In the crime of estafa, can a private prosecutor be allowed to intervene and
participate in the proceedings before the court?
A: Yes, 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.

9. Miranda vs Tuliao
Q: In March 8, 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon Isabela. R, the
father of the two victims filed two separate information for murder against the
police officer N who they believed are involved in the killing. Judge C issued warrant
of arrest to the police officer. The police officer submitted a sworn confession that
other policers A and B are responsible for the deaths of the sons of R. Thus, the
police officer filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to
reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the warrants of arrest. The petition was
denied by Judge C. Did the court acquired jurisdiction over the police officer in their
absence during the preliminary investigation?

A: Yes, As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. As we held in the past decisions of the
Supreme Court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary
appearance.

10. Leviste v. Alamedo


Q: Is hearing is a pre-requisite of hearing in judicial determination of probable cause
in issuance of warrant of arrest?
A: No, the rules do not require cases to be set for hearing to determine probable
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. In one case decided by the Supreme
Court, hearing cannot, as a matter of right, be insisted on a hearing for judicial
determination of probable cause.
Q: Is new evidences required in reinvestigation by the prosecutor?
A: No, new pieces of evidence are not prerequisites for a valid conduct of
reinvestigation. As the word itself implies, it is merely a repeat investigation of the
case, which is simply a chance for the prosecutor to review and re-evaluate its
findings and the evidence already submitted.

11. San Agustin v. People

Q: Is inquest proceeding shall bar preliminary investigation in case of illegal arrest


for the case of Arbitrary detention?
A: No, the general rule under Rule 112, Section 7 When a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary
investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without
need of such investigation provided an inquest investigation has been conducted in
accordance with existing rules. . The crime charged under the Information was
arbitrary detention punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period. The need for a preliminary investigation
depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed
with the City or Provincial Prosecutor's Office and not upon the imposable penalty
for the crime found to have been committed.

12. PEOPLE vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ESAM GADI y ABDULLAH


Q: Is posting of bail a waiver for a right of the accused to a preliminary
investigation?
A: Yes, in one case decided by the Supreme Court, where the accused posted for
bail and at the same time seek for a preliminary investigation, the court ruled that
the denial of Motion for preliminary investigation is also warranted by his posting of
a cash bail bond without previously or simultaneously demanding a preliminary
investigation.

13. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ODILAO, JR

Q: A city assistant prosecutor filed with the trial court a Motion to Dismiss upon
finding no probable cause with the case of estafa filed against A. However, the trial
court, (1) denied the motion to dismiss; and (2) declaring the motion to disregard
the reinvestigation report to be moot and academic. Is the trial court correct in
denying the motion to dismiss?
A: Yes, the trial court judge was merely performing his mandated duty to personally
determine the existence of probable cause and thus arrive at a resolution of the
motion to dismiss. Having found probable cause, the trial court acted well within its
authority in denying said motion to dismiss. Also, the judge of the trial court is
mandated to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence to determine whether probable cause exists and pursuant to its own
findings, either dismiss the case immediately if no probable cause exists, or to issue
the warrant of arrest in the absence of probable cause.

14. PETER PAUL DIMATULAC and VERONICA DIMATULAC vs. HON. SESINANDO
VILLON
Q: A was shot dead in his residence. A complaint for Murder was filed before the
MCTC of Pampanga. After conducting a preliminary examination and finding
probable cause MCTC issued warrants for the arrest of the accused and directed

them to file their counter-affidavits. Thereafter, Pampanga Assistant Provincial


Prosecutor conducted a reinvestigation. In her Resolution it was found that the
offense committed was only homicide, not murder. Before the Information for
homicide was filed, complainant B, appealed the resolution to the Secretary of the
Department of Justice (DOJ). Information for Homicide was filed before the RTC. Can
the complainant appeal the Resolution to the Sec. of Justice?
A: Yes, DOJ Order No. 223 of June 30 1993 recognizes the right of both the offended
parties and the accused to appeal from resolutions in preliminary investigations or
reinvestigations as provided for in Section 1 and Section 4, respectively. Section 1
speaks of resolutions dismissing a criminal complaint, complainant herein were not
barred from appealing from the resolution holding that only homicide was
committed, considering that their complaint was for murder.

15. .SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY vs. HON. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and OLYMPIO L. ESCUETA

Q: Is an amendment of Information after petitioner A had already pleaded not guilty


to the charge in the Information for Homicide?
A: No, the law provides that in Section 14, Rule 110, or a substitution of information
under the second paragraph thereof, the rule is that where the second information
involves the same offense, or an offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the first information, an amendment of the information is
sufficient; otherwise, where the new information charges an offense which is
distinct and different from that initially charged, a substitution is in order.
16.BONIFACIO V. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 149
Q: A filed a case of libel against B regarding his blog in Makati containing highly
derogatory statements and false accusations, relentlessly attacking him before
the Makati City Prosecutor's Office. Is the venue for this case correct?
A: Yes, if the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are
used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the
Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was
printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the
address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines
or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall any
inclination to harass
17.People vs. Salas
Q: A was first charged of the crime of murder in the RTC of Manila. However, the
prosecution filed a motion for reinvestigation with a finding that the accused be
charged again under amended information with a recommendation of no bail. The
accused succeeded to post a bail and he escaped while his case is pending the
lower court. The judge cancelled the bail bond of the accused. The prosecution
prayed that the trial proceed by virtue trial in absentia. However, the judge denied
the motion of the prosecutors and also ordered the suspension of all proceedings

incidental to the case until the return or re-arrest of the accused. Is the judges
denial of motion to proceed to trial in absentia is correct?
A: No, our law provides that in order to speed up the disposition of criminal cases,
trial of which could in the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times completely
abandoned, because of the defendant's escape. As his right to be present at these
stages was then held not waivable even by his escape, such escape thus operated
to the fugitive's advantage, and in mockery of the authorities, insofar as the trial
could not proceed as long as he had not been recaptured.
18.Gimenez vs. Nazareno
Q: Does the court loses jurisdiction over an accused who after being arraigned,
escapes from the custody of the law?
A: No, the court does not lose jurisdiction. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon
the instance of parties but continues until the case is terminated. Where the
accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime charged,
jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his person and this continues until the
termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape from the custody of the law.
An escapee who has been tried in absentia retains his rights to cross-examine and
to present evidence on his behalf. By his failure to appear during the trial of which
he had notice, he virtually waived these rights.

19. PEOPLE VS TABAG


Q: Can an allegation of conspiracy not having been established beyond reasonable
doubt will convict a certain accused?
A: Yes. Conspiracy need not be established by direct proof. It may be deduced from
the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the
acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action, and community of intent. It must, however, be shown to exist as
clearly and as convincingly as the offense itself.

20. ALVA VS. COURT OF APPEALS


Q: May the court, in its discretion, allow the accused to continue on provisional
liberty under the same bail bond during the period to appeal subject to the consent
of the bondsman?
A: Yes. Sec. 5 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court states that Bail, when discretionary.
upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or lifeimprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the
accused to bail

21. SPOUSES ALEXANDER TRINIDAD and CECILIA TRINIDAD, petitioners, vs.


VICTOR ANG, respondent
Q: On September 3, 2007, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Masbate City, issued a
Resolution recommending the filing of an Information for Violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 against the A and B. The petitioners filed a Manifestation and
Motion to Defer Arraignment and Proceedings and Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of
Warrants of Arrest praying, among others, for the deferment of their arraignment in
view of the pendency of their petition for review before the DOJ. The MTCC granted
the motion but reconsidered the order, and set the petitioners' arraignment on
September 10, 2009. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC but
the latter denied the petition. Did the court correctly ruled in the petition?
A: NO, SEC. 11.Suspension of Arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the
arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: xxx (c) A petition for review
of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or
the Office of the President; Provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed
sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

22. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANDRE MARTI


Q: May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of ones constitutional
rights against unreasonable search and seizure , be invoked against the state?
A: No. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. This constitutional right (against
unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's person, whether
citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which is his residence,
his papers, and other possessions. The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law.

23. People vs. Peralta


24. Pontejos vs. OMBUDSAN
Q: Is the trial court have power to discharge a state witness?
A: Yes, under Rule 119, the court is given the power to discharge a state
witness only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and
the accused. The discharge of an accused is part of the exercise of
jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function
25. Guingona v. CA
Q: Is a government prosecutor decide whom to admit into the Witness
protection program?
A: No, Admitting a person into the witness protection program is an executive
function. the court should then leave to the executive branch the decision on
how best to administer the Witness Protection Program. Unless an actual
controversy arises, we should not jump the gun and unnecessarily intervene
in this executive function
26. Dayawon v. Garfi

Q: Can a judge convict an accused without conducting trial on merits for the case of
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22?
A: No, Any judge should know that before an accused can be convicted of a crime
charged, it is essential that he be given the chance to refute the allegations against
him in a proper trial on the merits and not simply in a hearing on an incident of the
case such as a motion to quash. The Rules of Court prescribe the procedure to be
followed in criminal cases and respondent judge was not at liberty to disregard the
rules on the flimsy excuse that the peculiarity of the criminal cases required the
application of any suitable proceeding in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 135.

27. People vs. Verceles


Q: What are the requisites before an accused may become a State witness?

A:
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
2. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of the said accused;
3. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude (Sec. 17,
Rule 119).

28. Salvanera v People

Q: Who is a state witness?


A: He is one of two or more persons jointly charged with the commission of a crime
but who is discharged with his consent as such accused so that he may be a witness
for the State

29. Chua-Burce v. CA
Q: F was charged with the crime of estafa. A civil case was also instituted. The
accused prayed for suspension of criminal case due to a prejudicial question. It was
first granted but denied by the CA. The CRIMINAL and CIVIL cases continued. The
accused allege that the public prosecutor did not intervene with the case (violation
of Sec 5 RULE 110 ) and did not present evidence for the criminal case (no evidence
for the accused to be convicted). However it was found that the public prosecutor
actively participated with the criminal case. And both parties, during the pre-trial,
agreed to adopt their respective evidences in the CIVIL CASE to the CRIMINAL CASE.
The agreement was reduced into writing. Rule on Fs contention.
A: The contention of F is untenable. As the facts stated that that the public
prosecutor actively participated with the criminal case. And both parties, during the
pre-trial, agreed to adopt their respective evidences in the CIVIL CASE to the
CRIMINAL CASE. The agreement was reduced into writing. Being bound by the pretrial agreement, it is now too late in the day to challenge its contents.

30. Bayas v. Sandiganbayan

Q: Can a pre trial stipulations be unilaterally withdrawn by the accused before the
issuance of a pre trial order by the court?
A: No. The new Rules on Criminal Procedure mandate parties to agree on matters of
facts, issues and evidence. Such stipulations are greatly favored because they
simplify, shorten or settle litigations in a faster and more convenient manner. They
save costs, time and resources of the parties and, at the same time, help unclog
court dockets. Thus, these stipulations are considered to have indispensable role in
the speedy disposition of cases. Moreover, the power to relieve a party from a
stipulation validly made lies in the courts sound discretion which, unless exercised
with grave abuse, will not be disturbed on appeal

31. Yu vs Tatad

Q: Is fresh period rule or the Neypes doctrine applicable in criminal cases?


A: While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court's
pronouncement of a "fresh period" to appeal should equally apply to the period for
appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, for the following reasons:
First, BP 129, as amended, the substantive law on which the Rules of Court is based,
makes no distinction between the periods to appeal in a civil case and in a criminal
case. Section 39 of BP 129 categorically states that "[t]he period for appeal from
final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all cases
shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution,
award, judgment, or decision appealed from." Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we also ought not to
recognize any distinction.

S-ar putea să vă placă și