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