Sunteți pe pagina 1din 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Espino v. People [G.R. No. 188217. July 3, 2013.

] 1 2 Bacasmas
v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 189343. July 10, 2013.] 3 Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan [G.R.
No. 191411. July 15, 2013.] 4 People v. Odtuhan [G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013.] 5 Jose v.
Suarez [G.R. No. 176111. July 17, 2013.] 6 Avelino y Bulawan v. People [G.R. 181444. July
17, 2013.] 7 People v. Marvin Cruz [G.R. 201728. July 17, 2013.] 8 Anita Mangila v. Judge
Pangilinan et.al. [G.R. 160739. July 17, 2013.] 9 People v. Victorino Reyes [G.R. 173307.
July 17, 2013.] 10 People v. Clara [GR No. 195528. July 24, 2013.] 11 People v. Roman
[G.R. No. 198110. July 31, 2013.] 12 Lihaylihay and Vinluan v. People [G.R. No. 191219.
July 31, 2013.] 13 Lee v. Lee [GR No. 181658. August 7, 2013.] 14 Chavez v. Fria [GR No.
183014. August 7, 2013.] 15 Neri v. Sandiganbayan [GR No. 202243. August 7, 2013.] 16
Hasegawa v. Giron [G.R. No. 184536, August 14, 2013.] 17 People v. Pepino-Consulta [G.R.
No. 191071. Aug. 28, 2013.] 18 People v. Amistoso y Broca [G.R. No. 201447. August 28,
2013.] 19 Republic (PCGG) v. Bakunawa [G.R. NO. 180418, AUGUST 28, 2013.] 20 People
v. Manalili y Jose [G.R. No. 191253. August 28, 2013.] 21 Punzalan v. Plata [G.R. No.
160316. September 02, 2013.] 22 Kummer v. People [G.R. No. 174461, September 11,
2013.] 23 Disini v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. 169823-24/174764-65. September 11, 2013.] 24
People v. De Los Reyes [G.R. No. 197550. September 25, 2013.] 25 Singian vs.
Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos.195011-19. September 30, 2013.] 26 Chua v. Executive Judge-
MTC Manila [G.R. No. 202920. October 2, 2013.] 27 Ramirez v. People [G.R. No. 197832.
October 2, 2013.] 28 People v. Cuaycong [G.R. No. 196051. October 2, 2013.] 29 Carbajosa
v. Judge Patricio [A.M. No. MTJ-13-1834. October 02, 2013.] 30 Jadewell Parking v. Judge
Lidua Sr. [G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013.] 31 People v. Dizon [G.R. No. 199901. October
9, 2013.] 32 People v. Galicia [G.R. No. 191063. October 9, 2013.] 33 People v. de Jesus y
Mendoza [G.R. No. 190622. October 7, 2013.] 34 People v. Hadji Socor Candidia [G.R. No.
191263. October 16, 2013.] 35 People v. Jose y Lagua [G.R. No. 200053. October 23, 2013.]
36 Century Chinese v. Ling Na Lau [G.R. No. 188526. November 11, 2013.] 37 People v.
Castillo y Alignay [G.R. No. 190180. November 27, 2013.] 38 People v. Roberto Velasco
[G.R. No. 190318. November 27, 2013.] 39 People vs. Montevirgen [G.R. No. 189840.
December 11, 2013.] 40 Antiquera y Codes v. People [G.R. No. 180661. December 11,
2013.]

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 1 | P a g e Espino v. People [G.R. No.


188217. July 3, 2013] FACTS: Accused- Espino, being then the Senior Sales Executive of
the complainant Kuehne and Nagel Inc. herein represented by Honesto Raquipiso, tasked
with liasoning with the import coordinators of the complainants various clients including
the delivery of their commissions, said accused received in trust from the complainant
Metrobank check no. 1640443816 in the amount of P12,675.00 payable to Mr. Florante
Banaag, import coordinator of Europlay, with the obligation to deliver the same but said
accused failed to deliver said check in the amount of P12,675.00 and instead, once in
possession of the same, forged the signature of Mr. Banaag and had the check rediscounted
and far from complying with his obligation, despite demands to account and/or remit the
same, with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the proceeds thereof to his own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainant, in the
amount of P12,675.00.39 On 14 October 2002, the Fiscals Office of Paranaque charged
the accused with six (6) counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) for allegedly
rediscounting checks that were meant to be paid to the companys import coordinators.
Upon trial, accused in his testimony claimed that what precipitated the charges was his
employers discontent after he had allegedly lost an account for the company. He was
eventually forced to resign and upon submission of the resignation, was asked to sign a
sheet of paper that only had numbers written on it. He complied with these demands under
duress, as pressure was exerted upon him by complainants and later on filed a case for
illegal dismissal,in which he denied having forged the signature of Mr. Banaag at the dorsal
portion of the checks. RTC convicted the accused of Estafa under article 315 paragraph 2a.
In response, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the trial court committed a
grave error in convicting him of estafa under paragraph 2(a), which was different from
paragraph 1(b) of Article 315 under which he had been charged. He also alleged that there
was no evidence to support his conviction. Thus, he contended that his right to due process
of law was thereby violated. RTC Denied the motion, CA also denied his appeal, stating that
the alleged facts sufficiently comprise the elements of estafa as enumerated in Article 315,
paragraph 2(a).25 His subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was likewise dismissed.
Accused filed petition for Review under rule 45. Specifically claiming that he was denied due
process when he was convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) despite being charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b)
ISSUE/s: WON a conviction for estafa under a different paragraph from the one charged is
legally permissible. HELD: Article 3, Section 14, paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
requires the accused to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him"
in order to adequately and responsively prepare his defense. The prosecutor is not required,
however, to be absolutely accurate in designating the offense by its formal name in the law.
As explained by the Court in People v. Manalili: It is hornbook doctrine, however, that "what
determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is the actual
recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or preamble of the
information or

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 2 | P a g e complaint nor the specification


of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law." This
doctrine negates the due process argument of the accused, because he was sufficiently
apprised of the facts that pertained to the charge and conviction for estafa. First, while the
fiscal mentioned Article 315 and specified paragraph 1(b), the controlling words of the
Information are found in its body. Accordingly, the Court explained the doctrine in Flores v.
Layosa as follows: The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an information
shall be deemed sufficient if it states, among others, the designation of the offense given by
the statute and the acts of omissions complained of as constituting the offense. However, the
Court has clarified in several cases that the designation of the offense, by making reference
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing, it [sic] is not controlling; what actually
determines the nature and character of the crime charged are the facts alleged in the
information. The Courts ruling in U.S. v. Lim San is instructive: Notwithstanding the
apparent contradiction between caption and body, we believe that we ought to say and hold
that the characterization of the crime by the fiscal in the caption of the information is
immaterial and purposeless, and that the facts stated in the body of the pleading must
determine the crime of which the defendant stands charged and for which he must be tried.
The establishment of this doctrine is permitted by the Code of Criminal Procedure, and is
thoroughly in accord with common sense and with the requirements of plain justice
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is
the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a
defense on the merits. Whatever its purpose may be, its result is to enable the accused to
vex the court and embarrass the administration of justice by setting up the technical defense
that the crime set forth in the body of the information and proved in the trial is not the crime
characterized by the fiscal in the caption of the information. That to which his attention
should be directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be most interested, are the
facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some technical
and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the
manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a matter of
procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime which those acts
constitute. The designation of the crime by name in the caption of the information from the
facts alleged in the body of that pleading is a conclusion of law made by the fiscal. In the
designation of the crime the accused never has a real interest until the trial has ended. For
his full and complete defense he need not know the name of the crime at all. It is of no
consequence whatever for the protection of his substantial rights... If he performed the acts
alleged, in the manner, stated, the law determines what the name of the crime is and fixes
the penalty therefore. It is the province of the court alone to say what the crime is or what it is
named. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the Information in this case may
be interpreted as charging the accused with both estafa under paragraph 1 (b) and estafa
under paragraph 2(a). It is a basic and fundamental principle of criminal law that one act can
give rise to two offenses,41 all the more when a single offense has multiple modes of
commission. Hence, the present Petition cannot withstand the tests for review as provided by
jurisprudential precedent. While the designation of the circumstances attending the
conviction for estafa could have been more precise, there is no reason for this Court to
review the findings when both the appellate and the trial courts agree on the facts. We
therefore adopt the factual findings of the lower courts in totality, bearing in mind the
credence lent to their appreciation of the evidence. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 24 February 2009 and
Resolution dated 25 May 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 31106 are
AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 3 | P a g e Bacasmas v. Sandiganbayan


[G.R. No. 189343. July 10, 2013.] FACTS: ALAN C. GAVIOLA, EUSTAQUIO B. CESA,
BENILDA N. BACASMAS and EDNA J. JACA, public officers, being then the City
Administrator, City Treasurer, Cash Division Chief and City Accountant, respectively, of the
Cebu City Government are accused of violating Section 3 (e) of R.A. commonly involving
willful, intentional, and conscious acts or omissions when there is a duty to act on the part of
the public official or employee. The Sandiganbayan held that the accused were all guilty of
gross inexcusable negligence. Claiming that it was the practice in their office, they admittedly
disregarded the observance of the law and COA rules and regulations on the approval and
grant of cash advances. The anti-graft court also stated that the undue injury to the
government was unquestionable because of the shortage amounting to P9,810,752.60.
Gaviola, Cesa, Bacasmas, and Jaca individually filed their Motions for Reconsideration of the
7 May 2009 Decision. Their motions impugned the sufficiency of the Information and the
finding of gross inexcusable negligence, undue injury, and unwarranted benefit. The
Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution promulgated 27 August 2009 denied the Motions for
Reconsideration of the accused. It ruled that the Information was sufficient, because the
three modes of violating Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 commonly involved willful, intentional,
and conscious acts or omissions when there is a duty to act on the part of the public official
or employee. Furthermore, the three modes may all be alleged in one Information. ISSUE/S:
Whether the Information was sufficient. HELD: An information is deemed sufficient if it
contains the following: (a) the name of all the accused; (b) the designation of the offense as
given in the statute; (c) the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; (d)
the name of the offended party; (e) the approximate date of the commission of the offense;
and (f) the place where the offense was committed. c The Information is sufficient, because it
adequately describes the nature and cause of the accusation against petitioners, namely the
violation of the aforementioned law. The use of the three phrases "manifest partiality,"
"evident bad faith" and "inexcusable negligence" in the same Information does not mean
that three distinct offenses were thereby charged but only implied that the offense charged
may have been committed through any of the modes provided by the law. In addition, there
was no inconsistency in alleging both the presence of conspiracy and gross inexcusable
negligence, because the latter was not simple negligence. Rather, the negligence involved a
willful, intentional, and conscious indifference to the consequences of one's actions or
omissions. Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 191411. July 15, 2013.] FACTS:
Coscolluela was governor of the Province of Negros Occidental (Province) which ended on
June 30, 2001. During his tenure, Nacionales served as his Special Projects Division Head,
Amugod as Nacionales' subordinate, and Malvas as Provincial Health Officer. The Office of
the Ombudsman for the Visayas received a letter-complaint requesting for assistance to
investigate the anomalous purchase of medical and agricultural equipment which allegedly
happened around a month before Coscolluela stepped down from office.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 4 | P a g e A Final Evaluation Report was


issued which upgraded the complaint into a criminal case against petitioners. On March 27,
2003, the assigned Graft Investigation Officer Butch E. Caares (Caares) prepared a
Resolution (March 27, 2003 Resolution), finding probable cause against petitioners for
violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act," and recommended the filing of the corresponding information. On
even date, the Information was prepared and signed by Caares and submitted to Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas Primo C. Miro (Miro) for recommendation. Miro recommended
the approval of the Information on June 5, 2003. However, the final approval of Acting
Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro (Casimiro), came only on May 21, 2009, and on June 19,
2009, the Information was filed before the SB. Petitioners alleged that they learned about the
March 27, 2003 Resolution and Information only when they received a copy of the latter
shortly after its filing with the SB. On July 9, 2009, Coscolluela filed a Motion to Quash,
arguing, among others, that his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was
violated as the criminal charges against him were resolved only after almost eight (8) years
since the complaint was instituted. Nacionales, Malvas, and Amugod later adopted
Coscolluela's motion. In reply, the respondents filed their Opposition explaining that although
the Information was originally dated March 27, 2003, it still had to go through careful review
and revision before its final approval. It also pointed out that petitioners never raised any
objections regarding the purported delay in the proceedings during the interim. The
Sandiganbayan denied their Motion to Quash for lack of merit as well as their respective
Motions for Reconsideration. ISSUE/S: Whether the SB gravely abused its discretion in
finding that petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated. HELD: A
person's right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) which provides: SEC. 16.All persons shall
have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause or
justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case
tried. The following factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the
reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4)
the prejudice caused by the delay. The Court holds that petitioners' right to a speedy
disposition of their criminal case had been violated. First, it is observed that the preliminary
investigation proceedings took a protracted amount of time to complete. Section 4, Rule II of
the Administrative Order No. 07 dated April 10, 1990, otherwise known as the "Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman," reveals that there is no complete resolution of a
case under preliminary investigation until the Ombudsman approves the investigating
officer's recommendation to either file an Information with the SB or to dismiss the complaint.
Therefore, in the case at bar, the preliminary investigation proceedings against the
petitioners were not terminated upon Caares' preparation of the March 27, 2003
Resolution and Information but rather, only at the time

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 5 | P a g e Casimiro finally approved the


same for filing with the SB. In this regard, the proceedings were terminated only on May 21,
2009, or almost eight (8) years after the filing of the complaint. Second, the above-discussed
delay in the Ombudsman's resolution of the case largely remains unjustified. Verily, the
Office of the Ombudsman was created under the mantle of the Constitution, mandated to be
the "protector of the people" and has the inherent duty not only to carefully go through the
particulars of case but also to resolve the same within the proper length of time. Its dutiful
performance should not only be gauged by the quality of the assessment but also by the
reasonable promptness of its dispensation. Third, the Court deems that petitioners cannot be
faulted for their alleged failure to assert their right to speedy disposition of cases. They were
only informed of the March 27, 2003 Resolution and Information against them only after the
lapse of six (6) long years, or when they received a copy of the latter after its filing with the
SB on June 19, 2009. In this regard, they could have reasonably assumed that the
proceedings against them have already been terminated. This serves as a plausible reason
as to why petitioners never followed-up on the case altogether. Being the respondents in the
preliminary investigation proceedings, it was not the petitioners' duty to follow up on the
prosecution of their case. Conversely, it was the Office of the Ombudsman's responsibility to
expedite the same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to
promptly act on all complaints lodged before it. Fourth, the Court finally recognizes the
prejudice caused to the petitioners by the lengthy delay in the proceedings against them.
Akin to the right to speedy trial, its "salutary objective" is to assure that an innocent person
may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt
determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and
consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. This looming unrest as
well as the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against
the State and in favor of the individual. For the SB's patent and utter disregard of the existing
laws and jurisprudence surrounding the matter, the Court finds that it gravely abused its
discretion when it denied the quashal of the Information. Perforce, the assailed resolutions
must be set aside and the criminal case against petitioners be dismissed. While the
foregoing pronouncement should, as matter of course, result in the acquittal of the
petitioners, it does not necessarily follow that petitioners are entirely exculpated from any
civil liability, assuming that the same is proven in a subsequent case which the Province may
opt to pursue. Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that an acquittal in a
criminal case does not bar the private offended party from pursuing a subsequent civil case
based on the delict, unless the judgment of acquittal explicitly declares that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. As explained in the case of
Abejuela v. People, citing Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.: The Rules provide: "The extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. In
other cases, the person entitled to the civil action may institute it in the jurisdiction and in the
manner provided by law against the person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and
reparation or indemnity for the damage suffered."

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 6 | P a g e xxx xxx xxx In Banal vs. Tadeo,
Jr., we declared: "While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it
gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to
another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the civil
liability is really the obligation and moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the
damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or
negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied) Based on the violation of petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases as herein
discussed, the present case stands to be dismissed even before either the prosecution or
the defense has been given the chance to present any evidence. Thus, the Court is unable
to make a definite pronouncement as to whether petitioners indeed committed the acts or
omissions from which any civil liability on their part might arise as prescribed under Section
2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, absent this pronouncement, the Province is
not precluded from instituting a subsequent civil case based on the delict if only to recover
the amount of P20,000,000.00 in public funds attributable to petitioners' alleged
malfeasance. People v. Odtuhan [G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013.] FACTS: On July 2, 1980,
respondent married Jasmin Modina (Modina). On October 28, 1993, respondent married
Eleanor A. Alagon (Alagon). Sometime in August 1994, he filed a petition for annulment of
his marriage with Modina. On February 23, 1999, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70 granted
respondent's petition and declared his marriage with Modina void ab initio for lack of a valid
marriage license. On November 10, 2003, Alagon died. In the meantime, in June 2003,
private complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon learned of respondent's previous marriage with
Modina. She thus filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging respondent with Bigamy. On February
5, 2008, Respondent moved for the quashal of the information on two grounds, to wit: (1)
that the facts do not charge the offense of bigamy; and (2) that the criminal action or liability
has been extinguished. RTC Denied the motion. Aggrieved, respondent instituted a special
civil action on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals and
for which said court granted. ISSUE/S: WON the grant of Motion to Quash by Court of
Appeals proper. HELD: As defined in Antone, "a motion to quash information is the mode by
which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him
for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the
information." It is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. The
fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an Information is
whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish
the essential elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of
the information are not to be considered. To be sure, a motion to quash should be based on
a defect in the information which is evident on its fact. Thus, if the defect can be cured by
amendment or if it is based on the ground

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 7 | P a g e that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correct the
defect by amendment. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another
complaint or information be filed except when the information is quashed on the ground of
extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy. An examination of the information filed
against respondent, however, shows the sufficiency of the allegations therein to constitute
the crime of bigamy as it contained all the elements of the crime as provided for in Article 349
of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, as held in Antone: To conclude, the issue on the
declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent only after the latter
contracted the subsequent marriage is, therefore, immaterial for the purpose of establishing
that the facts alleged in the information for Bigamy does not constitute an offense. Following
the same rationale, neither may such defense be interposed by the respondent in his motion
to quash by way of exception to the established rule that facts contrary to the allegations in
the information are matters of defense which may be raised only during the presentation of
evidence. Jose v. Suarez [G.R. No. 176111. July 17, 2013.] FACTS: Carolina filed two
Affidavit-Complaints for estafa against Purita before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Cebu, one concerning 14 Chinabank checks totalling P1.5 million and the other pertaining to
10 Chinabank checks in the aggregate amount of P2.1 million. However, the checks were
dishonored upon presentment. Hence, the complaint for estafa. In her two Counter-Affidavits,
Purita claimed that her transactions with Carolina are civil in nature; they are mere loans and
the checks were issued only to guarantee payment. In a Joint Resolution dated December 7,
2004, the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Purita for estafa. The corresponding
Information was filed against her. Stressing that her transactions with Carolina did not
constitute estafa, Purita promptly filed a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice
(DOJ). THAICD The DOJ found merit in Purita's Petition for Review. It ruled that the
transactions between Purita and Carolina do not constitute estafa and are merely contracts
of loan because Carolina was not deceived into parting with her money. On the contrary,
Carolina parted with her money on the expectation of earning interest from the transactions.
Hence, the DOJ reversed and set aside the Joint Resolution of the City Prosecutor in its July
5, 2005 Resolution Carolina moved for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution dated
October 27, 2005. Thus, pursuant to the DOJ's directive, City Prosecutor Nicolas C. Sellon
moved for the withdrawal of the Information before the RTC. RTC, in its December 9, 2005
Order, denied the motion by simple stating that the motion in unmeritorious. The CA
ruled that the RTC Judge failed to personally assess or evaluate the Resolution of the DOJ.
The December 9, 2005 Order of the RTC merely stated that the motion to withdraw was
'unmeritorious' while the March 10, 2006 Order only declared that Purita's defense was 'a
matter that must be addressed to the trial court'.||

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 8 | P a g e ISSUE/S: WON RTC gravely


abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Withdraw Information without stating its reason
for the denial. HELD: The RTC failed to make its independent evaluation of the merits of the
case when it denied the Prosecutor's Motion to Withdraw Information. When a trial court is
confronted to rule on "a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information", it is its
"bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must
be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion." Avelino y Bulawan v. People [G.R.
181444. July 17, 2013.] FACTS: At around two in the afternoon at the Baseco Compound,
Tondo, Manila, Chairman Hispano was gunned down by three men wearing bonnets.
Manalangsang, who was in a tricycle which was at the scene, and a Mary Ann Canada, was
able to recognize Bobby Avelino as one of the gunmen. During the trial testimonies of PO2
Galang, Bantiling and SOCO PSI Cabamongan were presented in favor of Avelino. Avelino
contended that he was at the LTO of Pasay City when the incident happened. RTC found
Avelino guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery and the CA upheld the said
decision as well. ISSUE/S: 1. Does the defense of denial and alibi prevail over the
witness positive identification of the accused-appellants? 2. Was the expert opinion of
SOCO PSI Cabamongan, who was considered as ordinary witness, rightfully determined by
the CA as immaterial? HELD: 1. NO. According to the Supreme Court, for denial or alibi to
prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the crime was
committed; he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been
at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Unless substantiated by clear and
convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in
law. Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification, is inherently weak and if uncorroborated
regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-serving negative evidence
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Pharaoh Hotel, where petitioner claims to have
stayed with his wife at the time of the commission of the crime, is in Sta. Cruz, Manila is not
far from the scene of the crime, which is in Baseco Compound in Tondo, Manila. Indeed, for
the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another
place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime. These, the defense failed to do. 2. Yes. SC held that
expert evidence is admissible only if: (a) the matter to be testified to is one that requires
expertise, and (b) the witness has been qualified as an expert. In this case, counsel for the
petitioner failed to make the necessary

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 9 | P a g e qualification upon presenting


Cabamongan during trial. In the case, the defense failed to provide the qualifications needed
for him to be of such. People v. Marvin Cruz [G.R. 201728. July 17, 2013.] FACTS: Marvin
Cruz was filed with three criminal cases of rape. The victim was one of AAA, a minor of 17
years old. They got to know each other through the exchange of text messages which then
eventually led to a relationship. The victim said that she consented with the relationship
because Cruz told her that he was dying of leukemia. The prosecution contended that she
was forced by Cruz on the three separate incidents, and presented the following pieces of
evidence: (1) Cruz threatened AAA that he will circulate a copy of their sex video to her
family and schoolmates if she refused to go to his house and meet him in order to assure
sexual congress. Alarmed by the consequence of his threat, AAA had no choice but to go to
his place as he wanted, in the hope that he would keep his word that he will give her the disk
containing their sex video; (2) When Cruz and his friends were having a drinking spree in his
house, he threatened AAA that he will ask them to rape her if she puts her clothes back on.
Again, AAA had no choice but to do what he demanded, and thereafter repeatedly sexually
molested her; and, (3) Cruz held a lighted cigarette near her chest and warned her that he
will burn her skin if she continues to resist his sexual advances. Helpless, AAA had no choice
but to succumb to his demand. However, the defense denied the contention of the
prosecution by saying that Cruz professed his love for AAA and that AAA consented to the
sexual acts, or sweetheart defense. Cruz was arraigned and pleaded not
guilty. The RTC acquitted Cruz in one of the three criminal cases of rape. CA affirmed the
RTCs decision. ISSUE/S: Did the Court rightfully determined that the testimony of AAA
positively identified the accused as the one who sexually abused her? HELD: Yes. The Court
held that the clear, consistent and spontaneous testimony of AAA unrelentingly established
how Cruz sexually molested her on November 6, 2007 with the use of force, threat and
intimidation. Indeed, [a] rape victim is not expected to make an errorless recollection of
the incident, so humiliating and painful that she might in fact be trying to obliterate it from her
memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the
testimony of the offended party. As to the sweetheart defense, it is said that love
is not a license for lust. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the
unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will. Cruz s
argument that they are lovers may be true; however, the sexual incidents between him and
AAA on November 6, 2007 have not been proven to be consensual.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 10 | P a g e Anita Mangila v. Judge


Pangilinan et.al. [G.R. 160739. July 17, 2013.] FACTS: On June 16, 2003, seven complaints
of syndicated estafa were filed against petitioner and four others. These involved the modus
of the petitioner of recruiting persons for employment as overseas contract workers in
Toronto, Canada without acquiring from the POEA a permit to do so. The next day, Judge
Pangilinan conducted a preliminary investigation. After examining Miguel Aaron Palayon, one
of the complainants, Judge Pangilinan issued a warrant for the arrest of Mangila and her
cohorts without bail. On the next day, the entire records of the cases, including the warrant of
arrest, were transmitted to the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City. She was then
apprehended on June 18, 2003. Petitioner contends that Judge Pangilinan did not have the
authority to conduct the preliminary investigation; that the preliminary investigation he
conducted was not yet completed when he issued the warrant of arrest. ISSUE/S: Did the CA
err in ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to obtain the release of Mangila
from detention? HELD: No. According to the Supreme Court, there is no question that when
the criminal complaints were lodged against Mangila and her cohorts on June 16, 2003,
Judge Pangilinan, as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, was empowered to conduct
preliminary investigations involving all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their
respective territorial jurisdictions. His authority was expressly provided in Section 2, Rule
112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: Section 2. Officers authorized to
conduct preliminary investigations. The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants; (b) Judges of the Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; (c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law. Their authority to conduct preliminary
investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective
territorial jurisdictions. (2a) It further explained by saying that under Section 6(b) of Rule
112of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the investigating judge could issue a warrant
of arrest during the preliminary investigation even without awaiting its conclusion should he
find after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and the witnesses in
the form of searching questions and answers that a probable cause existed, and that there
was a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate
the ends of justice. In the context of this rule, Judge Pangilinan issued the warrant of arrest
against Mangila and her cohorts. Consequently, the CA properly denied Mangila s petition
for habeas corpus because she had been arrested and detained by virtue of the warrant
issued for her arrest by Judge Pangilinan, a judicial officer undeniably possessing the legal
authority to do so.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 11 | P a g e People v. Victorino Reyes


[G.R. 173307. July 17, 2013.] FACTS: On December 26, 1996, Reyes allegedly raped minor
AAA while she and her sister BBB were on the way to their home from school. AAA was
dragged to the sala of his house and therein, he was able to perform sexual acts which
include the insertion of his penis into her vagina, which created a slight penetration to the
latter, and made push and pull movements. ISSUE/S: 1. Did the CA and RTC erred in ruling
that the testitmonies of AAA and BBB were credible and reliable? 2. Did the evidence adduce
by the State competently proved that the crime reached the consummated stage? HELD: 1.
No. The Supreme Court held that consequently there was a good reason or cause to have
us depart from the age-old rule of according conclusiveness to the findings of the RTC that
the CA affirmed. The Court is not a trier of facts, and has to depend on the findings of fact of
the trial court by virtue of its direct access to the witnesses as they testified in court. Only
when the appellant convincingly demonstrates that such findings of fact were either
erroneous, or biased, or unfounded, or incomplete, or unreliable, or conflicted with the
findings of fact of the CA would the Court assume the rare role of a trier of facts. But that
convincing demonstration was not done here by Reyes. 2. Yes. Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, the law applicable at the
time of the rape of AAA, defined and punished rape thusly: Article 335. When and how rape
is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years
of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. The
Supreme Court reiterated that the breaking of the hymen of the victim is not among the
means of consummating rape. All that the law required is that the accused had carnal
knowledge of a woman under the circumstances described in the law. By definition, carnal
knowledge was "the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman." This
understanding of rape explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates the crime. People vs. Clara [GR No. 195528. July 24, 2013.] FACTS: This
case involves a buy-bust operation which led to the arrest of the accused JOEL CLARA Y
BUHAIN (Joel). Upon the presentation of the prosecution witnesses, it was evident that there
were contradictions between the versions of the testimonies of the police officers who
claimed to have conducted the buy-bust operation. The testimony of PO3 Ramos, which
apparently was given as proof of all the elements that constitute an illegal sale of drug is
however, inconsistent on material points from the recollection of event of PO3 Ramos, SPO2
Nagera and PO1 Jimenez regarding the marking, handling and turnover of the plastic sachet
containing the dangerous drug of shabu. ISSUE/S:

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 12 | P a g e Was there failure in the part of
the prosecution to establish with certainty the chain of custody of evidence? HELD: Yes. The
Supreme Court defines Chain of Custody as the duly recorded authorized
movement and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court and finally for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. To establish the chain of
custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must establish the following links, namely:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and Fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. In Mallillin
v. People, it was explained that the chain of custody rule includes testimony about every link
in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence,
in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom
it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession,
the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain. In view of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to
present a clear picture on how the police officers seized and marked the illegal drug
recovered by the apprehending officer and how the specimen was turned over by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Accused is acquitted. People v. Roman [G.R.
No. 198110. July 31, 2013.] FACTS: The accused-appellant, Wilson Roman, was charged
with murder. The incident happened in the morning of June 22, 1995, at the wedding party
when the accused-appellant hacked Vicente Indaya, the victim, with his bolo. The victim was
hit on his head, nape, right shoulder, base of the nape and right elbow before he fell on the
ground and then died. There were several witnesses including Elena Romero, Asterio
Ebuenga, Martin Borlagdatan, Elisea Indaya, Ramil Baylon, SPO1 Medardo Delos Santos
and Dr. Teodora Pornillos. Each testimonies were positive, clear and consistent in all material
points. However, there was a different version of the incident according to the accused-
appellant. He said that on that day, he went to the house of his parents-in-law to bring the
bamboos. On his way back, he met his close friend who invited him to come to the wedding
party. At the venue, he pacified his brother-in-law and Indaya, the victim who were having a
heated exchange of words and told the victim to leave. After 20 minutes, the victim came
back. He got mad because he was pacified by the accused-appellant and threatened to kill
him. But he simply stood up and turned to leave the place. As he was leaving, he heard a
shout that he was about to be hacked. Then, he saw the victim, aiming to hit him with a bolo,
but he was able to get the bolo. He lost control of himself, he hacked the victim instead. His
testimony was supported by Delia Tampoco.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 13 | P a g e The Regional Trial Court and
Court of Appeals rendered a decision, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. ISSUE/S: 1. Whether or not the accused-appellant
may invoke self-defense. 2. Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery exists.
HELD: 1. No. Self-defense was used as an alibi, an inherently weak defense for it is easy to
fabricate. In order for self-defense to be appreciated, the accused must prove by clear and
convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. It is a statutory and
doctrinal requirement that, for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, unlawful
aggression as a condition sine qua non must be present. There can be no self-defense,
complete or incomplete, unless the victim commits an unlawful aggression against the
person defending himself. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones life, limb
or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a
weapon. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of
unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b)
the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must
be unlawful. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression;
and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an
attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the
intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack
that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening
attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong.
Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as
pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry
countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot. Unfortunately for the accused-appellant, his claim
of self-defense shrinks into incredulity. It is worth noting that the incident transpired in broad
daylight, within the clear view of a number of guests. Thus, it is of no wonder that the
testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are consistent in all material points. They all
confirmed that before the crime was consummated, the victim was only walking in the yard,
unarmed. There was not the least provocation done by the victim that could have triggered
the accused-appellant to entertain the thought that there was a need to defend himself. The
victim did not exhibit any act or gesture that could show that he was out to inflict harm or
injury. On the contrary, the witnesses all point to the accused-appellant as the unlawful
aggressor who mercilessly hacked the unwary victim until he collapsed lifeless on the
ground. Moreover, the severity, location and the number of wounds suffered by the victim are
indicative of a serious intent to inflict harm not merely that he wanted to defend himself from
an imminent peril to life. Also, in the incident report executed by the police officers, only one
bolo, specifically that which was used in the hacking, was reported to have been recovered
from the crime scene. This belies the accused-appellants claim that the victim was also
armed at the time of the incident. 1. Yes. There was treachery and accused-appellant
contention that he should be convicted only of homicide, not murder was dismissed.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 14 | P a g e There is treachery when the


offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It takes place when
the following elements concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular
means of attack employed. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
by the aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressors, and without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victims. But, in the case, the victim was rendered
defenseless and unable to retaliate. He was then unarmed and unsuspecting, was deprived
of any real chance to mount a defense, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime
without risk to accused-appellant. This is also buttressed by the fact that the wounds
sustained by the victim were all located at the back. At the time that the crime was about to
be committed, the victim does not have the slightest idea of the impending danger to his
person. He was not facing the accused-appellant and unarmed, hence, lacked the
opportunity to avoid the attack, or at least put up a defense to mitigate the impact. On the
one hand, the accused-appellant was armed and commenced his attack while behind the
victim. Lihaylihay and Vinluan v. People [G.R. No. 191219. July 31, 2013.] FACTS: Acting on
the special audit reportsubmitted by the Commission on Audit, the Philippine National Police
(PNP) conducted an internal investigation on the purported "ghost" purchases of combat,
clothing, and individual equipment (CCIE) worth P133,000,000.00 which were allegedly
purchased from the PNP Service Store System (SSS) and delivered to the PNP General
Services Command (GSC). As a result of the internal investigation, an Information was filed
before the Sandiganbayan, charging 10 PNP officers, including, among others, Vinluan and
Lihaylihay, for the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 Gen. Nazareno in his
capacity as Chief, PNP and concurrently Board Chairman of the PNP Service Store System,
surreptitiously channeled PNP funds to the PNP SSS through "Funded RIVs" valued at P8
[M]illion and Director Domondon released ASA No. 000-200-004-92 (SN-1353) without
proper authority from the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and Department of
Budget and Management (DBM), and caused it to appear that there were purchases and
deliveries of combat clothing and individual equipment (CCIE) to the General Service
Command (GSC), PNP, by deliberately and maliciously using funds for personal services
and divided the invoices of not more than P500,000.00 each ISSUE/S: WON evidence was
admissible. HELD: Finally, on the matter of the admissibility of the prosecutions
evidence, suffice it to state that, except as to the checks,the parties had already stipulated on
the subject documents existence and authenticity and accordingly, waived any objections
thereon. In this respect, petitioners must bear the consequences of their admission and
cannot now be heard to complain against the admissibility of the evidence against them by
harking on the best evidence rule. In any event, what is sought to be established is the mere
general appearance of forgery which may be readily observed through the marked
alterations and

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 15 | P a g e superimpositions on the


subject documents, even without conducting a comparison with any original document as in
the case of forged signatures where the signature on the document in question must always
be compared to the signature on the original document to ascertain if there was indeed a
forgery. Lee v. Lee [G.R. No. 181658. August 7, 2013.] FACTS: Petitioner Paul Lee is the
President of Centillion Holding, Inc. (CHI), affiliated with Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC
Group). Respondent Chin Lee is the elected treasurer of CHI. Paul lee filed a verified petition
for the issuance of an Owners Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT),
covering a property owned by CHI. He claims he originally had in his possession an
owners duplicate copy of the TCT but subsequently lost it. In a Complaint-Affidavit,
respondent Chin Lee alleges that as treasurer of CHI, she was tasked with the duty of
keeping all vital financial documents including the said TCT. She claims that Paul Lee knew
of this fact and made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in his verified petition,
thereby accusing him of perjury. Paul Lees counsel then moved in open court that
respondent Chin Lee and her counsel should be excluded from participating in the case,
since perjury is a public offense, and there is no private person injured by the crime.
ISSUE/S: WON there is a private offended party in the crime of perjury, a crime against
public interest. HELD: YES. Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the
fundamental postulate of our law that "[e]very person criminally liable . . . is also civilly liable."
Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a crime,
he offends two entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity, called
the State, whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of that society whose
person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the
same punishable act or omission. Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, as amended, provides: SECTION 1.Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a)
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes
the civil action prior to the criminal action. ||| For the recovery of civil liability in the criminal
action, the appearance of a private prosecutor is allowed under Section 16 of Rule 110: SEC.
16.Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. Where the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended
party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. Section 12, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, defines an offended party as "the person
against whom or against whose property the offense was committed. It has also been
held that Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
offended party may also be a private individual whose person, right, house, liberty or
property was actually or directly injured by the same punishable act or omission of the
accused, or that corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 16 | P a g e delictual acts complained of.


Such party must be one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the subject matter of
the action as will entitle him to recourse under the substantive law, to recourse if the
evidence is sufficient or that he has the legal right to the demand and the accused will be
protected by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest must not be a mere
expectancy, subordinate or inconsequential. The interest of the party must be personal; and
not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated
party. In this case, the statement of petitioner regarding his custody of TCT No. 232238
covering CHI's property and its loss through inadvertence, if found to be perjured is, without
doubt, injurious to respondent's personal credibility and reputation insofar as her faithful
performance of the duties and responsibilities of a Board Member and Treasurer of CHI.
Chavez v. Fria [GR No. 183014. August 7, 2013.] FACTS: A case was decided in favor of the
plaintiff, wherein the Law Firm of Chavez Miranda ans Aseoche (The Law Firm for brevity),
herein petitioner, acted as counsel. A writ of execution was to be issued to enforce said
judgment. Atty. Fria, respondent in the case at bar, was the Branch Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court, and refused to do her ministerial duty if issuing said writ. She posited
that the draft writ was addressed to the Branch Sheriff who was on leave, and she did not
know who was appointed as special Sheriff on his behalf. The prosecutor then issued a
memorandum recommending that she be indicted for the crime of Open Disobedience. The
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. It ruled that not
all the elements of the crime were present, especially the second element, that there is a
judgment, decision, or order of a superior authority made within the scope of its jurisdiction
and issued with all legal formalities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the MTCs
ruling. ISSUE/S: WON the RTC erred in upholding the MTCs decision. HELD: NO. Under
Section 5 (a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a trial court judge may immediately
dismiss a criminal case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause|||
Sec. 5.When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within ten
(10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the
case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable
cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already
been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted preliminary
investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this
Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must
be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of
information.|||

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 17 | P a g e It must, however, be observed


that the judge's power to immediately dismiss a criminal case would only be warranted when
the lack of probable cause is clear. A clear-cut case of lack of probable cause exists when
the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably
negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. it must be stressed that the
judge's dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on
record plainly fails to establish probable cause that is when the records readily show
uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the
elements of the crime charged. On the contrary, if the evidence on record shows that, more
likely than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty
of the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and thereon, order the parties to proceed
to trial. In doubtful cases, however, the appropriate course of action would be to order the
presentation of additional evidence. In other words, once the information is filed with the
court and the judge proceeds with his primordial task of evaluating the evidence on record,
he may either: (a) issue a warrant of arrest, if he finds probable cause; (b) immediately
dismiss the case, if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause; and (c)
order the prosecutor to submit additional evidence, in case he doubts the existence of
probable cause. MTCs dismissal should be sustained. The second element of the crime
of Open Disobedience is that there is a judgment, decision, or order of a superior authority
made within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities. In this case, it is
undisputed that all the proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-110 have been regarded as null and
void due to Branch 203's lack of jurisdiction over the said case. The third element of the
crime, i.e., that the offender, without any legal justification, openly refuses to execute the said
judgment, decision, or order, which he is duty bound to obey, cannot equally exist.
Indubitably, without any jurisdiction, there would be no legal order for Atty. Fria to implement
or, conversely, disobey. Besides, as the MTC correctly observed, there lies ample legal
justifications that prevented Atty. Fria from immediately issuing a writ of execution. Neri v.
Sandiganbayan [GR No. 202243. August 7, 2013.] FACTS: Petitioner Romulo L. Neri (Neri)
served as Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
during the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In connection with
the botched Philippine-ZTE National Broadband Network (NBN) Project, the Ombudsman
filed two criminal informations, the first against Abalos, and the second against Neri. The
Office of the Special Prosecutor then moved for the two cases consolidation, to promote
a more expeditious and less expensive resolution of of the controversy of cases involving the
same business transaction. ISSUE/S: WON Consolidation of the two cases is proper.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 18 | P a g e HELD: NO. Consolidation is a


procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be
tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice
to the parties. Toward this end, consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court's
docket or consolidation of issues within those cases are permitted by the rules. The term
"consolidation" is used in three (3) different senses or concepts, thus: a (1)Where all except
one of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case the judgment [in one] trial is
conclusive as to the others. This is not actually consolidation but is referred to as such.
(quasi consolidation) (2)Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate
identity, and become a single action in which a single judgment is rendered. This is illustrated
by a situation where several actions are pending between the same parties stating claims
which might have been set out originally in one complaint. (actual consolidation) (3)Where
several actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains its separate character and
requires the entry of a separate judgment. This type of consolidation does not merge the
suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one action to be parties to the other.
(consolidation for trial) To be sure, consolidation, as taken in the above senses, is allowed,
as Rule 31 of the Rules of Court is entitled "Consolidation or Severance." And Sec. 1 of Rule
31 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 actions consolidated; and it may make such
orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
The counterpart, but narrowed, rule for criminal cases is found in Sec. 22, Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court stating: Sec. 22.Consolidation of trials of related offenses. Charges for
offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a series of offenses of similar
character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. (Emphasis added.) As
complemented by Rule XII, Sec. 2 of the Sandiganbayan Revised Internal Rules which
states: Section 2.Consolidation of Cases. Cases arising from the same incident or series
of incidents, or involving common questions of fact and law, may be consolidated in the
Division to which the case bearing the lowest docket number is raffled. The prosecution
anchored its motion for consolidation partly on the aforequoted Sec. 22 of Rule 119 which
indubitably speaks of a joint trial.||| Joint trial is permissible "where the [actions] arise from
the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or
substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to
be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice
the substantial rights of any of the parties." More elaborately, joint trial is proper where the
offenses charged are similar, related, or connected, or are of the same or similar character or
class, or involve or arose out of the same or related or connected acts, occurrences,
transactions, series of events, or chain of circumstances, or are based on acts or
transactions constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are of the same pattern and
committed in the same manner, or where there is a common element of substantial
importance in their commission, or where the same, or much the same, evidence will be
competent and

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 19 | P a g e admissible or required in their


prosecution, and if not joined for trial the repetition or reproduction of substantially the same
testimony will be required on each trial. ||| Criminal prosecutions primarily revolve around
proving beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the elements of the crime charged. As
such, they mainly involve questions of fact. There is a question of fact when the doubt or
difference arises from the truth or the falsity of the allegations of facts. Put a bit differently, it
exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the
inquiry invites calibration of the whole gamut of evidence considering mainly the credibility of
the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as
their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.| A
consolidation of the Neri case to that of Abalos would expose petitioner Neri to testimonies
which have no relation whatsoever in the case against him and the lengthening of the legal
dispute thereby delaying the resolution of his case. Consolidation here would force petitioner
to await the conclusion of testimonies against Abalos, however irrelevant or immaterial as to
him (Neri) before the case against the latter may be resolved a needless, hence,
oppressive delay in the resolution of the criminal case against him. Hasegawa v. Giron [G.R.
No. 184536, August 14, 2013.] FACTS: Respondent Giron filed a Complaint Affidavit for
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention against petitioner Masayuki Hasegawa and several
John Does. Leila Giron and Leonarda Marcos were allegedly kidnapped by orders of
Masayuki Hasegawa. The kidnapping were done to threaten them as Giron and Marcos filed
a case against Hasegawa for illegal salary deductions, non-payment of 13th month pay, and
non-remittance of SSS contributions. Prior to the complaint of kidnapping, respondent had
also filed separate complaints for grave threats, grave coercion, slander and unjust vexation
against petitioner. Hasegawa denied the accusations and asserted that Giron and Marcos
only want to extort money from him. The State prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of
probable cause. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review to the Department of Justice
praying for reversal of the prosecutors resolution. The Department of Justice found no
basis to overturn the findings of the Investigating Prosecutor and affirmed its decision that
there was a lack of probable cause. She then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Resolutions
of the DOJ and ordered the filing of an Information for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention against petitioner. Hence, this petition. Petitioner asserts that the Secretary of
Justice clearly and sufficiently explained the reasons why no probable cause exists in this
case. Petitioner argues that a review of facts and evidence made by the appellate court is
not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. Finally, petitioner contends that the
appellate court should have dismissed outright respondent's petition for certiorari for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies and for being the wrong mode of appeal. ISSUE/S: 1.
Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction? 2. Was there probable cause? 3. What kind of
evidence is needed for preliminary investigation? HELD:

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 20 | P a g e 1. YES. The decision whether


or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused depends on the sound
discretion of the prosecutor. Courts will not interfere with the conduct of preliminary
investigations, or reinvestigations, or in the determination of what constitutes sufficient
probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against an offender. Courts are
not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch. Differently
stated, as the matter of whether to prosecute or not is purely discretionary on his part, courts
cannot compel a public prosecutor to file the corresponding information, upon a complaint,
where he finds the evidence before him insufficient to warrant the filing of an action in court.
In sum, the prosecutor's findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to
review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse
of discretion. We find such reason for judicial review here present. We sustain the appellate
court's reversal of the ruling of the Secretary of the DOJ 2. YES. Probable cause has been
defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person
charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It is a reasonable ground of
presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded on such a state of facts in the mind of
the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or
entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or
positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether
there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act
or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A finding of probable cause
needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man
weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence
of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is
whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It
does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
In order to arrive at probable cause, the elements of the crime charged should be present. All
elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code were sufficiently averred in the complaint-affidavit in this case and were
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime may have been committed and
petitioner may have committed it. 3. Only evidence to support a finding of probable cause,
not a conviction, is needed for preliminary investigation. All elements of the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code were
sufficiently averred in the complaint-affidavit in this case and were sufficient to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime may have been committed and petitioner may have
committed it. Respondent, an office worker, claimed that she and her friend were taken at
gunpoint by two men and forcibly boarded into a vehicle. They were detained for more than
24 hours. Whether or not the accusations would result in a conviction is another matter. It is
enough, for purposes of the preliminary investigation that the acts complained of constitute
the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The Investigating Prosecutor, however,
ruled that the kidnapping and serious illegal detention charge is a mere fabrication. The
Supreme Court said that the Investigating Prosecutor has set the parameters of probable
cause too high. Her findings dealt mostly with what respondent had done or failed to do after
the alleged crime was committed. She delved into evidentiary matters that could only be
passed upon in a full-blown trial where testimonies and documents could be fairly evaluated
in according with the rules of evidence. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain
to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of
the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecutions evidence in
support of the charge. The validity and merits of a partys defense or accusation, as well
as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at
the preliminary investigation level.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 21 | P a g e People v. Pepino-Consulta


[G.R. No. 191071. Aug. 28, 2013.] FACTS: Prosecution evidence showed that on February 7,
2005 at 5:10 in the afternoon or thereabouts, a buy-bust operation was conducted in front of
Akim Restaurant located at Cleofers building City of San Fernando against a certain
Manang who was later identified as the accused Rogelia Jardinel Pepino-Consulta.
The operation yielded a positive result 5 sachets of shabu weighing 0.3001 gram were
recovered from the poseur buyer. The substance confiscated from the accused turned out to
be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu (Exhibit C).On the other
hand, the accused denied that there was a buy-bust operation conducted against her and
that she was only framed up. She, however, failed to establish by convincing proof any
motive or reason why the arresting officers will falsely impute the crime charged on her. The
RTC found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained
the conviction of accused-appellant in its assailed Decision. The Court of Appeals held that
accused-appellant was validly arrested after she was caught in flagrante delicto selling
shabu to the confidential informant who acted as the poseur buyer. We found that the police
officers indeed committed serious lapses in procedure in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation on February 7, 2005. Additionally, the prosecution adduced evidence that fell short
of the exacting degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt required under our criminal laws.
ISSUE/S: Did the chain of custody sufficiently prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
accused to be convicted? HELD: Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; chain of custody. The
Supreme Court here held that while there were indeed five sachets of suspected shabu sold
to the poseur-buyer, there were still more broken links in the chain of custody. In this case,
one broken link was that of the turnover of the seized items from the buy-bust team to the
police investigator, SPO1 Doria. PO2 Dizon testified that after he placed the marking on the
five sachets of suspected shabu, he turned them over to SPO1 Doria and the specimens
were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. However, SPO1 Doria did not testify
before the trial court so as to shed light on this matter. Still another broken link was that
involving the transfer of the drug specimens from SPO1 Doria to the crime laboratory. P/Sr.
Insp. Perez testified that the request for laboratory examination and drug specimens were
first received by PO2 Bagaoisan, the Duty Desk Officer. The latter then called her to
physically receive the same. However, P/Sr. Insp. Perez stated that she did not actually see
if it was SPO1 Doria who transmitted the specimens. She merely relied on the stamp of PO2
Bagaoisan. Furthermore, PO2 Bagaoisan was not presented in court to prove that it was
indeed SPO1 Doria who delivered the drug specimens to the crime laboratory. In view of the
evident breaks in the chain of custody, very serious doubts arise as to the identity of the
seized illegal drugs in this case. Apparently, there can be no absolute certainty if the sachets
of shabu seized from the informant were the very same drugs handed by accused- appellant,
or, later on, the same drugs transmitted to the crime laboratory and eventually presented
before the trial court. Accused-appellant was thus acquitted of the crime charged. People v.
Amistoso y Broca [G.R. No. 201447. August 28, 2013.] FACTS: Accused-appellant Anastacio
Amistoso y Broca (Amistoso) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate
City, with the rape of his daughter alleged to be 12 years old at the time of the incident. The
Information2 specifically charged Amistoso with statutory rape under Article 266-A,
paragraph (1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 22 | P a g e Code, as amended. After trial,
on March 23, 2006, the RTC promulgated its Decision3 finding Amistoso guilty, not of
statutory rape, but of qualified rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a), in relation to Article
266-B, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Court of Appeals
affirmed Amistosos conviction for qualified rape but modified the penalties imposed in
accordance with Republic Act No. 93466 and the latest jurisprudence on awards of
damages. Insisting upon his innocence, Amistoso appealed to this Court. In its Decision
dated January 9, 2013, the Court affirmed with modification the judgment of conviction
against Amistoso, expressly making him liable for interest on the amounts of damages
awarded. However, in a letter dated February 7, 2013, Ramoncito D. Roque (Roque),
Officer-in-Charge, Inmate Documents and Processing Division of the Bureau of Corrections,
informed the Court that Amistoso had died on December 11, 2012 at the New Bilibid Prison
(NBP), Muntinlupa City. ISSUE/S: Is the Civil and Criminal liability extinguished upon death
of the accused? HELD: Extinguishment of criminal liability by the death of the accused prior
to final judgment; effect of death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction on his civil
liability ex delicto. Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code states that,
Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Given the foregoing, it is clear that
the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability,
as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as
there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for
recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal
case. Undeniably, Amistosos death on December 11, 2012 preceded the promulgation
by the Supreme Court (SC) of its Decision on January 9, 2013. When Amistoso died, his
appeal before the SC was still pending and unresolved. The SC ruled upon Amistoso s
appeal only because it was not immediately informed of his death. Amistosos death on
December 11, 2012 renders the SCs Decision dated January 9, 2013, even though
affirming Amistosos conviction, irrelevant and ineffectual. Moreover, said Decision has
not yet become final, and the SC still has the jurisdiction to set it aside. Republic (PCGG) v.
Bakunawa [G.R. NO. 180418, AUGUST 28, 2013.] FACTS: Civil Case No. 0023 is an action
for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages brought by the Republic
against respondents Luz Reyes-Bakunawa, Manuel Bakunawa, Jr., Manuel Bakunawa III,
President Marcos and First Lady Imelda R. Marcos for having allegedly acquired and
accumulated ill-gotten wealth consisting of funds and other property in unlawful concert
with one another and in flagrant breach of trust and of their fiduciary obligations as
public officers, with grave abuse of right and power and in brazen violation of the Constitution
and laws of the Republic of the Philippines, thus resulting in their unjust enrichment. The
complaint alleged that respondent Luz Reyes-Bakunawa (Luz Bakunawa) had served as
Imelda Marcos Social Secretary during the Marcos administration; that it was during that
period of her incumbency in that position that Luz Bakunawa and her husband Manuel
Bakunawa had acquired assets, funds and other property grossly and manifestly
disproportionate to her salaries and their other lawful income;and that Luz Bakunawa, by
herself and/or in unlawful concert with Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R.
Marcos, taking undue advantage of her position, influence and connection with the latter
Defendant spouses, for their benefit and unjust enrichment and in

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 23 | P a g e order to prevent disclosure


and recovery of assets illegally obtained, engaged in devices, schemes and
stratagems,particularly: 1) acted as dummies, nominees, and/or agents of the Marcos
spouses and, with the active collaboration, knowledge and willing participation of the other
defendants, established several corporations engaged in a wide range of economic
activities, such as construction and cattle ranching; 2) secured favorable contracts with the
Department of Public Works and Communications for the construction of government
projects through grossly undercapitalized corporations and without complying with such
usual requirements as public bidding, notice and publication of contractors; 3) unlawfully
acquired heads of cattle from the government dispersalprogram and raised them on ranch
lands encroaching on forest zones; 4) unlawfully encroached upon a mangrove-forested
section in Masbate, and converted it into a fishpond; 5) unlawfully amassed funds by
obtaining huge credit lines from government financial institutions, and incorporating into their
contracts a cost-escalation adjustment provision to justify collection of grossly arbitrary and
unconscionable amounts unsupported by evidence of increase in prices; 6) unlawfully
imported hundreds of brand-new units of heavy equipment without paying customs duties
and other allied taxes amounting to millions of pesos, by falsely representing said heavy
equipment to be for official government use and selling them at very low prices to avoid
paying the required taxes. ISSUE/S: Are the properties and assets of the accused
considered as ill-gotten wealth and the holding of the position in the Marcos administration
proved the guilt of the accused? HELD: The mere holding of a position in the Marcos
administration did not necessarily make the holder a close associate of Marcos. There are
two concurring elements that must be present before assets or properties can be considered
as ill-gotten wealth, namely: (a) they must have originated from the government
itself, and (b) they must have been taken by former President Marcos, his immediate
family, relatives, and close associates by illegal means. As can be gleaned from the above,
evidentiary substantiation of the allegations of how the wealth was illegally acquired and by
whom was necessary. For that purpose, the mere holding of a position in the Marcos
administration did not necessarily make the holder a close associate within the context of
E.O. No.1. Indeed, a prima facie showing must be made to show that one unlawfully
accumulated wealth by virtue of a close association or relation with President Marcos and/or
his wife. It would not suffice, then, that one served during the administration of President
Marcos as a government official or employee. In this case, the Republic particularly insists
that Luz Bakunawa served as the Social Secretary or the Assistant Social Secretary of First
Lady Marcos, and mentions several other circumstances that indicated her close relationship
with the Marcoses. However, Luz Bakunawa maintains that she was not First Lady
Marcos Social Secretary, but a mere member of the staff of the Social Secretary; and
that the assets of the Bakunawas were honestly earned and acquired well within the
legitimate income of their businesses. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the
Sandiganbayan that the evidence of the Republic was able to establish, at best, that Luz
Bakunawa had been an employee in Malacaang Palace during the Marcos administration,
and did not establish her having a close relationship with the Marcoses, or her having
abused her position or employment in order to amass the

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 24 | P a g e assets subject of this case.


Consequently, Luz Bakunawa could not be considered a close associate or subordinate of
the Marcoses within the context of E.O. No. 1 and E.O. No. 2. People v. Manalili y Jose [G.R.
No. 191253. August 28, 2013.] FACTS: According to the prosecutions evidence, the
offense transpired on 16 March 1998 at around 7 oclock in the evening in the house of
Manalili located on YYY Street. AAA, the victim who was then barely 11 years old narrated
what transpired during that night Manalili was drinking with 3 of his friends in front of his
house on ZZZ Street. While AAA was chatting with the son of the store owner asked her to
go to his other house on YYY street, to get a dustpan because one of his drinking mates
vomited. AAA readily complied and went to Manalilis house. No one was around at that
time and it was dark inside the house. When inside the house, accused proceeded in
committing acts of lasciviousness and thereafter attempted to rape the victim by trying to
insert his penis into the vagina of the victim, when this became unsuccessful, the accused
inserted his finger into the victims vagina and thereafter directed the victim to hold his
penis. Manalili also kissed her neck and breasts. After Manalili satisfied his lust, AAA was
directed to go home and was instructed not to let anyone see her leave the house of
Manalili. The next day, CCC, AAAs mother, saw the marks on AAAs neck and breast
and asked AAA what happened. AAA kept quiet, refused to answer and left for school.
Eventually, AAA confided to her aunt, DDD, what actually happened on the night of 16 March
1998. This prompted CCC and DDD to file a complaint before investigator. AAA was
subjected to a medico genitalia examination conducted by a Medico Legal Officer of the
Medico Legal Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Manila. AAA also
executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 18 March 199812 assisted by her mother, CCC.
According to the victim, she was molested more than three (3) times by Manalili before the
incident at hand. AAA claimed that she never told anybody because she was scared. The
RTC rendered a decision convicting Manalili of statutory rape. The CA affirmed with
modification the judgement of conviction of the RTC. The CA ruled that the prosecution was
able to prove the existence of all the essential elements of statutory rape beyond reasonable
doubt. ISSUE/S: WON the trial court erred in rendering a verdict of conviction despite the
fact that the identification of the accused- appellant as the alleged perpetrator of the offense
charged was not clear, positive, and convincing. HELD: The Court finds no reason to disturb
the decisions of the courts below. In reviewing rape cases, the Court had always been
guided by the well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility
and while accusation of rape is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult to disprove; (2)
considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of
rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 25 | P a g e The trial court noted that
during AAAs cross-examination, her testimony bore the hallmarks of truth, as she
remained consistent on material points. The trial courts assessment deserves great
weight, and is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Moreover, this Court has held time and
again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence,
considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being
subject to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the
wrong committed against her. Although she failed to report the incident immediately, such
reaction is deemed normal considering that she was only 10 years old at that time. With
regard to the results of the medical examination, this Court holds that the absence of
laceration and semen does not preclude the fact that rape has been committed. In the crime
of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainants private part is not at all
necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the
entry or at the very least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is
proved. The mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the
complainants vagina, consummates the crime.32 Likewise, the absence of semen in
AAAs vaginal area would not preclude a finding of rape. The presence or absence of
spermatozoa is immaterial because the presence of spermatozoa is not an element of rape.
Moreover, it has been held that the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina could be due to a
number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of
the vagina or the washing of the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse. The first
element of statutory rape, (a) that the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented, was
substantiated by the presentation of the Birth Certificate of the victim, while the second
element, (b) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim, was evidenced by the
testimony of the victim herself. Thus, the lower court was correct in sentencing accused-
appellant to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Punzalan v. Plata [G.R. No. 160316.
September 02, 2013.] FACTS: At around 11:00 p.m. of August 13, 1997, Dencio dela Pea,
a house boarder of the Platas, met the group of Rainier Punzalan, Randall Punzalan, Ricky
Eugenio, Jose Gregorio, Alex "Toto" Ofrin, and several others. Because of verbal exchanges,
this irked Jose Gregorio and slapped Dela Pea while Rainier punched him in the mouth. In
the course of the melee, Alex "Toto" Ofrin kicked Dela Pea and tried to stab him with a
balisong but missed because he was able to run. The group chased him. While Dela Pea
was fleeing, he met Robert Cagara carrying a gun. He grabbed the gun from Cagara and
pointed it to the group chasing him in order to scare them. Michael Plata, who was nearby,
tried to wrestle the gun away from Dela Pea. The gun accidentally went off and hit Rainier
Punzalan on the thigh. Shocked, Dela Pea, Cagara and Plata ran and proceeded to the
police station to seek assistance.||| Thereafter, Rainier filed a criminal complaint for
Attempted Homicide against Michael Gamaliel Plata (Michael) and one for Illegal Possession
of Firearms against Robert Cagara (Cagara). On the other hand, Michael, Ruben Plata
(Ruben) and

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 26 | P a g e several others filed several


complaints against petitioners Rosalinda, Randall, Rainier, and several individuals before the
Office of the City Prosecutor. On July 28, 1998, the Office of the City Prosecutor, in its Joint
Resolution, dismissed the complaints filed against the petitioners for lack of sufficient basis
both in fact and in law. On March 23, 2000, the DOJ modified the July 28, 1998 Joint
Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor and ordered the filing of separate informations
for Slight Oral Defamation, Light Threats, Attempted Homicide, Malicious Mischief, and Theft
against Rosalinda, Rainier, Randall and the other respondents in the above cases. Upon
review, the DOJ reconsidered its findings and ruled that there was no probable cause. In its
Resolution, dated June 6, 2000, the DOJ set aside its March 23, 2000 Resolution and
directed the Office of the City Prosecutor to withdraw the informations.|| On January 11,
2001, the complainants elevated the matter to the CA by way of certiorari ascribing grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Secretary which ordered the withdrawal of the
separate informations. On September 29, 2003, the CA annulled and set aside Resolutions
of the DOJ. According to CA that probable cause exists in the subject complaints for
malicious mischief and theft. ISSUE/S: WON the court committed grave abuse of discretion
when the court interfere the DOJ in determining the existence of probable cause? HELD:
YES, the court committed grave abuse of discretion. The conduct of preliminary investigation
for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is a function that belongs to
the public prosecutor. Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
Section 5.Who must prosecute criminal action. All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of
public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of
a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. The rule is that
this Court will not interfere in the findings of the DOJ Secretary on the insufficiency of the
evidence presented to establish probable cause unless it is shown that the questioned acts
were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 27 | P a g e Kummer v. People [G.R. No.


174461, September 11, 2013.] FACTS: On one fateful night, the evidence of the prosecution
reveals, Johan Kummer, a minor, the son of Leticia Kummer, shot a certain Jesus Mallo, Jr.
According to the eyewitness, Amiel Malana, he and Jesus Mallo went to the house of
Krummers. Jesus knocked on the door of the Krummers house, declaring that he is
Boy Mallo. Then, according to the testimonies of Malana, Johan shot Mallo dead
with a shotgun. Being a minor, Johan was released at the cognizance of his father. Then he
left the country without notifying the court. In defense, Leticia Kummer produced another
version of the story which shows that they were sleeping innocently in their house on that
fateful night, when there was a commotion outside their house, admitting however that, when
they were practically disturbed by the said commotion, Johan got a shotgun and fired outside
their house, without intention to kill or injure anybody, especially Jesus. An Information was
filed with the Court on January 12, 1989, which was later on modified. This modification was
about the date of the commission of the crime. The modification, however, happened after
she was arraigned. The RTC convicted her and Johan, who was out of the Philippine Legal
Systems reach. She appealed the case to the CA, which denied them and affirmed the
RTC decision, arguing, among others, that by virtue of the amendment of the Information,
she should have been arraigned again; and, since she was not, there was a blatant violation
of her right to be informed of the nature of her case, since an amended Information is a new
Information. Hence, all proceedings which the case had undergone were void. ISSUE/S:
Does she have to be arraigned again? HELD: No. She does not have to be arraigned again.
Note that only the date was amended. Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides that, [a] complaint or an Information may be amended, in form or in
substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the
plea and during trial, a formal amendment may only be done with leave of court and when it
can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. Accordingly, a
change in time in the commission of the crime, when the disparity is not so great, is only a
formal amendment. In view of the foregoing, the amendment was from July to
June can only be regarded as formal amendment. Moreover, it does not and could
not prejudice the rights of the accused, because (1) it does not change the nature of the
crime, and (2) it does not render the defenses prepared for the former Information as it stood
invalid. Having said all these, a formal amendment does not require a subsequent
arraignment as the purpose of which is to INFORM THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE
ACCUSATION. Since the nature and cause of the accusation are not changed by a formal
amendment, a re-arraignment is not necessary, as she was already informed of these things.
Hence, there has been no violation of her rights as accused.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 28 | P a g e Thence, no, she does not
have to be arraigned again. Disini v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. 169823-24/174764-65.
September 11, 2013.] FACTS: Disini, and company were charged with corruption of public
officials by the Sandiganbayan, penalized under Art. 212, in relation to Art. 210 of the RPC
and violation of Sec. 4(a) of RA 3019, for having allegedly conspired with the former
President Ferdinand Marcos, in appropriating public funds for their personal use amounting
to billions of pesos. Disini filed a motion to quash, arguing among others, that the criminal
Informations filed against him failed to comply with the required substance and form of
information, thereby violating his right to be informed as the accused. ISSUE/S: Did the
Information comply with the required substance and form? HELD: Yes. the Informations filed
complied with the required substance and form. An Information must state every single fact
or circumstance that constitutes an element of the offense charged; otherwise, a motion to
dismiss or to quash may be properly sustained. Included in the things that must be in the
Information are: (1) the name of the accused, (2) the designation of the offense given by the
statute, (3) the acts or omissions constituting the offense, (4) the name of the offended party,
(5) the approximate date of the commission of the crime, and (5) the place where the crime
was committed. Note that, when the offense has been committed by more than one person,
all of them must be included in the Information. After factual examination, the SC held that
the Informations filed against him and his companions were able to comply with the
prescribed forms and substance of an Information. Hence, his motion to quash could not be
properly sustained. Withal, the Informations filed against Disini and company complied with
the required substance and form. People v. De Los Reyes [G.R. No. 197550. September 25,
2013.] FACTS: The accused has been charged for violation of the comprehensive dangerous
drugs act of 2002. Two separate information was charged against the accused. The
prosecutors version is as follows. SPO2 David received reports from the barangay office
about drug-dealing activities. SPO2 David together with his team on a weekly basis
conducted a surveillance on the area. They were able to confirm that indeed the accused
was conducting drug-dealing activities. Thereafter SPO2 David with his team conducted a
test-buy. David together with a civilian asset conducted a test buy and was able to obtain
P200 worth of shabu from the asset. Afterwards the team of SPO2 David conducted a buy-
bust operation. SPO2 David went to Enriquez who was at the sari-sari store. The team were
right across the sari-sari store hiding behind a dump truck. SPO2 David immediately gave to
Enriquez P200 without saying anything. Enriquez thereafter went to get a sealed pack of
shabu and handed it over to SPO2 David. SPO2 David after receiving the shabu signaled his
team and arrested the accused. The version of the defense on the facts are as follows.
Enriquez was eating alone where suddenly a team of police officers in

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 29 | P a g e civilian clothing asked him if


he knew anyone selling Shabu, this was done while a gun was poking at the accused. He
denied having knowledge and was afterwards arrested. The sari-sari girl corroborated with
the testimony of the accused. The RTC however found accused guilty. ISSUE/S: WON the
ruling of the RTC was correct based on the current evidence HELD: No. The SC ruled that
as a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission
of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims it to be. In context, this would ideally include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. The following are the requirements in the chain of
custody of a buy bust operation. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; Third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court. In the case at bar the prosecutor failed to prove that the
seizure of items made by Enriquez were already marked or was marked by his
representative. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of
the chain of custody that the law requires. Second, the chain of custody in the turnover of the
illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. They failed to identify as
to who they gave the illegal drug to. Therefore it is not shown what happened to the illegal
drug after it was handed over by the apprehending officer. Third, the chief of police was not
presented to testify the court. The testimony of Chief of Police Erese is indispensable
because he could have provided the critical link between the testimony of SPO2 David, and
the tenor of the testimony of P/Insp. Dizon, which the parties have stipulated on. The
unaccounted for whereabouts of the seized items from the time they were brought to the
police station to the time they were submitted to P/Insp. Dizon for examination constitutes a
clear break in the chain of custody. Moreover, no one testified as to how the confiscated
items were handled and cared for after the laboratory examination. The failure of the
prosecution to establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to the case as we can no
longer consider or safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
dangerous drugs were safely preserved. Singian vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos.195011-19.
September 30, 2013.] FACTS: Atty. Salvador held several positions such as the Presidential
Commission on Good Government Consultant as well as being the coordinator of the
Technical Working group. He was to study the reports and recommendations of the asset
privatization trust relating to loan accounts in all government financing institutions. One of the
accounts which acted by the committee were the loans granted to Intergrated Shoe. Inc (ISI).
ISI applied for a letter of credit on January 18, 1972 which amounted to $2,500,000 which
was to finance its purchase of a complete line of machinery and equipment. The letter of
credit was recommended by the Board of Directors of PNB. The loan was subsequently
approved and it was secured by several collaterals. ISI further extended more loans and the
committee upon investigation found that the loans of ISI bore characteristics of behest loans
specifically for not having been secured with sufficient collaterals and obtained with undue

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 30 | P a g e haste. As a result Atty.


Salvador filed before the Sandiganbayan a complaint against petitioners and his co-accused
for violation of Sec3 paragraphs (e) and (g) of RA#3019. On January 27, 2004, petitioner
entered the plea of not guilty during arraignment. All other accused also entered into
arraignment except for Bautista who died prior to the scheduled arraignment. Several of the
petitioners had died which forced the Sandiganbayan to issue a resolution to dismiss the
case. Afterwards the remaining criminal case initiated where the prosecution presented all its
witnesses and evidence. Later the petitioner filed a demurer to evidence.In response the
prosecution opposed the demurer to evidence of petition. The Sandiganbayan thereafter
denied the demurer of evidence of petitioner. ISSUE/S: WON the Sandiganbayan was
correct in denying the demurer of evidence. HELD: Yes. The Sandiganbayan was correct.
First a demurrer to the evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is in sufficient in point of law, whether
true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the
sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the
sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether
there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of
guilt. Second, sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such
evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action
demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the
evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of
participation therein by the accused. The SC ruled therefore that the Sandiganbayan found
sufficient evidence to establish that there was violation of sec 3(g) of RA#3019. It was shown
that petitioner connived with his co-accused. The loan transactions entered into by ISI and
PNB were discovered to be disadvantageous to the government. Lastly the SC also ruled
that a lower court's order of denial shall not be disturbed , that is, appellate courts will not
review the prosecution's evidence and decide whether such evidence has established guilt
beyond reasonable doubt unless the accused has established that such judicial discretion
has been gravely abused, thereby amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere
allegation of such abuse will not suffice. Petitioner was unable to prove abuse of discretion.
Chua v. Executive Judge-MTC Manila [G.R. No. 202920. October 2, 2013.] FACTS: On 13
January 2012, herein petitioner Richard Chua tiled before the Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP) of Manila, a complaint charging one Letty Sy Gan of forty (40) counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. After conducting
preliminary investigation, the OCP found probable cause and, on 22 March 2012, filed forty
(40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 before the MeTC. Consequently, the MeTC informed
petitioner that he has to pay a totalof P540,668.00 as filing fees for all the forty (40) counts of
violation of BP Blg. 22. Finding the said amount to be beyond his means, petitioner consulted
with the MeTC clerk of court to ask whether he could pay filing fees on a per case basis
instead of being required to pay the total filing fees for all the BP Blg. 22 cases all at once.
The MeTC clerk of court opined that petitioner could not. Petitioner was thus unable to pay
any filing fees. Due to non-payment of the required filing fees, the MeTC designated the forty
(40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 as undocketed cases under UDK Nos. 12001457 to 96.
Subsequently, the OCP moved for consolidation of the said cases. On 18 April 2012,
petitioner filed

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 31 | P a g e before the Executive Judge of


the MeTC a motion entitled "Urgent Motion to Allow Private Complainant to Pay Filing Fee on
a Per Case Basis" (Urgent Motion). ISSUE/S: Was the motion filed by the petitioner entitled
Urgent Motion to Allow Private Complainant to Pay Filing Fee on a Per Case Basis
the correct remedy? HELD: No. The correct remedy for the petitioner, in view of the
unavailability of an appeal or any other remedy in the ordinary course of law, is a certiorari
petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. But then again, the petitioner should have filed
such a petition, not directly with this Court, but before the appropriate Regional Trial Court
pursuant to the principle of hierarchy of courts. In the weightier interest of substantial justice,
however, this Court forgives such procedural lapses and treats the instant appeal as a
certiorari petition filed properly before this Court. To this Court, the grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Executive Judge was patent on the undisputed facts of this case and is
serious enough to warrant a momentary deviation from the procedural norm. Thus, we come
to the focal issue of whether the Executive Judge of the MeTC committed grave abuse of
discretion, in light of the facts and circumstances herein obtaining, in refusing petitioners
request of paying filing fees on a per case basis. We answer in the affirmative. We grant the
petition. In proposing to pay filing fees on a per case basis, petitioner was not trying to evade
or deny his obligation to pay for the filing fees for all forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg.
22 filed before the MeTC. He, in fact, acknowledges such obligation. He, in fact, admits that
he is incapable of fulfilling such obligation in its entirety. Rather, what petitioner is asking is
that he at least be allowed to pursue some of the cases, the filing fees of which he is capable
of financing. Petitioner manifests that, given his current financial status, he simply cannot
afford the filing fees for all the forty (40) BP Blg. 22 cases. We see nothing wrong or illegal in
granting petitioners request. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated 26 June 2012 and 26 July 2012 of the Executive
Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, in UDK Nos.12001457 to 96 are ANNULED
and SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, is hereby directed to accept payments
of tiling fees in UDK Nos. 12001457 to 96 on a per information basis. Ramirez v. People
[G.R. No. 197832. October 2, 2013.] FACTS: Anita Ramirez (herein petitioner) and
Josephine Barangan were convicted of Estafa. The judgment was promulgated on March 25,
2009 after several re-settings and warrants of arrest were accordingly issued. According to
petitioner, she failed to attend the promulgation of judgment because she had to attend to
the wake of her father. On June 6, 2009, three months after the promulgation, petitioner filed
an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest and to Reinstate Bail Bond. This was
denied by the RTC.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 32 | P a g e Aggrieved, petitioner filed a


motion to admit notice of appeal and to post bond with the CA, asking for the reversal of the
RTC Order. She subsequently filed her notice of appeal on November 17, 2010. CA denied
the omnibus motion. A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner did not also prosper,
denying her application for provisional liberty in view of the finality of the judgment of
conviction against her. The CA denied the said petition on the ground of failure to file the
motion within the reglementary period. ISSUE/S: 1. Whether or not the CA erred in denying
petitioners motion on the ground of to lapse of time 2. Whether or not petitioner can rely
on the ground of substantial justice in failing to abide by the rules on reglementary period of
filing an appeal HELD: Petition is denied for lack of merit. 1. When appeal to be taken.
Section 6, Rule 122 of the RRCP provides: xxx An appeal must be taken within fifteen
(15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from.
xxx" In the case, the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa was
promulgated on March 25, 2009. Instead of filing a notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days
from the promulgation or notice of judgment, the petitioner filed with the RTC a motion to lift
warrant of arrest and to reinstate bail bond three (3) months later. It was only in November
2010 or more than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the petitioner filed with
the CA her motion to admit notice of appeal. At that point, her judgment of conviction has
already attained finality and cannot be modified or set aside anymore in accordance with
Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the CA did not
commit any reversible error in denying the petitioner's motion inasmuch as by the time the
petitioner filed the same, the appellate court was already bereft of any jurisdiction to
entertain the motion. The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege. The right to appeal is
not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may
be exercised only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must
comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. 2.
Period of perfecting an appeal may be relaxed on the grounds of substantial justice or other
special meritorious circumstances and issues. In the case, petitioner, however, failed to
present any exceptional, special or meritorious circumstance that will excuse the belated
filing of her notice of appeal. Her assertion that her counsel failed to communicate to her the
status of her case is a "tenuous and implausible" excuse. The rule is that the omission or
negligence of counsel binds the client. Petitioner did not also show that she took steps to
show her diligence to be updated by the status of the case. Lastly, petitioner did not even
inform the judge about the demise of her father. At the very least, she should have filed a
motion to reset the promulgation of judgment.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 33 | P a g e People v. Cuaycong [G.R. No.


196051. October 2, 2013.] FACTS: In this case, two (2) Information were filed charging
Appellant Jade Cuaycong of having carnal knowledge with the 7-year old daughter of his
live-in partner. At the end of the trial, the RTC convicted appellant on two counts of
statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 6(5) of
the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed appellants conviction of the
felony of statutory rape in the first case. However, it did not uphold the conviction in the
second case because, while the Information alleged rape by carnal knowledge, the
prosecution was able to prove rape by sexual assault since the rape incident at issue
involved penile penetration of the victims anus. Hence, in the second case the CA ruled
that instead of statutory rape, appellant should be convicted for acts of lasciviousness as
defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE ISSUE INVOLVED: Whether the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which
downgraded the charge of rape in the second criminal case to act of lasciviousness, is
correct. HELD: Yes, the downgrading was correct. In upholding the ruling of the Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court referred to the case of People v. Abulon which held that: In view
of the material differences between the two modes of rape, the first mode is not necessarily
included in the second, and vice versa. Thus, since the charge in the Information in Criminal
Case No. SC-7424 is rape through carnal knowledge, appellant cannot be found guilty of
rape by sexual assault although it was proven, without violating his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. However, following the
variance doctrine embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120, Rules of Criminal
Procedure, appellant can be found guilty of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness. Said
provisions read: SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof.
When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and
that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved. SEC. 5. When an
offense includes or is included in another. An offense charged necessarily includes the
offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged
in the complaint or information, constitutes the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily
included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form
part of those constituting the latter. Indeed, acts of lasciviousness or abusos dishonestos are
necessarily included in rape.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 34 | P a g e Carbajosa v. Judge Patricio


[A.M. No. MTJ-13-1834. October 02, 2013.] FACTS: Carbajosa is the private complainant in
Criminal Case No. 2540 for grave coercion against accused Dolores Bieles (Bieles), heard
and tried before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of President Roxas-Pilar, President
Roxas, Capiz, in the sala of then Presiding Judge Geomer C. Delfin. The charge stemmed
from Bieles menacing and intimidating attitude in preventing Carbajosa from bringing to
Iloilo City fifteen (15) sacks of milled corn by removing and unloading the same out of the
latters Efren Bus Liner. In a Decision dated August 6, 2002, the MCTC convicted Bieles
of the crime charged and sentenced her to imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day
of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) months of arresto mayor as maximum, and ordered
her to pay: (1) a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and (2)
the amount of P20,000.00 representing the fifteen (15) sacks of milled corn or its equivalent
value as the first lien on judgment. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City,
Branch 18,affirmed Bieles conviction but modified her sentence by increasing the
maximum penalty imposed to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional. This modified judgment was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a
Decision dated October 26, 2006 and eventually by this Court when Bieles petition for
review on certiorari was denied in a Resolution dated August 13, 2008 for late filing and for
absence of reversible error in the appealed judgment. Likewise denied was Bieles
ensuing motion for reconsideration. The Court thereafter issued an Entry of Judgment stating
that the Resolution of August 13, 2008 has become final and executory on January 15, 2009.
Undeterred, Bieles filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment but the same was denied in
the Resolution dated June 1, 2009. Meanwhile, Carbajosa filed a motion before the RTC for
the remand of the case to the court of origin for proper execution. The motion was granted in
the RTCs Order dated December 21, 2009. Carbajosa thereafter filed a Motion for
Execution of Judgment before the MCTC presided by herein respondent Judge Patricio.
Bieles opposed the motion stating that she sent a letter addressed to the Chief Justice,
Honorable Reynato S. Puno asking for a review of her case on the merits. She claimed that
the letter was favorably acted upon as evidenced by the first endorsement dated January25,
2010 requesting the Clerk of Court of the Third Division to include the case in its agenda.
Judge Patricio resolved the conflict by issuing an Order11 dated April 7, 2010 wherein he
reckoned that it will be best to hold in abeyance the resolution of Carbajosa s Motion for
Execution of Judgment and await the result of the referral/endorsement made by the Chief
Justice before a ruling on the propriety of the issuance of a writ of execution is made. On
April 19, 2010, Carbajosa manifested his objection to the foregoing order and insisted on the
issuance of a writ of execution averring that in the absence of any restraining order, its
issuance is imperative so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice. ISSUE/S: Was
the action of the respondent judge in violation of his responsibilities as a judge? HELD: Yes.
Any delay in the full execution of a final and executory decision is repugnant to the ideal
administration of justice. Hence the rule that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby
becomes immutable and unalterable. The enforcement of such judgment should not be
hampered or evaded; for the immediate enforcement of the parties rights, confirmed by
final judgment, is a major component of the ideal administration of justice. Our penal laws
and rules of procedure, in particular, enjoin that when the judgment of conviction is already
final and executory its execution is ministerial. Respondent Judge Patricio, however,
demonstrated ignorance of the above rule by repeatedly refusing to execute the final and
executory judgment of conviction against Bieles. The rules on execution are comprehensive
enough for a judge not to know how to apply them or to be confused by any auxiliary
incidents. The issuance of a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment is
ministerial. In other words, a judge is not given the discretion whether or not to implement the
judgment. He is to effect execution without delay and supervise implementation strictly in
accordance with the judgment. Judge Patricios actuations unmistakably exhibit gross
ignorance of the law.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 35 | P a g e Jadewell Parking v. Judge


Lidua Sr. [G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013.] FACTS: Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems
Corporation is a private parking operator duly authorized to operate and manage the parking
spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000. It is also authorized under
Section 13 of the City Ordinance to render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels
in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked. Respondents Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia and
John Doe dismantled, took and carried away the clamp attached to the left front wheel of a
Mitsubishi Adventure owned by Edwin Ang and on the wheel of a Nissan Cefiro car
belonging to Jeffrey Walan. Both cars were considered illegally parked. The value of the
clamp belonging to Jadewell which was allegedly forcibly removed with a piece of metal is
26,250.00 pesos. In Lieu of this, Jadewell filed two criminal cases against herein
respondents for violation of such ordinances. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash on
February 2, 2004. The Motion to Quash sought the quashal of the two Informations on the
ground that the criminal liability is already extinguished by prescription as stated in Act No.
3326, as amended by Act No. 3763, which provides that violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribed after two months. The Information was filed on October 2, 2003,
almost five (5) months after the alleged commission of the offense charged. Hence, criminal
liability of the accused in this case, if any, was already extinguished by prescription when the
Information was filed. ISSUE/S: WON the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City
Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled the prescription period of the commission of the offense
charged against respondents Balajadia, Ang, "John Does," and "Peter Does." HELD: The
Petition is denied. Act No. 3326, as amended, is the only statute that provides for any
prescriptive period for the violation of special laws and municipal ordinances. No other
special law provides any other prescriptive period, and the law does not provide any other
distinction. In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should
be considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the period
of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted. With
regard to the period of prescription, it is now without question that it is two months for the
offense charged under City Ordinance 003-2000. The offense was committed on May 7,
2003 and was discovered by the attendants of the petitioner on the same day. These actions
effectively commenced the running of the prescription period. The procedural rules that
govern this case are the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and as provided in the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive
period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 36 | P a g e Under Section 9 of the Rules


on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without
need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." Both parties agree that
this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if
he wants to. However, the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court,
whether or not the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means
that the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed
in court and not on any date before that. Unfortunately, when the Office of the Prosecutor
filed the Informations on October 5, 2003, the period had already prescribed. The failure of
the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is unfortunate as it resulted in the dismissal
of the case against the private respondents. People v. Dizon [G.R. No. 199901. October 9,
2013.] FACTS: Accused-appellant Dizon was accused and convicted of the crime of illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu, violation
of RA 9165 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution posited
that a certain PO2 Tuzon received telephone call from an unknown caller tipping him off that
accused-appellant is engaged in drug-pushing activity. Acting upon the information, he and
his colleagues went to investigate and engaged the help of a civilian to act as poseur-buyer
when they decided to have a buy-bust operation and said accused-appellant was eventually
caught in said buy-bust operation and was brought to the San Nicolas Police Station. There
at the police station, PO2 Tuzon just marked the confiscated item with his initials
EAT and prepared the certification/inventory of seized/confiscated item. The defense
countered that he never committed such crime of drug- pushing and went on to say that he
was framed-up by the police. The RTC convicted said accused, and, on appeal at the
instance of the accused-appellant, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. ISSUE/S: WON the
Court of Appeals erred in upholding the decision of the RTC. HELD: Yes. The Court of
Appeals erred in upholding the decision of the RTC. In Reyes v. CA, the Court emphasized
that a "conviction must stand on the strength of the prosecutions evidence, not on the
weakness of the defense which the accused put up. Evidence proving the guilt of the
accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this
requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal
should come as a matter of course." In the instant case, Guzon was accused of violating
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which prohibits the sale of illegal drugs. The elements of
the crime include: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 37 | P a g e consideration; and (b) the


delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. The Court explained in People v.
Bautista that in drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving
these elements of the offense under R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti ,
the body of the crime. The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of
the law. The prosecution committed the fatal error of committing a breach in the chain of
custody. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or
recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that
the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite
to make a finding of guilt. Unfortunately for the part of the prosecution, there was significant
difference in the weight of the confiscated substance during the confiscation and during
presentation. Furthermore, the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation failed
to mark the seized item immediately after its confiscation from Guzon. The Court explained
in People v. Coreche the importance in the chain of custody of the immediate marking of an
item that is seized from an accused, to wit: Crucial in proving chain of custody is the
marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the
accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the
seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference. The Court has also determined that although a
physical inventory of the items seized during the buy-bust operation forms part of the case
records, the buy-bust team failed to fully comply with the requirements under Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 for its preparation and execution. Under the law, the inventory must be made
"in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom the items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof." Besides these deficiencies in the
preparation of the inventory, no photograph of the seized item, which is also required under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, formed part of the case records. In addition to the foregoing,
the Court finds merit in Guzons argument that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer
to the witness stand was fatal to the prosecutions cause. We emphasize that in a
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must convincingly prove that
the transaction or sale actually transpired. However, in the instant case, the civilian who
acted as poseur-buyer was never presented as witness. Decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is hereby acquitted. People v. Galicia
[G.R. No. 191063. October 9, 2013.] FACTS: Accused-appellant and his partner (who remain
at large) were charged with the crime of murder and after trials of the merits ensued, was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was convicted by the RTC. Pertinent portion of
the RTCs decision reads as follows. That on or about 11:45 in the morning of June
10, 2004, at N. Gonzales St., cor. F. Platon St., Barangay II, Poblacion, Tanauan City and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused conspiring and
confederating and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident premeditation,
one of the accused JUN ASUNCION y NOBERO, armed with a firearm, and with deliberate
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 38 | P a g e in an unexpected manner,


shot Judge Voltaire Rosales, hitting the latter on his head and neck thus causing fatal injuries
which resulted to the instantaneous death of said Judge Rosales. Said accused escaped
through the use of a motorcycle then driven by the accused ALDRIN GALICIA y
MICOSA. Two civilians were presented by the prosecution as witnesses for said crime.
One was able to talk to the perpetrators and one was able to witness directly the shooting.
The defense on the other hand countered that the victim was shot by men in black
bonnets and no one could identify the perpetrators. On appeal at the instance of the
accused, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC ISSUE/S: WON the Court of Appeals
committed a reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC HELD: No, the Court of
Appeals did not commit a reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC. Accused
questions the credibility of the witnesses presented and further presented the discrepancies
committed by the witnesses in their affidavits and testimonies however the SC ruled that
discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a witness affidavit and testimony do not
necessarily impair his credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or
inaccurate for lack or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer. What is
important is, in the over-all analysis of the case, the trial courts findings and conclusions
are duly supported by the evidence on record. This Court observes restraint in interfering
with the trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility, absent any indication or
showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion,
more so, when the CA sustained such assessment, as in this case, where it affirmed the trial
courts findings of fact, the veracity of the testimonies of the witnesses, the determination
of physical evidence and conclusions. Decision by the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed.
People v. de Jesus y Mendoza [G.R. No. 190622. October 7, 2013.] FACTS: "AAA" was born
on November 26, 1992. On July 24, 2004, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, then 11-
year old "AAA" went to the Pasig public market to buy a pair of slippers. However, "AAA" was
not able to buy her pair of slippers because appellant suddenly grabbed her left arm and
pulled her towards the nearby Mega Parking Plaza. "AAA" was surprised and confused. She
cried and tried to free herself from the grasp of the appellant, to no avail. Upon reaching the
fourth floor of Mega Parking Plaza, appellant pulled "AAA's" shorts and panty down to her
knees. Appellant likewise pulled down his pants. Appellant then sat on the stairs, placed
"AAA" on his lap, inserted his penis into her vagina and performed push and pull
movements. "AAA" was overcome with fear and she felt pain in her vagina. Meanwhile,
Boca, the security guard assigned at the Mega Parking Plaza, was conducting a roving patrol
when he heard the cry of "AAA." He went to the fourth floor of the building which was at that
time unoccupied by any vehicle. He was however surprised to see "AAA" seated on the lap
of the appellant. Boca also saw appellant insert his penis into the vagina

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 39 | P a g e of "AAA" and then perform


sexual movements. Immediately upon seeing the sexual molestations, Boca grabbed
appellant's arm, handcuffed him and brought him to the barangay hall. The defense, on his
part, at the time of the incident, he was 63 years of age and worked as a porter at the Pasig
public market. He claimed that even before the July 24, 2004 incident, he already knew
"AAA" as the latter used to ask money from him. He denied having raped "AAA." He narrated
that on July 24, 2004, he saw "AAA" urinating near the stairs of the second floor of the Mega
Parking Plaza while he was just standing nearby. Suddenly, Boca, the security guard, arrived
and handcuffed him. He was thereafter brought to the authorities. He could not think of any
reason or motive why "AAA" would file a rape charge against him.||| RTC convicted him of
statutory the victim being 11 years old at the time of the commission of the crime and was
subsequently affirmed by the CA. ISSUE/S: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in
convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape despite failure on the part of the
prosecution to prove that there was indeed a sexual intercourse between the accused-
appellant and the private complainant. HELD: No. The trial court did not err in convicting
accused-appellant. Rape of a minor under 12 years of age is statutory rape. The elements of
statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented; and (b) the
offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Neither the use of force, threat or intimidation
on the female, nor the females deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious,
nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is
necessary to commit statutory rape. In statutory rape, there are only two elements that need
to be established, to wit: 1) carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse; and 2) that the woman is
below 12 years of age. In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily established the fact of
carnal knowledge. It is likewise beyond dispute that AAA was only 11 years of age at
the time she was raped. Her Certificate of Live Birth showed that she was born on November
26, 1992. The lower courts therefore correctly held appellant guilty of the crime of statutory
rape and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The present petition denied.
People v. Hadji Socor Candidia [G.R. No. 191263. October 16, 2013.] FACTS: Hadji
Candidia was bound for Butuan City on board the Cebu Pacific Airline. At around 6:30 in the
morning, upon her entry at the departure area, prosecution witness Marilyn Trayvilla, while
performing her duty as a female frisker, frisked the accused Candidia and noticed something
unusual and thick in the area of the latters buttocks. Upon inquiry, Cadidia answered that
it was only her sanitary napkin which caused the unusual thickness. Not convinced with
Cadidias explanation, Trayvilla and her female co-employee Leilani M. Bagsican brought
the accused to the comfort room inside the domestic airport to check. When she and
Bagsican asked Cadidia to remove her underwear, they discovered that inside were two
sachets of shabu. The two sachets of shabu were turned over to their supervisor SPO3
Musalli I. Appang. The accused, on the other hand, has another story to tell. She alleged that
Trayvilla and Bagsican held her arms and asked her if she was a Muslim. When she replied
in the affirmative, the two women said that she might be carrying gold or jewelries. Despite
her denial, Trayvilla and Bagsican brought her to the comfort room and told her she might be
carrying

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 40 | P a g e shabu. She again denied the
allegation but the two women told her to undress. When she asked why, they answered that
her back was bulging. In reply, she told them that she was having her menstrual period.
Trayvilla and Bagsican did not believe her and proceeded to ask her to remove her
underwear. They later frisked her body but failed to recover anything. Thereafter, the two
women asked for money as they allegedly recovered two plastic sachets containing shabu
from her. At this moment, Cadidia became afraid and called her relatives for money. Her
relatives arrived at the airport at around 1 oclock in the afternoon of the same day but
she failed to talk to them because she has already been brought to Camp Crame for drug
examination. She called her relatives again to ask forP200,000.00 and to bring the amount at
7 oclock in the morning of the next day. Her relatives arrived on the agreed day and time
but managed to bring only P6,000.00 which the police officers found unacceptable. As a
consequence, Cadidia was subjected to inquest proceedings. After the arrest, the following
Information was filed in Criminal Case No. 02-1464 for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic
Act No. 9165. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the trial court
found accused- appellant guilty as charged. On appeal, the accused-appellant, contended
that the trial court gravely erred when it failed to consider the conflicting testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses Trayvilla and Bagsican as to who among them instructed the
accused-appellant to bring out the contents of her underwear. Another contradiction pressed
on by the defense was the recollection of Bagsican that when she and Trayvilla found the
illegal drugs, Bagsican placed it inside her blazer for safekeeping, in contrast with statement
of SPO3 Appang that when Bagsican and Trayvilla went out of the comfort room, they
immediately handed him the shabu allegedly taken from the accused-appellant. The People,
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the inconsistencies of the
prosecutions witnesses did not touch on material points. Hence, they can be disregarded
for they failed to affect the credibility of the evidence as a whole. In its decision, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court ruled that the alleged
contradictory statements of the prosecutions witnesses did not diminish their credibility
as they pertained only to minor details and did not dwell on the principal elements of the
crime. It emphasized that the more important matter was the positive identification of the
accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drug.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of
the crime charged despite the conflicting testimonies given by the witnesses. HELD: The
contention of the accused is untenable. The Supreme Court ruled that in cases involving
violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident
by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Further, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of
the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the
judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they
are telling the truth or not. Applying the foregoing, the SC affirmed the findings of the lower
court in the appreciation of facts and credibility of the witnesses. Upon review, the SC found
no such inconsistency. Bagsican testified that after confiscation, she put the two plastic
sachets of shabu in her blazer for safekeeping. She further narrated that afterwards, she
turned over the accused and the plastic sachets to SPO3 Appang. SPO3 Appang, in turn,
testified that when the two female friskers went out of the comfort room,

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 41 | P a g e they handed to him what was
taken from the accused. The statements can be harmonized as a continuous and unbroken
recollection of events. Minor inconsistencies do not negate the eyewitnesses positive
identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. As long as the testimonies as a
whole presented a coherent and believable recollection, the credibility would still be upheld.
What is essential is that the witnesses testimonies corroborate one another on material
details surrounding the commission of the crime. Indeed, travellers are often notified through
airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject
to search and if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to
seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures. People v. Jose y Lagua [G.R. No. 200053. October 23, 2013.] FACTS: This case
involves the accused being charged and convicted for the crime of kidnapping. The RTC as
well as the CA affirmed this conviction. The accused questions the validity of these
convictions in which the Supreme Court affirmed. However, an issue regarding the validity of
imposing liability for civil indemnity and damages for the crime of kidnapping was further
looked into by the court in this case for the reason that the RTC and CA differed in their
rulings regarding the amount to be awarded as civil indemnity. ISSUE/S: Whether or not the
accused is liable for civil indemnity and damages for the crime of kidnapping and if so, how
much is apt for civil indemnity HELD: The petition was denied. In People v. Bautista, the
court ruled the following amounts to be imposed: PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity which is
awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of death penalty; PhP 75,000 as moral
damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of
proof; and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages. Even though the penalty of death was not
imposed, the civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 was still proper because the said award was not
dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the
offense. This Court ordered Bulauitan to pay Editha P75,000.00 as civil indemnity 37 and an
additional P35,000.00 as moral damages. The CAs imposition of P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages was sustained, but Mangahas was held to only be solidarily liable with
Bulauitan up to the amount ofP25,000.00 awarded by the RTC. The difference of P75,000.00
between the RTC and the CAs awards shall be Bulauitans sole liability. The
additional liabilities for civil indemnity and damages, which this Court imposes solely upon
Bulauitan, are in accordance with Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 42 | P a g e Century Chinese v. Ling Na


Lau [G.R. No. 188526. November 11, 2013.] FACTS: Ling Na Lau, respondent, doing
business under the name and style Worldwide Pharmacy, and, is the sole distributor and
registered trademark owner of TOP GEL & DEVICE OF A LEAF papaya whitening soap by
the Intellectual Property Office for a period of ten years. Ping Na Lau, her representative,
wrote a letter to NBI requesting assistance for an investigation on drugstores selling
counterfeit whitening papaya soaps bearing the appearance of their products. Petitioners
were among of the listed drugstores which were selling fake whitening soaps. Agent Furing
and Esmael conducted an investigation and able to confirm Pings complaint that such
counterfeit products are being sold to several drugstores. Esmael added that the products
seized were different from the genuine quality of the original whitening soap. Agent Furing
applied for search warrants before the RTC against the petitioners for violation of unfair
competition and trademark infringement. RTC granted and issued the Search Warrant for
trademark infringement and unfair competition against petitioners. Petitioners filed for Motion
to Quash the Search Warrants contending that it violated the rule against forum shopping,
that Benjamin Yu is the sole owner and distributor of TOP-GEL and not Ling Na Lau, and
there was the existence of a prejudicial question which was a pending case against Ling Na
Lau. Respondent filed her opposition arguing the non-existence of forum shopping; that the
pending case is immaterial and irrelevant in this case; and that Yu cannot be considered as
the sole owner and distributor of TOP-GEL. RTC issued its Order sustaining the Motion to
Quash the Search Warrants finding that the issuance of the questioned search warrants
were not supported by probable cause, hence, the grant of the Motion to Quash.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied. Respondent then
appealed with the CA. CA rendered its decision by granting the appeal and setting aside the
order issued by the RTC. CA found that the search warrants were applied for and issued for
violations of Sections 155 and 168, in relation to Section 170, of the Intellectual Property
Code and that the applications for the search warrants were in anticipation of criminal actions
which are to be instituted against petitioners; thus, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure was applicable. It also ruled that the basis for the applications for issuance of the
search warrants on grounds of trademarks infringement and unfair competition was the
trademark TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF; that respondent was the registered owner
of the said trademark, which gave her the right to enforce and protect her intellectual
property rights over it by seeking assistance from the NBI. Petitioners filed its motion for
reconsideration but CA denied it. Hence, this petition. ISSUE/S: WON the CA erred in
reversing the RTC's quashal of the assailed search warrants. HELD: We find no merit in the
petition. SDEITC The applications for the issuance of the assailed search warrants were for
violations of Sections 155 and 168, both in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act (RA) No.
8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 43 | P a g e Philippines. Section 155, in


relation to Section 170, punishes trademark infringement; while Section 168, in relation to
Section 170, penalizes unfair competition. Thus, we agree with the CA that the Rules on the
Issuance of the Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual Property
Rights is not applicable in this case as the search warrants were not applied based thereon,
but in anticipation of criminal actions for violation of intellectual property rights under RA
8293. It was established that respondent had asked the NBI for assistance to conduct
investigation and search warrant implementation for possible apprehension of several
drugstore owners selling imitation or counterfeit TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF
papaya whitening soap. Also, in his affidavit to support his application for the issuance of the
search warrants, NBI Agent Furing stated that "the items to be seized will be used as
relevant evidence in the criminal actions that are likely to be instituted." Hence, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure applies. A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue
is the existence of a probable cause, meaning "the existence of such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in
the place to be searched." And when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data
or information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present. Absent
the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which
the issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on
probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. The
determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of
proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words
themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral
certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting
calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. The petition for review is DENIED. People v.
Castillo y Alignay [G.R. No. 190180. November 27, 2013.] FACTS: The trial court convicted
Castillo Marissa Castillo y Castillo of violation of Section 5 and Section 11 (sale and
possession of illegal drugs, respectively), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Castillo seeks to appeal the Decision. On or about October 24, 2006, Castillo not being
lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver
and give away to PO2 Thaddeus Santos, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic bag containing four centigram (0.04 gram) of white crystalline substance,
which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug, in violation of the said law. PO2 Santos had arrested accused Castillo, he informed her
of her rights and then put markings on the plastic sachets confiscated from the Castillo. The
accused was brought to the office of the SDEU while the plastic sachets confiscated from
Castillo were brought to crime laboratory for examination. The examination shows that the
contents of the plastic sachets tested positive for shabu. Castillo argues that the police
officers who apprehended her failed to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of
Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically, the failure to take photographs
and to make an inventory

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 44 | P a g e of the seized evidence, and


the lack of participation of the representatives from the media, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official in the operation. ISSUE/S: Whether or not the chain of
custody of the seized illegal drugs was not properly established HELD: SECTION 21.
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge
and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. First, it is important to note that Castillo
did not raise the issue of the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 when the case was still
being heard in the trial court. This assertion must be argued before the trial court and not on
appeal for the first time. Nevertheless, the Court passed upon this question considering the
gravity of its consequences on the liberty of Castillo. We take this opportunity to reiterate
jurisprudence which states that non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render
the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible because what is essential is that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Second, despite the seemingly
mandatory language used in the procedural rule at issue, a perusal of Section 21, Article II of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 reveals the existence of a
clause which may render non-compliance with said procedural rule non-prejudicial to the
prosecution of drug offenses, to wit: (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where
the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items. (Emphasis supplied.) Third, Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 ensures
that the chain of custody of the seized drugs to be used in evidence must be complete and
unbroken. We have defined "chain of custody" as the duly recorded authorized movements
and

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 45 | P a g e custody of seized drugs or


controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. We reiterated the importance of the
chain of custody as a means of validating evidence in the recent case of People v. Del
Rosario, where we held: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time
it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in
the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Lastly, while
testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always
impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential
when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its
condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substation and exchange. In other words, the
exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering without regard to
whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the
application of the chain of custody rule. With regard to the first link in the chain of custody,
the testimony of PO2 Santos confirms the fact that three heat-sealed plastic sachets each
containing 0.04 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu were seized from
Castillo during a buy-bust operation conducted by PO2 Santos, PO1 Chavez and an
unnamed confidential informant. The seized drugs were immediately marked at the place
where Castillo was apprehended. The illegal drugs seized from Castillo were then turned
over to Police Senior Inspector Hoover SM Pascual (PSI Pascual), the team leader and
investigator of the buy-bust operation, who prepared and signed a Memorandum 16
requesting the laboratory examination of the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance previously marked by PO2 Santos as "MCA-1," "MCA-2" and "MCA-3,"
respectively. This document together with the marked specimens was then transmitted to the
Eastern Police District (EPD) Crime Laboratory Office to determine if they contained
dangerous drugs. As per Physical Sciences Report No. D-486-06E, 17 signed by Police
Senior Inspector Isidro L. Carino (PSI Carino), the qualitative examination of the contents of
the three plastic sachets yielded a positive result for the presence of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. The same marked specimens were later identified by PO2 Santos in
open court as the same items that he seized from Castillo when confronted with them by
Prosecutor Conrado Tolentino (Tolentino). After PO2 Santos positively identified them,
Prosecutor Tolentino then requested the trial court that the three plastic sachets containing
shabu be marked as Exhibits "G," "G-1," and "G-2," respectively. 18 From the foregoing
narrative, it is readily apparent that the other links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal
drugs have been sufficiently established. In the case at bar, we concur with Castillo s
assertion that the arresting officers involved were not able to strictly comply with the
procedural guidelines stated in Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. However,
our affinity with Castillos argument does not sway us towards granting her absolution
because, notwithstanding the procedural error, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
illegal drugs used in this case were duly preserved and the chain of custody of said evidence
was shown to be unbroken.

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 46 | P a g e eople v. Roberto Velasco [G.R.


No. 190318. November 27, 2013.] FACTS: Roberto Velasco was charged by the RTC, which
was affirmed by the CA of three (3) counts of rape as charged in Crim. Case Nos. 3579-M-
02, 3580-M-02, and 3581-M-02 beyond reasonable doubt and of the crime of Acts of
Lasciviousness in Crim. Case No. 145-M-03. Velasco was arraigned for the two charges of
rape in Criminal Case Nos. 3580-M-2002 and 3581-M-2002; and one charge of acts of
lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 3579-M-2002 on February 3, 2003 to which he entered
a plea of not guilty on all charges. He was later arraigned on March 12, 2003 for the third
charge of rape in Criminal Case No. 145-M-2003 to which he likewise pleaded "not guilty."
Velasco now wants to appeal the case questioning the validity of his warrantless arrest.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Velasco is stopped from assailing the validity of his arrest if he fails
to do so before arraignment HELD: With regard to purported irregularities that attended
appellants warrantless arrest, we are of the same persuasion as the Court of Appeals
which ruled that such a plea comes too late in the day to be worthy of consideration.
Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his
arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him
on this ground before arraignment, thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the
procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be
made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Nevertheless,
even if Velascos warrantless arrest were proven to be indeed invalid, such a scenario
would still not provide salvation to Velascos cause because jurisprudence also instructs
us that the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid
judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. People vs.
Montevirgen [G.R. No. 189840. December 11, 2013.] FACTS: On July 18, 2005, P/Supt.
Valerio of the Makati City Police received a report from an informant that appellant
Montevirgen was selling shabu in Malvar Street, barangay South Cembo, Makati City. Based
on this information, he immediately formed a buy-bust team. The buy-bust team went to the
said location but could not locate appellant. The next day, the team returned and found the
appellant as the informer introduced him to the team as buyers. Shortly thereafter, the team
was able to buy 200 Pesos worth of Shabu from the appellant. Appellant was then taken to
Police HQ where he was booked and the evidence, after being subject to laboratory exam,
tested positive for Shabu. In his defense, Montevirgen avers that on the night of the
supposed arrest, he was at home, sleeping with his wife and child until several armed men
entered his house, told him to board the vehicle and showed him the packet containing the
white

Criminal Procedure Cases (July-December 2013) 47 | P a g e crystalline substance. The


RTC and the CA were not convinced. Hence this petition stating among others the Police
officers' non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous
drugs under RA 9165. ISSUE/S: Whether or not the accused was validly searched after his
arrest in flagrante delicto HELD: Yes. The two plastic sachets containing shabu subject of the
case for the illegal possession of drugs were found in appellant's pocket after a search on his
person was made following his arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of shabu . It must
be remembered that according to Sec. 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a warrant. Antiquera y Codes v. People [G.R. No. 180661.
December 11, 2013.] FACTS: While several police officers were conducting a police visibility
patrol on David Street, Pasay City during midnight, they saw two unidentified men rush out of
a certain house who immediately boarded a jeep. They suspected that a crime had been
committed and so they approached the house. Upon reaching the house, they peeked
through a partially opened door and saw accused Antiquera holding an improvised tooter
and lighter. Thereafter, the police introduced themselves and arrested Antiquera and his
companion, Cruz. One of the police officers also inspected the immediate surroundings and
was able to confiscate several drug paraphernalia. ISSUE/S: 1. Whether or not the police
officers conducted a valid warrantless arrest on the accused 2. Whether or not the
warrantless arrest gave the police officers the right to search the living room and seize the
paraphernalia found there HELD: On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that the arrest
was not a valid warrantless arrest since no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the
arresting officers. Such is contrary to Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure which provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." In the case at bar, the police clearly did
not notice anything amiss going in the house from the street where they stood. With regard
to the second issue, the Supreme Court explained that considering that his arrest was illegal,
the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal. Consequently, the various
drug paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found in the house and seized are
inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. Since the confiscated
drug paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice
but to acquit the accused.

S-ar putea să vă placă și