Caoili vs CA (Presumption of possession when not applied)

Facts:

Rodolfo Caoili along with Tony Yip was charged with the violation of PD 1612. Through a resolution, The
Secretary of Justice excluded Caoili from the information finding that the prima facie presumption of
fencing from possession of stolen property does not apply to Caoili because the allegations of Atule
and Azuela do not indicate that respondent Caoili acquired the skiving machines in question knowing
that the same were stolen property. The presumption does not apply to Caoili as complainant
reacquired the subject skiving machines not from respondent Caoili but from Yip. The SOJ did not
believe the assertion of the complainant that Caoili told them that he purchased the stolen skiving
machines which he in turn sold to Yip for it is simply out of ordinary human behaviour that someone
would intimate to another an unlawful act. Despite of this resolution, the trial court still declined the
exclusion of the petitioner and opined that the information was already filed in Court and hence the
determination of petitioner’s guilt lies only to the Court without interference from the SOJ. Petitioner
now contends that the determination of a prima facie case against him cannot attain finality as the
matter is still under review by the SOJ who has prerogative over the matter so long as the accused has
not yet been arraigned. The CA sided with the Trial Court hence, this petition.

Issue:

WON the CA committed GAOD?

Ruling: Ruling is not related to our topic, there were no discussions about fencing, what was discussed
was whether the Court may be precluded from continuing with the case because of the resolution of the
SOJ.

NO. The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of
the case as [to] its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of
the court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even
while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The court is the best
and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done
before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or
upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.
People vs Jaranilla (ISLAW applicable to recidivist)

Facts:

At around 11 in the evening, Gorriceta was driving a pick-up truck on his way home. Along the way he
was hailed down by the 3 accused who asked for a ride to Mandurriao. Gorriceta resisted at first but he
eventually agreed as he remembered he needed to get something to his father’s house which is near
Mandurriao. They reached the destination and Gorriceta parked at a hospital. There he was told by the
3 to wait for them. Few minutes later the 3 accused appeared each of them carrying two fighting cocks.
They ran towards the truck and instructed Gorriceta to drive because people were chasing them. While
on the road again Gorriceta saw two patrolmen chasing them. Patrolman Jabatan fired a warning shot
which caused Gorriceta to stop. When the patrolmen approached the truck they ordered the men to go
down but none of them obeyed. One of the accused suddenly pulled out his revolver but did not shoot.
Jaranilla, all of a sudden shot Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta. He immediately started the
motor of the truck and drove straight home. Jaranilla kept on firing towards Jabatan. The 3 accused
alighted in front of Gorriceta’s house. Jaranilla warned Gorriceta not to tell anybody about the incident.
Gorriceta went up to his room. After a while, he heard policemen shouting his name and asking him to
come down. Instead of doing so, he hid in the ceiling. It was only at about eight o'clock in the morning of
the following day that he decided to come down. His uncle had counselled him to surrender to the
police. The policemen took Gorriceta to their headquarters. He recounted the incident to a police
investigator. Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robo con homicidio with the
aggravating circumstances of use of a motor vehicle, nocturnity, band, contempt of or with insult to the
public authorities and recidivism (for Suyo and Brillantes, They admitted their previous convictions for
theft). The fiscal utilized Gorriceta as a state witness. Hence, the case was dismissed as to him. During
trial and after the prosecution had rested its case, Jaranilla escaped from jail.

Issue:

WON recidivists are entitled to ISLAW?

Ruling:

Also to be appreciated against appellants Suyo and Brillantes is the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism which was alleged in the information. They admitted their previous convictions for theft. The
theft of six roosters valued at six hundred pesos is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods (Art. 309[3], Revised Penal Code). That penalty should be imposed in its maximum
period because only aggravating circumstances are present (Art. 64[3], Revised Penal Code).

Although recidivists, appellants Suyo and Brillantes are not habitual delinquents. They are entitled to
an indeterminate sentence (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103).