Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
FACTS:
PARTIES CONTENTION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES MA THERESA PANGILINAN
The OSG submits that in a The CA correctly ruled that the
catena of cases decided by the case has prescribed.
SC, they ruled that the filing
of a complaint at the fiscal
office for the purpose of
preliminary investigation tolls
the prescriptive period.
ISSUE/S WON the case has prescribed?
SC RULING The Court reversed the CA ruling and ordered the
refiling of the case before the lower court.
RATIO The CA erred in interposing that there must be different
rule with respect to prescription of crimes under the
RPC and that under special laws. The Court categorically
declared that there is no more distinction between the
cases under the special law and the cases covered by
the RPC with respect to the interruption of
prescription. The SC further held that the ruling in
Zaldivia vs Reyes, as cited by the CA, is not
controlling in this case
PARTIES CONTENTION
LUZ ZALDIVIA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- The Rules on Summary - The prescriptive period was
Procedure states that for suspended upon the filing of
offenses covered by it, it complaint before the office
shall be commenced by of the prosecutor.
filing a complaint or - Citing People vs Francisco,
information directly to they invoked that the filing
the first level courts. of complaint, even if it be
- Under Act. 3326, violation merely for preliminary
of municipal ordinance investigation or
shall prescribe within two examination, toll the
month and shall be prescriptive period.
suspended by the
institution of proceedings
FACTS:
PARTIES CONTENTION
METROBANK ADRANDEA/DOJ
- The execution of the DSA - He claims the he is not privy
with universal did not to the transaction and faults
absolve private his co-accused Reynado as the
respondent’s criminal latter is the head of the
liability but only it’s branch.
civil liability. Citing - For DOJ, they affirmed the
Metrobank vs Tonda, they prosecutor’s finding
claim that novation does allegedly because the non-
not extinguish criminal inclusion of Universal
liability. constitutes a deprivation of
due process on the part of
the respondent’s
ISSUE/S WON criminal liability has been extinguished?
SC RULING The petition is highly meritorious
RATIO Preliminarily, novation is not a mode of extinguishing
criminal liability as provided by the Revised Penal
Code. Neither does it bar the prosecution of said crime.
In catena of cases, it was ruled that criminal liability
for estafa is not affected by a compromise or novation
of contract. The reason being is that the crime of
estafa is a public offence which must be prosecuted and
punished by the Government on its own motion even though
complete reparation have been made of the damage
suffered by the offended party.
PARTIES CONTENTION
ELMER YPARRAGUIRE - APPELANT
- The RTC never acquired -
jurisdiction over his
person since according to
ART 344, crimes of
seduction, abduction, and
rape must be initiated upon
the complaint of the
aggrieved party, but in
this case, it was the chief
of police who initiated the
action.
ISSUE/S WON the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case?
SC RULING The petition is denied, Yparraguire’s conviction was
upheld.
RATIO This case happened in 1994, 3 years prior to the
enactment of the Anti-Rape Law which treats rape as
crimes against person. That being the case, the old law
on rape is applied which requires the complaint to be
initiated by the aggrieved party. This rule was imposed
out of consideration to the aggrieved woman and her
family who might prefer to suffer in silence rather than
go through with the scandal of public trial.
PARTIES CONTENTION
PILAPIL GEILING
- The petition is anchored on - The court properly acquired
the main ground that the jurisdiction.
court has no jurisdiction - He cannot have possibly
to try and decide the filed the case against the
charge of adultery, which petitioner prior to the
is a private offense that institution of the divorce
cannot be prosecuted de since the same is not known
officio, since the to him
purported complainant, a
foreigner, does not qualify
as an offended spouse
having obtained a final
decree of divorce under his
national law prior to his
filing of the criminal
complaint.
ISSUE/S WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the case?
SC RULING The petition is impressed with merit, the criminal
complaint is dismissed.
RATIO Pursuant to Art. 344, it is a rule that for the
prosecution of the cases of adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction and rape, a complaint must be
initiated by the offended party, in this case, the
offended spouse. Corollary to this exclusive grant of
power is that the initiator must have the status,
capacity, or legal representation to do so at the time
of the filing of the criminal action.
PARTIES CONTENTION
GAMELO MARIANO – ACCUSED PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Denied the accusation and - There was no reversible
posits another alibi. error committed by the judge
- Assuming he did, the and prayed that the
complaint was invalid since conviction remains.
it was filed by the mother
of the victim and not the
father who was still alive,
in view of Art. 344 of the
RPC
ISSUE/S WON the accused is guilty; the criminal case was
initiated properly?
SC RULING The petition is denied.
PARTIES CONTENTION
RUFINA CHUA
- Chua argues that her -
petition should be allowed
because the circumstances
of the case would warrant
leniency on her lack of
personality to assail the
criminal aspect of CA
acquittal.
ISSUE/S WON the respondent – appellant Chua had the legal
personality to file an appeal before the Supreme Court?
SC RULING The court does not agree with the respondent.
Xxx
FACTS:
- Susan Saison, the mother of the slain brothers, charged petitioner herein with murder
for allegedly killing his children by firing a gun and hitting them on the head.
- Three information for murder was filed, all contains similarly charges which includes
the phrase “with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation, and
abuse of superior strength…”
- The RTC convicted them of the crime charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the court in toto; hence, this petition.
(NOTE: Initially, both Edwin and Eduardo interposed an appeal to the SC but the
former withdraw his appeal.)
PARTIES CONTENTION
EDUARDO VALDEZ
- The petitioner contends that the State -
witnesses in the case is incredible
since all of them had inconsistencies
in their statement.
- He interposed his own version
practically imputing that it was the
slain victims who were the aggressor
and who tried to kill them.
ISSUE/S WON the petitioner is guilty of murder?
SC RULING The Court found the conviction of the petitioner proper, only that the crime
must be for homicide and not murder.
RATIO For a killing to be qualified as murder, certain qualifying circumstances, such
as treachery must not only be proven at the trial but must also be sufficiently
alleged in the information. The Court found that the information failed to
sufficiently allege the attendance of treachery.
For the complaint or the information to be sufficient, it must state the name
of the accused, the designation of the offense given, the acts complained of
constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time
of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense was
committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the
designation of the offense or the particular law or part thereof that was
violated, all being merely conclusions of law, but the description of the offense
charge and the particular facts recited therein. It requires that every element
of the offense must be stated in the information.
The rationale for this rule is to inform the accused of the nature of the crime
charged against him in order for the latter to prepare his defense. It emanates
from the presumption of innocence in his favor.
In this case, the averments of the information to the effect that the two
accused “with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation
and abuse of superior strength … assault and kill the [victims] by shooting
them with a gun …” did not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstance
describing how treachery attended the killing.
FACTS:
While the information is unclear whether all the persons enumerated therein
conspired with one another, what is clear is that all the accused had conspired
with President Estrada, to enable the latter to acquire ill-gotten wealth, to the
damage and prejudice of the country. In light of this lack of clarity, petitioner
cannot be penalized for the conspiracy entered into by the other accused with
the former President as related in the second paragraph of the Amended
Information in relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). We hold that
petitioner can be held accountable only for the predicate acts he allegedly
committed as related in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information
which were allegedly done in conspiracy with the former President whose
design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P4 billion.
ADDITIONAL There is a discussion as to what the information must contain in cases of
NOTES conspiracy.
- In 2015, a criminal complaint for Plunder was filed against petitioner and Gigi Reyes,
his Chief of Staff, in relation with the pork barrel scam.
- The information charged them in conspiracy with Janet Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and
Raymund De Asis in amassing and criminally acquiring ill-gotten wealth through a
series of overt act; by using his PDAF and unjustly enriching himself at the expense of
the Filipino People.
- On July 10, he filed a bill of particulars. A hearing was set forth the following day. On
July 11, the hearing for his bill of particular commenced but it was denied by the
Sandiganbayan. He orally filed a motion for reconsideration and after a 5 minutes
deliberation, the Sandiganbayan denied the case with finality, hence this appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
JUAN PONCE ENRILE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
- There is an ambiguity and - The Sandiganbayan did not exercise
insufficiency on the information filed their discretion on a despotic or
against him, denying him of his whimsical manner but only within the
constitutionally guaranteed right to limits provided under the Revised
be informed of the nature and the Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan.
cause of the accusation against him. - Assuming that there was indeed an
- Particularly, the petitioner asked error, it does not amount to grave
certain details that is not included in abuse of discretion amounting to lack
the information which they believed or excess of jurisdiction.
must be included, such as; who
among the accused acquired ill-gotten
wealth; what specific overt acts, or
combination of overt act was made by
the accused; name of the specific
person who delivered the money to
them; etc.
ISSUE/S WON the information is proper?
SC RULING The court PARTIALLY found the petition to be meritorious.
RATIO BILL OF PARTICULARS
In this case, the petitioner averred several details that needs to be contained
in the information for the same is ultimate facts related to the crime of
plunder. Here, the court granted the motion for bill of particulars in some of
the situation involved in the case:
FACTS:
- Rene and Renato Torrecampo were charged with the murder of Jovito Gaspillo. The
information alleged that the accused, with abuse of superior strength and evident
premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and, feloniously stabbed the
victim and decapitated him.
- Several witnesses where presented by the prosecutor while the accused interposed
an alibi that there are not at the scene of the crime when the crime was allegedly
committed since they were on their work.
- The RTC convicted them of murder based on the circumstantial evidence of the
witnesses which pointed to no other logical conclusion the they were guilty of the
crime.
- They were sentenced with the penalty of death, hence this review.
PARTIES CONTENTION
TORRECAMPOS
- The lower court erred in relying on -
the testimonies of the witnesses
while the same contains
inconsistencies.
ISSUE/S WON the accused are guilty of murder?
SC RULING The Court affirmed the conviction, but only for homicide and not murder.
RATIO The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of guilt on the part
of the accused – appellants. While they are based on circumstantial evidence,
the same is sufficient to convict an accused if there is more than one
circumstance; the facts from which the inferences are derived and proved;
and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances proved must
constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty
person.
However, the court did not find the accused guilty of murder.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE VS IRENEO JUGUETA
NATURE Petition for Review
CONCEPT Sufficiency of complaint or information/Duplicity of complaints; Secs. 6
and 13, Rule 110
PARTIES
DIVINA FAMILY; Represented by the IRENEO JUGUETA
PEOPLE
- The victim of the accused. - Accused – appellant
- Two of the children in the family died
while the other were unharmed.
FACTS:
- For allegedly firing gunshots at the house of the petitioner resulting to the death of
two of the children of the Divina Family, the accused was charged with an information
for double murder and an information for multiple attempted murder.
- The prosecutors presented testimony which aimed to prove that the accused went to
the house of the victim and tore the improvised walls and thereon carried into firing
shots.
- The defendant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming that he was merely in his
house, watching television.
- For failure of the defendant to prove the physical impossibility of his commission of
the offense, and for the positive identification of the prosecution’s witness, he was
convicted by the trial court of the crime charged and was sentenced to death.
- He appealed to the CA, but to no avail, hence, this petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
IRENEO JUGUETA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- The lower court erred in giving -
credence to the testimonies of the
witness despite the alleged glaring
inconsistencies in their statement.
- He reiterated his innocence.
ISSUE/S WON he is guilty of the crime charged?
SC RULING The appeal is unmeritorious, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
RATIO Absent any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court, the
Supreme Court gives probative value to the factual findings of the Court as
affirmed in CA.
In this case, there was no showing of any grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the judge. The records of the case clearly show that the crime of murder
was committed. Murder, under Art. 248, is present upon the existence of any
of the circumstances which will qualify the killing. In this case, the fact that
the victims were of tender years who cannot put of any defense; and the fact
that attack was so sudden and unexpected clearly shows the existence of
murder. The same is true with respect to the Attempted Murder charged.
Since the lower court was able to establish that there was an intent to kill on
the part of the accused, they are guilty thereof.
ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ON DUPLICITY OF SUITS
NOTES
However, the Court must make a clarification as to the nomenclature used by
the trial court to identify the crimes for which the appellant was penalized.
There is some confusion caused by the trial courts used of term double
murder and multiple attempted murder in convicting appellant, and yet
imposing penalties which nevertheless show that the trial court meant to
penalize the appellant for 2 separate counts of murder and 4 separate counts
of attempted murder.
However, the law provides for exception, that is; when the law prescribes a
single punishment for various offense. This is what is known as complex
crime. In complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed but in
the eyes of the law and in the conscience of the offender, only one crime exist
and thus, one penalty is also imposed. There are two kinds of complex crime;
compound crime (or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies) or complex crime proper (two crimes committed, one is the
necessary means of committing another).
In this case, clearly there was two separate offense being charged in a single
information, hence the information should have been valid. However, since
the appellant entered a plea of not guilty during the arraignment and failed to
move for the quashal of the Information, he is deemed to have waived his right
to question the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that the failure of the
accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information xxx shall be deemed to be a waiver of any objections
xxx.
CRIMPRO SUSAN FRONDA – BAGGAO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
CONCEPT Amendment or Substitution of the Information; Sec. 14, Rule 110
PARTIES
SUSAN FRONDA – BAGGAO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Accused of the crime of large scale - Respondent; represented by OSG
illegal recruitment
FACTS:
- Initially, the petitioner in this case was charged with 4 counts of illegal recruitment.
- Before arraignment, however, she escaped, only to be rearrested after almost a
decade.
- When she was rearrested, the prosecution filed a motion to amend the information by
making it as one information for large scale illegal recruitment.
- The Trial court initially denied the motion but approved it upon reconsideration.
- The petitioner, aggrieved, went to the CA to assail the said order which were likewise
denied, hence, this petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
SUSAN FRONDA – BAGGAO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Sec. 14, Rule 110 refers to an - Seeks to dismiss the case for lack of
amendment of one information only merit
and not four, which cannot be joined
in only one information.
- The amendment is violative of her
constitutional right since it charged
her with a graver offense.
ISSUE/S WON the rules of court allows such kind of amendment?
SC RULING The petition was denied; the court upholds the decision of the trial court.
RATIO Sec. 14, Rule 110 provides that;
Simply stated, before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial
amendment of the complaint or information may be made without leave of
court. After the entry of plea, only formal amendment may be allowed,
provided it is with leave of court and that it does not prejudice the right of the
accused.
Here, the appellant is not yet arraigned. Thus, a substantial amendment to the
information may still be had without leave of court.
Also, the party contends that the amendment must only pertain to a single
information. A careful scrutiny of the law applicable however does not
provides for the same. Hence, we can apply the general rule that criminal
procedures must be read liberally in favor of the accused.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO DATU GUIMID MATALAM VS SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
CONCEPT Amendment or Substitution of Complaint or Information; Sec. 14, Rule
110
PARTIES
DATU GUIMID MATALAM SANDIGANBAYAN
- ARMM Vice-governor and the - The respondent court who ordered
Regional Secretary of DAR. the assailed resolution questioning
- Appellant herein the propriety of the acceptance of the
amendment of the information
FACTS:
- Initially, petitioner, being then a public officer, was charged, along with other official,
of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 by illegally withholding the back wages of the
dismissed employee in the local government. However, upon motion for
reinvestigation, a subsequent information was filed, this time, omitting the other
accused and practically changing the act which constitute the accused (by illegally
dismissing the employees to their prejudice and damage.
- He filed a motion to quash the amended information on the ground that the amended
one change the corpus delicti of the offense, hence, he must be entitled for a new
preliminary investigation.
- This motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan. It was elevated to the CA but the same
was denied; hence, this petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
DATU GUIMD MATALAM SANDIGANYBAYAN
The order was issued with grave abuse of - The acceptance of the new amended
discretion amounting to lack or excess of information does not violate
jurisdiction for petitioner’s right to due process on the
- Since the very corpus delicti was ground that the amendment was
changed, a new preliminary merely formal, and to require another
investigation is in order; preliminary investigation would not
- He was denied due process be obedience to, but in disregard of,
- He was not given opportunity to the prime purpose of the preliminary
show that he did not act with investigation itself.
manifest partiality and evident bad
faith in the dismissal of the seven
employees.
ISSUE/S WON the amendment was valid?
SC RULING The assailed orders are hereby reversed and set aside.
RATIO Sec. 14, Rule 110 provides for two kinds of amendments; substantial and
formal amendments.
In this case, however, the Court categorically declared that the amendment is
substantial in nature as what has been changed is the recital of facts
constituting the offense, or as correctly pointed out by the petitioner; the very
corpus delicti of the case.
Treating the amendment, Retired Justice Florenz Regalado, said that before
the plea is taken, the information may be amended in substance or in form,
without leave of court; but if amendment is in substance, the accused is
entitled to preliminary investigation, unless the amended charge is related to
or is included in the original charge.
In this case, while the amended information charged the same offense,
violation of Sec. 3e of RA 3019, the constituting facts thereof was different,
specifically the amended information now charged the petitioner to have
committed the alleged crime through manifest bad faith or evident partiality
which is not present in the original information. Hence, not allowing the
respondent to a new preliminary investigation would deprived him of
opportunity to prove the alleged crime is contrary to what was stated in the
information.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA
NATURE Automatic review
CONCEPT Amendment/Substitution of Information; Sec. 14, Rule 110
PARTIES
EVELYN KHO ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA
- The victim who was allegedly killed - Accused – appellant who was charged
by the accused. with the killing of Evelyn Kho
- He was an attorney and the accused
was employed by her as a driver
FACTS:
- Atty. Evelyn Kho was allegedly harsh with the accused to the point that the accused
was not able to hold his grudges and decided on one occasion, after he drove the
victim to her house, to kill the victim by stabbing him 18 times on different parts of
the body.
- An information for murder was filed against him in the RTC.
- During the trial, the accused interposed self defense for allegedly she was stabbed by
the victim in the wrist, but he was able to repel the attack and stabbed him three to
four times.
- The RTC convicted him of murder and sentenced him with the penalty of death.
- The case was elevated to the CA who upheld the same, only with certain modification,
specifically on the non-inclusion of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, and
insult to the rank, sex, age, of the victim since these circumstances allegedly where
included as amendments to the information only after the presentation by the
prosecution of its evidence, hence this petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
ELBERTO TABUNGBANUA OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
- Reiterated his theory of self defense - Too confident, did not even submit a
comment (hehehe)
In this case, the court said that clearly the evidence present by the accused is
self-serving and does not hold any water. He failed to prove the unlawful
aggression and his claim is belied by the physical evidence of the case, which
is the wounds inflicted on the victim. Also, the court found that there was
evident premeditation herein since the testimony of the witness was able to
point out the state of mid of the accused prior to the commission of the crime.
However, the SC ruled that the CA erred in not appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling and disregard of rank, age, and sex. According to the
court, what the law does not allow is a substantial amendment after the
arraignment or plea, formal amendments, even after the trial has commenced,
will still be allowed provided that it is with leave of court.
In this case, the amendment did not change any acts constituting the crime
charged, nor was the corpus delicti of the same was changed. What is merely
changed is the aggravating circumstance which will merely affect the penalty
to be imposed and hence, only formal amendment. Also, the fact that the
accused did not object to the presentation of the evidence over the said
aggravating circumstance should have been considered as waiver on the part
of the accused.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO EDUARDO RICARZE VS COURT OF APPEALS
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Amendment/Substitution; Sec. 14, Rule 110
PARTIES
EDUARDO RICARZE COURT OF APPEALS
- Accused in the crime of estafa - Denied the petitioner’s motion
through falsification of public
document;
- Petitioner herein; questioning the
subrogation of right made between
Caltex and PCIB
FACTS:
ON SUBROGATION
The petitioner also contends that the subrogation was invalid since it was not
communicated to him and he did not give his conformity to it. But the court
said that the petitioner failed to distinguish the difference of legal and
conventional subrogation. Legal subrogation is one which operates by law
and need not any conformity on any of the party while conventional
subrogation is a substitution by virtue of an agreement between the parties.
In this case, what takes place is a legal subrogation which takes effect by
operation of law.
The petitioner likewise contends that the information charging him of estafa
was invalid since it did not allege that the prejudice was committed to PCIB.
The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the same holds no water since in
crimes against property, the designation of name of the offended party is not
indispensable. What is required totally is the criminal act which is totally
identifiable.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO MARIO CRESPO VS LEODEGARIO MOGUL, ET. AL.
NATURE Review
CONCEPT Amendment/Substitution; Sec. 14, Rule 110
PARTIES
MARIO CRESPO LEODEGARIO MOGUL
- Accused of a crime of estafa - Trial court judge who issued the
- Appellant in this case assail order dismissing the motion of
the petitioner Crespo
FACTS:
- Mario Crespo was charged before the Provincial Prosecutor with the crime of estafa.
After, preliminary investigation, an information before the trial court was filed against
Mogul.
- The petitioner moved to suspend the arraignment of the case on the ground that there
was a pending review being conducted by the DOJ Secretary. The trial court denied
the motion but gave the petitioner sufficient time to appeal to the higher court.
- Petitioner went to the CA and filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing
the order of the trial court ordering the conduct of arraignment. The CA affirmed the
same.
- Nevertheless, the reinvestigation of the DOJ Secretary concluded in a
recommendation to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
- The petitioner moved to dismiss the case but the same was denied by the trial court
and set the date of the arraignment.
- Hence, this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
ISSUE/S WON there was an error on the part of the judge in ordering the arraignment?
SC RULING The petition was denied.
RATIO It is a cardinal rule that the prosecution of criminal action by information or
complaint starts from the public prosecutors who were tasked primarily to
institute criminal action based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
He exercises such discretion in a preliminary investigation. As a general rule,
he enjoys a wide latitude of discretion on whether to file a case or not.
However, the same is not without exception. In some cases where abuse of
discretion in alleged, the action of the prosecutor may even be brought to the
DOJ Secretary for review.
On the other hand, criminal action is initiated upon the filing of a complaint
or information before the court. Once such was accepted as a valid
information, and the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, the court has now acquired jurisdiction over the case and the same
falls under his sphere. It is at this stage that the preliminary investigation
conducted by the fiscal ceased. However, nothing precludes the prosecutor to
open a reinvestigation of the case subject to the approval of the court, and
may even subsequently recommend the withdrawal of the same. However,
once a court has acquired jurisdiction of the case, whatever disposition the
fiscal may feel should be properly raised before the court for its
consideration.
Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a
reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a
motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its
discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the
merits proceed for the proper determination of the case
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS CAOILE
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Substitution/Amendment; Sec. 14, Rule 110
PARTIES
MOISES CAOILE
- Accused of raping a demented person
several times. Two information were
charged against him.
FACTS:
- AAA, the victim, was neighbor of Caoile. The latter’s daughter and AAA were playmate.
- It was alleged that on several occasions, petitioner would invite AAA to the mountain
where he will rape her. This happened several times.
- AAA was only able to report the incidents to the police when the one of her paymate
complained that her breast was smashed by the petitioner.
- As a result, a complaint of 2 counts of rape was filed against him.
- Both RTC and CA dismissed his appeal, hence, this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
CAOILE
- Avers the credibility of AAA herself -
since she doesn’t seem to be a
mentally retarded person during the
trial of the case.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO LEILA DE LIMA, ET. AL vs. MARIO JOEL REYES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Preliminary Investigation; Defined; Sec 1, Rule 112
PARTIES
LEILA DE LIMA MARIO JOEL T REYES
- Then Secretary of Justice who - Former governor of the province
issued Department Order 710 of Palawan who was impleaded by
creating a second panel of the second panel of investigator as
investigator for the murder of Doc. the mastermind for the killing of
Gerry in Palawan Doc. Gerry.
FACTS:
- January 2011, Dr. Gerardo Ortega, a veterinarian and anchor of various local radio
station was shot dead in Palawan.
- A hot pursuit followed, and the authorities were able to capture Recamata. The
latter impleaded other persons who were responsible.
- Edrad, one of those impleaded, issued a Sinumpaang Salaysay, impleading former
Governor Mario Reyes as the mastermind.
- As a result, DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima issued DO 091 creating a panel of three
investigator to conduct preliminary investigation.
- On June 8, the panel ordered the dismissal of the case.
- For allegedly having ignored some evidence, the DOJ Secretary issued
Department Order no. 710 creating a second panel of investigator for purposes
of reinvestigation.
- The second panel concluded their report by recommending the filing of an
information against the respondent herein. Such information was filed.
- The respondent filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
a Prayer of Temporary Restraining Order and Prohibition for the resolution of
the second panel.
- The CA affirmed the petition and order the DOJ not to enforce the said order.
- The DOJ moved for reconsideration but was denied; hence this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
DOJ SECRETARY MARIO JOEL REYES
- The Secretary acting within his - The Secretary of Justice had no
authority. They argued that the authority to order motu propio the
order was purely executive reinvestigation of the case since all
function and not quasi-judicial parties had already been given the
that could be the subject of opportunity to present their
injunction. evidence before the First Panel so
- They also added that the it was not necessary to conduct a
formation of a second panel is reinvestigation.||| (De Lima v.
essential as there were ignored Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, [January 11,
evidence, but even so, no 2016])
deprivation of due process was - The discretion of the SOJ was
made. unbridled since the 2000 NPS Rule
- Since an information has already on Appeal requires that there be
been filed, the full discretion of the compelling circumstances for her
case lies to the trial court already. to be able to designate another
prosecutor to conduct the
reinvestigation.||| (De Lima v.
Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, [January 11,
2016])
RATIO While the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires the filing of a petition for
review before the Secretary of Justice can reverse, modify, affirm or alter
the appealed resolution of the prosecutors, Rule 112, Sec 4, authorizes the
SOJ motu propio to reverse or modify resolutions even without a pending
petition for review. This is in line with the authority of the SOJ to exercise
control and supervision over the prosecutors. Moreover, RA 10071 also
gives the SOJ the authority to directly act on any probable miscarriage of
justice within the jurisdiction of the prosecution staff, regional
prosecutors, or national prosecutor, he having control and supervision
over them.
In this case, the SOJ noted that the wife of the slain doctor filed a motion
to reopen investigation in the first panel on the alleged phone
conversation between Edrad and the respondent, but the first panel did
not accept the evidence for allegedly being filed out of time. Seeing the
possible miscarriage of justice in this case, the SOJ acted within her
authority.
FACTS:
- A partial audit of made the Juno Cars discovered that 5 cars under the supervision
of the petitioner herein were sold and released without the knowledge of the
company.
- While there were payments made by those who purchased the cars, the payment
was not remitted to the company.
- As a result, a complaint for estafa and theft were filed by the respondent to the
Office of the Prosecutor who, in turn, recommended the filing of an information
before the court. The petitioner appealed this resolution.
- Pending appeal, however, two information for theft and estafa were filed before
RTC Mandaluyon. To this, petitioner filed a motion for determination of probable
cause.
- The court, acting on petitioner’s motion, dismiss the case for lack of probable
cause.
- This dismissal was appealed by the respondent before the CA via a petition for
certiorari. The CA granted the petition, ruling that the RTC had abuse its
discretion by ordering the dismissal of the case and ordered that the same be
reinstated before the lower court; hence, this appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
ALFREDO MENDOZA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- He argued that the Trial Court was -The appellate court correctly
correct in ruling that there was no sustained the findings of the
probable cause for the case. prosecutor in his findings that
- Judicial determination of probable there was probable cause.
cause, while not superior faculty, - Since there was no showing that
covers a broader encompassing there was grave abuse of
perspective in the disposition of discretion on the part of the
the issue of the existence of prosecutor, the trial court should
probable cause. respect the determination of the
prosecutor.
ISSUE/S The primordial issue is whether the trial court may dismiss an
information filed by the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent
finding of lack of probable cause?
SC RULING The petition is GRANTED, the Court ordered the criminal case against
Alfredo Mendoza dismissed.
RATIO There are two kinds of determination of probable cause; first, is the
preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor to determine
whether evidence is sufficient to file a case in court. The other is
preliminary inquiry or examination, made by the judge to determine
whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.
Sec 6, Rule 112, of the Rules of Court gives the judge 3 options in the
conduct of judicial determination of probable cause; first, he may
immediately dismiss the case for want of evidence; second, if probable
cause is found, issue a warrant of arrest; third, order the prosecutor to
submit additional evidence in case there is doubt as to the probable cause.
While the third gives the court the authority to ask the prosecutor for
additional evidence, this is not mandatory. In fact, the first option of the
court in case no probable cause exist is to immediately dismiss the case.
In this case, the information filed by the prosecutor is valid on its face.
Nevertheless, the court proceeded with its independent determination of
probable cause. It is in this instance that the court ruled that the evidence
on record fails to support a finding of probable cause for the offenses of
qualified theft or estafa. Specifically, Juno Cars failed to present evidence
that that the vehicles allegedly pilfered by Mendoza was owned by them
and that Mendoza had obtained gain or benefit from said transaction.
Absent these crucial facts made the judge decide to dismiss the case.
Accordingly, with the present laws and jurisprudence, the judge correctly
dismissed the case against Mendoza.
ADDITIONAL Although jurisprudence and procedural rules allow it, a judge must
NOTES always proceed with caution in dismissing cases due to lack of probable
cause, considering the preliminary nature of the evidence before it. It is
only when he or she finds that the evidence on hand absolutely fails to
support a finding of probable cause that he or she can dismiss the case.
On the other hand, if a judge finds probable cause, he or she must not
hesitate to proceed with arraignment and trial in order that justice may
be served. – Justice Marvic Leonen
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ROGELIO VILLANUEVA AND MAMERTO
DURANA
NATURE Appeal
CONCEPT Preliminary Investigation; Defined; Rule 112, Sec 1
PARTIES
MAMERTO DURANA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Convicted with murder for -
hacking Diosdado Meniano
FACTS:
- Villanueva, who remained at large, and Mamerto Durana allegedly went outside
the house of the victim, Meniano, and challenge him to a fight in the evening.
- When Meniano went down, he was immediately hacked by Durana.
- The trial court convicted Durana of the crime; hence, this appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
MAMERTO DURANA
- This appeal mainly centers on the -
idea that he was not a party to the
preliminary investigation, nor was
he included in the information,
hence he cannot be convicted of
the crime charged.
ISSUE/S WON the trial court erred in convicting the accused with murder.
SC RULING The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was sustained.
FACTS:
- After his 2010 election, President Benigno Aquino immediately issued Executive
Order no. 1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission.
- The Philippine Truth Commission is tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding
investigation of reported graft and corrupt cases during the previous
administration and thereafter submit its finding and recommendation to the
President, Congress, and Ombudsman.
- Just one month after its creation, several petition praying for the declaration of
its constitutionality was filed before the court.
- One of the issues presented therewith was that the PTC illegally amended the
Constitution when it vested with the PTC quasi-judicial power duplicating, if not,
superseding those of the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987
Constitution and the Department of Justice under the Administrative Code of the
Philippines.
PARTIES CONTENTION
PETITIONERS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- See above. The Truth Commission does
-
not duplicate or
supersede the functions
of the Office of the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and
the Department of
Justice (DOJ), because it
is a fact-finding body
and not a quasi-judicial
body and its functions do
not duplicate, supplant
or erode the latter's
jurisdiction.
ISSUE/S WON the Philippine Truth Commission violated the constitution by
usurping the power of the Ombudsman and the DOJ?
SC RULING No.
RATIO The Court ruled that the body is mere ad hoc body tasked to investigate
reports of graft and corruption and not a quasi-judicial body since it does
not have any quasi-judicial power vested in him. Quasi-judicial powers
involve the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the
legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the
standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the
law itself. In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise
of these quasi-judicial powers, such that it is exclusively vested in the
judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature in case of
administrative agencies.
Being so, the Court ruled that there is no way that the PTC will supplant
the power of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases or the DOJ. What the PTC
will do is merely recommend the prosecution of cases, but the actual
prosecution is still vested in the DOJ or the Ombudsman as the case may
be. If at all, the power of the PTC will merely compliment that of the
Omdudsman and the DOJ.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES NOTE: DESPITE THE RULING ABOVE, THE COURT DECLARED THE
PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE
GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. THIS IS
IN SO FAR AS IT LIMITS ITS APPLICATION TO ONLY THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION AND NOT INCLUDING EVEN THOSE PRIOR TO THE
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.
CRIMPRO ALFREDO ROMULO BUSUEGO vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and
ROSA BUSUEGO
NATURE Petition for Certiorari
CONCEPT Officers Authorized to Prosecute; Sec. 2, Rule 112
PARTIES
ALFRED ROMULO BUSUEGO ROSA BUSUEGO
- Chief of Hospital, Davao Regional - Wife of the petitioner who charged
Hospital at Apokon, Tagum City, him with different offense.
Davao.
FACTS:
- The petitioner and private respondent were married sometime in 1975. They
hade two children, Alfred and Robert.
- Their relationship turned sour in 1983 when the complainant found love letters
addressed to Alfredo from different women. Alfred feign ignorance over the said
letters.
- Rosa went to the US to work as a nurse. It is during this time, when complainant
was out of the country did the petitioner cohabitated with at least two women on
different occasion. The first was Sia and the other was De Leon.
- As a result, thereof, the complainant filed a complaint before the Ombudsman,
charging the petitioner with Concubinage, violation of RA 9262 or the Anti-
Violence Against Woman and Children Act, and Grave Threats.
- Some procedural issues over the complaint was pointed out by the petitioner,
specifically for Rosa’s failure to include in his complaint – affidavit Sia and De
Leon, as required under Art. 344 of the RPC.
- To dispose of the issue, the Ombudsman conducted a clarificatory hearing and
after which, the Ombudsman automatically included Sia and De Leon.
- Upon preliminary investigation thereof, the Ombudsman issued the assailed
order founding probable cause to indict Alfred and Sia for concubinage.
PARTIES CONTENTION
ALFRED ROMOLU BUSUEGO
- The main contention of the -
petitioner is that the Ombudsman
committed grave abuse of
discretion when it automatically
included Sia and De Leon as party
defendant in the case.
ISSUE/S WON the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion by entertaining the
said complaint.
SC RULING The petition is dismissed.
RATIO By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgement tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law, where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
In this case, the petition failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Ombudsman.
While there was a defect in the complaint filed by the private complainant,
the order of the Ombudsman to include them in the information by mere
amendment is within the authority of the Ombudsman. Note that
Procedural Rule of the Ombudsman authorized them that “if, after the
filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting evidence, there are
facts material to the case that was not included, or which the officer may
need to be clarified on, the ombudsman may conduct a clarificatory
hearing during which the parties may be afforded the opportunity to be
present without right to cross examine the witness presented”
RATIO The power to grant immunity is upon the legislature, being the natural
consequence of their power to define crimes, treats of its nature and
provides for its punishment. While the legislature is the source of the
power to grant immunity, the authority to implement is lodged
elsewhere. The authority to choose the individual to whom immunity
would be granted is a constituent part of the process and is essentially an
executive function.
In this case, the petitioner failed to prove that there was grave abuse of
discretion in the exercise of the Ombudsman of his authority to determine
whether accused may be immune from suit. While the petitioner cited
that there was no necessity for the testimony of the accused and that they
are the most guilty, this assertion were not even proven on trial.
FACTS:
- For alleged wide spread electoral fraud committed during 2004 and 2007
elections, the COMELEC and DOJ issued joint order for the creation of a Fact-
Finding Body and a Joint Committee, the former for the purposes of gathering
testimony and other evidence in relation to the alleged fraud, while the latter is
to conduct a preliminary investigation for the purpose of filing an information
before the court.
- The investigation concluded with the recommendation to file an information to
several persons including the petitioner’s herein.
- This petition mainly questions the constitutionality of the creation of the joint
committee and the conduct of preliminary investigation
PARTIES CONTENTION
PETITIONERS DOJ AND COMELEC
- The petitioner contends that the - No violation of due process, equal
creation of the joint committee is protection clause, and separation
unconstitutional for it violated due of power.
process, equal protection clause
and separation of power and that
the Comelec and the DOJ has no
authority to create such body.
ISSUE/S WON the Joint Order is valid?
SC RULING The Court DISMISSED the case.
- -
FACTS:
- -
ISSUE/S WON there was violation of Sec 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution
SC RULING The petition was dismissed.
- Four complainants gave similar testimonies; that they were offered by the
respondent with a job as a factory worker in Korea upon payment of a certain
money for the process of all other related travel documents.
- The complainant gave their money, only to discover that all promises made by
the respondent were futile, thus, this case.
- The Trial Court convicted the complainant; hence this appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
MANUEL DE GUIA
- - That he was wrongfully convicted
with the crime as allegedly it was
Loida De Guia who was guilty.
- The invalid warrantless arrest
conducted upon him must be a
basis for the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE/S WON there was invalid arrest?
SC RULING Petition is denied
RATIO The Court ruled that the denial and alibi of Manuel De Guia would not
change the ruling of this Court. They affirmed the findings of the lower
court as to the guilt of the respondent. They gave no credence to the
testimony of the accused that it was Loida who committed the crime and
that he was merely present at the time. The Court said that his liability
does not depend upon that of De Guia as he was charged with the offense
of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa in conspiracy with the Loida.
On the issue of the invalidity of the arrest, the court ruled that;
Finally, appellant's alleged warrantless arrest will not exculpate him from
his guilt as found by the trial court. To be sure, the plea comes too late in
the day. We note that upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to
the Information and did not raise the alleged illegality of his arrest. By so
pleading, he waived the alleged illegality of his arrest. In People v.
Briones, we ruled that the illegality of appellant's warrantless arrest
cannot render all the other proceedings, including the appellant's
conviction, void. It cannot deprive the State of its right to convict the
guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability.”
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RACHO
NATURE Appeal
CONCEPT Arrest; Rule 113
PARTIES
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES JACK RACHO
- Allegedly a drug pusher
FACTS:
- A confidential police agent transacted with Jack Racho that the agent would buy
some shabu to the accused. They agreed to meet at Baler, Aurora the next day
wearing a red and white stripped search.
- Upon this information, some police officer placed themselves along the highway
and waited for a Genesis Bus to arrive that contains the accused.
- The bus arrived, and the accused alighted therein. He was waiting on the side of
the road for some tricycle to complete his journey. Before he stepped into the
tricycle, however, the police officer arrested him. Upon searching him, they found
a white envelope which contains the shabu.
- The trial court convicted him of the crime charged; hence this appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES JACK RACHO
- - There was an invalid warrantless
arrest;
- The shabu is inadmissible as
evidence.
ISSUE/S WON the accused is guilty of the crime charged?
SC RULING The Court acquitted the accused for lack of evidence.
RATIO While the general rule provides that the Supreme Court must respect the
determination of the trial courts of the facts attendant to the case, when
there is a need to review the same, the court is authorized to do so, even
on matters which were not taken up during trial if it will uphold the
interest of justice.
In this case, the court said that the petitioner cannot anymore assail the
validity of his warrantless arrest as his failure to raise it before
arraignment and his active participation thereto constitutes as waiver.
Nevertheless, the court ruled that the shabu is inadmissible as evidence.
- Cesar Givera were allegedly throwing stones in the house of Gardon demanding
him to go out.
- When he did not, one of the accused entered the house and escorted Gardon
outside.
- When outside, an altercation ensued between the parties and latter on Gardon
was stabbed in his chest, causing his death.
- A case for murder was filed and the RTC convicted him of the crime charged,
hence, this appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CESAR GIVERA
- - There were inconsistencies in the
testimony of the witness which
engender doubt as to his
culpability.
- There was an invalid arrest for his
arrest was made one hospital
without a warrant.
ISSUE/S Whether the accused is guilty?
SC RULING The accused affirmed his conviction for murder.
RATIO The court ruled that the petitioner’s denial and mere alibi cannot defeat
the uncontroverted, straightforward testimony of all the witnesses
presented by the prosecution. The fact that there were inconsistencies in
their testimony does not damaged their credibility as those
inconsistencies were merely unsubstantial.
On the issue of the validity of the arrest, while the petitioner claimed that
there was no warrant of arrest issued, the Court noted that in fact there
was. A warrant of arrest was issued on April 1995 but a return was made
in June 1995 declaring that the accused cannot be seen. Now, no alias
warrant of arrest is needed to make the arrest. Unless specifically
provided in the warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is
executed, recalled or quashed. The ten-day period provided in Rule 113,
4 is only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return
to the court
Assuming arguendo, the same cannot render the conviction invalid as the
petitioner did not moved for the quashal of the information before the
conduct of the arraignment.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO JOEY PESTILOS, et. al. vs. MORENO GENEROSO AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec 5; Rule 113
PARTIES
JOEY PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS;
MIGUEL CASES; JERRY FERNANDEZ; MORENO GENEROSO
RONALD MUNOZ
- Accused of beating the - Complainant in this case and was
complainant Atty. Generoso just allegedly beaten by the
outside the latter’s house and petitioners.
stabbing him.
FACTS:
In this case, the court noted that the time from the reporting of the
incident and the time of the arrival of the police officers to the situs
criminis is merely one hour. Hence, there is immediacy.
On the second requisite, the court held that personal knowledge of a
crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited provision, does
not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being
committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the
crime is patent and the police officer has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be
arrested has recently committed the crime.
In this case, the court found as sufficient knowledge the sight of the police
officer of the bruises of the Generoso and that Generoso pointedto the
petitioners as the perpetrators. Also, when questioned, the petitioner did
not deny the claim. In fact, it was even admitted by one of them. Such facts
and circumstance, according to the court, was sufficient to constitute
personal knowledge.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO IN RE: HARVEY vs. DEFENSOR – SANTIAGO
NATURE Petition for Habeas Corpus
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec. 5; Rules 113
PARTIES
HARVEY; SHERMAN; ELSEHOUT MIRIAM DEFENSOR – SANTIAGO
- Aliens; the first two being American - Commissioner of the CID who
and the last is Dutch. issued the assailed order of arrest
- They were included among the 22 against the petitioners.
aliens being investigated by the
Commission on Immigration and
Deportation
FACTS:
But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitioners was not valid
at its inception, the records show that formal deportation charges have
been filed against them, as undesirable aliens, on 4 March 1988. Warrants
of arrest were issued against them on 7 March 1988 "for violation of
Section 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the
Administrative Code." A hearing is presently being conducted by a Board
of Special Inquiry. The restraint against their persons, therefore, has
become legal. The Writ has served its purpose. The process of the law is
being followed (Cruz vs. Montoya, L-39823, February 25, 1975, 62 SCRA
543). "were a person's detention was later made by virtue of a judicial
order in relation to criminal cases subsequently filed against the detainee,
his petition for hebeas corpus becomes moot and academic" (Beltran vs.
Garcia, L-49014, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 717). "It is a fumdamental rule
that a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted when the confinement is
or has become legal, although such confinement was illegal at the
beginning" (Matsura vs. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 1050 [1947]).
That petitioners were not "caught in the act" does not make their arrest
illegal. Petitioners were found with young boys in their respective rooms,
the ones with John Sherman being naked. Under those circumstances the
CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had
committed "pedophilia" defined as "psychosexual perversion involving
children" (Kraft-Ebbing Psychopatia Sexualis p. 555; Paraphilia (or
unusual sexual activity) in which children are the preferred sexual object"
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971 ed., p. 1665)
[Solicitor General's Return of the Writ, on p. 101. While not a crime under
the Revised Penal Code, it is behavior offensive to public morals and
violative of the declared policy of the State to promote and protect the
physical, moral, spiritual, and social well-being of our youth (Article II,
Section 13, 1987 Constitution).
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec. 5; Rule 113
PARTIES
ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR
- Charged and convicted with violation -
of RA 9165 for carrying shabu
FACTS:
- When police officer where patrolling, they saw the accused crossing the street in
a “No Jaywalking” zone.
- They allegedly told the accused to use the overpass.
- They became suspicious however when the accused picked up something from
the ground, prompting the police officer to approach him and conduct a search.
- In the search they found a knife and a shabu.
- So, a case was filed before the RTC and the RTC convicted him. He appealed to the
CA and the same was dismissed, hence this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
HOMAR PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- The evidence obtained was Warrantless frisking in this case is
-
inadmissible as there was no valid allowed as it was in the
warrantless arrest. consequence of a valid
warrantless arrest in flagrante
delicto.
ISSUE/S WON there was a valid warrantless arrest?
SC RULING The petition is MERITORIOUS. The Court ACQUITTED the petitioner.
RATIO The court ruled that in order for an arrest in flagrante delicto would be
proper, it is necessary that the person to be arrested must have executed
overt act tending to show that he had just committed, is actually
committing, or is about to commit the crime; and that the overt act must
be seen by the arresting officer.
In this case, aside from the lone testimony of the arresting officer, no
other evidence was submitted to prove that there was indeed as valid
warrantless arrest. In fact, the Supreme Court goes on further in saying
that there was no arrest made in this case. Arrest is made by taking the
person into the custody in order that he may answer for an offense to
which he was charged. Arrest may be made by actual restraint on the
person to be arrested or the voluntary submission of the person under
the custody of the arresting officer.
In this case, by the police officers own testimony, they merely accosted
the petitioner to go to the proper place of crossing. There was no
intention on the part of them to actually arrest or restrain a person, nor
was there any voluntary submission on the part of the petitioner.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO DANILO VILLANIEVA vs PEOPLES OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec. 5; Rule 113
PARTIES
DANILO VILLANUEVA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Accused – Appellant -
FACTS
- A complaint was filed by Brian Resco alleging that the petitioner herein shot him
with a gun in CS road. The complaint was recorded in the police blotter.
- As a consequence, thereof, the police officers went to the house of the appellant
where they informed him that a complaint has been lodged against him.
- The police invited them and while in the police station they made a body search.
- During this body shirt a sachet of shabu was found.
- He was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
- The trial court convicted him of the charged; the CA affirmed the sam; hence, this
case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
DANILO VILLANUEVA SOLICITOR GENERAL
- The main contention of Danilo is - The contention of the people is
that the shabu was inadmissible as that the arrest was valid and the
evidence as it does not fall within evidence obtained therein was
the purview of valid warrantless admissible.
arrest. He was allegedly invited
without a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE/S WON there was a valid warrantless arrest?
SC RULING The petition is impressed with merit.
RATIO The arrest was made illegally as it is not within the purview of Sec 5, Rule
113 of the Rules of Court. However, he is estopped from raising the
invalidity of his arrest as a remedy since he is deemed to have waived it.
Records showed that he never raised the same prior to the arraignment,
and that he actively participated in the trial.
Be that as it may, the Supreme Court ruled that there was an invalid
warrantless search. A waiver of illegal arrest is not a waiver of an invalid
search. The Court noted that the circumstances in this case does not fall
under any of the recognized valid warrantless search. While this may fall
within the purview of consented search, consent must be done
equivocally and not impliedly, such as in this case. That being the case,
the court ruled that the evidence is inadmissible and hence, the accuse dis
acquitted.
ADDITIONAL INSTANCES OF A VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH
NOTES
1. Stop and Frisk Search
2. Custom Search
3. Search of a Moving Vehicle
4. Search in Plain View
5. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
6. Consented search
7. Exigent and emergency situation
CRIMPRO MARGARITA AMBRE y CAYUNI vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec 5, Rule 113
PARTIES
MARGARITA AMBRE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Accused-appellant; one of the three - Represented by the OSG
who were arrested having pot session
FACTS
- Acting on an informant’s tip, several police officers of the Caloocan Police Station
conducted a buy-bust operation against a certain Sultan and his wife.
- In the course of the same, the wife was arrested but Sultan was able to run.
- Three policemen followed Sultan as he ran and it led them to the house of the
appellant where she and two other person where allegedly caught in the act
having pot session.
- As a result thereof, two information for illegal use and illegal possession of drugs
paraphernalia were filed against the three. They were convicted by the trial court.
- Only the petitioner appealed the case, insisting her innocence before the CA, but
the CA denied her petition; hence this case
PARTIES CONTENTION
MARGARITA AMBRE SOLICITOR GENERAL
- Her main contention was that the - The SolGen urges the Court to
arrest that was invalid. affirm the conviction of the
petitioner.
RATIO To consider a valid arrest in flagrante delicto, two requisites must concur;
that the person sought to be arrested had executed overt acts tending to
show the commission of the crime; and that such overt act was made in
the presence of the person who will conduct the arrest.
In this case, there is no denying that the petitioner was indeed in the act
of a pot session when the police officers caught them. One of the police
positively identified petitioner as the one who were sniffing shabu. While
petitioner contends that there was no prior valid intrusion in the house
of the petitioner, the court ruled that the prior valid intrusion or
subsequent valid intrusion is not an element of an arrest in flagrante
delicto. Thus, even if the police officers had no legal right to be present in
their dwelling, it would not render unlawful the arrest of Ambre.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO ALVIN COMERCIANTE vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec. 5; Rule 113
PARTIES
ALVIN COMERCIANTE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Accused – appellant; was charged -
with the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs
FACTS
- A police officer and a police agent were conducting their patrol somewhere in
Mandaluyong aboard a motorcycle cruising at around 30 km/h.
- While travelling, they saw two persons allegedly acting suspiciously by showing
“improper and unpleasant conduct” and that they also saw that the two exchange
something.
- They approached the two and was able to confiscate two sachets of shabu; hence
the case for violation of RA 9165.
- The RTC convicted the petitioner which was affirmed by the CA; hence this
petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
COMERCIANTE SOLICITOR GENERAL
- There was an invalid warrantless - The SolGen claims that there was a
arrest and hence, the subsequent valid stop and frisk search
search was likewise invalid. conducted.
Lastly, the search cannot also be justified by the doctrine of Terrry Search.
In Terry searches, it is required that there must be a reasonable suspicion,
based on the experience of the police officer, that a person is committing
a crime. However, it was clarified that this suspicion must not be based
merely on one suspicious circumstance but by more that one seemingly
innocent activity that when taken together, warranted reasonable ground
of suspicion.
In this case, the act of the accused in standing and exchanging something
with one another does not constitute such suspicion as contemplated by
the doctrine.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO ROLITO GO vs COURT OF APPEALS
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec 5; Rule 113
PARTIES
ROLITO GO COURT OF APPEALS
- Appellee - Issued the assailed order denying
Go’s motion
FACTS
- Rolito Go was allegedly counterflowing a street in San Juan when his vehicle and
that of Elmer Maguan almost collided.
- Go alighted from his car and shot Elmer Maguan with a gun. Maguan later on died
as a consequence thereof.
- Six days after the alleged shooting incident and after hearing in the news that his
name was being brought as the suspect of the alleged road rage incident, he went
to the police station to inquire as to why he is being tagged in the crime.
- However, he was never anymore released as an inquest was made and that an
information for murder was filed against him.
PARTIES CONTENTION
ROLITO GO COURT OF APPEALS
- The arrest was invalid Relied on the testimony of the
police that the arrest was made in
hot pursuit.
- Dennis Venturina was killed in the rumble between his fraternity and other
fraternity in UP Diliman
- A letter was made by Roger Posadas, addressed to the NBI, requesting for help in
investigating the killing.
- The investigation took place and on the basis of eye-witnesses account, two
persons from Scintilla Juris Fraternity was believed to have been some of the
perpetrators.
- The NBI agents attempted to arrest the two on that day but this was opposed by
the petitioners as the NBI agents had no warrant of arrest. Nevertheless, the
agreed to surrender the two persons to the NBI office the following morning.
- This was the reason why a case for obstruction of justice was filed against the
petitioners.
- Initially, the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the complaint but
it was reversed by the Ombudsman and directed he filing of the information
before the court; hence this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
PETITIONERS OMBUDSMAN
- The Ombudsman committed -
grave abuse of discretion in
ordering the filing of the
information and for finding that
the attempted arrest was a valid
warrantless arrest.
ISSUE/S WON there was a valid warrantless arrest?
SC RULING The petition is GRANTED.
RATIO Generally, for a valid arrest to be conducted, the arresting officer must
secure a warrant. However, there are allowable warrantless arrest; in
flagrante delicto; hot pursuit; arrest of an escapee.
The Court said that certainly, this case does not fall in the first and the
third valid warrantless arrest. The question therefore is whether it is
valid under paragraph B of Sec. 5, Rule 113. The Court said that the
petitioners had no personal knowledge of the commission of the crime.
Personal knowledge, in previous cases, is defined by the court as that
knowledge which must be based on probable cause which means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
suspicion is reasonable when, in the absence of an actual belief of the
arresting officer, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is guilty is
based on actual facts supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create probable cause of guilt on the part of the accused.
In this case, the NBI officers tried arresting the students after four days of
the crime. They had no personal knowledge of any of the facts which
would produce probable cause. What they have merely is a alleged
positive identification of two witnesses – that, said the court, is
insufficient.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CHI CHAN LIU
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec. 5, Rule 113
PARTIES
CHI CHAN LIU aka LEOFE SENGLAO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Chinese National on board a speed -
boat suspiciously anchored in the
waters near Mindoro
FACTS
- Acting upon a report made by the Barangay Chairman of one town in Occidental
Mindoro, police officer went to the shore and saw two boats, suspiciously
anchored on the waters and they appear to be transferring cargo.
- The police officer approached them, but the fishing boat hurriedly left, leaving
the other boat in the area.
- In that speedboat, the police officer found the petitioner herein and some bags of
white crystalline substance which they immediately suspected as shabu.
- As a result, they towed the boat and bring the petitioner in the police station.
- When he was being asked, he was only saying the phrase “China, big money” He
was thereafter put into custody.
- Based on the circumstances, in information for illegal importation of regulated
drugs were filed against him.
- The RTC convicted him, and the CA affirmed, hence this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
CHI CHAN LIU PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- His main contention is that the -
elements of illegal importation of
drugs were not met as the
prosecution did not proved that
the vehicle was foreign owned and
that there was an invalid arrest
from the beginning.
ISSUE/S WON the accused is guilty of the crime charged.
SC RULING The accused was convicted of ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS (NOT
ILLEGAL IMPORTATION)
RATIO There is merit in the first contention of the accused. It is necessary to
prove that the vessel upon which the drugs were allegedly being
transported is a foreign vessel. The fact that the person inside that vessel
was an alien is not enough proof that there was illegal importation.
On the validity of his arrest, the court said that the accused was arrested
in flagrante delicto. They were seen by the police officer executing over
acts which tends to show that they are committing the offense.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FIDEL CUBCUBIN JR
NATURE Automatic Review
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec. 5, Rule 113
PARTIES
FIDEL CUBCUBIN PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Accused – Appellant; convicted with - Represented the victim Henry
Murder Piamonte who was allegedly killed
by the petitioner.
FACTS
- Acting on a report, police officers found the lifeless body of Henry Piamonte
slumped in his tricycle.
- Some witnesses told the police officers that it was the petitioner who committed
the crime.
- Hence, the police officer went to appellant’s house and conducted a search, to
which they found a bloodied Hanes shirt and two empty shells of a revolver.
- Police officer accosted the appellant to the witnesses and the witnesses positively
identified the appellant as the last person who were seen with the deceased.
- As a result, an information for murder was filed against him.
- The RTC convicted him, imposing the penalty of death; hence, this automatic
review.
PARTIES CONTENTION
CUBCUBIN SOLICITOR GENERAL
- He denied having committed the -
offense and he assails the validity
of the arrest conducted against
him
ISSUE/S WON the accused is guilty of the offense charged?
SC RULING The accused appellant is ACQUITTED.
RATIO There was no valid warrantless arrest. Certainly, this case cannot come
within the purview of Par a. and c of Sec 5, Rule 113. Unfortunately for
the police officer, there is also no valid warrantless arrest under par b of
Sec. 5.
In order for that arrest to be valid, the police officers must have probable
cause based on personal knowledge that the person sought to be arrested
is the one who committed the crime. In this case, the court ruled that
there was no personal knowledge. Their knowledge of the circumstances
from which they allegedly inferred that accused-appellant was probably
guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others, to wit: by
someone who called the PNP station in San Antonio, Cavite City at about
3:30 in the morning of August 26, 1997 and reported that a man had been
killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard of the said city; by an alleged witness
who saw accused-appellant and the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe;
by Danet Garcellano, waitress at the Sting Cafe, who said that the man last
seen with the victim was lean, mustachioed, dark-complexioned and was
wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants; by a tricycle
driver named Armando Plata who told them that the physical description
given by Garcellano fitted accused-appellant, alias Jun Dulce and who said
he knew where accused-appellant lived and accompanied them to
accused-appellants house. Thus, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. merely
relied on information given to them by others.
Nor can it be argued that the arresting officers had probable cause to
believe accused-appellant to be guilty of the killing of the victim because
they found a bloodstained t-shirt, a .38 caliber revolver, and two spent .38
caliber shells in his house. At the time accused-appellant was arrested, he
was not doing anything overtly criminal. The alleged discovery of the gun
came after his arrest. Moreover, as will presently be explained, the
objects allegedly seized from accused-appellant were illegally obtained
without a search warrant.
Given that, the search the was effected is also an invalid search, not made
as incident to a valid arrest and therefore, the evidence obtained
therefrom is inadmissible as evidence.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO DIOSDADO MALLARI vs COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Method of Arrest by Virtue of a Valid Warrant; Sec 7; Rule 113
PARTIES
DIOSDADO MALLARI COURT OF APPEALS
- Accused – appellant. - Rendered the assailed decision
FACTS
- There was a standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner for a previous
crime of murder.
- Acting on the report that petitioner was seen somewhere in Capas, Tarlac, and
having personal knowledge of the existence of the outstanding warrant, the
police officers immediately went to the alleged house of the petitioner and there
they were able to arrest him.
- While they were searching the body of the petitioner, they found a home-made
revolver.
- Hence, a crime for illegal possession of firearms was filed against him.
- The RTC convicted him and the CA affirmed the conviction in toto; hence, this
petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
DIOSDADO MALLARI COURT OF APPEALS
- He belied the existence of a -
standing warrant against him and
argued that there was no valid
warrantless arrest, hence, search
conducted and the evidence
obtained therefrom is
inadmissible as evidence.
ISSUE/S WON there was a valid arrest?
SC RULING There was a VALID arrest, but the accused was ACQUITTED.
RATIO Sec 7, Rule 113 provides that;
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO IN RE DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO vs WARDEN, QUEZON CITY HALL OF
JUSTICE
NATURE Petition for Habeas Corpus
CONCEPT Habeas Corpus; Rule 102, Rules of Court
PARTIES
DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO WARDEN
- Detained for allegedly having - Officer in charged with the
participated in the Maguindanao custody of Salibo
Massacre in 2009
FACTS
- Datukan Malang Salibo went to Saudi Arabia for a pilgrimage. When he returned
to the Philippines, however, he was arrested for having participated in the
Maguindanao Massacre.
- He filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus.
- Salibo denied his participation claiming that he was in Saudi Arabia at that time
and that the warrant of arrest issued was in the name of Batukan S. Malang which
is not him.
- The trial court granted the petition and ordered his released, but the CA reversed
the trial court ruling; hence, this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
SALIBO WARDEN
- He is not Batukan S. Malang. - Petitioner was validly charged in
court.
FACTS
PARTIES CONTENTION
GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG MUÑOZ
- Petitioner alleged that - private respondent
the trial court committed maintained that the right
grave abuse of discretion to bail guaranteed under
amounting to lack or the Bill of Rights
excess of jurisdiction in extends to a prospective
admitting private extraditee; and that
respondent to bail; that extradition is a harsh
there is nothing in the process resulting in a
Constitution or prolonged deprivation of
statutory law providing one's liberty.
that a potential
extraditee has a right to
bail, the right being
limited solely to
criminal proceedings.
ISSUE/S WON bail may be had in extradition proceedings?
SC RULING The petition was GRANTED.
RATIO The Court noted the ruling in Government of USA vs Purganan where the
court categorically declared that bail applies only to criminal
proceedings. The rationale, as explained by Judge Artemio Panganiban, is
that the Constitution used the word conviction. Since it is only in criminal
proceedings were conviction, the application for bail is limited only to
them.
However, the court in this case ruled otherwise. Their basis is first, the
modern trends in international law which puts premium on the primacy
of human rights which includes the right to be free. This trends include
(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public
international law who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained global
recognition; (2) the higher value now being given to human rights in the
international sphere; (3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe
these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and (4)
the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our
fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO BGEN JOSE COMMENDADOR et. al. vs. RENATO S. DE VILLA
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Military Personnel whether allowed to bail
PARTIES
JOSE COMMENDADOR, et. al.
- Involved in a failed coup attempt on -
Dec. 1 – 9, 1989
FACTS
The justification for this exception was well explained by the Solicitor
General as follows:
The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail would
violate the equal protection clause is not acceptable. This guaranty
requires equal treatment only of persons or things similarly situated and
does not apply where the subject of the treatment is substantially
different from others. The accused officers can complain if they are
denied bail and other members of the military are not. But they cannot
say they have been discriminated against because they are not allowed
the same right that is extended to civilians. ||| (Comendador v. De Villa,
G.R. No. 93177, 95020, 96948, 97454, [August 2, 1991], 277 PHIL 93-123)
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO
NATURE
CONCEPT
PARTIES
- -
FACTS
PARTIES CONTENTION
- -
ISSUE/S
SC RULING
RATIO
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO MANOLET LAVIDES vs. COURT OF APPEALS
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Conditions of Bail; Requirement; Sec.2, Rule 114
PARTIES
MANOLET LAVIDES LORELIE SAN MIGUEL
- Charged with violation of Anti Child - Private complainant
Abuse Act
FACTS
- Upon the complaint of the mother of Lorelie San Miguel that the petitioner is
subjecting their daughter to prostitution and other child abuse acts, police
officers made an entrapment operation against the petitioner.
- They found the petitioner with Lorelie wearing only a t-shirt and underwear.
- This was the basis for the complaint of child abuse against the petitioner. A total
of nine information was filed against her by the prosecutor and they
recommended that petitioner should not be granted bail.
- An Omnibus motion was filed by the petitioner praying for the judicial
determination of probable cause; immediate release due to an unlawful arrest;
and in the event of a valid arrest, to be granted with bail.
- Trial court granted the bail with the following conditions; the accused must not
be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases, he shall be
present on all trial; in the event that she shall be absent, the bail must
automatically cancelled; the hold departure order issued by the court remains;
and that the approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment
to enable the court to acquire jurisdiction
- Petitioner filed a motion before the CA assailing the conditions set forth in his
bail bond.
- The CA invalidated the first two conditions imposed on the bail bond but ruled
that the issue concerning the validity of the condition making arraignment a
prerequisite for the approval of petitioner's bail bonds to be moot and academic
and that the requirement that the petitioner must be present on all hearing after
the arraignment are in contrast with Art. III, Sec. 14, or trial in absentia; hence,
this petition
PARTIES CONTENTION
MANOLET LAVIDES
- Lavides assails the ruling of the CA -
in respect to its refusal to rule on
the validity of the fourth condition
on the bail bond. She claims that
the CA committed grave abuse of
discretion.
ISSUE/S WON the CA erred
SC RULING The Court declared the bail bond order invalid EXCEPT the fourth
condition imposed which is “the bail bond must be approved after the
arraignment”
RATIO The trial court acknowledged, in cases where it is authorized, bail should
be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded
from filing a motion to quash. For if the information is quashed and the
case is dismissed, there would then be no need for the arraignment of the
accused. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment
would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1)
filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until
his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and
(2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned
at once and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly
undermine the accused's constitutional right not to be put on trial except
upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime
and his right to bail.
ADDITIONAL Although the condition is invalid, it does not
NOTES follow that the arraignment was also invalid.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the arraignment
did not emanate from the invalid condition that
"approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after
the arraignment." Even without such a condition, the
arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In
sum, although the condition for the grant of bail to
petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the
subsequent proceedings against him are
valid.||| (Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129670, [February 1, 2000], 381 PHIL 331-344)
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs LUZVIMINDA S VALDEZ
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65
CONCEPT Bail as a Matter of Right; Exception; Sec. 4, Rule 114
PARTIES
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL LUZVIMINDA VALDEZ
- Petitioner in this case; represented - Private respondent; granted by
the Ombudsman. the Sandiganbayan with bail
FACTS
- -
FACTS
PARTIES CONTENTION
- -
ISSUE/S
SC RULING
RATIO
ADDITIONAL
NOTES