Sunteți pe pagina 1din 96

CRIMPRO PEOPLE VS GALANO

NATURE APPEAL BY CERTIORARI


CONCEPT INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTION, SEC. 1, RULE 110
PARTIES
GREGORIO SANTOS; ACCUSED
JUANITO LIMBO; COMPLAINANT HON. JUDGE RICARDO GALANO; COURT
DECISION ASSAILED
FACTS:

- In 1962, a criminal complaint for estafa was filed in


Batangas by Limbo against Gregorio Santos for the latter’s
misappropriation of the sum representing the net proceeds of
272 booklets of sweepstakes tickets that complainant
entrusted to the accused.
- He was arrested; he posted bail; and was even arraigned but
he jumped bail on 1964. As a result, his case was archived.
- 9 years later he was rearrested. He filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the crime allegedly was
committed in Manila and not in Batangas.
- The case in Batangas was dismissed. A year after, a case was filed in Manila.
- Hence, Limbo filed this complaint before the Supreme Court.
PARTIES CONTENTION
LIMBO SANTOS
The filing of the case before The case filed in Batangas, having
the MTC of Batangas validly been dismissed for lack of
interrupted the period of territorial jurisdiction has never
prescription interrupted the prescriptive
period, the same being void ab
initio
ISSUE/S WON the prescriptive period was interrupted?
SC RULING The petition was granted, the order of the respondent
judge is set aside, and the case was directed for
further proceedings
RATIO Art. 91 of the RPC provides that the prescriptive period
of crimes be interrupted by the filing of the complaint
or information and shall commence to run again when the
proceedings terminate and without the accused being
convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for
any reason not imputable to him.

The court is aware of the two conflicting doctrine


underlying the interruption of prescriptive period; one
for the filing of the complaint with the municipal judge
whether for preliminary investigation or examination;
and the other for filing a case for the determination
of the actual merits of the case. The Court, citing
Olarte, said that the true doctrine is that the filing
of the complaint in the Municipal Trial Court, even if
it be for preliminary investigation or examination,
should and does interrupt the period of prescription of
the criminal responsibility, even if the court where
the complaint was filed turns out to have no
jurisdiction over the case. Settled is the rule that
jurisdiction of a court is determined in criminal cases
by the allegations or the complaint in the information
and not by the result of proof.

ADDITIONAL
NOTES

CRIMPRO SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED VS EDGAR LIM


NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Interruption of Prescriptive Period
PARTIES

SANRIO COMPANY LIMITED; EDGAR LIM; doing business under


Complainant, a Japanese Company the name of ORIGNAMURA TRADING,
who owns copyright to various alleged to have counterfeit
animated character such as SANRIO PRODUCT
Hello Kitty, Little Twin Stars,
My Melody, etc

FACTS:

- Upon receipt of information that certain company counterfeit


their product, the petitioner asked IP Manila Associate to
conduct test buy which resulted into the discovery of counterfeit
products;
- Consequently, a search warrant was issued over the premises
of the respondent as he was identified as the one who sells
counterfeit products;
- In 2002, a complaint was initiated by petitioner to TAPP for
violation of IPC, however, TAPP found no probable cause and
dismissed the complaint;
- This was appealed to the DOJ which rendered the same ruling,
and to the CA on 2005 who dismissed it by reason of
prescription and for lack of probable cause;
- The CA ruled that since no complaint was filed within two
years from the discovery of the alleged violation, the case
has already prescribed pursuant to Act 3326. On the merits,
they found the same to be insufficient since the petitioner
has proven that the he obtained the said product from a
legitimate source.
PARTIES CONTENTION
SANRIO LIM
For their part, Sanrio He committed no violation of the
maintained that recent law since he was merely a retailer;
jurisprudence holds that the he neither manufactures or
pendency of the preliminary reproduced any of the petitioner’s
investigation suspends the copyrighted item, thus, he did not
running of the prescriptive transgress the economic rights of
period. Further, Sanrio the petitioner.
ISSUE/S WON the case has prescribed and WON there is grave abuse
of discretion.
SC RULING “Although we do not agree to CA wholly, the case is
dismissed.”
RATIO ON THE ISSUE OF PRESCRIPTION – petitioner filed its
complaint affidavit on 2002, or one year, ten months,
and four days after the conduct of the search over the
respondent’s premises in 2000. Although no information
was immediately filed in the court, respondent’s alleged
violation had not yet prescribed. In the recent case
decided by the SC, Brillantes vs CA, the court affirmed
that the filing of complaint-affidavit for purposes of
preliminary investigation interrupts the period of
prescription of criminal responsibility. Thus, in this
case, since there was a filing of complaint-affidavit
well within the period of prescription, the prescription
period was tolled.

ON THE ISSUE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION – It is a


settled rule that in preliminary investigation, a public
prosecutor determines whether the crime has been
committed and whether there is a probable cause that
the accused is guilty thereof. Probable cause is such
facts and circumstances that will engender a well-
founded belief that the crime has just been committed
and that the accused has probably been guilty thereof
and should be held for trial xxx as a general rule, a
public prosecutor is afforded with a wide latitude of
discretion. For this reason, the court does not, as a
rule, interfere with the prosecutor’s discretion except
upon a positive showing of grave abuse of discretion.
In this case, the petitioner failed to prove such
probable cause.
ADDITIONAL WHAT CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION – when the
NOTES prosecutor has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
CRIMPRO PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN
NATURE Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45
CONCEPT Interruption of Prescriptive Period; Sec. 1, Rule 110
PARTIES
VIRGINIA MALOLOS – private MA. THERESA PANGILINAN – accused
complainant for estafa and for estafa and BP 22
violation of BP 22
FACTS:

- Complainant filed this case after the respondent issued 9


checks totaling to 9.6M in favor of her which was dishonored.
The checks were issued in 1995.
- In 1997, complainant filed a complaint to the Office of the
City Prosecutor. Later that year, respondent filed a civil
case for accounting and recovery of commercial documents
related to the transaction. She later prayed that the
criminal prosecution be suspended in view of the civil case
she filed on the basis of prejudicial question.
- The prosecutor approved the same, but it was reversed by the
DOJ Secretary which recommended the filing of a case for
violation of BP 22. Such case was filed on February 2000.
- A motion to quash the information was filed by respondent,
claiming that the case has prescribed since no case was filed
against him within the prescriptive period of 4 years.
- The MeTC granted the petition, the RTC reversed the same, but
the CA granted the petition. In granting the same, the CA
relied on Zaldivia vs Reyes, where the Court ruled that the
prescriptive period is interrupted only upon the institution
of judicial proceeding, hence this appeal.

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

Citing numerous cases which were decided in the same


light as this case, the Court declared that the filing
of the complaint or information before the fiscal
interrupts the running of the prescriptive period.

Since in this case, while the CA is correct in declaring


that the latter part of 1995 shall be the date of
reckoning, the court said that the running of the same
was interrupted by the filing of the complaint in 1997.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO ZALDIVIA VS REYES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Interruption of prescription under Sec. 1, Rule 110
PARTIES
LUZ ZALDIVIA; charged with PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES – as
violation of ordinance; moved represented by the Office of the
to quash the information on the Solicitor General.
ground of prescription.
FACTS:

- For quarrying for commercial purposes without permit,


petitioner was charged with violation of Municipal Ordinance
of Rodriguez Rizal.
- The offense was allegedly committed on May 11, 1990. A
complaint was filed before the prosecutor on May 30, 1990.
The information was ultimately filed before the MTC on
October 2, 1990, almost five months after the alleged
commission of the crime.
- Petitioner moved to quash contending that the case has
already prescribed.
- The court denied it and it was affirmed by respondent judge
of RTC, hence this appeal.

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

ISSUE/S WON the crime has prescribed?


SC RULING Petition was granted; the case against Zaldivia was
dismissed.
RATIO The first paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court begins with “for offenses not subject to the rules
on summary procedures.” The last paragraph, on the other
hand, provides that “in all cases such institution shall
interrupt the prescriptive period”

The Supreme Court said that in interpreting the last


paragraph, reference must be had to the first paragraph
since it is a doctrine in statutory construction that
laws must be interpreted as a whole. With that, the
court said that the rule under section 1 does not apply
to violation of municipal ordinances since they are
subject to the rules on summary procedure.

What is applicable is Act 3326 which provides that the


prescriptive period is interrupted upon the filing of a
judicial proceedings. The rules on summary procedure
provides that cases under the rule shall be commenced
by directly filing before the court a complaint or
information without the need for further preliminary
investigation. It follows, hence, that it is the filing
of a complaint before the MTC that interrupts the
prescriptive period of the case at bar.

Since the filing was made only 5 months after the


discovery of the offense, the case ha prescribed.
ADDITIONAL The Court, in the words of Justice Isagani Cruz, stated
NOTES that they realize that under the above interpretation,
a crime may prescribe even if the complaint is filed
seasonably with the prosecutor’s office if
intentionally, he delays the filing of the same before
the court. However, that possibility should not justify
a misreading of the applicable rules beyond their
obvious interest as reasonably deduced from their plain
language.
CRIMPRO JADEWELL VS LIDUA
NATURE Petition for review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Interruption of prescription
PARTIES
JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEM BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG;
CORPORATION; a private parking car owners whose car was clamped
operator duly authorized to for allegedly being illegally
operate and manage the parking parked.
spaces in Baguio City, pursuant
to an ordinance. They are also
allowed to clamp wheels of the
vehicles illegally parked.

FACTS:

- On May 23, 2003, a complaint for robbery was filed against


the respondent herein before the office of the prosecutor
after they allegedly took the clamp which was placed in their
vehicle for being illegally parked.
- The prosecutor did not find probable cause for the crime of
robbery but nevertheless recommended the filing an
information for violating a city ordinance in Baguio. This
case was filed at the MTC on October 2003.
- The respondent moved to quash the information on the ground
of prescription.
- MTC and RTC granted the petition, hence this appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
JADEWELL
- The ruling in Zaldivia vs - The case have prescribed for
Reyes does not apply Act 3326 provides that the
since the case there was prescription shall only be
about a violation of interrupted upon the
municipal ordinance while institution of proceedings
in this case it was a which, under Zaldivia vs
violation of city Reyes, is a judicial
ordinance. proceedings.
- But assuming arguendo
that the ruling applies,
it has not prescribed for
the period was validly
tolled by the filing of
complaint before the
prosecutor.

ISSUE/S WON the case has prescribed?


SC RULING The case was dismissed, the same having prescribed.

RATIO While there is jurisprudence that exists showing that


when the complaint was filed with the Office of the
Prosecutor who then files the information in the court,
this already has the effect of tolling the prescription
period – the recent People vs Pangilinan ruling to that
effect – however, the same pertains to violation of
special laws and not to ordinances.

For ordinances, the controlling is Zaldivia vs Reyes


which declared that the period of prescription is only
interrupted upon the filing of information before the
court in line with the Revised ruled on summary
proceedings.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EDUARDO COJUANGCO, ET.
AL
NATURE Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
CONCEPT Interruption of Prescription; Sec. 1, Rule 110
PARTIES
OSG – representing the Republic Eduardo Cojuangco; incorporator
of the Philippines in cases of UNICOM who allegedly entered
involving the recovery of ill- into a grossly disadvantageous
gotten wealth acquired during contract with the government.
the Marcos regime
FACTS:

- UNICOM was incorporated in 1977. The respondents initially


were board members of the UCPB, a bank authorized to
administer the Coconut Industry Investment Fund.
- The UCPB, through their Board, authorized the UCPB to invest
not more than 500 Million from the CIIF to the UNICOM.
- In 1979, the respondents became the incorporator of the
UNICOM and enacted certain amendments in its capitalization,
specifically increasing the authorized capital stocks to one
billion shares.
- About 10 years later, Mar 1, 1980, the OSG filed a complaint
for the PCGG violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 against
respondents. The OSG claimed that the investment made by the
UCPB to UNICOM was grossly disadvantageous to the government
because of the certain amendments in the capitalization of
UNICOM.
- The complaint was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman
which assigned the case to the Office of the Special
Prosecutor. The OSP found basis for charging the respondents
but for them, the case has already prescribed since the
incorporation was done in Feb 1980, the complaint should have
been filed before Feb. 1990 and not on Mar. 1, 1990.
- This recommendation was affirmed by the Office of the
Ombudsman, hence, this petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Invoking Sec. 15, Art. XI - Invoked Act. 3326 in relation
of the Constitution, the to RA 3019 on prescription.
OSG argues that although They argued that the 10 year
the charged was for prescriptive period has
violation of RA 3019, the already lapsed.
case relates to the
recovery of the Marcos,
and/or his cronies of
ill-gotten wealth, hence
they are not barred by
prescription.
- Assuming that the charge
is barred by
prescription, the
prescriptive period began
only upon the discovery
of the same which is
1986, not from the
incorporation of the
UNICOM in 1980.
ISSUE/S WON the case has already prescribed?
SC RULING The case is dismissed; the charged is barred by
prescription.
RATIO ON BEING BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION, the COURT declared that
Sec. 15, Art. XI of the Constitution applies only to
civil cases for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, not
in criminal cases such as this case. Hence, the charged
is subject to prescription. Prior to the amendment of
RA 3019, the filing of an action prescribes in 10 years.

ON WHETHER THE CASE HAS PRESCRIBED; Act. 3326, in its


second section, provides that “prescription shall begin
to run from the day of the commission of the violation
of the law, and if the same be not known at the time,
from the discovery thereof xxx.”

While granted that the faint-hearted might not have the


courage to question the UCPB investment to UNICOM during
the Martial Law, the second element – that the action
could not be filed during the 10 year period because of
martial law – does not apply in this case. What is
involved in this case is the investment of UCPB to
UNICOM which is not concealed or withheld from the
curious or from those who were minded like banks or
competing businesses. Besides, the transactions left
the confines of UCPB when it applied with the SEC.
Hence, the defense of the OSG that the case is unknown
before the ouster of Marcos is untenable.

The last day of the filing of the action was on Feb. 8,


1990. Since this case was filed on March 1, 1990, this
case is barred by prescription.
ADDITIONAL Prescription of actions is a valued rule in all
NOTES civilized states from the beginning of the organized
society. It is a rule of fairness since, without it,
the plaintiff can postpone the filing of his action to
the point of depriving the defendant, through the
passage of time, of access to defense witnesses who
would have died or left to live elsewhere, or to
documents that would have been discarded or could no
longer be located. Moreover, the memories of the
witnesses are eroded by time. There is thus as absolute
need in the interest of fairness to bar actions that
have taken place too long to file in court.
CRIMPRO METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY VS REYNADO
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
CONCEPT Complaint and Information; Section 2, Rule 110
PARTIES
METROBANK; complainant in the ROGELIO REYNADO AND JOSE
crime of Estafa against ADRANDEA; the only voting members
respondents Reynado and of the branch credit committee
Adrandea authorized to extend credit
accommodation up to 200,000
through the so-called Bills
Purchase Transaction
FACTS:

- On January 31, 1997, a complaint for estafa was filed by the


petitioner to the Office of the Prosecutor in Manila against
the respondent after the respondent allegedly entered into an
anomalous/fraudulent transaction with one Universal Converter
Philippines, allowing the latter to withdraw a total amount
of 81 million pesos without the approval of Metrobank’s head
office.
- Meanwhile, on Feb 26 of the same year, Metrobank entered into
a debt settlement agreement with the Universal whereby the
latter undertakes to pay the petitioner 50 million pesos as
payment for the debts they acknowledge.
- On July 10, 1997, the prosecutor dismissed the complaint for
lack of probable cause. She specifically cited the agreement
between the petitioner and Universal to the effect the it
novated whatever liability the respondents had in favor of
the petitioner. This was affirmed by the DOJ Secretary.
- The petitioner appealed the decision to the CA but the latter
denied the case, hence this petition.

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.

On the DOJ assailed order, the Court said that under


Sec. 2, Rule 110, the prosecutor is given a wide
latitude of discretion in determining who must be
charged for what crime or for what offense. It is their
duty under the law to file charges against whomsoever
the evidence may show responsible for the offense. The
only exception to this rule is when the prosecutor has
exercised his discretion in a whimsical, capricious,
and arbitrary manner amounting to an evasion of a
positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by the law.
In this case, the court said that there was abuse of
discretion on the part of the prosecutor and the DOJ
for despite the preponderance of evidence showing
probable cause, they decided not to file a case against
the respondent.

The court further notes that should there be grave abuse


of discretion on the part of any of the prosecutor, the
remedy is not to dismiss the case but to file a petition
for mandamus. Mandamus is a remedial measure for parties
aggrieved. It shall issue when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO JIMENEZ VS SORONGON
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Who may prosecute the offense; Sec 5, Rule 110
PARTIES
DANTE JIMINEZ; petitioner who EDWIN SORONGON; RTC judge who
filed a complaint for large dismissed the case filed by
scale recruitment against Jimenez
private respondent’s company ANTZOULATOS, ALAMIL. GAZA and
TMSI. AVGOUSTIS; incorporator of TMSI.
FACTS:

- Petitioner filed a complaint for large scale recruitment


against private respondent to the Office of the Prosecutor
who later on filed the case to the RTC.
- However, the prosecutor seeks to withdraw the case for lack
of probable cause which the RTC did not allow.
- Respondents sought the RTC judge to inhibit, which he did,
and was replaced by the public respondent.
- It is at this juncture that the public judge decided to
dismiss the case for lack of probable cause.
- The petitioner filed an appeal to the RTC which was denied;
to the CA by himself which was also denied for lack of legal
personality, hence this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
DANTE JIMENEZ ANTZOULATOS/ ALAMIL/ GAZA/
AVGOUTIS
- The petitioner argues - The respondents submit that
that he has a legal the petitioner lacks legal
standing to assail the standing to assail the
dismissal of the criminal dismissal of the criminal
case since he is the case since the power to
private complainant and prosecute lies solely with
the real party in the State, acting through a
interest who have been public prosecutor.
directly damaged and
prejudice by the
respondent’s illegal acts.
ISSUE/S WON the appeal is properly made and that the petitioner
has the legal standing?
SC RULING The petition lacks merit; the same was dismissed.

RATIO It well settled rule that every action must be


prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest he who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgement in the suit. In criminal cases however,
the people is the real party in interest. Procedural
law basically mandates that all criminal actions
commenced by complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases, before the CA
and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel
of the People.
Thus in this case, the petitioner has no legal
personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case
since the main issue raised by the petitioner involved
the criminal aspect of the case, i.e, the existence of
probable cause.
ADDITIONAL While there may be rare cases that the Court allows the
NOTES offended party to pursue criminal action on his own
behalf, the exceptional cases applies only when there
is denial of due process. Clearly, the case is not
within the exception to the rule.

CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ELMER YPARRAGUIRE


NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Who may prosecute; SEC 5, RULE 110
PARTIES
Charmelita Ruina Elmer Yparraguire
- Complainant. - Accused for the crime of
- Invalid and mentally rape
retarded and allegedly was - Appellant herein
raped by the accused Elmer
Yparraguire
FACTS:

- The complainant was allegedly raped by the accused who went


inside her room one night.
- Upon physical examination of the victim, some lacerations in
her private organ was found. Hence, a complaint for rape was
filed by the Chief of Police of Surigao del Sur.
- The trial court found him guilty of rape as charged.
- Hence, he elevated this case to the SC.

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.

However, this ruled was not enacted for the specific


purpose of benefitting the accused. When it is said that
the requirement is jurisdictional, what is meant is that
it is the complaint that starts the prosecutor
proceeding. It is not the complaint which confers
jurisdiction in the court. The court’s jurisdiction is
vested by the Judiciary Law.

Furthermore, it has been held that the rule is complied


when there is a clear showing that there is an intent
on the part of the aggrieved party to seek judicial
redress for the affront committed.

On the merits of the case, the court sees no positive


reason to disturb the finding of the lower court. What
is clear from the evidence on record is that the victim
was able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the
sexual congress indeed happened against her will and
that the accused is guilty of the crime.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO IMELDA MANALAYSAY-PILAPIL VS CORONA IBAY-SOMERA
NATURE Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition
with a prayer for a temporary restraining order
seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court
denying petitioner’s motion to quash
CONCEPT Who may prosecute; Sec 5, Rule 110
PARTIES
IMELDA MALAYSAY - PILAPIL ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING
Married to private respondent German national married to
but the marriage was ultimately petitioner.
divorced by them
FACTS:

- An ill-starred marriage of a Filipina and a foreigner which


ended in a foreign absolute divorced, only to be followed by
a criminal infidelity suit of the latter against the former
xxx (Regalado, 1989).
- Petitioner was married to respondent in Germany. All is well
at the beginning and they bore a daughter.
- Things turned sour three years into their marriage which
later on resulted in the respondent filing a divorce in
Germany, which was later on adopted by the German Court.
- Five months after the issuance of a divorce decree, a
criminal complaint for adultery was filed before the City
Fiscal of Manila by Geiling against petitioner herein. He
alleged that during the existence of their marriage,
petitioner had at least two extramarital affairs with
different men.
- The City Fiscal recommended the filing of a case against
petitioner. It was appealed to the DOJ Secretary who approved
the same, hence this petition.

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.

While there seem to be no local precedent on the issue


as to when precisely the status of a complainant as an
offended spouse must exist, there seems to be no reason
why foreign doctrinal rule in the US cannot apply in
this case. As such, the Court held that in cases of
adultery, the status of the complainant, vis-à-vis the
accused must be determined as of the time the complaint
was filed. Thus, the person who initiates the adultery
case must be an offended spouse, and by this, it is
meant that he is still married to the accused spouse,
at the time of the filing of the complaint.
In this case, Philippine laws, as held in the case of
Van Dorn vs Ranillo, recognized foreign divorced
obtained by Filipina spouse against their alien spouse.
As such, as far as the Philippine law is concerned, they
are
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS GAMELO MARIANO
NATURE Appeal
CONCEPT Who may prosecute; Sec. 5, Rule 110
PARTIES
MRS. SORIA GAMELO MARIANO
- Mother of the victim who - Faith healer who was asked
filed a complaint for rape by the Soria’s to conduct
against the respondent faith healing to Soccorro,
the victim.
FACTS:

- The victim, Soccorro Soria, was a demented woman of 24 years


old. She was initially confined in the mental hospital in
Mandaluyong. She was transferred to Camarines Sur, and later
to their house.
- In their province, they went to the respondent who was a
known faith healer at the place, in the hopes the respondent
would be able to cure the disease.
- On one occasion, when the accused went to the house of the
victim to perform the faith healing, he locked the room and
it turned out that he raped the victim.
- When the mother, Ms. Soria, learned that the room was locked,
she peeped through an opening and saw the accused lying on
top of the victim and was in the act of having sexual
intercourse. She was able to reach the accused hair and
pulled him.
- As a result, a complaint for rape was filed against the
accused, to which the trial court concluded with a
conviction, hence this appeal.

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.

RATIO The Court sustained the ruling of the trial court,


founding the appellant guilty of rape. They found the
testimony of the witness, Mrs. Soria to be reliable and
is even supported by physical evidence. Hence, the
denial and alibi of the accused was not sustained.

As to the claim that the case was improperly initiated,


while the Court agrees with the appellant that the
criminal complaint for rape under Art. 344 of the RPC
cannot be initiated without the complaint of all persons
listed therein, nothing in the said section gives
preferential rights to husbands in filing a complaint
before the prosecutor. It must be noted that both the
husband and wife share parental authority over their
unemancipated children.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES

CRIMPRO WILFRED CHIOK VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


NATURE Petition for Review
CONCEPT Who may prosecute; Sec. 5, Rule 110
PARTIES
WILFREDO CHIOK RUFINA CHUA
- Accused of the crime of - Complainant herein
estafa for allegedly
misappropriating the funds
given to him by private
respondent which was
intended to be invested by
him on behalf of the
respondent
FACTS:

- Chiok was charged with estafa by the private respondent for


allegedly misusing money the latter intended the former to
invest.
- According to the complainant, Chiok was her investment
adviser who gave investment proposals to her. One of the
proposals was for Chua to buy shares in bulk in the amount of
9.5M pesos. She allegedly paid the money in two gives.
- She became suspicious however when after the said
transaction, Chiok started to avoid her and would not answer
her call.
- He reassured her and gave her two interbanks check for
security. When she tried to deposit the same, it was
dishonored, hence the case was filed.
- For his part, Chiok said that the money he received from the
complainant was his share in an unregistered partnership
between the two of them.
- The RTC found the petitioner guilty of the crime. On appeal
to the Court of Appeals, however, the court dismissed the
case and acquitted Chiok.
- Chua elevated the case before the Supreme Court but without
the conformity of the Solicitor General. The SOLGEN refused
to file an appeal on the ground of double jeopardy.

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.

RATIO Chua lacks legal personality or legal standing to


question the CA decision because it is only the OSG, on
behalf of the State, which can bring actions in criminal
proceedings before this Court and the CA.

Xxx

The authority to represent the State in appeals of the


criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is
solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General.
Sec. 5 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code explicitly provides that the OSG
shall represent the government of the litigation,
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the
services of the lawyer. Xxx To be sure, in criminal
cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of
the case against him can only be appealed by the
Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the Government.
The rationale behind this rule is that in criminal case,
the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal
action is the State and not the private complainant.
The interest of the private complainant is limited only
to the civil liability.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VALDEZ
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Sufficiency of the Complaint or Information; Sec. 6, Rule 110
PARTIES
EDWIN AND EDUARDO VALDEZ HEIRS OF FERDINAND, MOISES AND
JOSELITO SAISON
- Both are accused for three counts of - Victims herein
murder

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.

Hence, the court convicted them of three counts of homicide.


ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO JOSE JINGGOY ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Sufficiency of the Information or Complaint; Sec. 6, Rule 110
PARTIES
JOSE JINGGOY ESTRADA SANDIGANBAYAN
- Then Mayor of San Juan. The son of - Indicts petitioner in the crime of
former President Joseph Estrada plunder

FACTS:

- This case is an offshoot of the impeachment complaint against former President


Joseph Estrada.
- As a result, thereof, an information for plunder was filed against the former President
and it alleged that the latter acted in conspiracy with certain individuals which
includes the petitioner herein, allowing them to illegally acquire public funds totaling
to 4 billion pesos, more or less.
- The information includes 4 sub paragraphs detailing the alleged participation of each
co-accused. In the first sub-paragraph it alleged that former president, respondent, et.
al illegally acquired an aggregate amount of 500 million pesos in jueteng transaction
- The other sub paragraphs were about the tobacco excise tax, SSS shares and some
kick-backs he allegedly acquired.
- The petitioner seeks to quash the information for his part since according to him, the
plunder law was unconstitutional. The Sandiganbayan dismiss his petition, hence this
appeal.
PARTIES CONTENTION
JOSE JINGGOY ESTRADA OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
- The plunder law is unconstitutional - The petitioner is charged not only
because it charged more than one with the predicate act indicated in
offense. Particularly it charged series sub-paragraph a, but also with other
of evert act and omission through acts since he is charged as a co-
several means. principal and co-conspirator of
- Assuming that the law is President Estrada
unconstitutional, the Sandiganbayan
erred in indicting him of conspiracy
with his co-accused for an offense
with which and with whom he is not
even remotely connected.
ISSUE/S WON the petitioner is properly charged with an offense?
SC RULING The petition is devoid of merit.
RATIO An analysis of the Amended information would show that the information
charges petitioner and his co-accused with the crime of plunder. The first
paragraph names all the accused, the second paragraph lays down most of the
elements of the crime, the third specifically describe in detail the predicate
acts of the co-conspirators of former president in each particular act.

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.

To reiterate, when conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and


all the elements of said crime must be set forth in the complaint or
information. For example, the crime of conspiracy to commit treason is
committed when, in time of war, two or more persons come to an agreement
to levy war against the Government or to adhere to the enemies and to give
them aid or comfort and decide to commit it. The elements of this crime are:
(1) that the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines;
(2) that there is a war in which the Philippines is involved; (3) that the
offender and other person or persons come to an agreement to: (a) levy war
against the government, or (b) adhere to the enemies, to give them aid and
comfort; and (4) that the offender and other person or persons decide to carry
out the agreement. These elements must be alleged in the information.

The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy


is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime
as in the case at bar. There is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the
Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense charged.
The conspiracy is significant only because it changes the criminal liability of
all the accused in the conspiracy and makes them answerable as co-principals
regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. The liability of the
conspirators is collective and each participant will be equally responsible for
the acts of others,[50] for the act of one is the act of all.
CRIMPRO JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Sufficiency of Complaint or Information; Sec 6, Rule 110
PARTIES
JUAN PONCE ENRILE SANDIGANBAYAN
- Senator of the Republic of the - Court which order were being
Philippines charged with the crime of assailed as constitutive of grave
plunder. abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.
FACTS:

- 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 general, a bill of particulars is further specifications of charges or claims in


action, which the accused may availed of by motion, before arraignment, to
enable him to properly plead and prepare for his trial. The particularity
required in such a motion is such particularity that persons of ordinary
intelligence may immediately know what the offense charged.
Such is different with a motion to quash, insofar as the former presupposes a
valid information, such that it is only vague or indefinite, while the latter
presupposes an entirely defective information, or one that does not charge a
crime at all for lack of the requirements under Sec. 6 of Rule 110. In case of
doubt in whether to uphold the bill of particulars or not, the doubt must
always be resolved in favor of the granting of the same as it is the one that is
most favorable to the accused.

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:

1. The overt acts constituting the crime of plunder.


- The heart of the crime of plunder is the phrase “combination or series
of overt act” Hence, even if the accumulated amount of ill-gotten
wealth exceeds 50 million pesos but if it is not committed through a
combination or series of overt acts, the crime would not be considered
as plunder. The court ruled that the prosecution employed a shotgun
approach in describing the acts allegedly violated by the petitioner for
they merely stated the phrase by combination or series of overt act
without any effort to particularize the transaction which would
constitute the combination or series of overt acts.
2. A breakdown of the amounts how the alleged money was received.
3. Approximate date of commission or kickbacks.
- The length of time alleged in the information is six year, from 2004-
2010. The Supreme Court said that the information must specify the
approximate date the crime was committed in order that Enrile
should not be left guessing as to what transaction the crime charged
pertains.
4. The Project funded by the NGOs
- The allegation in the complaint was that the crime was committed
with the use of Napoles’s NGO to facilitate the transaction, hence, such
NGOs are material facts which must be clearly identified in the
Information.
5. The government agencies service as conduit
6. A brief description allegedly funded by the NGOs
ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT: The bill of particulars is a remedy which may be used by an
NOTES accused in cases where the information is vague. The purpose of the same is
to better equip acquaint the accused of the specifics acts and omissions in
relation to the crime to which he was charged.

SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION: To be considered as sufficient and valid, it


must contain the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts
and omission constituting the crime, the approximate date of the commission
of the crime, the place where it is committed and the name of the offended
party. The reason behind the rule is to enable the accused to properly prepare
his defense since he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the
facts constituting the offense. An information needs only to include the
ultimate facts and not the evidentiary facts. Ultimate facts are those facts
which the expected evidence or would be evidence will support; or such facts
which the evidence will prove. Evidentiary facts are the facts necessary to
establish the ultimate facts.
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RENATO TORRECAMPO
NATURE Automatic Review by the Supreme Court
CONCEPT Designation of Offense; Cause of the Accusation; Secs. 8-9, Rule 110
PARTIES
RENE AND RENATO TORRECAMPO JOVITO GASPILLO represented by PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Accused of the crime of murder - Allegedly slayed by the appellants
herein

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.

First, the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and evident


premeditation was clearly not proven in this case as no evidence was
presented to that effect. While the OSG posits that the aggravating
circumstance of treachery may be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance, the court ruled that pursuant to Secs. 8-9 of the Revised Rules
of Court, aggravating circumstances, whether generic or qualifying, must be
alleged in the information before they can be considered by the Court. This
new provision applies even if the crime was committed prior to the effectivity
of the amendment since the same is favorable to the accused.

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.

As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense,


otherwise, the same is defective. The reason for the rule is to prohibit
duplicitous complaints or information so as to give the accused the necessary
knowledge of the charge against him and to enable him to sufficiently prepare
for his defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more
charges which might confuse him in the defense xxx

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;

Sec. 14. Amendment or substitution – A complaint or an information may be


amended, in form or ins substance, without leave of court, at anytime before
the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal
amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

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.

Substantial amendments consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense


charge and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. Any other
amendment is considered merely as of form. The test as to whether a
defendant is prejudiced by the amendment has been said to be whether a
defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after
the amendment made, and whether any evidence defendant might have
would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other.
If the answer herein is yes, the amendment is merely formal.

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)

ISSUE/S WON the accused is guilty?


SC RULING The Court affirmed the conviction
RATIO A plea of self-defense shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the
defense since practically there was already an admission on the part of the
accused that he committed the act. It is required that the accused must prove
the existence of three requisites of self-defense; unlawful aggression,
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.

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.

The SC differentiates substantial amendment and formal amendment. The


former consists of acts constituting the offense charged and determinative of
the jurisdiction of the court while all other is formal. The test in determining
which is which is whether the defense raised by the accused on the original
information would still be available even after the amendment of the
information. If the answer is in the affirmative, it is merely formal.

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:

- Eduardo Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger assigned to the main office


of Caltex Philippines. His primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and
deliver them to the cashier.
- Caltex filed a complaint for estafa through falsification of documents after it found
that that several checks were enchased without their knowledge and the signature
contained therein is forged. They contend that since it was only Ricarze who holds the
same checks, he was the one responsible.
- Prior to the filing on an information by the prosecutor, PCIB credited to Caltex a
certain amount of money to the effect that the former is subrogating in favor of the
latter. This development was not communicated to the prosecutor.
- Thereafter a case was filed. Two information were filed.
- Pre-trial was commenced and after the prosecution presented preliminary evidence,
the private prosecutor of PCIB moved for the formal offer of evidence to which the
accused opposed, claiming that the substitution of party made by Caltex to PCIB
cannot be made by mere oral motion but must be in such a way as to amend the
information. The lower courts denied his petitioner, hence this case.
PARTIES CONTENTION
EDUARDO RICARZE
- Petitioner argues that the -
substitution of Caltex by PCIB as
private complainant at this late stage
of the trial is prejudicial to his
defense. He argues that the
substitution is tantamount to a
substantial amendment of the
Information which is prohibited
under Section 14, Rule 110 of the
Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S WON there was a substantial amendment?
SC RULING The petition is denied; the ruling of the lower court is upheld.
RATIO A substantial amendment includes acts and omissions constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other
amendments are to form. The test in determining whether the amendment is
one of substance or one of form is whether the defense under the information
as it originally stood would be available after the amendment was made, and
whether any evidence the defendant might have would be equally applicable
to the information in the one form as is the other.
In this case, the court ruled that the change of the defendant from Caltex to
PCIB is not a substantial amendment because it did not alter the basis of the
charge in both information, nor did it results into any prejudice on the part of
the accused. The documentary evidence remains the same, and all other
defenses remains to be available. Thus, he cannot claim any surprise by virtue
of the amendment.

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.

ON FAILING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE OFFENDED PARTY TO PCIB

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.

ISSUE/S WON the accused is guilty?


SC RULING The Court upheld his conviction.
RATIO Taking a cue from the Court of Appeals, this Court would
like, at the outset, to address the validity of the
Amended Informations vis-à-vis the crime Caoile was
actually convicted of.
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, provides for two circumstances when having
carnal knowledge of a woman with a mental disability is
considered rape:
1. Paragraph 1(b): when the offended party is deprived
of reason x x x; and
2. Paragraph 1(d): when the offended party is x x x
demented.16
Caoile was charged in the Amended Informations with rape
of a demented person under paragraph 1(d). The term
demented17 refers to a person who has dementia, which is
a condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by
marked decline from the individual’s former intellectual
level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or
insanity.18 On the other hand, the phrase deprived of
reason under paragraph 1(b) has been interpreted to
include those suffering from mental abnormality,
deficiency, or retardation.19 Thus, AAA, who was
clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can be
properly classified as a person who is "deprived of
reason," and not one who is "demented."
The mistake, however, will not exonerate Caoile. In the
first place, he did not even raise this as an objection.
More importantly, none of his rights, particularly that
of to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him,20 was violated. Although the
Amended Informations stated that he was being charged
with the crime of rape of a demented person under
paragraph 1(d), it also stated that his victim was "a
person with a mental age of seven (7) years old."
Elucidating on the foregoing, this Court, in People v.
Valdez,21 held:
For a complaint or information to be sufficient, it must
state the name of the accused; the designation of the
offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the
offense was committed. What is controlling is not the
title of the complaint, nor the designation of the
offense charged or the particular law or part thereof
allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law
made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime
charged and the particular facts therein recited. The
acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such
form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is intended to be
charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient
if it does not accurately and clearly allege the
elements of the crime charged. Every element of the
offense must be stated in the information. What facts
and circumstances are necessary to be included therein
must be determined by reference to the definitions and
essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of
alleging the elements of a crime in the information is
to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation
against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his
defense. The presumption is that the accused has no
independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
offense.
Thus, the erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) in the
Amended Informations, did not cause material and
substantial harm to Caoile. Firstly, he simply ignored
the error. Secondly, particular facts stated in the
Amended Informations were averments sufficient to
inform Caoile of the nature of the charges against him.

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])

ISSUE/S Whether the Secretary of Justice is authorized to create motu


proprio another panel of prosecutors in order to conduct a
reinvestigation of the case; Whether the case is moot since an information
was already filed in court?
SC RULING The petition is dismissed.

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.

Nevertheless, this case is already moot. As held in Crespo vs Mogul, once


the information is filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction of the case
on any motion to dismiss the case. Being so, any motion to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused lies in the sound discretion of the court.
ADDITIONAL The determination of probable cause by the DOJ Secretary is not a quasi-
NOTES judicial function. A quasi-judicial function is "the action, discretion, etc., of
public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate
facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise
discretion of a judicial nature." Otherwise stated, an administrative
agency performs quasi-judicial functions if it renders awards, determines
the rights of opposing parties, or if their decisions have the same effect as
the judgment of a court. In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor
does not determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. The prosecutor
only determines "whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.” Nevertheless, the
court ruled that the action of the SOJ may still be subject to a petition for
certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion.
CRIMPRO ALFREDO MENDOZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JUNO CARS
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Preliminary Investigation; Defined; Rule 112, Sec. 1
PARTIES
ALFREDO MENDOZA JUNO CARS
- Trade-in/Used Car Supervisor of - A company engaged in the buy and
Juno Cars Inc. sell of used cars

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.

RATIO The argument is without merit. It is settled that the absence of a


preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information
or otherwise render the same defective; neither does it affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the case, nor does it constitute a ground for
quashing the information. If no preliminary investigation has been held,
or if it is flawed, the trial court may, on motion of the accused, order an
investigation or reinvestigation and hold the proceedings on the criminal
case in abeyance. In this case, accused-appellant failed to invoke such
right to preliminary investigation before or at the time he entered his plea
at arraignment. He can no longer invoke that right at this late stage of the
proceedings.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO BIRAOGO vs THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION
NATURE Consolidated Case (Special Civil Action for Prohibition; Special Civil
Action for Certiorari and Prohibition)
CONCEPT Officers Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation; Sec. 2, Rule
112
PARTIES
BIRAOGO AND LAGMAN, et. al. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa
- -

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.

What the PTC have is merely to investigate as it is an ad-hoc fact-finding


body. In Cariño vs Commission on Human Rights, the court expounded on
the difference between investigation and adjudication; investigation is to
conduct an official inquiry to discover or obtain information regarding a
controversy while adjudication is to decide, settle, or resolved issues
usually in the exercise of judicial discretion.

Furthermore, the court declared that “fact-finding is not adjudication and


it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a
quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and
ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function.
To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at
factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the
authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the
controversy may be decided or resolved authoritatively, finally and
definitively, subject to appeals or modes of review as may be provided by
law. Even respondents themselves admit that the commission is bereft of
any quasi-judicial power.”

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”

In other words, the Ombudsman merely facilitated the amendment of the


information of the complaint to cure the defect pointed out by Alfredo. It
would be superfluous to dismiss the complaint when even the Rules of
Court allows it to be amended.
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ISSUE: THE AUTHORITY OF THE OMBUDSMAN TO
NOTES CONDUCT INVESTIGATION EVEN THOUGH THE CRIME IS NOT
SERVICE RELATED: As held in Honasan, the authority to conduct
preliminary investigation over public officials are concurrent between
the DOJ and the OMBUDSMAN. Nonetheless, we pointed out that the
Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from any
investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such
cases. Plainly, applying that ruling in this case, the Ombudsman has
primary jurisdiction, albeit concurrent with the DOJ, over Rosa's
complaint, and after choosing to exercise such jurisdiction, need not
defer to the dictates of a respondent in a complaint, such as Alfredo.
In other words, the Ombudsman may exercise jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the DOJ.
CRIMPRO ERDITO QUARTO vs. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO, et. al.
NATURE Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
CONCEPT Officers Authorized to Prosecute; Sec. 2, Rule 112
PARTIES
ERDITO QUARTO DENNIS IGNACIO; LUISITO TAMBLAN;
RAUL BORILLO; LUIS GAYYA
- Chief of the Central Equipment - Members of the Special
and Spare Parts Inspectorate Team of the DPWH
Division (CESPD), Bureau of who were originally indicted for
Equipment (BOE), Department of violation of RA 3019.
Public Works and
Highways (DPWH), Port Area,
Manila. As CESPD Chief, he is also
the Head of the Special
Inspectorate Team (SIT) of the
DPWH. Charged with an
information for violation of RA
3019 and related offense.
FACTS:

- On January 9, 2002, DPWH Secretary Simeon Datumanong created an


investigation panel after alleged anomalous transactions involving the repairs
and purchase by DPWH of spare parts for their vehicle.
- The investigation discovered that for a period of 10 months, several emergency
repairs and purchase of spare parts which were approved by the government did
not actually take place, resulting in government losses approximately P143
million pesos.
- As a result, the DPWH-IAS panel filed a complaint-affidavit impleading the
petitioner, the respondent, and several high-ranking officials as well as private
individuals.
- The petitioner denied his liability and claimed that he was merely relying on the
representation of his subordinates when he approved certain job orders, while
the respondent admitted the wrongdoing and offered to testify on behalf of the
government.
- After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman filed an information for
violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, plunder, estafa through falsification against the
petitioner and some other person while he approved the request for immunity by
the respondent.
- Opposing the said immunity given to the respondent, the petitioner filed this case
before the court.
PARTIES CONTENTION
ERDITO QUARTO OMBUDSMAN
- His main contention was that the - The Ombudsman counters that RA
Ombudsman exercised grave 6770 gives them the authority to
abuse of discretion when he grant immunity from prosecution
granted the request of the to witness.
petitioner. He should have - They also invoked the Court’s
included the respondents in the policy of non-interference in the
information as it is as clear as Ombudsman’s discretion in
daylight that it was their actuation matters involving their
that led to the anomalous discretionary and prosecutorial
transaction. powers.
- The petitioner claims that before
the respondent can be considered
as state witnesses, they must first
be impleaded before the court and
that it is the court who will declare
them as such.
ISSUE/S WON the Ombudsman has authority to approved state-witnesses?
SC RULING The petition was dismissed.

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.

RA 6770 fully recognizes this prosecutor prerogative by empowering the


Ombudsman to grant immunity, subject to such limitation as he may
determine. The only textual limitation of this grant is the pertinent
provision of the Rules of Court which requires that before one can be
considered as a state-witness;
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused
whose discharge is requested;
2. There is no other direct evidence available for prosecution of the
offense charged, except the testimony of the accused;
3. The testimony of the accused is substantially corroborated on all
points;
4. He is not the most guilty; and
5. Said accused had not yet been convicted of any crimes involving
moral turpitude.

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.

ADDITIONAL NOTE HOWEVER, THAT THIS CASE WAS DISMISSED BY COURT ON


NOTES THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT AVAIL OF OTHER
REMEDY BELOW THAT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS.
CRIMPRO ARROYO VS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATURE Consolidated Petition for Certiorari
CONCEPT Officers who may prosecute; Sec. 2; Rule 112
PARTIES
MIKE ARROYO; GLORIA MACAPAGAL- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
ARROYO; BENJAMIN ABALOS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
- -

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.

RATIO The authority of the COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigation and


ultimately to prosecute offenses related to electoral fraud is granted by
the Constitution. This power was further reflected in Section 265 of the
Omnibus Election Code. Under the said provision, the COMELEC is
granted with the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation.
The latter, however, was given by the same provision the authority to
avail itself of assistance to other prosecuting arms of the government.
Thus, under the Omnibus Election Code, while the exclusive jurisdiction
to conduct preliminary investigation had been lodged with the Comelec,
the prosecutors had been conducting preliminary investigations
pursuant to the continuing delegated authority given by the Comelec.

The rationale for this is explained by the Court in COMELEC vs Español;

The deputation of the Provincial and City


Prosecutors is necessitated by the need
for prompt investigation and dispensation
of election cases as an indispensable part
of the task of securing fine, orderly,
honest, peaceful and credible elections.
Enfeebled by lack of funds and the
magnitude of its workload, the petitioner
does not have a sufficient number of legal
officers to conduct such investigation and
to prosecute such cases.

However, Sec. 265 of the Omnibus Election Code was amended by RA


9369 to the effect that the power to conduct preliminary investigation is
now concurrent with other prosecuting arm of the government. Xxx
Concurrent jurisdictions mean equal jurisdiction and that simultaneous
exercise of power between coordinate bodies is allowed.

ON EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE – there is no violation of due process


clause. Unlike the Truth Commission which singled out the previous
administration, this includes all persons during the 2004 and 2007
election and not merely those of the petitioners.

ON DUE PROCESS – there was no evidence which would show that


fairness and equity cannot be had under the joint committee. While there
were statements of the COMELEC Chairman and the DOJ Secretary which
sounds prejudicial, such statements were merely made in response to
hypothetical question should probable cause was found.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO SOLIVEN vs. MAKASIAR
NATURE
CONCEPT Arrest; Rule 112
PARTIES

- -

FACTS:

- In these consolidated cases, three principal issues were


raised:
(1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process
when information for libel were filed against them
although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case
was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and,
subsequently, by the President;
(2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran
were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant
for his arrest without personally examining the
complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine
probable cause; and
(3) whether or not the President of the Philippines, under
the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings
against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-
affidavit.
PARTIES CONTENTION

- -

ISSUE/S WON there was violation of Sec 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution
SC RULING The petition was dismissed.

RATIO ON SECOND ISSUE:

The Supreme Court noted that the Constitution requires personal


determination of the probable cause by the judge. However, they ruled
that what the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the judge to issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself with the existence of
probable cause, the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and the witnesses; he may personally determine probable
cause by personally evaluating all the records of the case, including the
report of the prosecutor and other pertinent documents submitted by the
fiscal.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE vs DE GUIA
NATURE Appeal
CONCEPT Arrest; Rule 113
PARTIES
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT MANUEL DE GUIA
- There are four private-complainant in - Charged with the crimes of illegal
this case, all of which were allegedly recruitment in the large scale and
defrauded by the respondent with three counts of estafa.
their representation that they are
authorized travel agency
FACTS:

- 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.

To determine the admissibility of the shabu as evidence, the court must


determine whether there is a valid arrest in flagrante delicto. In arrest in
flagrante delicto, it requires that the accused must have executed an overt
act that would show that the accused has committed, is actually
committing, or is about to commit the crime. In this case, the trial court
relied upheld the reliance of the police officer to their confidential
informant or asset. However, several decisions of the Supreme Court has
reiterated that mere reliable information would not be sufficient to
establish probable cause. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused
must have done overt act.
Hence, being the fruit of the poisonous tree, it cannot be held as the basis
for conviction of the accused.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs GIVERA
NATURE Appeal
CONCEPT Execution of Arrest; Section 4, Rule 113
PARTIES
EUSEBIO GARDON CESAR GIVERA
- Killed allegedly by the accused in - One of the alleged accused who
this case by stabbing him, hitting caused the incident
his pericardium, causing shock
and hemorrhage, causing his
untimely death
FACTS:

- 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:

- Complainant Generoso phoned the police station to report an incident.


- When they arrived at the scene however, they saw Generoso bruised and badly
beaten.
- The complainant pointed the petitioners herein as the perpetrators of the crime.
This prompted the police officers to invite the petitioners to the police station.
- In the police station, an inquest proceeding happened which resulted in the filing
of a case for frustrated homicide.
- They filed a petition for regular preliminary investigation before the RTC
contending that there was no valid warrantless arrest as the arresting officer had
not personal knowledge of the fact and circumstances of the case. Nevertheless,
the RTC denied the petition.
- The petitioner appealed to the CA which rendered the assailed resolution
dismissing the complaint; hence this petition.
PARTIES CONTENTION
THE PETITIONERS
- They alleged that there was no -
valid warrantless arrested that
was made since the police officer
merely invited them in the station
and that they went to the police
station only as response to the
said invitation.
ISSUE/S WON there was valid warrantless arrest?
SC RULING The Court dismissed the complaint and upheld the ruling of the RTC.
RATIO For an arrest in hot pursuit under Sec. 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
there must be at least two elements present; immediacy of the arrest after
the happening of the crime; and that the arresting person has probable
cause based on personal knowledge of the circumstances of the facts and
circumstances that the person sought to be arrested is guilty thereof. The
reason for the immediacy is to enable the police officer to act only based
on raw evidence and his personal determination of probable cause.

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:

- After three months of surveillance, the respondent issued a Mission Order to


apprehend a total of 22 undesirable aliens. 17 of those apprehended self-
deported; one were released for lack of evidence; one were deported for
overstaying; hence only the three accused herein chose to proceed with the
deportation proceeding.
- During the apprehension, Harvey and Sherman were seen with two young boys,
one of whom was naked. Elsehout was seen living with two teenagers.
- After they were apprehended, a warrant of arrest was issued against them for
violation of certain provision of the Immigration Law.
- On March 22, 1988 petitioner filed a motion for bail; which was followed by a
Manifestation of their willingness to self-deport.
- However, it turned out that before the Manifestation was filed, a petition for
habeas corpus was already filed.
PARTIES CONTENTION
HARVEY; SHERMAN; ELSEHOUT
- They contend that there was -
violation of Sec. 2 of Art. III of the
1987 Constitution for the officers
which arrested them were not
armed with a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE/S WON there was a valid warrantless arrest?
SC RULING Petition for Habeas Corpus was dismissed.
RATIO While the constitution requires warrant of arrest to be able to effect an
arrest, Sec. 5 of Rule 113 allows instances where a valid warrantless
arrest may be made, that is; when, in his presence, the crime has been
committed, is actually committing, or about to be committed by the
person; and that the crime has just been committed and there is probable
cause to believe based on the facts and circumstances that the person
sought to be arrested perpetrated the offense.

In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause


determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during which
period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause
justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs
and posters without warrant (See Papa vs. Mago, L-27360, February 28,
1968,22 SCRA 857; People vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, L-41686,
November 17, 1980, 101 SCRA 86, cited in CRUZ, Constitutional Law,
1987 ed., p. 143). Those articles were seized as an incident to a lawful
arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence (Section 12, Rule
126,1985 Rules on criminal Procedure).

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).

At any rate, the filing by petitioners of a petition to be released on bail


should be considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest
and estops them from questioning its validity (Callanta v. Villanueva, L-
24646 & L-24674, June 20, 1977, 77 SCRA 377; Bagcal vs. Villaraza, L-
61770, January 31, 1983, 120 SCRA 525).

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.

ISSUE/S WON the arrest was valid?


SC RULING The conviction of the petitioner stands.

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.

ISSUE/S WON the arrest was valid?


SC RULING The petition is MERITORIOUS.
RATIO The arrest made by the police officers in this case is not one among the
valid warrantless arrest.

It cannot be an arrest in flagrante delicto as the latter requires that there


must be an over act tending to show that a crime has been committed, is
being committed, will be committed. In this case, the Court said that is
highly impossible for a police officer who were cruising 30 km/hour and
is at the distance of 10 meters to see a miniscule white crystalline
substance being given by the accused to another.

Further, it cannot be an arrest in hot pursuit as based on the records, it


was not shown that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of the
crime.

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.

ISSUE/S WON there was a valid warrantless arrest?


SC RULING There was no valid warrantless arrest.
RATIO Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan.
The "arresting" officers obviously were not present, within the meaning
of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither
could the "arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably
regarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been
committed" within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the
"arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that
petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon
which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged
eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that petitioner was the
gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate
number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name.
That information did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge."
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO ROGER POSADAS, et. al. vs. OMBUDSMAN
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Warrantless Arrest; Sec. 5; Rule 113
PARTIES
ROGER POSADAS; MARIHU LAMBINO;
ROSARIO TORRES YU OMBUDSMAN
- Roger Posadas was UP Chancellor; the - Filed a case for obstruction of
court, for the others, merely justice against the petitioner.
mentioned that they are from UP
FACTS

- 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.

Nevertheless, since the crime of illegal possession is necessary included


in the crime of illegal importation, the court said that convicting the
accused with illegal possession did not violate his right to be informed.

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;

Section 7. Method of arrest by officer by


virtue of warrant. — When making an arrest
by virtue of a warrant, the officer shall
inform the person to be arrested of the
cause of the arrest and of the fact that
a warrant has been issued for his arrest,
except when he flees or forcibly resists
before the officer has opportunity to so
inform him, or when the giving of such
information will imperil the arrest. The
officer need not have the warrant in his
possession at the time of the arrest but
after the arrest, if the person arrested
so requires, the warrant shall be shown to
him as soon as practicable.

The abovequoted rule clearly allows a police officer


to effect arrest without the warrant in his
possession at the time of the arrest. Thus,
appellants arrest being lawful, the search and
seizure made incidental thereto is likewise valid,
albeit conducted without a warrant.

However, the prosecution’s case miserably fails when they dispensed


with the requirement of proving that the gun does not have a license.
They relied that since the gun is hand-made, it cannot be registered. But
the court has already ruled that the element that the gun must be shown
to have not been registered is essential in the crime of illegal possession
of firearms. Having no evidence to prove the same, the court acquits the
petitioner on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

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.

ISSUE/S WON the accused was illegally deprived?


SC RULING The court AFFIRMED the petition
RATIO It is true that a writ of habeas corpus may no longer be issued if the
person allegedly deprived of liberty is restrained under a lawful process
or order of the court. The restraint then has become legal, and the remedy
of habeas corpus is rendered moot and academic. However, such rule
does not apply in this case. Petitioner Salibo was not arrested by virtue of
any warrant charging him of an offense. He was not restrained under a
lawful process or an order of a court. He was illegally deprived of his
liberty, and, therefore, correctly availed himself of a Petition for Habeas
Corpus. The Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 221, Quezon City in People of the Philippines
v. Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et al. charged and accused Butukan S. Malang,
not Datukan Malang Salibo, of 57 counts of murder in connection with the
Maguindanao Massacre.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is validly arrested


without warrant. When he went to the police station, he was not
committing an offense, neither was the officer therein had personal
knowledge that he had just committed the offense; nor was he an escaped
prisoner.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION vs
HON. FELIX T. OLALIA and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
CONCEPT Applicability of Bail on Extradition Proceedings
PARTIES
GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ
- Requested extradition of the - Charged with certain violation of
private respondent in this case. Hongkong laws

FACTS

- Private respondent herein was charged with 3 counts of accepting as an


advantage as an agent and 7 counts of conspiracy to commit fraud, both
punishable under the Hongkong laws.
- In virtue of the extradition treaty between Hongkong and the Philippines, the
Hongkong government requested the provisional arrest of the private
respondent and was later on subjected to an extradition proceeding.
- In the same case, the respondent filed for a petition for bail.
- The first judge, Judge Bernardo, denied his application for bail, citing lack of laws
in support of the same.
- The judge later on inhibit and the case was raffled to the respondent – judge
herein.
- Upon motion, the judge approved the petition for bail.
- The Hongkong Government filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was
denied; hence, this case.

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.

Furthermore, the exercise of the States power of depriving persons of


their liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings.
Respondent in an administrative proceeding may be detained. But while
extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized by the
following: (a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential
extraditee and (b)the means employed to attain the purpose of
extradition is also "the machinery of criminal law." This is shown by
Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which
mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the
accused" if such "will best serve the interest of justice." We further note
that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for
the "provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the request
for extradition;" and that release from provisional arrest "shall not
prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for
extradition is received subsequently." Obviously, an extradition
proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a
criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to
a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the
demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention"
may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of
time of the detention should be reasonable.

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

- This is a consolidated petition involving several armed forces officials who


participated in the failed coup attempt on Dec. 1 – 9, 1989.
- The charges against them are violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW
96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various
Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder).
- A General Court Martial (GMC) were constituted wherein the members will be
tried for their violation.
- One of the issues involved in this consolidated petition is that the petitioners
must be granted the right to bail as a matter of right.
PARTIES CONTENTION
COMMENDADOR, et. al.
- The provision on Art. III, Sec. 13 is -
applicable to them.

ISSUE/S WON bail is available to members of the military?


SC RULING The Court DISMISSED the case
RATIO We find that the right to bail invoked by the private respondents in G.R.
Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in
the military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of
Rights. This much was suggested in Arula, where we observed that "the
right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the
right to bail does not exist."

The justification for this exception was well explained by the Solicitor
General as follows:

The unique structure of the military


should be enough reason to exempt military
men from the constitutional coverage on
the right to bail.

Aside from structural peculiarity, it is


vital to note that mutinous soldiers
operate within the framework of democratic
system, are allowed the fiduciary use of
firearms by the government for the
discharge of their duties and
responsibilities and are paid out of
revenues collected from the people. All
other insurgent elements carry out their
activities outside of and against the
existing political system.

xxx xxx xxx

National security considerations should


also impress upon this Honorable Court
that release on bail of respondents
constitutes a damaging precedent. Imagine
a scenario of say 1,000 putschists roaming
the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or
if the assailed July 25, 1990 Order were
sustained, on 'provisional' bail. The
sheer number alone is already
discomforting. But, the truly disquieting
thought is that they could freely resume
their heinous activity which could very
well result in the overthrow of duly
constituted authorities, including this
Honorable Court, and replace the same with
a system consonant with their own concept
of government and justice.

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

- For alleged falsification of receipts to enable her to reimburse an amount of


270,000 pesos, to the prejudice of the government, the Ombudsman filed 8
information with the Sandiganbayan, 4 with respect to violation of Sec. 3(e), and
the other half for violation of malversation through falsification of documents.
- The respondent filed a motion for bail which was granted by the Sandiganbayan
despite the Ombudsman recommendation for no bail.
- Without filing a motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed this case before
the court.
PARTIES CONTENTION
OMBUDSMAN LUZVIMINDA VALDEZ
- The main contention of the - Prayed for the urgent dismissal of
petitioner is that since the the case on procedural grounds.
respondent is charged with a
complex crime of malversation
through falsification, bail should
have been discretionary and not
as a matter of right as claimed by
the respondent.
ISSUE/S WON the respondent is entitled for bail as a matter of right?
SC RULING The petition is DISMISSED. The Court declared that respondent is entitled
for bail as a matter of right.
RATIO The Supreme Court revisited the old rulings pertaining to the issue at
hand. The Court ruled that in determining whether the accused must be
granted bail as a matter of right, the Court must look not in the imposable
penalty of the crime but to the prescribed penalty as provided by the RPC.
The rationale for this is that an accused charged with a complex crime
will only be penalized with the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua if
it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that he indeed committed the
crime. So should it be not proven that the accused committed the crime
charged, the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua will not apply.

In this case, the prescribed penalty, or that initial penalty as a general


prescription for the felony of complex crime of malversation through
falsification of documents is reclusion temporal in its maximum to
reclusion perpetua. Given that, it is not within the exception given under
Sec. 13 of Art. Iii which specifically pertains to penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and when the evidence of guilt is strong.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CRIMPRO
NATURE
CONCEPT
PARTIES

- -

FACTS

PARTIES CONTENTION

- -

ISSUE/S
SC RULING

RATIO

ADDITIONAL
NOTES

S-ar putea să vă placă și