CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Introduction/Preliminary Considerations/Jurisdiction
David migrated to Canada where he became a
Canadian citizen by naturalization. He returned to
the Philippines and purchased a beach lot. He then
found out that the lot was part of a salvage zone.
He filed for a Miscellaneous Lease Application with
the DENR. In the application, he indicated that he is application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of
a Filipino citizen (but he isn’t).
Prosecutor issued its Resolution finding probable
cause to indict him for violation of Article 172 of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender,
RPC. After the filing of the Information and before
his arrest, David filed an “Urgent Motion for Re-
Determination of Probable Cause” in the MTC.
David v Agbay General Principles The MTC denied the motion due to lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
and for lack of merit.
David asserted that jurisdiction over the person of
an accused cannot be a pre-condition for the re-
determination of probable cause by the court that
issues a warrant of arrest.
The Solicitor General opines that in seeking an
affirmative relief from the MTC when he filed his
“Urgent Motion for Re-determination of Probable
Cause,” David is deemed to have submitted his
person to the said court’s jurisdiction by his
voluntary appearance. (correct)
The combined forces of the police authorities has
led to the deaths of 11 members of the Kuratong
Baleleng Gang. Eduardo Delos Reyes said that it
was a summary execution and not a shoot-out.
After investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman on
Military Affairs absolved all the police officers
involved. On review, the Office of the Ombudsman
reversed the finding and filed charges of murder
aginst the police officers.
The Sandiganbayan ordered the transfer of their
cases to the RTC on the ground that none of the
principal accused had the rank of Chief
Superintendent or higher. Congress passed RA
8249 that expanded the Sandiganbayan's
People v Yadao RTC jurisdiction by deleting the word "principal" from
the phrase "principal accused". As a result, the
Sandiganabyan retained and tried the murder
cases. The RTC ordered the provisional dismissal of
the cases for lack of probable cause.
Two years later, Leadro Mendoza sought to revive
the cases against the respondents by requesting
the DOJ to conduct another preliminary
investigation. Parents of the two victims submitted
birth certificates showing that they were minors.
The prosecution amended the informations to show
such minority and asked Judge Dizon to re-raffle
the case to a family court. The judge issued an
order, denying the motion on the drounf that
Section 5 of RA 8369 applied only to living minors.
Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses
Clemente Bautista, the respondent, and his co-
accused Leonida Bautista got into a dispute with
Felipe Goyena Jr who filed a complaint in the
barangay but failed to reach any settlement.
Goyena Jr. filed a complaint for slight physical
injuries with the OCP. After the preliminary
investigation, a Joint Resolution recommending the
filing of an information against Bautista was issued
by Prosecutor Ong.
People v Bautista
Bautista sought the dismissal of the case on the
ground that by the time the information was filed,
the 60-day prescription period from the date of the
commission of the crime had elapsed.
The issue here is whether prescriptive period began
to run anew after the investigating prosecutor’s
recommendation to file the proper proper criminal
information against the respondent was approved
by the City Prosecutor (NO)
Panaguiton Jr. filed a cased against Cawili for
violation of BP22(SPECIAL LAW). DOJ ruled that
Panaguiton, Jr. v DOJ the crime already prescribed. BP22 has a
prescription period of 4 years because of RA
3326.
Institution of Criminal
Actions (Section 1)
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court
acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by
his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to
quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s
jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial)
or by filing bail.
Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the
other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere
application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the
while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance (pleading to
the merits or filing bail). One can be under the custody of the
law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant
files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the
other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such
as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has
commenced.
In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files
any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in
cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the
court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an
accused can invoke the processes of the court even though
there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the
law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the
court applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the
custody of the law.
Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. – The Family Courts shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
following cases:
a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below
eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of
age, or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time
of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is
found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain
any civil liability which the respondent may have incurred.
Undoubtedly, in vesting in family courts exclusive original
jurisdiction over criminal cases involving minors, the law but
seeks to protect their welfare and best interests. For this
reason, when the need for such protection is not compromised,
the Court is able to relax the rule. In several cases,11 for
instance, the Court has held that the CA enjoys concurrent
jurisdiction with the family courts in hearing petitions for
habeas corpus involving minors.
Here, the two minor victims, for whose interests the
people wanted the murder cases moved to a family court,
are dead. As respondents aptly point out, there is no living
minor in the murder cases that require the special
attention and protection of a family court. In fact, no minor
would appear as party in those cases during trial since the
minor victims are represented by their parents who had become
the real private offended parties.
It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the
fiscal’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period.
The prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the
complaint was led with the Office of the Prosecutor until such
time that respondent is either convicted or acquitted by the
proper court.
It must be pointed out that when Act No. 3326 (Act providing
for prescription) was passed on 4 December 1926, preliminary
investigation of criminal offenses was conducted by justices of
the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law, "institution of
judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment", and
From what I remember: even though that BP22 is
the prevailing rule at the time was that once a complaint is filed
included in the Sumamry Proceedings (as to
with the justice of the peace for preliminary investigation, the
Jadewell) and should begin in Judicial Proceedings,
prescription of the offense is halted
we still follow the ruling in Panguiton for BP22.
HENCE​, for violations of special penal laws, under Act No.
3326, the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor for the
purpose of instituting a preliminary investigation
interrupts the prescriptive period.
 Institution of Criminal
Actions (Section 1)
CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Respondents removed that wheel clamps that
Jadewell attached to their car and failed to pay for
fees. Jadewell originally filed a case against robbery
against them. But, the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor found them to have violated Baguio
Jadewell Parking Systems v Lidua
Ordinance 003-2000. When the proper informations
were filed, however, the case was dismissed by the
MTC. Now, the petitioner is assailing this dismisal,
saying the criminal action has not been
extinguished thru prescription.
Judge Ayco allowed the defense in a case to present
evidence consisting of the testimony of two
witnesses, even in the absence of State Prosecutor
Pinote, who was prosecuting the case. Pinote was
Pinote v Ayco undergoing medical treatment, hence his absent
during the proceedings. In the subsequent
hearings, he refused to cross-examine the two
defense witnesses maintaining that the previous
proceedings in his absence were void.
Gimenez filed a Complaint-Affidavit for libel before
the Office of the City Prosecutor against a group
called the PEPCI for posting on their website a
publication which was highly defamatory and
libelous against the Yuchengco family and the
Yuchengco Group of Companies. The Office of the
City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict 16
officers PEPCI, and a criminal information was
raffled to the RTC Makati.
Upon motion of the respondents, RTC ordered the
quashal of the criminal information for libel. It
subsequently denied petitioners’ motion for
People v Piccio
reconsideration. The private prosecutors, with the
conformity of public prosecutor Vermug, filed a
Notice of Appeal. The OSG, however, stated that it
had received an advisory from the DOJ that the
latter had no information about the case and, thus,
prayed that it be excused from filing the appellant’s
brief.
Respondents then filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal,
citing as grounds the fact that the Brief for the
Private Complainants-Appellants filed by petitioners
did not carry the conforme of the OSG and that
ordinary appeal was not the appropriate remedy.
Who must Prosecute
(Section 5, 6)
Six complaints were filed in May 16, 1997 against
Dela Cerna charging him with rape committed
(against his own minor daughter Irene) in separate
People v dela Cerna years all before March 1997.
Dela Cerna mainly relies on the affidavit of
desistance executed by Irene.
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
Violations of city ordinances are covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure. Thus, the running of the
prescriptive period halts only when the case is actually
filed in Court.
The Rule on Summary Procedure (as a special law) prevails
over Rule 110 of the ROC. Rule 110 should also yield to Act
3326 (Establishing periods of prescription for violations
penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances)
Violations of City Ordinances can only be commenced by
informations.
The Court applied the case of Zaldivia v Reyes:
Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the complaint
It stands that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable
or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a
to ordinances and their prescription period.
prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." --
but, this doesn't prevent the prosecutor from conducting a PI.
For violation of a special law or ordinance, the period of
prescription shall commence to run from the day of the
commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the
time, from the discovery and the institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The
prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the
complaint or information in court and shall begin to run again if
the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
double jeopardy.
As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under
the control and direction of the public prosecutor. If the
schedule of the public proseuctor does not permit, or in case
there are no public prosecutors, a private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or
the Regional State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case.
Once authorized, the private prosecutor shall continue to
prosecute the case until the termination of the trial, even in the
absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked
or withdrawn.
It is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in
appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested
solely in the OSG, which is the law office of the Government
whose specific powers and functions include that of
representing the Republic and/or the people before any court in
any action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends
of justice may require.
The 1987 Administrative Code provides that: The Office of the
Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
Philippines xxx in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a
criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the
accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the
criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor
is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal
of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who
are mere complaining witnesses.
The private complainant or the offended party may, however,
file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only
insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may
also file a special civil action for certiorari even without the
intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his
interest in the civil aspect of the case.
The rape incidents in this case occurred prior to the effectivity
of RA 8353, The Anti-Rape Law (took effect on October 22,
1997) and classified the crime of rape as a crime against
persons. Such being the case, we shall apply the old law and
treat the acts of rape committed as private crimes. Thus, their
institution, prosecution and extinction should still be governed
by Article 344 of the RPC.
Article 344 provides for the extinction of criminal liability in
private crimes. For the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape and
acts of lasciviousness, two modes are recognized for
extinguishing criminal liability - pardon and marriage. In all
cases, however, the pardon must come prior to the institution
of the criminal action. After the case has been filed in court, any
pardon made by the private complainant, whether by sworn
statement or on the witness stand, cannot extinguish criminal
liability.
Irene filed her complaint in May, and she executed her affidavit
of desistance only in July. Clearly, the pardon extended by the
victim was made after the institution of the criminal action.
Thus, it cannot be a ground to dismiss the action in these
cases. The true aggrieved party in a criminal prosecution is the
People of the Philippines whose collective sense of morality,
decency and justice has been outraged. In such a case, the
offended party becomes merely a complaining witness. The
complaint required by Article 344 of the RPC is but a condition
precedent, and such condition is imposed out of consideration
for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to
suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the
scandal of a public trial.
Hence, once filed, control of the prosecution is removed
from the offended party’s hands and any change of heart
by the victim will not affect the states right to vindicate
the atrocity committed against itself.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Seven informations where filed before the RTC
against Go and Dela Rosa, charging them of Estafa
through Falsification of Commercial Documents for
allegedly defrauding Orient Commercial Banking
Corporation. The trial of the case was marred by a
series of postponements/cancellation of hearings
caused mainly by the prosecution, resulting in its
inability to finish its presentation of evidence
despite the lapse of almost 5 yrs. In an Omnibus
People v Go Order, the RTC dismissed the cases, ruling that the
respondents' right to speedy trial was violated. The
prosecution moved for reconsideration which was
granted by the RTC in the interest of justice. A
motion for reconsideration from the respondents
was denied. This prompted them to file a petition
for certiorari before the CA wherein the private
complainant, and not the People of the Philippines,
through the OSG was the only impleaded party in
the case.
Fernando Balidoy Jr. was admitted to PMMA. During
the “Indoctrination and Orientation Period”, he died.
Violation of the Anti-Hazing Law was filed against
Bayabos et al (cadets) as principals and Aris, et al accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial of
(officers) as accomplice.
Sandiganbayan dismissed the case against the
principals and so it followed that the case against
the accomplices was also dismissed.
People v Bayabos
The Ombudsman filed a complaint with the
Supreme Court regarding the dismissal of the cases
by the Sandiganbayan.
The issue is whether the prosecution of respondents victim. There is no allegation that the purported acts were
for the crime of accomplice to hazing can proceed in employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the
spite of the dismissal with finality of the case
against the principal accused (YES) (SC still
sustained the quashal of information)
Lasoy and Banisa pleaded guilty and was already
serving sentence to the charge of violation of the
Dangerous drugs act for 42.410 GRAMS. The
Lasoy et al v Zenarosa
prosecutor moved to ammend the information
because it should be 42.410 KILOS. Prosecutor
assails the validity of the first information.
Puig and Porras were the cashier & bookkeeper of
the Rural Bank of Pototan, where they took away
P15k. Thus, 112 cases of qualified theft were filed
against them at the RTC by the Prosecutor's Office
with informations as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of August, 2002, in the
Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-
named [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and
helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence,
being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of
Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge
People v Puig and/or consent of the management of the Bank and with Here, [A]bove-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating,
intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away the sum of FIFTEEN
THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00), Philippine Currency, to
the damage and prejudice of the said bank in the
aforesaid amount.
The RTC however dismissed the case, saying the
Informations were insufficient for they did not state deposited.
facts which constitute (a) the qualifying
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence; and (b)
the element of taking, with intent to gain and
without the consent of the owner, which is the
Bank.
Ceredon was indicted for 10 counts of rape for
having carnal knowledge with his 10 year old sister
on various dates 1995 until 2000. At his
arraignment, he pleaded “not guilty” to all ten
charges. During pre-trial, his counsel manifested his
desire to change his plea to guilty on all counts and
People v Ceredon
he was re-arraigned.
The appellant contends that the Informations filed
against him did not sufficiently charge the offence
committed because the exact dates of the
commission are not alleged.
Complaint & Information
(Section 2-4, 6-13)
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
As provided in Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions are prosecuted
under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.
Therefore, it behooved the petitioners (respondents herein) to
implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in
the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to comment
on the petition.
While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per
sea ground for the dismissal of an action, considering that said
party may still be added by order of the court,on motion of the
party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action
and/orsuch times as are just, it remains essential – as it is
jurisdictional – that any indispensable party be impleaded in the
proceedings before the court renders judgment. This is because
the absence of such indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
even as to those present.
It is a settled rule that the case against those charged as
the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the
latter; or even the latter's acquittal, especially when the
occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. So long as
the commission of the crime can be duly proven, the trial of
those charged as accomplices to determine their criminal
liability can proceed independently of that of the alleged
principal.
In the case at bar, the indictment merely states that
psychological pain and physical injuries were inflicted on the
organization.
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the
statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions
constitutive thereof.
In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that a
person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is
meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law,
the inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid. It is
not necessary to follow the language of the statute in the
information. The information will be sufficient if it describes the
crime defined by law.
Applying the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion is that the
first information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently alleges the
manner by which the crime was committed. Verily the purpose
of the law, that is, to apprise the accused of the nature of the
charge against them, is reasonably complied with.
It is evident in Section 9, Rule 110 that the Information need
not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the
acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him, and the
court to render judgment properly.
and helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence, being
the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc.,
Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the
management of the Bank is sufficient to prove that as cashier
and bookkeeper, Puig and Porras enjoyed confidence and that
the Bank is considered the owner of the monies therein
The date or time of the commission of the rape need not be
alleged with precision. It is enough for the information or
complaint to state that the crime has been committed at a time
as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Failure
to allege the exact date when the crime has happened does not
refer the information defective. As long as it distinctly states the
elements of the offense and the constitutive acts or omissions,
it is valid.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Dominador Soriano was found gulity beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of multiple rape
against AAA. The CA affirmed the trial court's
decision and found that the prosecution had proven
People v Soriano beyons reasonable doubt the guilt of the accsued
for the crime of multiple rape. The prosecution had
Complaint & Information established that accused had carnal knowledge of
(Section 2-4, 6-13) AA on at least 2 occasions, in violation of Article
266-A of the RPC
Ricarze was a collector-messenger and his primary
task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and
deliver them to the cashier. Caltex filed a criminal
complaint against him for estafa through
falsification of commercial documents. It was
discovered that unknown to Caltex, a company
check payable to Dante R. Gutierrez had been
cleared through PCIB. Two other checks were also
missing. In the meantime, PCIB credited the
amount to Caltex. However, the City Prosecutor was
not informed of this development. The City
Prosecutor filed two (2) Informations for estafa
through falsification of commercial documents
against Ricarze before the RTC.
Ricarze v CA Ricarze contended that SRMO entered its
appearance as private prosecutor representing the
PCIB. While under the Informations, the private
complainant is Caltex and not PCIB. He argues that
the charges against him should be dismissed
because the allegations in both Informations failed
to name PCIB as true offended party.
The appellate court declared that when PCIB
restored the amount of the checks to Caltex, it was
subrogated to the latter’s right against Ricarze. It
further declared that in offenses against property,
the designation of the name of the offended party is
not absolutely indispensable for as long as the
criminal act charged in the complaint or information
can be properly identified. (correct)
Senador was charged before the RTC Dumaguete
with the crime of Estafa . There was a trust
agreement that Senador and Cythia signed wherein
the former having obtained and received from the
latter various kinds of jewelry valued at P705,685
will see the same and remit the proceeds. However,
she failed to do such or return any of the items
which resulted to missappropriation and conversion
to his own use and benefit. A check tedered by
Senador to Rita was later dishonored for beving
drawn against a closed account.
Senador v People Senador refused to testify and so failed to refute
any of the foregoing evidence of the prosecution,
and instead, she relied on the defense that the facts the offended party in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec.
alleged in the Information and the facts proven and 12 of the Rules of Court mandates the correction of the
established during the trial differ. Senador asserted information, not its dismissal.
that the person named as the offended party in the
Information is not the same person who made the
demand and filed the complaint. According to
Senador, the private complainant in the Information would depend on whether or not the subject matter of the
went by the name "Cynthia Jaime," whereas, during offense was sufficiently described and identified.
trial, the private complainant turned out to be "Rita
Jaime." Further, Cynthia Jaime was never presented
as witness.
Mayor Castillo was charged with violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to
the alleged illegal operation of the Villa Esperanza
dumpsite located in Molino, Bacoor, Cavite.
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
The Court observes that the information charged more than one
offense in violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure. Considering that appellant did not
seasonably object to the multiple offenses in the information,
the court may convict the appellant of as many as are
charged and proved. We note, however, that both the trial
court and the appellate court merely found the appellant guilty
of "multiple rape" without specifying the number of rapes
that appellant is guilty of. While this may have been
irrelevant considering that appellant would have been
sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death even if only
one count of rape was proven, the same is still important
since this would have bearing on appellant's civil
liability. Further, there is no such crime as "multiple
rape." In this case, appellant is guilty of two counts of rape
qualified by the circumstances that the victim is under eighteen
(18) years of age and the offender is the parent of the victim.
Section 12 of Rule 110 provides: Name of the offended
party. –The complaint or information must state the name and
surname of the person against whom or against whose property
the offense was committed xxx
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended
party is unknown, the property must be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against
whose property the offense was committed is thereafter
disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true name
to be inserted in the complaint or information and the record.
In case of offenses against property, the designation of
the name of the offended party is not absolutely
indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in
the complaint or information can be properly identified.
Senador’s reliance on Uba is misplaced. In Uba, the appellant
was charged with oral defamation, a crime against honor,
wherein the identity of the person against whom the
defamatory words were directed is a material element. Thus, an
erroneous designation of the person injured is material. On the We conclude that in offenses against property, if
contrary, in the instant case, Senador was charged with estafa, the subject matter of the offense is generic
a crime against property that does not absolutely require and not identifiable, such as the money
as indispensable the proper designation of the name of unlawfully taken as in Lahoylahoy, an error in the
the offended party. Rather, what is absolutely necessary designation of the offended party is fatal and
is the correct identification of the criminal act charged in would result in the acquittal of the accused.
the information. Thus, in case of an error in the designation of However, if the subject matter of the offense is
specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, as in
Kepner, or a check, such as in Sayson and Ricarze,
an error in the designation of the offended
party is immaterial.
It is clear from Sec. 12 that in offenses against property, the
materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party

According to the ​Information,​ Castillo, while in the

performance of his official functions as Mayor of
Bacoor, gave unwarranted benefits to his co-
accused by allowing the latter to operate the Villa
Esperanza dumpsite without the requisite
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) and
permit from the Environmental Management Bureau The purpose of an Information is to afford an accused his right
(EMB). to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
People v Sandiganbayan against him. It is in pursuit of this purpose that the Rules of
He claimed that a public officer may only be held Court require that the Information allege the ultimate facts
liable for the said violation if he caused undue constituting the elements of the crime charged.
injury to the government or any private person.
Thus, Castillo argued that the undue injury must
not only be mentioned in the ​Information​, its extent
must be specified.

Issue is whether an Information alleging the grant

of unwarranted benefits and existence of undue
injury must state the precise amount of the alleged
benefit unduly granted as well as identify, specify,
and prove the alleged injury to the point of moral
certainty. (NO)
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
The prosecution wanted four Informations for
illegal recruitment to be amended into just one
Fronda-Baggao v People
Information for illegal recruitment in large scale.
The accused has not been arraigned.
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or
information may be amended, in form or in substance,
without leave of court, at any time before the accused
enters his plea. After the plea and during 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
A careful scrutiny of the above Rule shows that although it uses
the singular word complaint or information, it does not mean
that two or more complaints or Informations cannot be
amended into only one Information. Surely, such could not
have been intended by this Court. Otherwise, there can be an
absurd situation whereby two or more complaints or
Informations could no longer be amended into one or more
Informations.

Amendment/Substitution
(Section 14)
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
Here, the change is only a formal amendment, not substantial
amendment since the recital of facts were retained. The
amendment is also allowed after plea since the rights of the
accused were not prejudiced.

Rule 110, Section 14 (Amendment or Substitution) --

1st Paragraph: rules for amendment of the information or

complaint
2nd Paragraph: rules for substitution of the information or
complaint.
> 2nd paragraph only applies when the offense charged is
wholly different from the offense proved (the accused cannot be
convicted of a crime with which he was not charged in the
information even if it be proven). It doesn't apply to a 2nd
information which involves the same offense or an offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first
information.

Similarity between amendment & substitution: may be made

before or after the defendant pleads
Differences:

1. Amendment: either formal or substantial changes

Substitution: substantial change from the original charge;

2. Amendment (before plea has been entered) can be effected

without leave of court
Substitution of information must be with leave of court as
the original information has to be dismissed;

3. Amendment: if only as to form, no need for another

preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the
accused;
Substitution: another preliminary investigation is entailed
and the accused has to plead anew to the new information;

4. Amended information: refers to the same offense charged

in the original information or to an offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the original charge (hence
substantial amendments to the information after the plea has
been taken cannot be made over the objection of the accused,
for if the original information would be withdrawn, the accused
Pacoy shot his commanding officer resulting in the
could invoke double jeopardy.)
latter's death. An Information for Homicide was
Substitution: requires or presupposes that the new
filed against him in the RTC, alleging the
information involves a different offense which does not include
aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank.
or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the
Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded no guilty.
accused cannot claim double jeopardy.
But on the same day, after arraignment,
respondent Judge Cajigal directed the trial
To know if there should be substitution or amendment: if
prosecutor to correct & amend the
Pacoy v Hon. Cajigal second information involves the same offense, or an offense
Information to murder because of the
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first
aggravating circumstance. So, the prosecutor
information, it's an amendment; but if the new information
entered the amendment by crossing out homicide
charges an offense which is distinct and different from that
and wrote murder in the caption and opening
initially charged, it's a substitution.
paragraph of the Information. The accusatory
portion was retained. But, petitioner objected
There is identity between 2 offenses if: evidence to support
saying this constitutes double jeopardy since the
a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a
case was terminated without his express consent.
conviction for the other, or when the second offense is exactly
the same as the first, or when the second offense is an attempt
to commit or a frustration of, or when it necessarily includes or
is necessarily included in, the offense charged in the first
information.

Amendment/Substitution An offense is necessarily included in another if: some of

(Section 14) the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is
alleged in the information, constitute the latter. Corolarily, an
offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when
the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part
of those constituting the latter.

Sec 14 Rule 110 says formal amendments can be after the

accused has already pleaded as long as it does not
prejudice the accused's rights.

The test of whether his rights are prejudiced by the

amendment: whether a defense under the complaint or
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available
after the amendment is made; and when any evidence the
accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or
information.

Here, the change is only a formal amendment, not substantial

amendment since the recital of facts were retained.

As for double jeopardy:

Requisites for double jeopardy:

1. a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
2. the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and
3. a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first

Requisites for the 1st jeopardy to attach:

1. after a valid indictment;
2. before a competent court;
3. after arraignment;
4. when a valid plea has been entered; and
5. when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
Ricarze was charged with estafa through
Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial
falsification of commercial documents for forging
amendment of the complaint or information may be made
and depositing company checks in the account of
without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only a formal
Gutierrez, a regular customer of Caltex.
amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does
not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a
Under the informations, the complainant was Caltex
substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is
and not PCIB. Ricarze averred that unless the
beneficial to the accused.
Informations were amended to change the
complainant to PCIB, his right as accused would be
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts
prejudiced. He pointed out that the Informations
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the
can no longer be amended because he had already
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
been arraigned under the original Informations
Ricarze v CA insisting that the amendment of Information to
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the
substitute PCIB would place him in double jeopardy.
amendment is whether a defense under the information
as it originally stood would be available after the
The amendment of the Informations
amendment is made, and whether any evidence
substituting the PCIBank for Caltex as the
defendant might have would be equally applicable to the
offended party would prejudice his rights
information in the one form as in the other. An amendment
since he is deprived of a defense available
to an information which does not change the nature of the
before the amendment, and which would be
crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense
unavailable if the Informations are amended.
or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to
He argues that the substitution is tantamount to a
meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form
substantial amendment of the Informations which is
and not of substance.
prohibited under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court
Ramon Albert together with his co-accused were
charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of
RA 3019 The Information alleged that the petitioner
and his co-accused re-classified the parcels of land
from being residential to agricultural for purposes of ​the same is allowable even after arraignment and plea being
a higher loanable amount. A Hold Departure Order beneficial to the accused​. As a replacement, gross inexcusable
was issued for the petitioner. To lift the said order, negligence would be included in the Information as a modality
the petitioner underwent a provisional arraignment in the commission of the offense. This Court believes that the
and pleaded not guilty. same constitutes an amendment only in form.
Albert v Sandiganbayan
The prosecution moved that the Information be The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by
amended. The new I​nformation replaced “gross the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense
neglect of duty” with “gross neglect of duty”. ​The under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would
petitioner averred that the amendment should not no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when
be admitted for it was a substantial change and that any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to
it would be prejudicial to him. the complaint or information as amended.

The issue is whether the sandiganbayan can still

admit the amendement infromation even if accused
was already arraigned (YES)
An Information was charged against petitioners
(columnist, publisher, managing editor, and editor
of the newspaper "Abante”) before the RTC of
Quezon City, with the crime of libel.
Macasaet v People Petitioners moved to dismiss the libel case on the
ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction
over the offense charged. According to petitioners,
as the information discloses that the residence of
private respondent was in Marikina, the RTC of
Quezon City did not have jurisdiction over the case.
The law is more particular in libel cases.
1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private
person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published.
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal
action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.
3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in
Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action
may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office
outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time
of the commission of the offense.
A perusal, however, of the information reveals that the
allegations contained therein are utterly insufficient to vest
jurisdiction. Other than perfunctorily stating "Quezon City" at
the beginning of the information, the assistant city prosecutor
who prepared the information did not bother to indicate
whether the jurisdiction of RTC Quezon City was invoked either
because Abante was printed in that place or private respondent
was a resident of said city at the time the claimed libelous
article came out.

In order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the

criminal action for written defamation, the complaint or
information should contain allegations as to whether, at
the time the offense was committed, the offended party
was a public officer or a private individual and where he
was actually residing at that time.
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the
place where the crime was committed determines not
only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential
element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater
import in libel cases, given that Article 360, as amended,
specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution of
the criminal and civil aspects of such cases.

It becomes clear that the venue of libel cases where the

Gimenez filed on behalf of the Yuchengco Family
and the Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. a criminal
complaint, before the Makati City Prosecutor's
Office for 13 counts of libel against the officers and
trustees of PEPCI. The Office, finding probable
Bonifacio v RTC cause to indict the accused filed 13 separate
informations charging them with libel. The Amended
Information mentioned that the website was
accessible in Makati City and was first published
and accessed by the private complainant in Makati
City.
complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of
two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or
2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and
first published. The Amended Information in the present case
opted to lay the venue by availing of the second. Thus, it stated
that the offending article "was first published and accessed by
the private complainant in Makati City." In other words, it
considered the phrase to be equivalent to the requisite
allegation of printing and first publication.
The evil sought to be prevented by the amendment to
Article 360 was the indiscriminate or arbitrary laying of
the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung
areas, meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or
intimidate an accused. To credit Gimenez’s premise of
equating his first access to the defamatory article on
petitioners’ website in Makati with "printing and first
publication" would spawn the very ills that the amendment to
Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent.

Venue (Section 15)

 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Alfredo Rigor applied for a commercial loan worth
P500,000 from the Rural Bank of San Juan. The
loan was approved and Rigor was given a check
which he encashed. After such, he issued an
undated Associated Bank (Tarlac branch) check in
Venue (Section 15) the amount of P500,000 payable to RBSJ.
Rigor v People
Alfredo Rigor was charged with a violation of BP 22
before the RTC of Pasig. The RTC found him guilty
and the CA affirmed the ruling.
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
The SC ruled that BP 22 is a transitory or continuing crime. A
person charged with such may be validly tried in any
municipality or territory where the offense was in part
committed. The information at bar effectively charges San Juan
as the place of drawing and issuing. The jurisdiction of courts in
criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint
or information.

The issue is whether the RTC Pasig has jurisdiction

over the case. (YES)
Article 183 punishes (1) falsely testifying under oath in a
proceeding other than a criminal or civil case; and (2) making
a false affidavit before a person authorized to administer
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under an oath on any material matter where the law requires
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for an oath.
making a false narration in a Certificate against
Forum Shopping. Tomas argued that the venue was The elements of perjury under Article 183 are:
improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court (a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed
(where the Certificate against Forum Shopping an affidavit upon a material matter.
was submitted and used) and not the MeTC- (b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a
Unionbank v People
Makati City (where the Certificate against competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath.
Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has (c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a
jurisdiction over the perjury case. The MeTC-Makati willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
City denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has (d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity
jurisdiction over the case since the Certificate is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
against Forum Shopping was notarized in Makati
City. In perjury cases, the venue would be the place where the
false affidavit has been subscribed and sworn since at
the time, all the elements of perjury are executed and
not where the perjured document has been presented.
Hector misappropriated money that was given to
him by Elizabeth. That money was supposed to be
used by Hector to transfer the title of a house-and-
lot in Iloilo to Margarita. Upon confrontation, Hector
gave a check to settle his ccounts. But, this check
For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the
bounced. So, an Information was filed against
offense should have been committed or any one of its
Hector in the RTC of Makati.
essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
However, since Hector was old and lived in Iloilo, he
could not attend the pre-trial and trial of the case.
It is unfair to require a defendant or accused to undergo the
Afterwards, he was convicted of estafa.
ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over
Trenas v People the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper
Note: the following were the pieces of evidence
venue.
used by the prosecution:
1. Receipt of Hector of the money (didn't indicate
Sec 15(a) Rule 110 is meant to ensure that the defendant is not
where it was issued)
compelled to move to, and appear in, a different court from that
2. Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage that
of the province where the crime was committed as it would
Hector prepared: notarized and signed in Iloilo
cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and
other evidence in another place.
Petitioner now claims that the only logical
conclusion is that the money was actually delivered
to him in Iloilo, so the material acts in the crime of
estafa could not be held to have occurred in Makati,
so the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case.
AAA charged BBB with psychological abuse under
Sec. 5 of VAWC for having an illicit relationship with Jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by
another woman while working in Singapore and for the allegations in the complaint or information.
sending little to no financial support. BBB filed a
motion to quash on the ground of lack of The place where the crime was committed determines not only
jurisdiction, the crime having been committed or the venue of the action but is an essential element of
any of its essential ingredients having taken place jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be
in Singapore, thereby dismissing the case. acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have
AAA v BBB
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should
AAA argued that the mental and emotional anguish have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
is an essential element of the offense charged
against BBB, which is experienced by her wherever Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
she goes, and not only in Singapore where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
extra-marital affair is taking place. Therefore, RTC allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot
of Pasig, where she resides, can take cognizance of take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
the case. allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.
Rule 111: Prosecution of Civil Action
Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the
fundamental postulate of our law that "[e]very person
criminally liable . . . is also civilly liable." Underlying this legal
principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a
crime, he offends two entities, namely (1) the society in which
he lives in or the political entity, called the State, whose law he
has violated; and (2) the individual member of that society
Petitioner, on behalf of a company, caused the filing whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually or
of a verified Petition for the Issuance of an Owner's directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or
Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title which omission.
covers a property owned by the company. Petitioner
submitted before the said court an Affidavit of Loss. Section 12, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Respondent, filed a complaint of perjury because Procedure, as amended, defines an offended party as "the
petitioner knew fully well that respondent was in person against whom or against whose property the offense
possession of the said Owner's Duplicate Copy, the was committed." In Garcia v. Court of Appeals, this Court
latter being the Corporate Treasurer and custodian rejected petitioner's theory that it is only the State which is the
of vital documents. offended party in public offenses like bigamy. We explained that
Lee v Chua
from the language of Section 12, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court,
Petitioner claims that the crime of perjury, a crime it is reasonable to assume that the offended party in the
against public interest, does not offend any commission of a crime, public or private, is the party to
private party but is a crime which only offends whom the offender is civilly liable, and therefore the
the public interest in the fair and orderly private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is
administration of laws. He opines that perjury is the offended party.
a felony where no civil liability arises on the
part of the offender because there are no In this case, the statement of petitioner regarding his custody
damages to be compensated and that there is of the TCT covering CHI's property and its loss through
no private person injured by the crime. inadvertence, if found to be perjured is, without doubt, injurious
to respondent's personal credibility and reputation insofar as
her faithful performance of the duties and responsibilities of a
Board Member and Treasurer of CHI. The potential injury to the
corporation itself is likewise undeniable as the court-ordered
issuance of a new owner's duplicate of TCT was only averted by
respondent's timely discovery of the case filed by petitioner in
the RTC.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended in
1988 and under the present Rules, the civil liability ex-delicto is
Cancio filed three cases of Violation of B.P. No. 22
deemed instituted with the criminal action, but the offended
and three cases of Estafa, against respondent for
party is given the option to file a separate civil action before the
allegedly issuing checks without sufficient funds.
prosecution starts to present evidence.
The Provincial Prosecutor dismissed 1 criminal case
for Violation of B.P. No. 22. The two other cases for
Anent the independent civil actions under Articles 31, 32, 33,
Violation of B.P. No. 22 were filed and subsequently
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the old rules considered them
dismissed by the MTC due to failure to prosecute.
impliedly instituted with the civil liability ex-delicto in the
Meanwhile, the three cases for Estafa were filed
criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil
with the RTC.
action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes
the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Cancio v Isip After failing to present its witness, the prosecution
moved to dismiss the estafa cases against
Under the present Rules, however, the independent civil
respondent. The prosecution likewise reserved
actions may be filed separately and prosecuted
its right to file a separate civil action arising
independently even without any reservation in the
from the said criminal cases.
criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the
criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a
The legal issues for resolution in the case at bar is
separate and independent civil action based on these
whether the dismissal of the estafa cases against
articles of the Civil Code.
respondent bars the institution of a civil action for
collection of the value of the checks subject of the
In the case at bar, a reading of the complaint filed by petitioner
estafa cases.
show that his cause of action is based on culpa contractual, an
independent civil action.
Gloria Dy proposed to William Mandy, President of
MCCI, the purchase of a property owned by
Pantranco. Mandy agreed to obtain a loan from
ICDC. The ICDC granted a loan to MCCI in the
amount of P20 million with a chattel mortgage over
warehouses. Mandy entrusted Gloria with the
obligation to manage the payment of the loan.
MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the
property due to its default in paying the loan.
Whenever the elements of estafa are not established, and that
the delivery of any personal property was made pursuant to a
In order to prevent the foreclosure, MCCi, through
contract, any civil liability arising from the estafa cannot be
Mandy, issued 25 checks. Mandy delivered the
awarded in the criminal case. This is because the civil liability
checks to Dy with the instruction to use the checks
arising from the contract is not civil liability ex delicto, which
to pay the loan. Dy, on the other hand, testified
Dy v People arises from the same act or omission constituting the crime.
that she enchased the checks and returned the
The situation envisioned in this case is civil liability ex
money to Mandy. ICDC foreclosed the mortgaged
contractu where the civil liability arises from an entirely
property.
different source of obligation. Therefore, it is not the type
of civil action deemed instituted in the criminal case, and
An information was filed against Dy before the RTC.
consequently must be filed separately.
The RTC Manila rendered a decision acquitting Dy
since it found that the prosecution failed to
establish that she was under any obligation to
deliver the checks to ICBC in payment of the loan.
It was found that Many and Dy entered into a
contract of loan and that the prosecution failed to
establish the element of estafa - misappropriation
or conversion. However, it ordered her to pay the
amount of the checks as her civil liability.
​Dominador Ferrer, Administrator of Intramuros
Administration Manila, was charged for violation of
Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019.

The accusation stemmed from his alleged unlawful
use of his authority to give benefits to Offshore
Construction and Development Company by
awarding the company with a Contract of Lease
Ferrer v Sandiganbayan
without conducting public bidding and for allowing
the constructruction of new structures in the leased
areas without building permit or clearance as
required by the Intramuros Chapter and the
National Building Code.
To sustain petitioner’s argument would diminish the powers and
duties of the Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman, as well as
violating the independent nature of criminal and administrative
cases against public officials. Such would also amount to untold
delays in criminal proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and
Ombudsman for every criminal trial and investigation before
said bodies will be made to wait the results of pending
administrative investigations.

The issue is whether he should be absolved given

that he was not administratively liable (NO)
Section 4, AM No. 15-06-10-
SC The rule expressly imposes upon the courts the duty of
entering judgment with respect to the civil liability
arising from the offense, if no reservation has been made
Complainant filed a complaint against respondent
to ventilate it in a separate action.
judge charging him with Violations of the Law. One
of the allegations is that Judge Siapno failed to
Indeed, even in case of an acquittal, unless there is a clear
award civil damages in some Criminal Cases
showing that the act from which the civil liability might arise did
Corpuz v Siapno where the accused pleaded guilty. Judge Siapno
not exist, the judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability
said that he did not award civil damages in two
of the accused in favor of the offended party.
Criminal Cases because the prosecution did not
present any evidence therefor.
It is also fundamental that the imposition of the fine
imposed in the criminal case is not for the purpose of
indemnifying the aggrieved party but for vindicating the
State for the offense committed by the wrongdoer.
Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the
Cruz executed before a Notary Public in Manila an
governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of a parcel of land
civil procedure rules.
saying she's the sole surviving heir of the registered
owner even tho she knew there were other heirs.
Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
Cruz v CA Now, Cruz is saying the RTC of Manila does not
and over the person of the accused, and the crime was
have jurisdiction over her the civil aspect of her
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court
criminal offense (falsification of public document)
necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the
since the property involved was a property located
law requires the court to resolve. One of the issues in a criminal
in Bulacan.
case is the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
Sps. Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng
charged Balboa with forum shopping.

On Feb 24, 1997, Balboa filed for a civil case for

collection of sum of money against Sps. Lo Bun
Tiong covering three post-dated checks.

On July 21, 1997, Separate criminal complaints

for violation of BP 22 were filed against Caroline
covering the three checks in the MTC.

Lo Bun Tiong v Balboa
On August 11, 1998, the RTC rendered its
decision in the civil case finding Sps. Lo Bun Tiong
liable ordering them to pay damages and attorney’s
fees.
In 2001, the MTC acquitted Caroline in the criminal
case of the offenses charged for failure of the
prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, but she was found civilly liable.
Sps. Lo Bun Tiong sought partial reconsideration
praying for the deletion of civil indemnity, which
was denied. They also brought to the CA on appeal
the civil case, which was denied. The RTC as an
appellate court, modified the MTC decision deleting
the award for civil damages.
Under the foregoing rule, an action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from an offense charged is necessarily included
in the criminal proceedings, unless (1) there is an express
waiver of the civil action, or (2) there is a reservation to
institute a separate one, or (3) the civil action was filed
prior to the criminal complaint.
Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for
the recovery of civil liability in cases of violations of B.P.
No. 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed ahead of the
criminal case.

Sps. Lo Bun Tiong contend that the assailed CA

Decision should be reconsidered and the RTC
decision dismissed as Balboa’s act of filing Civil
Case and Criminal Case constitutes forum shopping.

Munoz made several statements during radio
interviews Co influenced the issuance of his warrant
of arrest, that Co manipulated the results of
government biddings, and that Co gave Munoz
money to sub-contract the project involved in the
government bidding. Thus, Co filed 3 informations
for libel against Munoz, and didn't waive, institute,
or reserve his right to file a separate civil ation.
Munoz counters, among others, that the
imputations dealt with public matter and are thus
Co v Munoz
privileged. Applying the rules on privileged
communication on libel suits, he said that the
prosecution has the burden to prove that there was
actual malice.
In the CA, Munoz was acquitted of libel charges. Co there would be no need for the judgement of acquittal to
is appealing this but Munoz is saying that the
private party (Co) can't appeal the judgement of
acquittal insofar as it seeks to enforce the accused's if there remains a basis to hold accused civilly liable
civil liability.
The last paragpraph of Sec 2, Rule 111 covers all claims
for civil liability ex delicto -- regardless if the action is
instituted with or filed separately from the criminal action.
2 Modes to enforce civil liability ex delicto:
1. Thru civil action that's deemed impliedly instituted in the
criminal action
2. Thru civil action filed separately either before or after
criminal action, upon reservation of the right to file separately
Offended party can also waive the civil action.
Munoz' contention would mean the extinction of the penal
action carries with it the extinction of the civil action that was
instituted withthe criminal action. But, this would mean that
determine whether the act or omission from which civil liability
may arise did not exist. Rules require judgement to declare
despite acquittal especially for this purpose.
The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same
act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case. This is
expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule
111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused may be
litigated in a separate civil action.

This is only fair for two reasons.

Casupanan v Laroya
Two vehicles, one driven by Laroya and the other
driven by Casupanan, figured in an accident. As a
First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any
result, two cases were filed with the MCTC. Laroya
counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the
filed a criminal case against Casupanan for
criminal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the
property. On the other hand, Casupanan filed a
accused does not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the
civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict.
prescriptive period may set in since the period continues to run
until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.
When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was
then at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya,
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to
defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss
invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the
the civil case on the ground of forum-shopping
offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent of
considering the pendency of the criminal case.
the criminal action.

To disallow the accused from filing a separate civil action

Dreamwork v Janiola
Dreamwork Construction filed a complaint affidavit
for violation of BP 22 against Kaniola with the OCP
of Las Pinas City dated October 5, 2004.
Correspondingly, Dreamwork filed a criminal
information for violation of BP 22 against Janiola
with the MTC on February 2, 2005. Janiola institued
a civil complaint against Dreamwork by filing a
Complaint dated August 2006 for the rescission of
an alleged construction agreement between the
parties. On July 25, 2007, Janiola filed a motion to
suspend proceedings claiming that the civil case
posed a prejudicial question against the criminal
cases.
for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his
counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due
process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection
of the law.
A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must
precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before
a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with
which said question is closely connected. The civil action
must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal
action.
Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court are susceptible of an interpretation that would harmonize
both provisions of law. The phrase "previously instituted civil
action" in Sec. 7 of Rule 111 is plainly worded and is not
susceptible of alternative interpretations. The clause
"before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or
may proceed" in Art. 36 of the Civil Code may, however, be
interpreted to mean that the motion to suspend the
criminal action may be filed during the preliminary
investigation with the public prosecutor or court
conducting the investigation, or during the trial with the
court hearing the case.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
The Board of Directors of the Producers Bank of the
PH resolved to purchase 3 proprietary shares of the
Manila Polo Club to be placed in the names of the
nominees which included respondent Luis Co.

Luna (employee of producers bank) filed a criminal

complaint against Co, the Office of the prosecutor
recommended the filing for estafa and subsequently
filed an information for estafa against Co. The criminal action cannot be suspended when based on a
First Producers Holdings Corp v Co prejudicial question, assuming there is, when the civil action
was filed subsequent to the institution of the criminal action.
Co filed a civil action for damages against Luna and
the corporation, Co is now claiming ownership over
the proprietary share.

The issue is whether the CA correctly ruled that the

issue of the ownership should be resolved first to
determine whether there is estafa, therefore there
is a prejudicial question (NO)
An action for specific performance, although pending
before an administrative agency (HLURB), is civil in
nature and can give rise to a prejudicial question. That the
BF Homes refused to deliver the 20 TCTs despite action for specific performance was an administrative case
demands. San Miguel Properties filed a complaint- pending in the HLURB, instead of in a court of law, was of no
affidavit in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las consequence at all. The action for specific performance,
Piñas City (OCP Las Piñas) charging respondent although civil in nature, could be brought only in the HLURB
directors and officers of BF Homes with non- because of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
San Miguel v Perez
delivery of titles in violation of Presidential Decree
No. 957 (CRIMINAL). THEN, San Miguel Properties In this case, the administrative case is a logical antecedent to
sued BF Homes for specific performance in the the criminal case because the action for specific performance in
HLURB (ADMINISTRATIVE) praying to compel BF the HLURB would determine whether or not San Miguel
Homes to release the 20 TCTs in its favor. Properties was legally entitled to demand the delivery of the
remaining 20 TCTs, while the criminal action would decide
whether or not BF Homes’ directors and officers were criminally
liable for withholding the 20 TCTs.
The civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the
criminal action.
Maria filed an action for frustrated parricide against
There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a
Joselito on Oct 25, 2004. On Feb 7, 2005, Joselito
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the
received summons for a civil case for the
civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. On Feb 11, 2005,
before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the
Joselito filed for a motion to suspend proceedings
Pimentel v Pimentel issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
before the RTC on the ground of the existence of a
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in
prejudicial question. He says since the relationship
the criminal case.
between the victim & offender is a key element to
parricide, the result of the Civil Case has a bearing
The issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or
on the criminal case.
intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide.
Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is
not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Sps. Agrovan and Florida Gaditano purchased beer
products from San Miguel. They paid through check
signed by Florida and drawn against Agrovan’s
current account. When the check was presented for
payment, the check was dishonoured.
A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation
SMC filed a criminal case for violation of BP 22
where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and
and estafa against Sps. Gaditano. The Sps.
there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively
Gaditana alleged that Fatima borrowed 30,000 from
resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the
Florida. Fatima delivered a check payable to Florida
issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
in the amount of 378K. The check was crossed and
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the
issued by AOWA Electornics. Florida pointed out
accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle
that the amount of the check was in excess of the
of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
loan, but she was assured by Fatima that the check
was in order and the proceeds would be used for
Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
the payroll of AOWA Electronics. When the check
Procedure states the two elements necessary for a civil case to
was cleared, Florida paid the amount to Fatima and
be considered a prejudicial question:
Fatima paid the loan to Florida.
(a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
Sps. Agrovan claimed that on the date they issued
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of
Gaditano v San Miguel Corp the check to SMC, their joint account had a balance
such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
of 330K. The bank manager advised Florida that the
may proceed.
check issued by Fatima was not cleared due to
material alteration. The bank then garnished the
If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue
378K.
in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other,
Prejudicial Question then a prejudicial question would likely exist, provided that the
Sps. Gaditano filed an action for specific
(Sections 6-7) other element or characteristic is satisfied.
performance and damages. They allege that
the issues they have raised in the civil action
It must appear not only that the civil case involves the
constitute a bar to the prosecution of the
same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be
criminal case for BP 22 and Estafa.
based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in
the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the
The Office of the Prosecutor recommended
guilt or innocence of the accused.
that the criminal proceedings be suspended
pending resolution of the Civil Case. SMC filed
with the DOJ a petition for review, but it was
dismissed.

The issue in this case is whether a prejudicial

question exists to warrant the suspension of the
criminal proceedings
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Reyes and Advanced Foundation Construction
Systems, represented by Rossi executed a deed of
conditional sale involving the purchase by Reyes of
a Dredging Pump to be paid the sum of 3M and a
balance of 7M to be paid by 4 post-dated checks.
Reyes requested for the restructuring of his
obligations, replacing the 4 post-dated checks with
9 post-dated checks.
Rossi deposited three of the post-dated checks. Two
of the checks were denied upon Reyes’ instruction
to stop payment and one for insufficiency of funds.
On July 29, 1998 Reyes commenced an action for
rescission and damages.
Reyes v Rossi On Sept. 8, 1998, Rossi charged Reyes with 5
counts of BP 22.
The City Prosecutor of Makati dismissed the charges
of estafa and ordererd the suspension of the
proceedings related to the violation of BP 22 based
on prejudicial questions.
Reyes contends that the rescission of the
contract of sale constitutes a prejudicial
question claiming that the resolution of the
civil action would be determinative of whether
or not he was criminally liable for violations of
BP22. If the contract is rescinded, his
obligation to pay would be extinguished, and
would result in the dismissal of the criminal
proceedings.
Consing obtained for himself and his mother various
loans from Unicapital Inc. The loans were secured
by a REM constituted on a property covered by a
TCT under the name of his mother. Unicapital
learned that the title to the property was really in reveals that the action was predicated on fraud. As such, the
the names of Yu and Teng. TCT held by Consing’s
mother appeared to be spurious.
PASIG CIVIL CASE
Consing filed a civil case in RTC Pasig, seeking to
enjoin Unicapital from proceeding against him for
the collection of the money on the ground that he
had acted as a mere agent of his mother.
Consing v People
MAKATI CIVIL CASE
Unicapital then sued Consing in the RTC Makati the
recovery of a sum of money and damages.
MAKATI CRIMINAL CASE
Afterwards, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Makati City filed against Consing an information for
estafa through falsification of public document in
the RTC Makati.
Consing moved to defer his arraignment in the
Makati criminal case on the ground of existence
of a prejudicial question due to the pendency of the
Pasig and Makati civil cases.
Spouses Domingo owned a parcel of land, covered
by a TCT and a house was built thereon. Engracia
filed with the MTC of Manila a complaint for
ejectment/unlawful detainer against the other heirs
of Spouses Domingo claiming that she is the
absolute owner of the property having bought the
same from the Spouses Domingo. On Juky 31,
2006, the heirs filed a complaint with the RTC Pasig
which sought the nullity of the sale on the basis
that their parents' signatures were forged. On May
Domingo v Singson
6, 2008, after the heirs filed a joint affidavit
complaint, the OCP Pasig filed an information with
the RTC charing Sps. Engracia with the crime of
estafa through falsification. Sps. Engracia filed a
motion to suspend proceedings due to prejudicial
question. The private prosecutor filed an opposition
to the motion, stating that Criminal Case can
proceed independently from Civil Case pursuant to
Article 33 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section 3
of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation
"Wowowin case"
The Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG), through then Secretary Angelo Reyes,
immediately created an inter-agency fact-finding
team to investigate the circumstances surrounding
the stampede.
Santos-Concio et al v DOJ Sec
The issue is whethet the alleged complaint-
affidavits filed against Petitioners were under oath
and is sufficient for purposes of preliminary
investigation (YES)
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
a prejudicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution
of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein,
and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The
prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before
the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question
must be lodged in another court or tribunal.
It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the
guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the
criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves
facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of
the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence
of the accused would necessarily be determined. It comes into
play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal
action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue
which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action
may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil
action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the
guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
In this case, it is clear that the pendency of the civil case does
not bar the continuation of the proceedings in the preliminary
investigation on the ground that it poses a prejudicial
question. Considering that the contracts are deemed to be
valid until rescinded, the consideration and obligatory
effect thereof are also deemed to have been validly
made, thus demandable. Consequently, there was no
failure of consideration at the time when the subject
checks were dishonored.
MAKATI CIVIL CASE (no prejudicial question)
A perusal of Unicapital’s complaint in the Makati civil case
action was one that could proceed independently of the criminal
case pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code.
It is well settled that a civil action based on defamation, fraud
and physical injuries may be independently instituted pursuant
to Article 33 of the Civil Code, and does not operate as a
prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of a criminal
case.
PASIG CIVIL CASE (no prejudicial question)
The issue of Consing’s being a mere agent of his mother who
should not be criminally liable for having so acted due to the
property involved having belonged to his mother as principal
has also been settled. Even if respondent is declared merely an
agent of his mother in the transaction involving the sale of the
questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal
liability. An agent or any person may be held liable for
conspiring to falsify public documents. Hence, the determination
of the issue involved in the Pasig civil case for Injunctive Relief
is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the respondent in the
criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document.
The petitioners' reliance on Section 356 of Rule 111 of the Rules
of Court, in relation to Article 3357 of the Civil Code, is
misplaced. Section 3 provides that a civil action for
damages in cases provided under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code, which may also constitute
criminal offenses, may proceed independently of the
criminal action. In instances where an independent civil action
is permitted, the result of the criminal action, whether of
acquittal or conviction, is entirely irrelevant to the civil action.
The concept of independent civil actions finds no
application in this case. Clearly, the Civil Case is very
much relevant to the proceedings in Criminal Case. To
stress, the main issue raised in Civil Case, i.e., the genuineness
of the signature of the Spouses Domingo appearing in the
Absolute Deed of Sale, is intimately related to the charge of
estafa through falsification of public document in Criminal Case;
the resolution of the main issue in Civil Case No. would
necessarily be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
Spouses Singson.
Sec. 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides that the ​complaint is not entirely the affidavit of the
complainant, for the ​affidavit is treated as a component of the
complaint​. The phraseology of the said rule recognizes that all
necessary allegations need not be contained in a single
document.
Although NBI’s report was not sworn to, still, the report can be
accepted as a complaint since it was ATTACHED TO OTHER
AFFIDAVITS WHICH ARE SWORN.
A preliminary investigation can thus validly proceed on the
basis of an affidavit of anycompetent person, without the
referral document, like the NBI-NCR Report, having been sworn
to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Petitioners were charged with violation of the RPC
Art 172. Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to
Quash, Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For
Reinvestigation. Petitioners insisted that they were
Borlogan v Pena denied due process because of the non-observance
of the proper procedure on preliminary investigation
prescribed in the Rules of Court. Specifically, they
claimed that they were not afforded the right to
submit their counter-affidavit.
Ombudsman gave Sen. Estrada a copy of a
complaint against him for Plunder. Estrada filed his
counter-affidavit and later on filed a request to be
furnished with copies of counter-affidavits of the
other respondents, affidavits of new witnesses and
Estrada v Ombudsman
other filings. According to him, this is in pursuance
of the right of the respondent to examine the
evidence submitted by the complainant which he
may not have been furnished under Sec 3(b) Rule
112 ROC.
DYHP Balita Action Team of Radio Mindanao
Network, on behalf of an anonymous complainant,
sent a letter to the Deputy Ombudmsan for the
Visayas Primo Miro.
The letter accused Racho, employee of BIR-Cebu, of
having accumulated wealth disproportionate to his
income. Attached in the letter were photocopies of
bank certifications showing that Racho had a total
deposit of P5.7M with 3 banks.
Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Dargantes was
assigned to investigate the complaint. He directed
DYHP to submit a sworn statement of its witnesses.
However, DYHP filed
a Manifestation to withdraw its complaint for lack of
witnesses. GIO Dargantes dismissed the case since
the photocopied certification is insufficient evidence.
OMB Direcor Palanca-Santiago disapproved such
Resolution by GIO Dargantes. She HELD that Racho
as administratively liable for falsification and
dishonesty and should be dismissed from service
Racho v Miro
with forfeiture of all benefit and perpetual
disqualification. She also found probable cause to
charge Rancho with falsification of public document.
Racho was charged with falsification of public
documents before the RTC of Cebu City. He was
accused of falsifying his SALN, stating that his cash
in the bank is only P15k, and that his assets minus
liabilities is only P203,758, when in fact he has
BANK DEPOSITS amounting to P5,793,801.39. He
had accounts in Metropolitan Bank, PCIB, and BPI.
Racho appealed the administrative case. The CA
The determination of probable cause neednot be based on clear
annulled the Memoranda issued by OMB Director
and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
Palanca-Santiago and ordered a reinvestigation of
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. It is enough that it is
the case.
believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the
offense charged. The trial of a case is conducted precisely for
On re-investigation, OMB Director Palanca-Santiago
the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the
still found that there is probable cause for the crime
charge. A finding of probable cause merely binds the suspect to
of Falsification of public document. On MR, it was
stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
denied.
State Prosecutor Tolentino filed an Information
charging Benedict Tecklo for failing to remit the
premiums due for his employee to the SSS despite
demand. Tolentino certified that the filing of the
information is with the prior authority and approval
of the regional state prosecutor.
Tolentino v Paqueo Tecklo filed a Motion to Quash upon the sole ground
that State Prosecutor Tolentino, not being the City
Prosecutor nor the Provincial Prosecutor, has no
legal personality nor is he legally clothed with the
authority to commence prosecution by the filing of
the Information and thus prosecute the case. RTC
Presiding Judge Paqueo issued an Order quashing
the Information.
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
The second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code:
the penalty imposable is arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period, or four (4)
months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4)
months. Clearly, the case is cognizable by the Municipal Trial
Court and preliminary investigation is not mandatory.
Records show that the prosecutor relied merely on the
complaint-affidavit of the respondent and did not require the
petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits. The prosecutor
should not be faulted for taking this course of action, because
it is sanctioned by the Rules. To reiterate, upon the filing of the
complaint and affidavit with respect to cases cognizable by the
MTCC, the prosecutor shall take the appropriate action based on
the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the
complainant. It means that the prosecutor may either dismiss
the complaint if he does not see sufficient reason to proceed
with the case, or file the information if he finds probable cause.
The prosecutor is not mandated to require the submission of
counter-affidavits. Probable cause may then be determined on
the basis alone of the affidavits and supporting documents of
the complainant, without infringing on the constitutional rights
of the petitioners.
Whether under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure or under Rule II of the Ombudsman’s Rules of
Procedure, there is no requirement whatsoever that the
affidavits executed by the corespondents should be
furnished to a respondent.
A preliminary investigation is not a part of the trial and it is only
in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his
rights, such as the right to confront and cross-examine his
accusers to establish his innocence." Thus, the rights of a
respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to
those granted by procedural law.
The accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to
cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant may
present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court expressly
provides that the respondent shall only have the right to
submit a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a
hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or
their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present
but without the right to examine or cross-examine.
The technical rules on evidence are not binding on the
fiscal who has jurisdiction and control over the conduct of a
preliminary investigation. If by its very nature a preliminary
investigation could be waived by the accused, we find no
compelling justification for a strict application of the evidentiary
rules.
The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is
vested primarily in the OMB. For this purpose, the OMB has
been given a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory
powers under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there
exists reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and,
thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the
appropriate court.
Such finding of probable cause is a finding of fact which is
generally not reviewable by this Court. The only ground upon
which a plea for review of the OMB's resolution may be
entertained is an alleged grave abuse of discretion.
IN THIS CASE, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of OMB Director Palanca-Santiago. The finding of the
Ombudsman that there was probable cause to hold Rancho
liable for falsification by making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts rests on substantial evidence.
The OMB evaluated Rancho’s 1999 SALN against the certified
true copies of his bank deposits during the same year. There
were indeed discrepancies as to what was declared in his SALN
and what he actually owned.
As a defense, Rancho claims that the money was only entrusted
to him by his brothers, Vieto and Dean, and his nephew, Henry.
These were supposed to be their contributions as stockholders
of Angelsons Lending and Investors, Inc. and Nal Pay Phone
Services – which the Spouses Rancho managed. However, the
evidence presented inadequate to prove such claims, and there
were evidence presented, it was contrary to such claim.
It is a rule of statutory construction that the express mention of
one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all
others, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Since the Regional State Prosecutor is not included
among the law officers authorized to approve the filing
or dismissal of the Information of the investigating
prosecutor, the Information filed by petitioner State
Prosecutor Tolentino did not comply with the requirement of
Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Consequently, the non-compliance was a ground to quash the
Information under Sec. 3 (d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Assistant Fiscal de Gala filed an information for
estafa against Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court
of Lucena. When the case was set for arraignment,
Crespo filed a motion to defer arraignment on the
ground that there was a pending petition for review
filed with the Secretary of Justice. Presiding judge
Mogul denied the motion.
Crespo v Mogul
Undersecretary of Justice Macaraig reversed the
Rule 112
resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and
directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal
of the information filed against the accused. A
motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence was
filed by the Provincial Fiscal. Judge Mogul denied
the motion.
Severino Baltazar filed with the MTC Pulilan,
Bulancan two separate criminal complaints against
Armando Bautista for the murder of his mother and
frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by his
brother. Armando's car hit a pedicab causing the
death and injuries of his family members. Judge
Viola conducted a preliminary investigation and
recommended the dismissal of the murder change
since it was Bautista's nephew was the one driving
the car.
The Provincial Prosecutor reversed the findings of
Baltazar v People the judge and found probable cause to merit the
indictment of Armando Bautista; thereafter, an
assitant provincial prosecutor filed an information.
After the denial of his motion for reinvestigation
before the RTC, Bautista filed with the DOJ a
petition for review. Judge Concepcion postponed his
arrignment upon motion of Bautista who invoked
the pendency of his petition with the DOJ. The DOJ
finding state that the resolution of the Provincial
Prosecutor be reversed and set aside and directed
the immediate withdrawal of the information
against Bautista. Judge Concepcion granted the
motion to withdraw information.
Juanito Chan, a Chinese citizen, was arrested
through a buy-bust operation wherein a buyer-
poseur met with him at a parking lot in front of Fuji
Mart in Timog Ave. Quezon City. During the
operation, shabu was confiscated from Chan approx
weighing 1kg and was worth P600,000.
Chan avers that the preliminary investigation was
void for being violative of his right to due process
which includes the right to be heard by an impartial
Chan v DOJ Sec
authority. Chan claims that State Prosecutor
formaran could not have been objective and
impartial in conducting the preliminary investigation
because he was also a member of the PAOCTF, the
agency that initiated the case against him.
The issue is whether the preliminary investigation is
void for being violative of the constitutional rights of
Chan (NO)
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in
court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court
whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the
case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the
Court.
If the trial court refuses to grant the motion to dismiss filed by
the fiscal upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice, it is the
duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence
of the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at
its own independent judgment as to whether the accused
should be convicted or acquitted. The least that the fiscal
should do is to continue to appear for the prosecution although
he may turn over the presentation of the evidence to the
private prosecutor but still under his direction and control.
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint
or information is filed in Court, any disposition of the
case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. A
motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the
same. It does not matter if the motion was filed after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice
who reviewed the records of the investigation.
In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion
of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal
may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice
should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition
for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the
complaint or information has already been filed in Court.
In Crespo v. Mogul, we held:
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not
complaint or information is filed in Court any
bind the Judge. It merely assists him in making the
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
determination of probable cause for issuance of the
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
warrant of arrest. The Judge does not have to follow what the
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal
Prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the Prosecutor’s
retains the direction and control of the prosecution
certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report,
of criminal cases even while the case is already in
the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if
Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
any), and all other supporting documents behind the
court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what
Prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting
to do with the case before it. The determination of
the Judge in making his determination.
the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by
A closer scrutiny of the substance of Judge Concepcion’s Order
the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has
dated 30 July 2004 would reveal that he reversed his earlier
the option to grant or deny the same.
finding of probable cause in issuing a warrant of arrest and
allowed the withdrawal of the Information against private
Significantly, once a motion to dismiss or withdraw
respondent based on the following grounds: (1) witnesses to
the information is filed, the court may grant or deny
the crime failed to categorically identify private respondent as
it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion. In
the culprit; (2) private respondent’s nephew, Joel Santos,
doing so, the trial judge must himself be
voluntarily admitted in his affidavit that he was the one driving
convinced that there was indeed no sufficient
the car, which he borrowed from private respondent, and who
evidence against the accused, and this
accidentally hit the pedicab which Erlinda Baltazar and Rolando
conclusion can be arrived at only after an
Baltazar were riding; (3) private respondent could not be held
assessment of the evidence in the possession
criminally liable for murder as there was no malice or intent to
of the prosecution. What was imperatively
cause injury (dolo) to Erlinda Baltazar; and (4) this was just a
required was the trial judge’s own assessment of
simple case of criminal negligence or reckless imprudence
such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid
resulting in homicide or less serious physical injury.
and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to
accept the prosecution’s word for its supposed
insufficiency.
In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an
Information is filed in court, any disposition of the
case rests on the sound discretion of the court.
In subsequent cases, the Court clarified that Crespo
does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing
the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the
exercise of his power of control over his
subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely
The allegation that the State Prosecutor was not impartial in
advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from
conducting the preliminary investigation is merely speculative·a
entertaining a Petition for Review of the
bare allegation unworthy of credence. Such accusation is
prosecutor's finding when the Information is already
worthless in light of our finding that there is, indeed, probable
filed in court. In other words, the power or
cause against petitioner. Moreover, bias and partiality can never
authority of the Justice Secretary to review the
be presumed. The mere fact that State Prosecutor Formaran
prosecutor's findings subsists even after the
was also a member of the PAOCTF is insignificant.
Information is filed in court.
The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution
of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before
proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the
Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on
courts.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not
impair the validity of an information or render it
defective. Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the
court or constitute a ground for quashing the
information. Instead of dismissing the information, the court
should hold the proceeding in abeyance and order the public
prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation

Two criminal cases were filed against the Furthermore, we do not agree that a preliminary
respondent, one for slight physical injuries and investigation was not conducted. In fact, a preliminary
another for grave threats. Subsequently, the investigation for slight physical injuries was made by the
earlier charge of slight physical injuries was assistant city prosecutor. The said Information was, however,
withdrawn and another for serious physical amended when petitioner's injuries turned out to be more
injuries was filed. The RTC granted the motion to serious and did not heal within the period specified in the
quash the informations, ruling that the criminal Revised Penal Code.
Villaflor v Vivar cases should be dismissed because the informations
were filed without preliminary investigation. We believe that a new preliminary investigation cannot be
demanded by respondent. This is because the change made by
Petitioner raised the issue of whether or not the the public prosecutor was only a formal amendment.
court can motu propio order the dismissal of
the two criminal cases on the ground that the The filing of the Amended Information, without a new
public prosecutor failed to conduct a preliminary investigation, did not violate the right of respondent
preliminary investigation. to be protected from a hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution; an open and public accusation of a crime; or from
the trouble, the expenses and the anxiety of a public trial. The
Amended Information could not have come as a surprise to him
for the simple and obvious reason that it charged essentially the
same offense as that under the original Information. Moreover,
if the original charge was related to the amended one, such that
an inquiry would elicit substantially the same facts, then a new
preliminary investigation was not necessary.
Since San Agustin was unlawfully arrested, he is entitled
to a PI before an Information can be filed against him. The
inquest investigation done was void because an inquest
San Agustin was subpoenaed by the NBI to give his investigation is proper onlu when the suspect is lawfully
evidence against a complaint filed against him (for arrested without a warrant.
serious illegal detention). When he went there, he
was placed under arrestand prevented from going Absence of PI does not affect court's jurisdiction (only
home. State Prosecutor then conducted an inquest regularity of proceedings). It does not impair the validity of the
San Agustin v People investigation and found probable cause aginst San Information nor is it a ground for quashal. Trial court should
Agustin. Now, San Agustin is saying . that he was suspend the proceedings and order a PI. A reinvestigation is
illegally arrested and he was deprived of his right to not enough since that is only a review of the prosecutor
a preliminary investigation. The RTC then ordered a of his records and evidence instead of a PI
re-investigation, but San Agustin said it should be a
regular PI since the inquest investigation was void. The need for PI is dependent on the impossable penalty for the
crime charged in the complaint filed in the City or Provincial
Prosecutor's Office, NOT the impossable penalty for the crime
found to have been committed by a PI.
PGMA issued proclamation declaring a State of
National Emergency. Police officers arrested Beltran
without a warrant and without being informed of
the crime for which he was arrested. He was
subjected to inquest for Inciting to Sedition
based on a speech he allegedly gave during a
Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has
rally. He was then subjected to a second
been lawfully arrested without warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of
inquest, for Rebellion, based on two letters of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the instances
Tanigue and Mendoza, implicating Beltran et. al. as
when such warrantless arrest may be effected.A peace officer or
“leaders and promoters” of an alleged foiled plot to
a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
overthrow the Arroyo government.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
DOJ found probable cause to indict Beltran and San
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
Juan as “leaders/promoters” of the Rebellion.
an offense;
Ladlad v Velasco
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
The issue in this case is whether the inquest
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion was valid
or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
and whether there is probable cause to indict
it; and x x x x
Beltran for Rebellion.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
The court held that the inquest proceeding against
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
Beltran for rebellion is void. The affidavit of his
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
arresting officers state that he was arrested
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
for Inciting to Sedition, not Rebellion. The
inquest prosecutor could only have conducted
an inquest for inciting to Sedition and no
other. When he was subjected to another inquest,
they overstepped their authority rendering the
second inquest void. "
Rule 114: Bail
The bail in the amount of ₱60,000.00 was already forfeited as a
consequence of complainant's jumping bail. How then can
Eduardo San Miguel was arrested of illegal sale,
respondent claim that he merely canceled the recommended
dispensation, distribution and delivery of
bail of ₱60,000.00 when the same had already been forfeited?
methamphetamine hydrochloride. He jumped failed;
The only recommended bail that remains subject of the Motion
Judge Florentino Alumbres issued a bench warrant
of the prosecutor is the increased bail in the amount of
San Miguel v Maceda and canceled his bail bond in the amount of P60,
₱120,000.00. Thus, there remains no other conclusion except
000 and fixed a bail bond in the amount of P120,
that respondent canceled the recommended bail in the
000. San Miguel was arrested and the state
increased amount of ₱120,000.00. The Order of September 17,
prosecutor filed a motion to cancel recommended
2001 effectively deprived complainant of his constitutional right
bail. Judge Alumbres granted the motion.
to bail when it was issued two days before the scheduled
hearing on September 19, 2001.
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
Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R.A. No.
motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and
7610. Nine informations for child abuse were filed
thereafter be released on bail.
against petitioner. No bail was recommended.
Nonetheless, petitioner filed separate applications
These scenarios certainly undermine the accused’s
for bail in the nine cases.
constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon
Lavides v CA
valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him
He was granted the right to post bail under certain
with a crime AND his right to bail.
conditions, and one of them is: “Approval of the bail
bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to
The trial court knew that petitioner could delay the proceedings
enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction
by absenting himself from the arraignment. But once he is
over the accused.”
arraigned, trial could proceed even in his absence. So the trial
court thought that to ensure petitioner’s presence at the
arraignment, petitioner should be denied bail in the meantime.
The fly in the ointment, however, is that such court strategy
violates petitioner’s constitutional rights.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS
Wilson Andres was charged with the crime of
murder before the RTC. Judge Abraham Principe
granted bail upon motion of the accused. After
presentation of evidence for the prosecution,
Andres filed a motion to dismiss by way of
demurrer to devidence. Judge Orlando Belran
Andres v Beltran
denied the motion. The court issued a subpoena to
accused Andres informing him that the criminal
case is set for initial hearing. Accused appeared at
the schedule hearing but his counsel was not
present. Judge Beltran issued an order cancelling
the bail bond.
Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of
homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor
as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion
temporal as maximum.
He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals.
Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application for
Leviste v CA
admission to bail pending appeal, citing his
advanced age and health condition, and claiming
the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his
part. The CA denied his application.
The issue is whether the application for bail should
automatically be granted absent any of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court (NO)
Fitzgerald was convicted in the CA of RA 7610 (you
should know this law awuw) to suffer Fourteen (14)
years, Eight (8) months and One (1) day of
Reclusion Temporal to Twenty (20) years and
One (1) day of Reclusion Perpetua. Fitzgerald
Rule 114
filed a Motion for New Trial and a Supplemental to
Accused's Motion for New Trial on the ground that
new and material evidence not previously available
had surfaced. The CA granted the Motion for New
Trial in a Resolution, thus reverted it to the Trial
Court. CA also approved the Bail: "We maintain
that, as it is, the evidence of guilt is strong, We
People v Fitzgerald
have taken a second look at appellant's plea for
temporary liberty considering primarily the fact that
appellant is already of old age and is not in the best
of health".
Two issues:
(1) Whether the CA, after issuing its August 25,
2000 Resolution granting a new trial, still had
jurisdiction to act on respondent's Motion to Post
Bail
(2) whether the CA erred when it allowed
respondent to bail
Ombudsman charged Enrile with Plunder because of
the PDAF issue. Enrile voluntarily surrendered and
filed for a motion to fix bail. According to him, it
should begranted because
a. the prosecution hasn't established that his
Enrile v Sandiganbayan
evidence of guilt it strong
b. although he's charged with plunder,the penalty
would only be reclusion temporal, not perpetua
(because of attending circumstances)
c. he was not a flight risk, and his age & physical
condition must be considered.
RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
The grant of bail to an accused charged with an offense that
carries with it the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as in this case,
is discretionary on the part of the trial court. In other words,
accused is still entitled to bail but no longer "as a matter of
right". Instead, it is discretionary and calls for a judicial
determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong in order to
grant bail. The prosecution is accorded ample opportunity to
present evidence because by the very nature of deciding
applications for bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that
judicial discretion is weighed in determining whether the guilt of
the accused is strong.
The failure of counsel for the accused to appear at the
scheduled hearing is not a valid ground for cancellation
of bail. Nowhere in the provisions of Rule 114 does such
ground exist. Under Section 2 (Conditions of the bail), the
presence of counsel is not a condition of the bail. Neither
is it a reason for an increase or forfeiture of bail under Sections
20 and 21. Section 229 , which states the instances when bail
may be cancelled, i.e., surrender of the accused, proof of his
death, acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case or
execution of the judgment of conviction is not in point, aside
from the fact that it also requires an application of the
bondsmen and due notice to the prosecutor.
The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two
scenarios where the penalty imposed on the appellant applying
for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years:
- The first scenario deals with the circumstances enumerated in
the said paragraph (namely, recidivism, quasi-recidivism,
habitual delinquency or commission of the crime aggravated by
the circumstance of reiteration; previous escape from legal
confinement, evasion of sentence or violation of the conditions
of his bail without a valid justification; commission of the
offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon;
circumstances indicating the probability of flight if released on
bail; undue risk of committing another crime during the
pendency of the appeal; or other similar circumstances) not
present.
- The second scenario contemplates the existence of at least
one of the said circumstances.
Since the case was taken on appeal, the court can determine is
the accused was really guilty beyond reasonable doubt; and this
can be the basis for granting or denying bail. The case called
this "a less stringent sound discretion approach."
(1) Now then, the CA, in its August 25, 2000 Resolution,
ordered: first, the remand of the original records of the case to
the RTC; second, that the RTC receive the new evidence
material to appellant's defense within 60 days from receipt of
the original records; and third, that the RTC submit to it the
said evidence together with the transcript of the case within 10
days after reception of evidence. From the foregoing
disposition, it is evident that the CA retained appellate
jurisdiction over the case, even as it delegated to the RTC
the function of receiving the respondent's newly-
discovered evidence. The CA therefore retained its
authority to act on respondent's bail application. Moreso
that the the original records of the case had yet to be
transmitted to the RTC when respondent filed his bail
application and the CA acted on it.
(2) Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or
prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility.
A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail. It may be
that the trend now is for courts to permit bail for prisoners who
are seriously sick. There may also be an existing proposition for
the "selective decarceration of older prisoners" based on
findings that recidivism rates decrease as age increases. But,
in this particular case, the CA made no specific finding
that respondent suffers from an ailment of such gravity
that his continued confinement during trial will
permanently impair his health or put his life in danger.
Bail, matter of right:
1. If under MTC, MCTC, MeTC
2. Prior to conviction in RTC if offense not punishable by death,
RP, LI
3. Prior to conviction in RTC is offense not punishable by death,
RP, LI is evidence of guilt is not strong
Bail, discretionary:
1. Upon conviction of RTC of offense not punishable by death,
RP, LI
2. If RTC imposed penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years if
there’s no bail-negating circumstances
Determination of w/n evidence of guilt is not strong is w/in the
discretion of the trial court. This can only be denied upon a
hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt & whether he
should be granted provisional liberty. Hearing may be summary
or otherwise
Punishable by means maximum penalty imposed.
Granting Enrile’s bail is also in consonance with our national
commitment to uphold human rights.
Bail, regardless of crime charged, should be granted
independently of merits of the charge, provided that his
continued incarceration is clearly injurious to his health.
Otherwise, purpose of bail (Secure his attendance in trial)
cannot be achieved.
 CASE TITLE Topic QUICK FACTS RATIO/DOCTRINE COMPARISON WITH OTHER CASES/S
"Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail. — Upon application of the
bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail
may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof
of his death.
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal
of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the
judgment of conviction.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to
any liability on the bail."
Gerardo Estaban is the accused in four criminal
cases. His sister-in-law, Anita, posted cash bail of
The first paragraph of Sec. 22 contemplates of a situation
P20,000 in each case.
where the surety or bondsman surrenders the accused to
the court that ordered the arrest. The court, upon
While out on bail and during the pendency of his
application by the surety of bondsman, cancels the bail bond.
four criminal cases, Gerardo was charged with
another crime for which he was arrested and
In this case, the court held that the cash bail cannot be
detained.
cancelled. Anita did not surrender the accused, he was
arrested and detained because he was charged in
Esteban v Alhambra Anita refused to post another bail. She filed with
subsequent criminal cases. Moreover, the bail bond posted
the trial court an application for cancellation
was a cash deposit, as mandated by Sec. 14 of Rule 114, which
of the cash bonds she posted in the four
shall be applied to the payment of fines and costs.
criminal cases and surrendering the accused.
The rule treats a cash bail differently from other bail
Judge Alhambra denied the application.
bonds.
Anita submits that under Sec 22, Rule 114, by
Cash bond may be posted either by the accused or by any
surrendering the accused, her application for
person in his behalf.
cancellation is allowed.
As far as the State is concerned, the money is regarded
as the money of the accused.

When a cash bail is allowed, the two parties to the

transaction are the State and the defendant. Unlike other
bail bonds, the money may then be used in the payment
of that in which the State is concerned — the fine and
costs. The right of the government is in the nature of a
lien on the money deposited.