CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st Batch) (1).docx

CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES With regard to the last incident, on March 27, 2004 [the March 2004 incident], it was AAA’s mother who saw Pareja in the act of lifting the skirt of her 1. PEOPLE vs. PAREJA daughter AAA while the latter was asleep. Outraged, AAA’s mother immediately brought AAA to the barangay officers to report the said incident. G.R. No. 202122 January 15, 2014 AAA then narrated to the barangay officials that she had been sexually abused by Pareja x x x many times x x x. FACTS: AAA was thirteen (13) years of age when the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse took place on three (3) different dates. On May 5, 2004, Pareja was charged with two counts of Rape and one Attempted Rape. AAA’s parents separated when she was only eight years old. At the time of the commission of the aforementioned crimes, AAA was living with her mother RTC: Acquitted Pareja from the charge of attempted rape but convicted him and with herein accused-appellant Bernabe Pareja who, by then, was of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness in the December 2003 and cohabiting with her mother, together with three (3) of their children, aged February 2004 incidents, respectively. twelve (12), eleven (11) and nine (9), in x x x, Pasay City. CA: DENIED. The first incident took place in December 2003 [the December 2003 incident]. AAA’s mother was not in the house and was with her relatives in Laguna. ISSUE: Whether the trial court seriously erred in convicting Pareja of the Taking advantage of the situation, Pareja, while AAA was asleep, placed crimes charged on the ground that AAA’s testimony cannot be the lone basis himself on top of her. Then, Pareja, who was already naked, begun to undress of his conviction as it was riddled with inconsistencies. AAA. Pareja then started to suck the breasts of AAA. Not satisfied, Pareja likewise inserted his penis into AAA’s anus. Because of the excruciating pain RULING: No. When the issue of credibility of witnesses is presented before that she felt, AAA immediately stood up and rushed outside of their house. this Court, we follow certain guidelines that have overtime been established in jurisprudence. In People v. Sanchez, we enumerated them as follows: Despite such traumatic experience, AAA never told anyone about the [December 2003] incident for fear that Pareja might kill her. [Pareja] First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of the threatened to kill AAA in the event that she would expose the incident to testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly anyone. observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses. AAA further narrated that the [December 2003] incident had happened more than once. According to AAA, in February 2004 [the February 2004 incident], Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the she had again been molested by Pareja. Under the same circumstances as RTC’s assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound the December 2003 incident], with her mother not around while she and her by the lower court’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and half-siblings were asleep, Pareja again laid on top of her and started to suck circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been her breasts. But this time, Pareja caressed her and held her vagina and overlooked or disregarded. inserted his finger in it. 1|Page CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with Mandaluyong City while respondent ALASTAIR JOSEPH ONGLINGSWAM the RTC. was on board a white Toyota taxi cab with plate number PVD-115 being driven The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the "assessment of the credibility by Petrus Yau a.k.a. "John" and "Ricky" and the taxi cab was travelling along of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique Epifanio Delos Santos (EDSA) Avenue, he suddenly fell unconscious and opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; upon regaining consciousness he was already handcuffed and in chains a vantage point denied appellate courts-and when his findings have been inside a house located in Bacoor, Cavite, where he was kept for twenty two affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive (22) days, which house is owned by accused Susana Yau y Sumogba and upon this Court." While there are recognized exceptions to the rule, this Court while therein he was maltreated. Ransom in the amount of US$600,000.00 has found no substantial reason to overturn the identical conclusions of the and Php20,000.00 for each day of detention was demanded in exchange for trial and appellate courts on the matter of AAA’s credibility. his safe release until he was finally rescued on February 11,2004, by PACER operatives of the PNP. Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected. As this Court stated in People v. Saludo: Accused Petrus Yau denied having committed the crime and averred that the supposed kidnap victim coordinated with the police to set up the subject case Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. against him and his family. For such an offense is not analogous to a person’s achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something The RTC convicted appellants and was affirmed by CA. Hence, this petition. which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind ISSUE: WON THE CONVICTION IS PROPER would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying RULING: The appeal is bereft with merit. In every criminal case, the task of experience she had undergone. the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same As regards Pareja’s concern about AAA’s lone testimony being the basis of quantumof proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor. his conviction, this Court has held: Here, the prosecution was able to satisfactorily discharge this burden. Victim Furthermore, settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness may be Alastair positively identified Petrus as the driver of the white Toyota Corolla sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and taxicab with Plate No. PVD 115. Alastair also recognized the voice behind the reliable. If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict red mask used by his kidnapper as belonging to Petrus which had a unique the accused. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a tone and noticeable Chinese accent. single witness in a rape case Further, the prosecution presented credible and sufficient pieces of 2. PEOPLE vs. YAU circumstantial evidence that led to the inescapable and reasonable conclusion that Petrus committed the crime charged like the victim was rescued by the FACTS: Petrus and Susana were charged with the crime of Kidnapping For police inside the house owned by Petrus and Susana, The Toyota Corolla Ransom. On or about January 20, 2004, at around 2:00 P.M. in the vicinity of white taxicab bearing Plate No. PVD 115, which the victim recalled boarding was found in the possession of the accused-appellant Petrus. 2|Page CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) 3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN ESUGON y AVILA The RTC found appellant guilty for the crime charged. On appeal, the appellant argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable G.R. No. 195244 June 22, 2015 doubt of the composite crime of robbery with homicide based solely on the testimony of Carl, a 5-year old witness whose recollections could only be the FACTS: Accused-appelant, Alvin Esugon was charged with Robbery with product of his imagination. However, the CA, giving credence to the child Homicide, allegedly for robbing cash money amounting to P13,000 from one witness, and opining that his inconsistencies did not discredit his testimony, Josephine Castro and in the process killing the same. affirmed the conviction of the appellant. Carl or Muymoy, 5-year old son of the victim, testified that on the night of the ISSUE: W/N the identification of the perpetrator was credible and competent incident, he, his younger sister Cheche, and his mother and father, were considering that the witness was a 5 year old lad? sleeping on the ground floor of their house. He saw appellant, whom he calls "Nonoy," enter their house and stab her mother with a knife, while he (Carl) RULING: YES. (See Secs. 20 and 21 of RoC). As the rules show, anyone peeped through a chair. Although there was no light at the ground floor, there who is sensible and aware of a relevant event or incident, and can was light upstairs. After his mother got stabbed, his father chased the communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to others can be a appellant. Carl saw blood come out of his mother’s lower chest. His father witness. Age, religion, ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, or social stat then brought her to the hospital. Carl positively identified the appellant, a us are not necessary to qualify a person to be a witness, so long as he does neighbor who often goes to their house, as the one who stabbed his mother. not possess any of the disqualifications as listed the rules. On cross-examination, he related that the assailant took money from his father’s pocket. He likewise admitted that he did not see very well the perpetra That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The tor because there was no light. dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has long been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Upon being asked by the trial court, Carl stated that although there was no Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15 December 2000), every child is now light when his mother was stabbed, he was sure of what he saw since there presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of was light at their second floor, which illumined the ground floor through the proof lies on the party challenging the child’s competency. Only when stairway. substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive ,remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the In turn, the appellant denied the accusation. According to him, on the evening duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, in question, he had been the last to leave the billiard hall at 11 o’ clock p.m. conduct a competency examination of a child. and had then gone home. He recalled that he had been roused from slumber by screams for help around two o’clock a.m., prompting him to ask his mother The appellant did not object to Carl’s competency as a witness. He did not for the key to the door; that he had then gone outside where he learned of the attempt to adduce evidence to challenge such competency by showing that killing of the victim; that police officers had later on approached him to inquire the child was incapable of perceiving events and of communicating his what he knew about the killing because they told him that Carl, the young son perceptions, or that he did not possess the basic qualifications of a competent of the victim, had pointed to him as the perpetrator, making him the primary witness. After the Prosecution terminated its direct examination of Carl, the suspect. appellant extensively tested his direct testimony on cross-examination. All that the Defense did was to attempt to discredit the testimony of Carl, but not for once did the Defense challenge his capacity to distinguish right from wrong, 3|Page CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) or to perceive, or to communicate his perception to the trial court. RTC Convicted Chiok of the crime of estafa. The RTC, in an omnibus order Consequently, the trial judge favorably determined the competency of Carl to dated May 28, 1999 (omnibus order), denied Chiok's motion for testify against the appellant. reconsideration, and also cancelled his bail pursuant to Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The RTC held that the Carl positively identified the appellant as the culprit during the investigation circumstances of the accused indicated the probability of flight if released on and during the trial. Worthy to note is that the child could not have been bail and/or that there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, he mistaken about his identification of him in view of his obvious familiarity with may commit another crime. Pursuant to the Omnibus Order, RTC issued a the appellant as a daily presence in the billiard room maintained by the child’s warrant of arrest but the same was returned on the ground that Chiok could family. Verily, the evidence on record overwhelmingly showed that the not be located at his last given address. appellant, and no other, had robbed and stabbed the victim. ISSUE: Whether or not Chua has a legal personality to file and prosecute this NOTE: supposedly, the case was under the topic Prosecution of offenses, petition. however, nothing in the case proved relevant to said topic or any other topic under Crim Pro. RULING: Chua lacks the legal personality to file this petition. Chua argues that her petition should be allowed because the circumstances of this case 4. WILFRED N.CHIOK v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND warrant leniency on her lack of personality to assail the criminal aspect of the RUFINA CHUA CA acquittal. She argues that "the OSG did not take any action to comment on the position of Chua [and] that this case belongs to the realm of exceptions G.R. No. 179814, December 07, 2015 to the doctrine of double jeopardy. Chua lacks the personality or legal standing to question the CA Decision because it is only the OSG, on behalf of the State, FACTS: Chiok was charged with Estafa in an information that reads: That which can bring actions in criminal proceedings before this Court and the CA. sometime in June, 1995 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- In Villareal v. Aliga, we upheld the doctrine that it is only the OSG, as named accused, received in trust from Rufina Chua the amount of representative of the State, which may question the acquittal of the accused P9,563,900.00 for him to buy complainant shares of stocks, under the express via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, viz: x x x The authority to represent obligation on the part of the accused to deliver the documents thereon or to the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA return the whole amount if the purchase did not materialize, but the accused is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). X x x To be sure, once in possession of the said amount, far from complying will his obligation in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case as aforesaid, with intent to defraud the complainant, did then and there against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and convert lo the State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such his own personal use and benefit the said amount of P9,563,900.00, and acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is despite repeated demands failed and relused and still fails and refuses to concerned. In a catena of cases, this view has been time and again espoused return the said amount or to account for the same, to the damage and and maintained by the Court. In Rodriguez v. Gadiane, it was categorically prejudice of the complainant Rufina Chua in the aforementioned amount of slated that if the criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an P9,563,900.00. acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. The capability of the private 4|Page CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to the civil whimsical or despotic. Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which aspect of the case. requires that "the complaint or information shall be xxx against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved," albeit a mandatory In the recent case of Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, the Court again upheld this provision, may be subject of some exceptions, one of which is when a guiding principle. The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the participant in the commission of a crime becomes a state witness. party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State and not the private complainant. Although there are instances when we adopt a liberal In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus view and give due course to a petition filed by an offended party, we direct the cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment and OSG to file its comment. When through its comment, the OSG takes a position discretion are to be exercised. Consequently, the Secretary of Justice may be similar to the private complainant's, we hold that the OSG ratifies and adopts compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a letter-request or a motion to the private complainant's petition as its own. However, when the OSG in its include a person in the information, but may not be compelled by writ of comment neither prays that the petition be granted nor expressly ratifies and mandamus to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such letter-request or adopts the petition as its own, we hesitate in disregarding, and uphold instead, motion. the rule on personality or legal standing. In this case, the OSG neither appealed the judgment of acquittal of the CA nor gave its conformity to Chua's FACTS: This direct appeal by petition for review on certiorari has been taken special civil action for certiorari and mandamus. In its Comment dated March from the final order issued on June 27, 2011 in Civil Case No. 10-1247771 by 27, 2008, the OSG is of the view that Chua's petition will place Chiok in double the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, in Manila, dismissing petitioner’s jeopardy. petition for mandamus 5. PEOPLE vs. ESPEVA The NBI and the Philippine Natonal Police (PNP) charged petitioner, and other suspects, numbering more than a hundred, for what became aptly known as the Maguindanao massacre. Through Department Order No. 948, then Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera constituted a Special Panel of Prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation. The records show that petitioner pleaded not guilty to each of the 41 information for murder when he was arraigned. In the joint resolution issued, the Panel of Prosecutors charged 6. DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR. vs. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as 196 individuals with multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre. Secretary of the Department of Justice, CSP CLARO It appears that in issuing the joint resolution of February 5, 2010 the Panel of ARELLANO, as Chief State Prosecutor, National Prosecution Prosecutors partly relied on the twin affidavits of one Kenny Dalandag. On Service, and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE August 13, 2010, Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection Program MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE, headed by RSP PETER MEDALLE of the DOJ. Petitioner, through counsel, wrote to respondent Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Richard G.R. No. 197291 April 3, 2013 Fadullon to request the inclusion of Dalandag in the information for murder considering that Dalandag had already confessed his Exclusion of an accused from the information did not at all amount to grave participation in the massacre through his two sworn declarations. abuse of discretion on the part of the Panel of Prosecutors whose procedure However, Secretary De Lima denied petitioner’s request. Accordingly, in excluding Dalandag as an accused was far from arbitrary, capricious, petitioner brought a petition for mandamus in the RTC in Manila (Civil Case 5|Page ultimately. The and whom to charge. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. board.. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) No. Petitioner abuse of discretion on the part of the Panel of Prosecutors whose procedure opposed. requiring him whimsical or despotic. However. requires that "the complaint or information shall be xxx against all persons Respondents moved to quash the subpoena to which petitioner opposed. the RTC in Manila issued a subpoena to in excluding Dalandag as an accused was far from arbitrary. the RTC in Manila set a pre-trial conference and issued because of his own admissions in his sworn declarations. 2011 in Civil Case No. committed grave abuse of discretion in identifying the 196 individuals to be indicted for the Maguindanao massacre. INC. the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of discretion in the factors that are best appreciated by the public prosecutors. the RTC of Manila issued the assailed order in Civil Case No. 2011. Dalandag be also investigated and charged as one of the accused based On January 19. UNILEVER PHILIPPINES.k. i. corporation. the settled policy of non-interference in the petitioner does not assail the joint resolution recommending such number of prosecutor’s exercise of discretion requires the courts to leave to the 6|Page . but may not be compelled to act in a certain 7. ISSUES: Whether respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to officer or person to take action. which to appear and testify on April 4. Dalandag. vs. his a pre-trial order. way. 2014 The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the J. In their manifestation and motion. NO. and their findings with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause are generally not subject to The records herein are bereft of any showing that the Panel of Prosecutors review by the Court. Section 2. It is notable in this regard that Consistent with this rule. Hence. JANUARY 29. care of the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. mandamus may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal." albeit a mandatory June 27. G. On March 21. one of which is when a 10-124777 dismissing the petition for mandamus participant in the commission of a crime becomes a state witness. but only seeks to have another accused in the various murder cases undergoing trial in the QC RTC. mandamus was no longer available as petitioner's recourse. to the Secretary of Justice.e. to grant or deny such letter-request. 10-124777. Considering that respondent TAN Secretary of Justice already denied the letter-request. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION RULING: No. 10-124777). or to compel the retraction or Maguindanao massacre despite his admission to the Witness Protection reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. 179367. seeking to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as individuals to be charged with multiple murder. 2011. the public prosecutors with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of what with the public prosecutor and. MICHAEL TAN a. this appeal by petition for review on certiorari. but it cannot be used to direct the manner or charge Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder in relation to the the particular way discretion is to be exercised. at the first instance. A necessary component of the power to execute The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of information in our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. PAUL D.R. provision.a. On who appear to be responsible for the offense involved. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion. BRION Government whose principal power and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. conduct of preliminary investigation. Program of the DOJ. Respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the letter-request of petitioner. 2011. capricious. may be subject of some exceptions. The right to prosecute vests court is essentially an executive function that is lodged. respondents questioned exclusion as an accused from the informations did not at all amount to grave the propriety of the conduct of a trial in a proceeding for mandamus. this policy of non. ultimately. hence probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation petitioner filed a petition for review with the DOJ." registered with DTI. with the public prosecutor and. Consistent with this rule. at the 168. discretion has been gravely abused. The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of and issued Search Warrants. the abuse Rule 65 was filed before the CA. respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause are generally not The NBI thereafter filed with the DOJ a complaint against the respondent for subject to review by the Court. as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. granted the application Justice. It need not be based counterfeit shampoo products seized from the respondent are more than on clear and convincing evidence of guilt.A. of RA 8293 or Intellectual Property Code of first instance. Courts can neither alluded in the complaint. he is engaged in the business of selling leather override their determination nor substitute their own judgment for that of the goods and raw materials for making leather products. which the Acting Secretary when necessary for the orderly administration of justice. Under the present petition. Armed with the search warrants. In other words. in relation with Section 170. neither on evidence establishing sufficient evidence to indict him for unfair competition. and their findings with searched the premises and seized the alleged counterfeit shampoo products. prosecutor has not found a prima facie case. but failed. at all in contemplation of law. in violation of Section information in court is essentially an executive function that is lodged. petition for certiorari under interference is not without exception. the overwhelming pieces The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing of evidence nonetheless prove that he is the owner of the counterfeit shampoo that more likely than not. this policy of non-interference is not without exception. a crime has been committed and there is enough products found therein. The petitioner also maintains that the voluminous reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. he does not own and does not Constitution itself allows (and even directs) court action where executive operate the searched warehouse. Petitioner thereafter sought. Tan. Gutierrez. As such. and ultimately resolve the existence or non-existence of insufficiency of evidence. review the findings and State Prosecutor Abad of the DOJ dismissed the complaint due to conclusions. To justify judicial intervention. and he conducts his latter. dismissed. to the Secretary of the Philippines. search of a warehouse allegedly owned by respondent. The which they use for personal consumption. Nevertheless. They cannot likewise order the prosecution of the accused when the business under the name "Probest International Trading. Judge Eugenio. the court may intervene in the executive determination of probable cause. the settled policy of violation of R. The motion for reconsideration was denied. No. wherein it is alleged that the respondent had in his possession counterfeit shampoo products RULING: The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of which were being sold or intended to be disposed of. What is merely required is "probability of guilt. Jr. 7|Page . petitioner argues that while it may be possible that the respondent is not the owner of the warehouse. he is not engaged in the sale of counterfeit Unilever shampoo products. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) prosecutor and to the DOJ the determination of what constitutes sufficient of Justice." ISSUE: Whether the determination of probable cause lies within the FACTS: Agent of the NBI applied for issuance of search warrants for the competence of the public prosecutor. Merceditas N. absolute certainty of guilt. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a that the petitioner failed to establish facts and circumstances that would positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act constitute acts of unfair competition. the NBI discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation. evidence to establish probable cause. 8293. the sachets of Unilever shampoos seized from his are genuine shampoo products Nevertheless." and not "Michael Tan" as constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. non-interference in the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion requires the courts to leave to the prosecutor and to the DOJ the determination of what Respondent claimed that he is "Paul D. to secure a reconsideration. On the same day. these matters are better ventilated during the trial proper of the case. Otherwise. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. assailing CA decision which February 11. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) FACTS: Petitioners were charged with the murder of the victims found in a To justify judicial intervention. 2014 G. 9. As the State Prosecutor found (and affirmed by the DOJ). in entails the opportunity to be heard. respondent were made. as where and other supporting documents never reached them so that they were the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of denied due process during the preliminary investigation. April 21. 2014 reversed RTC’s dismissal of complaint against Mendoza for qualified theft and estafa. As long as efforts to reach a manufacturer of the counterfeit shampoo products found in the warehouse." Its the innocent from the embarrassment. expense and anxiety of a public trial. 176830 NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari. It serves to accord an opportunity for the concluding that there is probable cause. the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been It is also important to stress that the determination of probable cause does not committed." It is conducted to protect absolute certainty of guilt. SATURNINO OCAMPO vs. PEOPLE AND JUNO CARS. and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence. the depend on the validity or merits of a party’s accusation or defense or on the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint. EPHREM S. that efforts were made by sending these to their addresses. As previously discussed. too. the right to due process of law proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. the abuse of discretion must be so patent and mass graveyard and with the crime of rebellion as leaders of the gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to CPP/NPA/NPDF. and that it was the respondent who committed it. the complaint perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. it suffices that it is believed that the presentation of the respondent’s side with regard to the accusation. Thus. does not call for the application of rules or standards of In the context of a preliminary investigation. ALFREDO MENDOZA vs.R. No. determination. personal or actual participation in the ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners’ right to due process was violated during offense charged. This finding led to the conclusion RULING: NO. the judge complied with the Constitutional requirements in his determination of probable An examination of the decisions of the State Prosecutor and of the DOJ shows cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest. It need not be based underhanded attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses. Section 3(d). 8|Page .The rule was meant to foil reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. Also. that the complaint’s dismissal was anchored on the insufficiency of evidence to establish the respondent’s direct. the preliminary investigation remains valid. ABANDO GR No. They claimed that copies of the subpoena. neither on evidence establishing A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair. but the Court held passion or hostility. It was The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing only because a majority of them could no longer be found at their last known that more likely than not. on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. the preliminary investigation the petitioner failed to prove the ownership of the warehouse where counterfeit shampoo products were found. 197293. act or omission complained of constitutes the very offense charged. a crime has been committed and there is enough addresses that they were not served copies. Afterwards. 8. admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented. What is merely required is "probability of guilt. allows Prosecutor that there was insufficient basis for an indictment for unfair competition as the Vivero to resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the respondent was the owner or respondent could not be subpoenaed. HON. INC. the G. 746-1098 (questioned documents report) which states RULING: Yes. the RTC of the payments. It then filed a petition for certiorari with CA. Under Sec. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court may dismiss an information filed by the After investigation. LARRY MACILLAN. JAIME DEE. such as qualified theft. Juno Cars filed an MR. 2014 parties submitted the pending incidents for resolution. grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public ruled that the questioned documents report is not conclusive evidence that 9|Page . ENRIQUETO MAGPANTAY.3A Apparel Corporation filed a complaint before the which was denied. They also argued that the examination of the discretion of the public prosecutor. On the other hand. this petition. while the other was on behalf of 3A Apparel Corporation. Hence. No. the NBI filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor of Makati prosecutor on the basis of its own independent finding of lack of probable (city prosecutor) charging the respondents of the crime of forgery and cause through the conduct of a preliminary investigation? falsification of public documents. once the information documents was conducted without the original copies of the questioned deeds has been filed. While the MR was pending. it discovered that some of its cars have been sold by the Mendoza without prior permission and without his remittance RESOLUTION: While the information of the prosecutor was valid. the complaint with the Questioned Documents Report No. Hence. The RTC ruled to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause. 182573 April 23. Alfredo then filed a motion for MIRANDA. preliminary investigation must first be conducted to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been The respondents argued in their counter-affidavits that they were denied their committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held right to due process during the NBI investigation because the agency never for trial. arguing that NBI charging the respondents of falsification of two deeds of real estate the determination of probable cause rightfully belongs to the public mortgage (REM) submitted to the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company prosecutor. The Ruling of the City Prosecutor found no probable cause against the As a rule. the petition was granted. The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause. the 2 informations for qualified theft and 10. Both REM deeds were allegedly signed by Shu. that the signatures of the petitioner which appear on the questioned deeds for cases punishable by reclusion perpetua. the judge upon evaluation of the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. Upon denial. totaling to an amount of more than a million pesos. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) prosecutor courts should not dismiss it for “want of evidence” because FACTS: Juno Cars hired Mendoza as a trade-in/used car supervisor. Thus. a are not the same as the standard sample signatures he submitted to the NBI. partial auditing by the dealer/operator. He manifest error. to be handled by of real estate mortgage. the conduct of preliminary investigation and required them and Metrobank to submit the standard sample signatures of the determination of the existence of probable cause lie solely within the petitioner for comparison. The clarificatory hearings were scheduled but were not conducted. Aggrieved. During this stage. but upon evidentiary matters are presented and heard during trial. RAMON estafa were filed before RTC Mandaluyong. Mendoza alleged that Juno Cars failed to prove ownership or right evidence. consequently. which Mendoza filed an MR. Mendoza elevated the case to the (MBTC). he filed a petition for review with the DOJ. if the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of respondents and. Pres -. dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. 1 of Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.R. the judicial determination of probable cause. in effect dismissing Mendoza’s to possess such cars. in his own name SC. AND EDWIN SO determination of probable cause and a motion to defer arraignment. ensues for the purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest. As judge however found that Juno Cars failed to prove their case by competent defense. to case. CA found for Juno. FACTS: Ray Shu. RAY SHU vs. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) the respondents committed the crime charged. the Court found that no denial of the respondents’ due process right could have taken place. presented before the city prosecutor. This NBI finding is preliminary investigation entitled to full faith and credit in the absence of proof of irregularity in the performance of the experts’ duties. The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. She ruled that the city prosecutor failed to consider the evidentiary value of II. Whether the respondents were denied of their right to due On appeal. requirements of due process exists when a party is given a chance to be heard through his motion for reconsideration The CA granted the petition and annulled the assailed resolution of the Secretary of Justice. were convinced that the evidence were not sufficient for purposes of filing charges against the respondents. The Secretary of Justice made a holistic review of the parties’ submitted pieces of evidence in ruling that "the expert evidence. of the city prosecutor. It cannot even determine In the proceedings before the NBI. RULING: I. including the signatures appearing on the questioned deeds. the disclaimer of the 10 | P a g e . NO. It only proves that the sample The CA affirmed the findings of the city prosecutor as he had the opportunity signatures which were submitted solely by the petitioner are different from the to examine the documents submitted by the parties. The complainant’s evidence is more credible and suffices to establish What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but its absolute probable cause for falsification. the respondents were not furnished a copy probable cause. the Secretary of Justice reversed the city prosecutor’s findings. it ruled that the respondents were denied their right to The Court held that the functions of this agency (NBI) are merely investigatory due process in the proceedings before the NBI and the Secretary of Justice. petitioner filed. the The CA also found that the persons who had been directly and personally NBI’s findings were still subject to the prosecutor’s and the Secretary of involved in the investigation of the case. as against the respondents’ questionable and absence and lack of opportunity to be heard. ISSUE I. In the proceedings before the Secretary of Justice. and informational in nature. The NBI is an investigative agency whose findings are merely of the complaint and were not likewise required to file their answer or to recommendatory. which were not made available to the NBI. Since the NBI’s findings were merely recommendatory. They were not even required to file their answer nor to comment. Whether the findings of the city prosecutor are proper in the findings of the NBI questioned documents experts. like the NBI investigating agent and Justice’s actions for purposes of finding the existence of probable cause. Sufficient compliance with the flawed supporting documents. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. All the evidence at the NBI level were solely or as public welfare may require in accordance with its mandate. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon its own initiative present countervailing evidence. The pieces of evidence respondents’ evidence which the NBI did not consider. the city prosecutor. The recommendation for The court ruled that the findings of the Secretary of Justice are more in accord the filing of the complaint came from the NBI chiefs and the Secretary of with the duty to determine the existence of probable cause than the findings Justice who did not personally investigate the case. renders assistance when requested in the investigation or detection of crimes the respondents were not furnished with the petition for review that the in order to prosecute the persons responsible. process during the NBI investigation. It also provided by the petitioner. they can raise as issue the issued by the NBI. and (2) authenticity of a signature rests on the judge who must conduct an directed the filing of the corresponding Information for three (3) counts of rape independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a against respondent Alaon. weighed. (The Sec. yet cancelled. the city prosecutor negated the questioned documents report controvert the questioned documents report. Section 22 of Rule 132 of letter of BBB. AAA’s mother. to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as 11 | P a g e . are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary misapprehends facts. in Hence. No. the average man weighs facts and the Court of Appeals circumstances without resorting to the rules of evidence that. He also concluded that the lodged in the first place on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary petitioner misrepresented to the respondents-notaries public Miranda and investigation. the respondents can present evidence to prove their defense and In contrast. documents submitted by the respondents. as a rule. or proved to be of the proceeds of the loan. or when he acts outside the contemplation of law. the petition is granted and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision of determining probable cause. He concluded that the documents submitted by the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the examination. DOJ vs. The respondents' defense that there are striking similarities in the specimen II. The duty to determine the December 2002 of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Norte. credence or disproved. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) petitioner that he did not sign any promissory note. when he acts in a manner so patent and gross as to investigation level. given enjoined by law. as Magpantay that the passport used in notarizing the questioned deeds was not the final determinative authority on the matter. Thus.) the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court. when he grossly evidence. In that proper forum. The preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence. respondents showed that even a layman could see the striking similarities of the alleged signatures of the petitioner in the questioned deeds and in the The determination of probable cause is essentially an executive function. has the power to reverse. or its similarities The assailed Resolution: (1) set aside the Supplemental Resolution dated 16 or dissimilarities with the genuine signature." deeds. The allegations adduced by the prosecution will be put to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty test in a full-blown trial in which evidence shall be analyzed. of Justice’s directive was based on a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. narrating what happened to AAA. The prosecutor's ruling is reviewable by the Secretary who. by itself. all tend to prove that he did not execute the subject genuine. modify or affirm the prosecutor's determination. The findings of the city prosecutor are not proper in a preliminary signatures they submitted and those of the questioned deeds is a matter of investigation but should be threshed out in a full-blown trial evidence whose consideration is proper only in a full-blown trial. is outside his technical knowledge. The city prosecutor already delved into the merits of the respondents’ It is well-settled that the findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to defense. cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics. Simply put. ALAON That the findings of the city prosecutor should be ventilated in a full-blown trial The case is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court which is highlighted by the reality that the authenticity of a questioned signature annulled and set aside the Resolution dated 18 March 2008 of petitioner DOJ. the lack of proof of receipt genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. This is contrary to the well-settled rule that the validity and merits of interference by the courts. 11. as well as admissibility of testimonies and discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. save only when he acts with grave abuse of a party’s defense and accusation. Alaon filed a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the 18 March 2008 12. acting favorably as a quasi-judicial officer. With the SC’s holding that the Sec. Even at the stage of petition for review before on Alaon’s Motion for Reconsideration. while she was picking opportunity to be heard on the letter-appeal of private complainant’s guavas that had fallen from trees at a construction site beside Alaon’s house mother. PEOPLE OF THE Resolution of the DOJ for being issued in grave abuse of discretion. much more grave abused of discretion. After a shooting altercation transpired power of supervision and control over his subordinates. LAWRENCE B. an Information process do not abate. when he failed to afford Alaon an opportunity to be heard on private Prosecutor Estrellado. However. as he was not given an The first incident transpired sometime in October 2000. Apparently confused. against Alaon was filed before the RTC in Labo. of residence. The appeal is DENIED. by the Sec. case. CAJIPE.” 12 | P a g e . the SC agree with the appellate court’s holding that Alaon was with the crime of rape occurring on three separate but successive occasions. by the nature of his functions. The SC did not accept in its entirety the reasons behind the finding Group. annulling the 18 Justice and as such. Camarines Norte. there was an “absence of a petition for review. of Justice acted in excess of jurisdiction Alaon entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment. Elena Camarines Norte. Estrellado filed another Motion this time. It cannot be said that in and the daughter was rushed to the nearest hospital. Then Prosec. as well as officers from the PNP Special Action Force. the Provincial Prosecutor downgraded the Sec. The husband was shot in cold blood for review from the provincial prosecutor’s resolution. this case. to suspend proceedings which was also denied by the RTC. of the appellate court. of both substantive and procedural due process. of appellate court’s issuance of the special writ of certiorari. P/C INSP. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) FACTS: Private complainant AAA filed a complaint against Alain charging him Nonetheless. Alfonso "Jun" S. Consequently. FACTS: Lilian filed a complaint before the DOJ charging with multiple murder Petitioners et al belonging to the PNP in connection with the Highway Patrol HELD: NO. but it was denied. of Justice. insisting that the case remained pending review by the Sec. in Sta. It appeared that her husband and daughter were in their vehicle Justice when he took cognizance of BBB’s letter and treated it as a petition when the officers suddenly fired at them. Preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding wherein the The Provincial Prosecution Office of Daet. et al vs. the requirements for substantive and procedural due the offense from rape to acts of lasciviousness. filed a motion to withdraw complainant’s letter which he deemed as a petition for review. deprived of his right to procedural due process. PHILIPPINES ISSUE: Whether DOJ acted in grave abuse of discretion. De Vera (Jun) and actions of his subordinates. Alaon denied the charges against him and alleged that AAA’s family merely fabricated the charge in retaliation to their The conduct of preliminary investigation is subject to the requirements eviction from the land which Alaon owned. Lia Allana. SC affirms the appearance. specifically public prosecutors. on 12 June 2003. Camarines Norte found probable prosecutor or investigation officer. the SC do not find near their house. of Justice’s power of review over the in carrying out a plan to kill her husband. acts cause to indict Alaon for three (3) counts of rape. Lilian went back only to be prohibited from entering her abuse of discretion. The complaint alleges that joint elements of the SAF and the HPG conspired There is no quarrel about the Sec. has been directed to withdraw appearance from the March 2008 Resolution of the DOJ. Founded on the their 7-year-old daughter. ISSUE: WON RTC erred in arriving in its decision Since the under declaration exceeded 30% of the reported or declared income.a family-owned corporation.) against Criminal Procedure provides that the judge "may immediately dismiss the spouses for failing to supply correct info in ITR. The BIR issued officers were requested and acted merely as blocking force in a legitimate Letter of Authority to investigate spouses’ internal revenue tax liabilities for police operation and Lilian had not refuted this. The spouses denied the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. and a Toyota Prado. the public prosecutor who appears as counsel for the People in such the information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parafiaque City. Hence.010. On appeal the CA found no no 65 provides that such action is available only when "there is no appeal. a Toyota Rav4. speedy. On the other hand the R TC taxable year 2003 and prior years.R.00 a year) but the spouses were able to purchase in cash a grave abuse of discretion on the RTC's part. that assails the correctness of the order of dismissal since Section 1 of Rule The State Prosecutor found probable cause.: them. the the RTC gravely abused its discretion in failing to evaluate the sworn Revenue officers concluded that respondent’s ITRs for 2000. an action and on whom a copy of the final order is thus served." The accusations alleging that they used their accumulated savings from their CA should have denied the People's petition for special civil action of certiorari earnings from the past years. it was considered a prima facie evidence of fraud with intent to evade RULING: No. and subsequently filed action. They also sought the annulment of the DOJ resolution on the ground withdraw the same. failed to comply with the letter. The CIR issued a letter to spouses issued an arrest warrant for the accused SAF officers. Only the Office of the Solicitor General. in case of permissible appeals from a final order in a criminal the shooting of Jun and Lia for two counts of murder. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) The DOJ issued a resolution after preliminary investigation finding probable cause to indict all the police officers involved in the police action that led to Moreover. which the CA granted ruling that luxurious vacation house. 197590 November 24. Rule 112 of the Rules of recommended the filing of criminal complaints (tax evasion etc. Lilian moved for reconsideration of the dismissal order purchase of a 256-sqm log cabin in Tagaytay worth P17. Further. 2001 and 2003 statements of the witnesses on whom the DOJ relied on.511. CIR also failed to issue deficiency assessment. 2014 RTC dismissed the case against petitioners for lack of probable cause against DEL CASTILLO.00. may file a notice of appeal within the appropriate time since it is a notice addressed to Petitioners filed an omnibus motion for judicial determination of probable the RTC and not to the CA." sufficient proof of their likely source of income. or any probable cause because the CIR failed to state exact tax liability and to show plain. COURT OF APPEALS constitute an offense. The Revenue officers against petitioner HPG officers. the RTC found that the evidence tends to show that petitioner HPG Standard Realty Corporation. of violation of their constitutional rights. FACTS: Antonio Manly (respondent) is a stockholder and Exec. The Revenue officers executed a joint affidavit alleging that respondent’s reported annual income is modest (more or less The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari alleging P150.000. however. they asked that the information be quashed on the ground that the facts it alleged did not 13. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. VP of Instead. No. given that the witnesses made no mention of seeing anyone from the HPG group taking part in the shooting and killing of Jun and his daughter. were underdeclared. having found probable requiring to submit documentary evidence to substantiate source of cash cause against them.1âwphi1 Section 6. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. The R TC judge was within his powers to dismiss the case the payment of proper taxes due to the government. Spouses covering petitioner HPG officers but the RTC denied the same. J. The CA further said that before 13 | P a g e . cause with a prayer to hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants for their may pursue the appeal before the CA by filing the required appellant's brief or arrest. G. Dy initially invested approximately 10million specifically alleged in the Complaint-Affidavit. Notably at this stage. he only needs to personally review the prosecutor's initial determination and see if it is GR NO 183345. The up to more than 100million pesos through issuing several checks and in return revenue officers likewise showed that the under declaration exceeded 30% of Petitioner Garcia also issued him several checks representing his earnings of the reported or declared income. was also clearly explained. RULING: YES. Dy presented by petitioner. Warrants of arrest the properties in cash given respondent Antonio’s meager income. However. Dy found out that Ngo already resigned as bank manager and could presented any evidence to support this. and that he should be held for trial. Moreover. It earned the promise interest leading Dy to increase his investment method used in determining the tax liability. The Court of a tax is due from them. 2001. The huge disparity between respondent business of her husband. nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt. Relying on them. in return. investment. is defined as such facts that are sufficient to engender a well- founded belief that a crime has been committed. Subsequently. by just looking at the tables no longer be located. Dy sought the assistance of Ngo to recover the amount of the Respondent spouses’ defense that they had sufficient savings to purchase dishonored checks. GARCIA HAO and DANNY HAO vs. Dy filed the said criminal respondent spouses’ cash acquisitions for the years 2000. MA. FACTS: Private complainant Manuel Dy filed a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the petitioners and Victor Ngo. Dy alleged that he ISSUE: Whether or not there is probable cause to indict respondent spouses was a long-time client of Ngo where the latter worked as a bank manager and for tax evasion. Infact. because of this. and 2003 complaint before the prosecutor’s office. that the accused is probably ISSUE: Whether or not there is probable cause for the issuance of the guilty thereof. In the present case. for purposes of filing a criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. In doing so. September 17. Danny Hao. Probable cause. The amount of tax due from respondent spouses was Garcia Hao. But these checks issued to Dy were all dishonored. To be valid. PEOPLE OF THE is tasked to merely determine the probability. It bears stressing that the warrants of arrest. 2014 supported by substantial evidence. the trial court chose to issue warrants of or probability that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the arrest to the petitioners and their co-accused. not the certainty. Thereafter. Ngo. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) one could be prosecuted for tax evasion. the instant petition. these warrants accused. the judge 14. must have been issued after compliance with the requirement that probable cause be personally determined by the judge. of guilt of the PHILIPPINES accused. Eventually. the Antonio’s reported or declared annual income for the past several years and petitioners never returned Dy’s money. indict respondent spouses for tax evasion as petitioner was able to show that The trial court denied the motion as well as the reconsideration. as well as the pesos. there is a manifest showing that respondent spouses learned that Garcia used the money of Dy in the construction of a realty had under declared their income. information. The computation. took Ngo’s advice to deposit his money in an investment house that will give a higher rate of return. he confronted Garcia. he need not conduct a de novo hearing. Hence. were issued for the accused. it only requires reasonable belief HELD: Yes. it makes uswonder how they were able to purchase information for syndicated estafa before the RTC of Manila. the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment and to lift the warrant of arrest invoking the absence of probable In view of the foregoing. determination of probable cause does not require actual or absolute certainty. Despite their promises to pay. The records showed that Judge Marquez 14 | P a g e . Ngo then introduced DY to Ma. The prosecutor then filed an cannot be ignored. promised assistance but after a few the properties remains self-serving at this point since they have not yet months. the SC is convinced that there is probable cause to cause against them and the pendency of their petition for review with the DOJ. Hence. the fact that a tax is due must first be proved. the Atty. Generoso of his alleged mauling. more importantly. SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SPO2 Javier the police officer at the scene of the crime. did not present any Investigation is void for failure to state the facts and the law upon which it was evidence to controvert this. Thus. and second. The complainant positively identified the petitioners as those proceeding. person to be arrested has committed it. DWIGHT MACAPANAS. However. evaluation of the factual circumstances that led him to believe that there was Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that: probable cause to apprehend the petitioners for their commission of a criminal offense. the Court concludes that based. At the inquest proceeding. together with officer has not seen someone actually fleeing. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the 15. Section 5(b). an offense has just been committed. The latter called the Central Police District to report the or actions within the actual perception. Under this situation. he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime. The Court clarified the element of ''personal Records show that an altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty. petitioners stabbed Atty. JOEY M. The RTC denied the motion and the CA committed" and ''personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the affirmed the denial. MIGUEL GACES. when the petitioners were confronted by the 15 | P a g e . personal evaluation or observation of incident and acting on this report. based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances after the alleged altercation and saw Atty. the City Prosecutor found that the comply with the element of immediacy. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that The Court's appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just been there no valid warrantless took place. person to be arrested committed it" is dependent on the particular circumstances of the case. FACTS: The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder. the arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty.R. even though the police to go to the scene of the crime and render assistance. Generoso with a bladed weapon who fortunately survived the attack. The petitioners. the police officers Petitioners aver that they were not validly arrested without a warrant. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are: first. the warrants were only issued after his personal HELD: The petitioners were validly arrested without warrant. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) made a personal determination of the existence of probable cause to support ISSUE: Whether or not the order of RTC denying the motion for Preliminary the issuance of the warrants. SPO2. in fact. Circumstances may pertain to events Moreno Generoso. he could still make a augmentation personnel arrived at the scene of the crime less than one hour warrantless arrest if. November 10. When an offense has just been committed. at the scene of the crime. As stated by him. PESTILOS. No. Generoso then pointed the petitioners as those who mauled him which determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances prompted the police officers to “invite” the petitioners to go to the police station should be made immediately after the commission of the crime in order to for investigation. responsible for his mauling and. 182601. Generoso badly beaten. the G. 2014 arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. JERRY FERNANDEZ AND RONALD MUÑOZ vs. notably. In the case at bar. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES The elements under Section 5(b). knowledge of facts or circumstances". the parties lived almost in the same neighborhood. Judge Marquez did not arbitrarily issue the warrants of arrest against the petitioners. responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the alleged they are entitled to a Preliminary Investigation and not only an inquest mauling. Hence. R. In resolving the motion. et al. GUTIERREZ IN FACTS: Disini was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman with corruption HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN. is legally bound to pursue and ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in hereby gives preference to the speedy disposition of the case. It is reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal of estafa. the court is only required to state clearly and distinctly Information should be filed. to determine the existence of probable cause and to decide whether an In resolving a motion. RTC dismissed the case without prejudice to their re-filling. persuaded by the evidentiary nature of the allegations in the said motion of Ombudsman dismissed the Complaint against Ortega. et al. et al. ET AL. Otherwise. there is no grave abuse of discretion that has been committed by the RULING: No. the Court. Clearly. accusing them of personal knowledge. DISINI vs. Ciron filed a Complain- qualify as the police officers' personal observation. Detailed evidentiary matters the issuance of the Supplemental Resolutions and the filing of the new is best reserved for the full-blown trial of the case and not in the preliminary Informations against Ciron even without a new complaint having been filed for incidents leading up to the trial. The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman did not gravely Court in issuing the order of denial. The OCP which they have personally observed less than one hour from the time that of Iriga holds that no cogent reason to alter. MA. Ciron filed a Motion With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and for Bill of Particulars and a supplement motion for reinvestigation. the Court is not estafa charges against her without Ortega filing a new Complaint. which are within their Affidavit against Ortega. it must be stressed that the Court has Additionally. SANDIGANBAYAN COMPLAINT/ INFORMATION G. of public officials. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) arresting officers. is not required to abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint against Ortega. 2013 16. although they narrated a different version of what transpired. Aside from lack of clear and convincing proof. of estafa for failure to remit an amount. OCP Iriga in his arrests. 169823-24 September 11. then Credit and Collection Officer of USANT. Supplemental Resolutions recommended the filing of a total of 21 perception and evaluation at the time of the arrest. in the exercise of its sound discretion on the matter. TERESITA A. These circumstances informations for estafa against Ciron. Aggrieved. 17. MERCEDITAS N. 20 April 2015 16 | P a g e . they did not deny their participation in the incident with Atty." finding no probable cause to indict Ortega. These circumstances were well within the police officers' observation. et al. modify or reconsider its earlier they have arrived at the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the Resolution of finding probable cause that Ciron is probably guilty of the crime petitioners. the reasons therefor. preliminary investigation were done in accordance with prevailing rules and jurisprudence. when the RTC. In view knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners' warrantless of the dismissals without prejudice to the criminal cases. the accused. 194339-41. it is the Constitution itself that provides that the decision that consistently refrained from interfering with the discretion of the Ombudsman should state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Nos. it will prolong the proceedings. Ciron contends that the Order already attained finality and that OCP Iriga could no longer revive nor reinstate the Hence. The Information states: GR Nos. violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. which was precisely what happened to this case. prompting them to make the warrantless arrests. in its Order dismissing the motion. CIRON vs. FACTS: Ortega filed a Complaint against Ciron. Furthermore. before the Ombudsman. Generoso. since state all the facts found in the record of the case. officials] and Criminal Case No. 28002 That during the period 1974 to February 1986. 28002 [violation of Section 4(a) of RA conspiring together and confederating with the then President of the No. did then of the offense given by the statute. the total amount of Seventeen Million U. and application with the Government of the Republic of feloniously offer. Marcos. and RULING: The informations (Criminal Case No. Inc. in Manila. owned by per share of stock. respectively. and being further the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini who was the first cousin of then First Lady Imelda Section 6. Marcos. the contracts to do to the prescribed form. the name of the offended party. in connection with the Philippine constituting the offense. 28001 [corruption of public within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. a foreign consultant. conspiring together and confederating with the then President of the Dollars($17. being then the close personal friend and requirements of Section 6. Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. taking undue CONTRARY TO LAW. and subcontracts. more or less.5 billion) shares of stock in Vulcan Industrial and Mining Burns and Roe and Westinghouse to do the engineering and architectural Corporation and four billion (4 billion)shares of stock in The Energy design. Disini the engineering and architectural design and to construct the Project.3019]) were sufficient in form and substance. commissions and gifts as Plant Project("Project") of the National Power Corporation at Morong. through the direct intervention of said Ferdinand and Roe and Westinghouse Electrical Corporation (Westinghouse). Bataan. in accordance with the Philippines. the Philippines. Dollars That during the period from 1974 to February 1986. accused HERMINIO T. for the PROJECT. all for and in consideration of accused DISINI securing and Marcos. as accused Disini did secure and obtain. and also from Westinghouse Electric and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the total amount of One Million U. and subsequently. advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to his office and in consideration of the aforesaid gifts and presents. both of which entities were then having Philippines Ferdinand E. Sufficiency of complaint or information. Marcos. did award or cause Disini filed a motion to quash. consisting of accused DISINI’s ownership of two billion and five obtaining. moved for reconsideration but Sandiganbayan denied his motion. to Engineering and Construction accused DISINI. 17 | P a g e . ISSUES: Whether the information complied with the prescribed form under the law Criminal Case No. for Burns and Roe the engineering and architectural contract.00). transaction. accused HERMINIO T. Bataan. CONTRARY TO LAW. Philippines.000. ($1.S. for Westinghouse the construction contract. Ferdinand E. promise and give gifts and presents to said Ferdinand E.S. and contracts to do the engineering and architectural design and to construct. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. intimacy and free access. and the place where the offense was Corporation (NPC) at Morong. Marcos.more or less. respectively. the acts or omissions complained of as and there. the E. the designation advantage of such close personal relation. Marcos. the contract for the said hundred (2. as in fact said Ferdinand E. did then and there. the approximate date Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP)Project ("PROJECT") of the National Power of the commission of the offense. request and receive from Burns and committed. Marcos. alleging that the informations did not conform to be awarded to said Burns and Roe and Westinghouse. Corporation(WESTINGHOUSE). for securing and obtaining. Marcos. 28001 Roe. respectively. willfully. the said PROJECT. Philippines. owned and controlled by said Ferdinand E. viz: golfing partner of said Ferdinand E.000. owned and controlled by said Ferdinand E. taking information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused. DISINI. which stated mechanical and electrical construction work on the Philippine Nuclear Power amounts and subcontracts constituted kickbacks. — A complaint or Romualdez-Marcos and family physicianof the Marcos family. and Engineering and Construction Company of Asia (ECCO- Company of Asia. material or pecuniary advantages. which acts constitute the crime of corruption of public officials.00 request and receive subcontracts for Power Contractors. the Project. with both shares of stock having then a book value of ₱100. willfully. DISINI. unlawfully and business. Corporation. unlawfully and criminally. and construct. in Manila.000. as accused all for and in consideration of accused Disini seeking and obtaining for Burns DISINI did secure and obtain.00). on the Asia). CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) Criminal Case No.000. and for Westinghouse the construction of the PNPPP. 2013 contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by taking advantage of his position and in committing said act in relation to his office. the first cousin of First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos. in causing the award of the G. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are Nuclear Power Plant Project). The allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R. No. Extrinsic matters person having some business. 3019. same time the family physician of the Marcoses. would establish the elements of the contracts for the PNPPP (Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Project) to be offense. That the public official with whom the offender has family or close The test does not require absolute certainty as to the presence of the personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction. PEOPLE OF THE The information stated that: (1) Disini made an offer and promise. The allegations in the information for corruption of public officials. elements of the offense. otherwise. 2002. and presents to a public officer.A. President Marcos. a public officer. the public officer with given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public whom Disini had family or close personal relations. Roallos placed his right hand on AAA's under Section 4(a) of R. or contract with the government. considering that: (1) Disini. would establish the essential elements of the crime. request or or evidence aliunde are not considered. 3019 are: shoulder then slid his hand towards AAA's breast and mashed it. request.R.000.A. Prosecution to proceed to trial. promises and gifts. (2) The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Disini. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) When the offense is committed by more than one person. Penal Code are: requested and received $1. (3) President Marcos. will establish receiving any present. and (2) in consideration of the offers. application. That the offender makes offers or promises. No.00 from Burns & Roe and $17. if hypothetically admitted. material or pecuniary advantage from any the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law. and gave PHILIPPINES gifts to President Marcos. a public official. VIVENCIO ROALLOS y TRILLANES vs. being the husband of Paciencia Escolin- awarded to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by reason of the gifts and Disini. all of them shall be 1. taking advantage of such family and close personal relations. contract with the government. In Criminal Case No. Roallos who was the Executive Director of a Credit circumstances that would make him liable for direct bribery. obtain for Burns & Roe the engineering and architectural contract. official. and at the promises offered by Disini to President Marcos. 28001. 198389 December 11. The elements of the offense After asking a few questions with AAA.000. 3. was placed under FACTS: On April 15. if hypothetically admitted.A. intervened to secure and officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. That he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family The fundamental test in determining whether a motion to quash may be or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or sustained is whether the facts alleged.000. or gives gifts or from Westinghouse. 2. Cooperative inside Camp Aguinaldo. had close personal relations and intimacy with and free access to President Marcos. gift. 3019 is similarly upheld. the entities then having business. the felonious act consisted of causing the No. if hypothetically admitted. transaction. 18. The sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R. That the offender has family or close personal relation with a public included in the complaint or information. Afterwards. there would no longer be any need for the application. transaction.000. aproached the 15-year old daughter (AAA) of his secretary (BBB) inside his office. 18 | P a g e . No. and application with the Government in connection with the PNPPP (Philippine 2.00 1. The applications alleged that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass RULING: operations. Roallos’ claim that the Information filed against him is duplicitous as it 401 (Penalizing the Unauthorized Installation of Water. AAA had the personality to question the quashal of the search warrants. on the following grounds: (1) the search warrants were issued without probable cause. since the acts complained of The mention of the phrase "acts of lasciviousness" in the Information does not did not constitute theft. No. The Telephone Connections. Worldwide Web Corporation and Planet Internet Corporation. The charge of acts of lasciviousness against Roallos pursuant thereto were fruits of the poisonous tree. (2) toll bypass. not necessary to give the aggrieved party personality to question an order quashing search warrants. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information. 2) No. or from the specification of the provision of law Roallos was later on charged and convicted before the QC-RTC of the crime alleged to have been violated. to the damage and prejudice of PLDT. Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal DOCTRINE: 19 | P a g e .A. Article III of R. Petitioners filed their respective motions No. Article III to quash on the ground that the warrants issued were in the nature of general of R. That neither AAA nor BBB signed the Information filed against Roallos would not render the charge against the latter defective. CA affirmed the conviction. Section 5..A. which amounted to theft and violation of Presidential Decree No. and BBB vigorously pursued the indictment against Roallos. The actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. warrants. contrary to Roallos’ claim. An application for a indictment of Roallos. acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and sexual FACTS: Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional Intelligence abuse under Section 5(b). 7610. WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION vs. to quash the search warrants. application for three search warrants.A. the act complained of. AAA executed a complaint-affidavit for the SC RULING: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. the Use of Tampered Water or Electrical Meters and designation of the crime in the Information is clear – Roallos was charged with Other Acts). but by the of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Sec. Likewise. 1) Yes.] Art. Special Operations Office (RISOO) of PNP filed applications for warrants 2) Whether the charge against him was defective since neither AAA nor BBB before the RTC of Quezon City to search the office premises of petitioner signed the Information that was filed against him. The foregoing circumstances clearly indicate the search warrant is not a criminal action.R. 19. Both of these acts were committed against her will. which are mere conclusions of law. January 13. 7610. RTC granted the motions is specifically delimited to that committed in relation to Section 5(b). 7610. 161106. Article III of R. 2014 against him was defective since it charged two crimes. No. No. PEOPLE AND PLDT ISSUES: 1) Whether Roallo's conviction is valid considering that the Information filed G. without the conformity of the public prosecutor. 7610. mean that Roallos was charged with the felony of acts of lasciviousness under (3) the search warrants were general warrants. i. RTC granted the the crime of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b). CA reversed and set aside the assailed RTC Resolutions and declared the search warrants valid and effective. it does not signify ISSUE: Whether or not PLDT. conformity of the public prosecutor is conformity of both AAA and BBB to the charge against Roallos. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) Roalos also kissed the cheek of AAA. Electrical or charged him with the commission of two crimes is plainly untenable. that they did not conform to the filing of the Information against Roallos. was not a crime. 5(b)[.e. III of R. and (4) the objects seized Article 336 of the RPC.A. Iloilo. petitioner Felina Rosaldes. As a result. the designation because of a public necessity. such as a warrant of arrest or a the matter to the SC challenging the sufficiency of the information against her. The provision states the general rule that the public prosecutor him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor. 1996. the information explicitly averred the offense of child abuse charged against the petitioner in the context of the statutory definition of child SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT/ INFORMATION abuse found in Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. Then. but by the filing of an application therefor. 7610. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. not by the filing of a complaint immediately went to the Police to file charges. resulting in her waiver of the challenge. he lost consciousness. FELINA ROSALDES vs. a warrant. search warrant. then was denied. Michael Ryan told the incident to his mother and aunt who then However. drastic in its nature. Hence petitioner elevated criminal action. petitioner asked Michael Ryan G. and thus complied with the requirements of Section 6. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) Procedure states that all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or to apologize to her. Michael Ryan’s has direction and control of the prosecution of "all criminal actions body hit a desk.: not conform substantially to the prescribed form. No.R. the name of the offended party. 2014 20 | P a g e . indeed. not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to quash search warrants. commanding sufficient him to search for personal property and bring it before the court. was hurriedly entering his classroom when he accidentally 21.R." pick Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor. She did not do so. supra. a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan Elementary School located in the Municipality of Lambunao. The Court has consistently recognized the constituting the offense. For. As he fell. Clearly then. the of the commission of the offense. No. an application for a search of the offense given by the statute." rather than a Court. 173988 October 8. the proximate date right of parties to question orders quashing those warrants. Accordingly. or did not charge an offense. 166414. Hence. and made necessary information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused. seven year old Michael Ryan Gonzales. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Moreover. A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. a search warrant is obtained. Roused from sleep. It is a RULING: Yes. Petitioner proceeded to commenced by a complaint or information. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. merely constitutes process. 20. Her last G. A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the ISSUE: Whether or not the information charging petitioner with child abuse is Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer. MANALASTAS bumped the knee of his teacher. petitioner went to Michael and pinched him on his thigh. When Michael did not obey but instead proceeded to his information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the seat. ENRILE vs. the special and peculiar remedy. who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. the petition FACTS: On February 13. 2014 chance to pose the challenge was prior to the time she pleaded to the information through a motion to quash on the ground that the information did BERSAMIN. 7610 and then subsequently convicted by the Regional Trial for a search warrant is a "special criminal process. she held prosecutor. the Court should no longer entertain the petitioner’s challenge against the sufficiency of the information in form and substance. An application violation of R. J. Petitioner was charged with or information. and the place where the offense was Court sustain the CA’s ruling that the conformity of the public prosecutor is committed.A. In this case. October 22. the acts or omissions complained of as warrant is not a criminal action. Under Section 6. thereby rendering their charges of less samples tested positive. In the context of RTC: Granted respondents Motion to Dismiss. which included that of herein respondents. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure plainly states that in a motion to quash. the case was set for pre-trial and deferment of the arraignment. Section 2. 9165 (RA 9165). The motion to quash is the mode by which an accused. 2006. being necessarily related to the case of frustrated homicide After confirmatory tests done by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division. on the date set for hearing. Hence. PEOPLE vs.R. 2006. what the G. by the Rules on Summary Procedure. challenges the complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law. 2014 respondents claim in their motion to quash is that the facts alleged in the Informations do not constitute an offense and not lack of probable cause as ruled by the RTC judge. and reiterated the arraignment previously scheduled. In the present case. serious physical injuries dismissible. ANDRADE consider any ground other than those stated in the motion. arguing that Technologist and Assistant Medical Technologist of the Alpha Polytechnic the complainants had not presented proof of their having been given medical Laboratory in Quezon City. MTC in this case? Respondents' lawyer. 2003. the complaints sufficiently charged CA: Denied the petition for certiorari. were appropriate for the trial. and ruled trial on August 11. that the cases for less serious physical injuries were covered by the rules on ordinary procedure. 2006. 2006. respondents filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute a violation ISSUE: Is it proper to invoke a motion to quash the information filed in the of Section 15. those still pending in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. The MTC denied the petitioners’ motion yielded positive results confirming the result of the initial screen test. Thereafter. were collected and subjected to drug testing by the Chief Medical Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the joint resolution. not the details of ISSUE: Whether the court erred in dismissing the case for lack of probable why and how the illegal acts allegedly amounted to undue injury or damage. 187000. because the cases were governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Section 6. or for defects apparent on its face. for such matters. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) FACTS: On June 30. which prohibited the motion for reconsideration. Article II of Republic Act No. cause in the information. RULING: Yes. RA 9165. Indeed. On August 29. Thereafter. and out of that number. the petitioners All respondents pleaded "Not Guilty" to the crime charged during their presented a manifestation with motion to quash and a motion for the arraignment on June 29. being evidentiary. the petitioners with less serious physical injuries. manifested that he intends to pursue the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondents' previous RULING: No. should not be governed twenty-one (21) urine samples. entering his plea. 21 | P a g e . No. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. the twenty-one (21) inmates were charged with violation of discussed and passed upon in the resolution sought to be reconsidered. the complaints only needed to aver the ultimate facts constituting the offense. twenty-one (21) urine attention lasting 10 days or longer. the complaints were not quashable. November 24. a random drug test was conducted in the National FACTS: The mauling incident involving neighbors end up with filing of criminal Bilibid Prison (NBP) wherein the urine samples of thirty-eight (38) inmates case in the MTC for frustrated homicide and less serious physical injuries. hence. and Section 15. for reconsideration because the grounds of the motion had already been Necessarily. before counsel. the court shall not 22. The MTC denied the motion to quash. except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. and that the two cases for less serious physical injuries. the pre-trial and trial were reset to September 29. " When there is any doubt about the sufficiency of the complaint or information. and instructed her to prepare food. defect despite the amendment. the judge shall then In People v.A. inserted his other hand inside her underwear. the RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases without limited prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest and not after the giving the prosecution an opportunity to amend the defect in the Informations. revealed to XYZ that the by amendment. and touched her complaint or information which can be cured by amendment. Talao Perez. told her to file a case before the police. the lower warrant of arrest. XYZ felt "bad and afraid. evidence and wait for a demurrer to evidence to be filed by respondents. the court should give the prosecution an opportunity to amend the information. arraignment.. or that the information does The RTC and the CA convicted appellant beyond reasonable doubt of not conform substantially to the prescribed form." The appellant also denied quash shall be denied and the prosecution shall be ordered to file an BBB’s allegation that he sodomized her. XYZ requested assistance from a municipal social the amendment. this petition. Generally. if they opt to. At this stage. as pointed out by the accused. PEOPLE vs." the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct when XYZ arrived at their house after buying rice. One time. Appellant claimed that XYZ falsely accused him of raping AAA because he If the defect in the information is curable by amendment. or the complaint or information still suffers from the same worker who. When the appellant noticed XYZ’s presence. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly states would usually return home at 1:00 a. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make appellant had raped her. thus: Section 4. the court should direct its amendment or that a Considering that the RTC has already found probable cause. 7610.m. If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. No. and of pain in her stomach. amended information. and save the necessity of appealing the case on denied the motion to quash and allowed the prosecution to present its technical grounds when the complaint might easily be amended.If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the AAA’s breast. Once the information has been filed. Amendment of the complaint or embracing AAA and spreading her legs." but did not confront the appellant. Upon their return. ISSUE: WON THE CONVICTION IS PROPER 22 | P a g e . FACTS: XYZ (mother) recalled that the appellant (father) would bring AAA. Article VI of R. . RAYON meantime suspend the proceedings until the amendment of the Information without dismissing the case. the court shall vagina. Corollary to this rule. amendment. the fact that the allegations in the information do not constitute an offense. it evidence" to determine whether there is probable cause to issue a appearing that the defects thereof can be cured by amendment. he immediately stood up order that an amendment be made. a judicial determination of probable court should not have dismissed the case but should have ordered the Fiscal cause exists. this Court ruled that. BBB. She instead went to the kitchen to do her chores. 2005. are defects curable by violating Section 10(a). to amend the information. in a videoke bar without her knowledge. and they Section 4. AAA would complain that if the ground based upon is that "the facts charged do not constitute an of experiencing loose bowel movement..even granting that the "personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting information in question is defective. offense. another child. the appellant then put his hand on information. in turn. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) The RTC judge's determination of probable cause should have been only In the present case. the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect On December 16. who is mentally deficient. it should have new information be filed. or allowed the prosecution to amend the Information and in the 23. Hence. ". the motion to disallowed her to have an American "pen pal. she saw the appellant the defect by amendment. while the information charged him for acts Zapanta. 19. 7610. No. and 26. Article III of R. On appeal. Trucking’s truck driver. the steel beams could no longer be found. First. but the latter simply We stress that "the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or denied that the reported return took place. different sizes with a total value of ₱2. reported the matter to the Baguio City police headquarters and contacted Anmar to send a truck to retrieve the steel beams. but the truck came weeks 24. November 2001. thus depriving him the month of October. 7610 have been established. FACTS: An information was filed with the RTC charging petitioner Anthony The petitioner submits that. her warehouseman. information against the appellant in Criminal Case No. the appellant embraced AAA. VI of R. City. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) In 2001.731. kissed her. The body of the Information. all the elements of violation of Section 5(b). AMCGS undertook the construction of Porta Vaga building in Baguio RULING: The SC affirm the conviction with modification. to unload about 10 to 15 pieces of 20 feet long wide flange steel beams along Marcos Highway. as reflected in the security guard’s logbook.A..269. Marcelo learned from Cano that several wide circumstances in the complaint or information. and touched her vagina. alleged that the custody. Sometime in November 2001. There.69 without the knowledge and consent of the owner ANMAR…” 23 | P a g e . Article project manager with general managerial duties.e. ENGR. 2001. AAA AMCGS’ project manager. Marigondon requested preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law Marcelo. No. ZAPANTA vs. xxx but by the recital of the ultimate facts and materials at the project site. Article III of petitioner again instructed Bernardo and several welders. Engr. together with one Concordia O. Engr.R. 2001."31 The averments in the flange steel beams had been unloaded along Marcos Highway. Junio punishable under Section 5(b) of the same law. 2001…steal and carry away from the Porta Vaga of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the project site along Session road. Marcos Highway. to unload about 5 R. Loyao. certificate and on her mother’s testimony. described acts On two occasions in October 2001. Marigondon contacted the petitioner to explain the return. based on her birth flange steel beams had been returned to Anmar’s warehouse on October 12. including the receiving. No. parted to 16 pieces of 5 meters and 40 feet long wide flange steel beams along her legs. PHILIPPINES The RTC convicted the petitioner of qualified theft. 2013 the RTC’s decision of qualified theft. Second." he was convicted for with the relevant part of the information quoted as follows: “That sometime in acts not covered by the information. however. mashed her breasts. PEOPLE OF THE later and. and forcibly opened her legs. the appellant used his moral ascendancy over her daughter in order to perpetrate his lascivious conduct. fondled her.A. AMCGS subcontracted the fabrication and erection of the building’s structural and steel framing to ANMAR. informed Engr. He out a charge for violation of Section 5(b). appellant sexually molested AAA. touched her breasts. Finally. Baguio City. These acts. 170863 March 20. the In the present case. by then. to our mind. Marigondon that several wide was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. the CA affirmed G. of the crime of qualified theft. 2006-174 clearly make Marcelo found and took pictures of some of the missing steel beams. as well as on Mabini Street. wide flange steel beams of accusation against him. 7610. ANTHONY V. inserted his hand inside the victim’s underwear. and checking of all building construction materials. i. ANMAR assigned the petitioner as The Information charged the appellant with violation of Section 10(a). the petitioner instructed Bernardo. committed "sometime in the month of October. to conduct an inventory of the construction alleged to have been violated.A. The Information specified when the crime was committed. By virtue of it named all of the accused and their alleged acts or omissions constituting their positions.60. G. An information is deemed sufficient if it contains the cash advances for the City. The SB held that the acts of the accused had caused not only undue injury to the government RULING: YES. (b) the designation of the offense of the cash and accounts of the accountable officers of the Cash Division.810.752.49 The Sandiganbayan held that the accused were all guilty enable him to prepare his defense. (c) the acts or omissions complained of as constituting Treasurer’s Office of Cebu City." The violating Section 3(e) of R. that they 25. No. This team conducted a surprise cash count. November is the month right after October. through the loss of public money.810. they admittedly disregarded the observance of the law and COA rules We stress that the information did not have to state the precise date when the and regulations on the approval and grant of cash advances.48 Furthermore. 6 and 11 of Rule 110 of the RoC).52 Here. the month of because there was paucity of evidence of conspiracy in these cases. accusation against him? Hence. it need not be proven as alleged.51 It further declared of qualified theft could be alleged to be committed on a date as near as that the aforementioned cases cited by the accused were inapplicable. thus. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE are vital pieces of a common design. conspiracy was duly proven in that the silence and inaction of the accused - albeit ostensibly separate and distinct  indicate. OF THE PHILIPPINES ISSUE: Whether the Information was sufficient. denied the Motions for Reconsideration of the accused. an Information25 was filed with the Sandiganbayan. as well as public official or employee.36 Lastly.60 shortage. In this case.R. they are involved in the process of approving and releasing the offense charged. 3019 commonly involved willful.810. and FACTS: All the petitioners work for the City Government of Cebu.50 The anti-graft offense was committed.752. as to be inclusive of the month of "November 2001" court also stated that the undue injury to the government was unquestionable since the date was not a material element of the offense.17 Clearly. it found conspiracy to be present in the acts and omissions will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any of the accused showing that they had confederated. if taken collectively. the complaint entitled. theft since the information stated the approximate date of the commission of It ruled that the Information was sufficient. Claiming that it was the practice in their office. 2001. connived with. the petitioner had been fully apprised of the charge of qualified The Sandiganbayan. Conformably because of the ₱9. (e) the approximate date of 24 | P a g e . the three modes may all be alleged gather by such reading whatever he needed to know about the charge to in one Information.A. because the three modes of the offense through the words "sometime in the month of October.60 from deprive petitioner of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the 20 September 1995 to 5 March 1998 from the cash and accounts of Gonzales. 189343 July 10. possible to the actual date of its commission. (d) the name of the offended party. the offense because of the shortage amounting to ₱9. the offense. 2013 RULING: YES. (see Secs. As such. of gross inexcusable negligence.752. City as given in the statute. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) ISSUE: W/N the information was sufficient in form and as such. COA created a team to conduct an examination following: (a) the name of all the accused. BACASMAS vs. intentional. when the date given in the complaint is not of the to Gonzales by allowing her to obtain cash advances to which she was not essence of the offense. did not The examination revealed an accumulated shortage of ₱9. but also gave unwarranted benefit with these provisions. BENILDA N. and date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the mutually helped one another in causing undue injury to the government commencement of the action. and petitioner could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which conscious acts or omissions when there is a duty to act on the part of the he was charged from a reading of the contents of the information. 60 The offense may FACTS: Accused was separated in 1998 and began living in with a certain be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual Irene Valoria. it is not necessary to state the precise date when the offense was committed. VIDANA First. because it adequately to report the incident.64 namely the violation of the aforementioned law. a loss of over nine million pesos. Rather. describes the nature and cause of the accusation against petitioners. negligence"  in the same Information does not mean that three distinct offenses were thereby charged but only implied that the offense charged may Trial on the merits ensued and at the conclusion of which the trial court have been committed through any of the modes provided by the law. leading to The next day. 3019.A. Thus. there was no inconsistency in alleging both the presence of committed. [AAA] suddenly was jolted from March 1998. whose house is about 500 meters because her alleged acts did not fall under the crime charged in the away.62 Cesa is wrong. who became the stepmother of his four date of its commission. and The Sandiganbayan earlier held that the Information was sufficient in that it conscious indifference to the consequences of one’s actions or omissions.61 Here. At the sala. [AAA] broke down and revealed to Zenny what happened to her at the hands of [appellant]. Licab. Accused was alone at the sala and was sufficient. Cesa contends that Gonzales should have been included in the and all the while she felt an immense pain." "evident bad faith" and "inexcusable healed laceration at 7 o’clock position positive hymenal tag. That the Information alleged a date and a period during which the crime was committed Around midnight of 16 September 2003. t-shirt. Nueva Ecija. She later recognized the person as her father. The Accused warned her not to tell unliquidated cash advances. petitioners accountable for their actions. Accused inserted Second. but rather within a period a certain Edgar Magsakay at Sta. and paved the way for her to incur cash shortages. the Information correctly excluded her Spouses Joaquin are friends of Accused. of time ranging from 20 September 1995 to 5 March 1998. his penis into [AAA]’s vagina. As she lay naked. and told her not to make any noise. Accused forcibly removed [AAA]’s short pants. because the latter incurred cash shortages and allegedly had other private parts but she resisted. over nine million pesos had been taken by Gonzales as a result her sleep when somebody pulled her out of the bed and brought her to the of petitioners’ acts. Taken aback by the trauma Third and last. not having been committed on one day alone. Zenny Joaquin noticed something was bothering [AAA] so she Information. [AAA] went to the house of Francisco and Zenny Joaquin. intentional. the date is not a material ingredient of the children including AAA. The Information is sufficient. These acts caused undue injury to the government and sala . which allowed Gonzales to obtain cash advances. Zenny promptly accompanied [AAA] to the police Section 3(e) of R.A. 26. because the latter was not simple negligence. the Information sufficiently specified the offense that violated suffered by the young lass. and (f) the place where the offense was addition. his common-law wife. confronted the latter. Accused tried to touch [AAA]’s Information. conspiracy and gross inexcusable negligence. who covered her mouth unwarranted benefits to the said paymaster. The Information seeks to hold anybody or else he will kill her and her siblings. except when it is a material ingredient thereof. Maria. [AAA]’s ordeal lasted for about five (5) minutes 3019. The use of the The examination of the medico-legal officer on [AAA] revealed "positive three phrases – "manifest partiality. the negligence involved a willful. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) the commission of the offense.65 In rendered judgment against appellant by finding him guilty beyond reasonable 25 | P a g e . because it duly informed petitioners that before and until 5 the children were asleep inside the bedroom. They were staying in a one-bedroom house owned by crime. bra and panty. the Information charges petitioners with violating Section 3(e) of R. PEOPLE vs. contained no inherent contradiction and properly charged an offense. The petitioner filed the present petition after the court. The BIR alleged that the enters his plea. at any time before the accused the Department of Justice against the petitioner. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF TAX APPEALS Section 14. — A complaint or information may be amended. the prosecution is given the right to amend the the government. pursuant to Republic Act No. JOEL C. the CTA First Division granted the punishing it. a crime prosecution’s motion. ISSUE: Whether the prosecution’s amendments made after the petitioner’s arraignment are substantial in nature and must perforce be denied AMENDMENT/ SUBSTITUTION RULING: No. 179962 June 11. and specify its 4. so long as the 26 | P a g e . rape. No. merely a formal one as it "merely states with additional precision something already contained in the original information. 2007." The petitioner failed to file his comment to the motion within the offense. information. prejudice to the rights of the accused. State Prosecutor found probable cause against petitioner for non-filing of income tax returns for said taxable years ISSUE: Whether the court erred in characterizing the offense charged as and for failure to supply correct and accurate information as to his true income sexual abuse. for taxable year. appellant was accused in the information with feloniously failed to show that the defenses applicable under the original information can having carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter against her will by using no longer be used under the amended information since both the original and his influence as a father. 2007. aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense. Accordingly an Information was filed with the CTA charging the petitioner with violation of Section 255 of Republic Act No. FACTS: The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a complaint-affidavit with in form or in substance." The petitioner In the case at bar. As such. a formal amendment may petitioner had been operating as a single proprietor doing business for taxable only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing years 2001 to 2003 under certain trade names and registration addresses. regardless of the nature of the amendment. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) doubt of violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 31 of Republic Act No. reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute required period. Section 8 of the Rules of Court. consequently evaded his obligation to pay the correct amount of taxes due Under Section 14.R. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the matter of amending the information: G. 2014 Amendment or substitution. HELD: Under Rule 110. DR. 9346 must be imposed. Considering further that the minority of AAA and her the amended information charges the petitioner with the same offense relationship to appellant were both alleged in the information and proven in (violation of Section 255). 7610. the proper designation of appellant’s felony should have been qualified CTA denied his motion for reconsideration. the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole. however. MENDEZ vs. in lieu of the death penalty. After a preliminary investigation. the prosecution filed a "Motion to Amend Information with Leave of qualifying and aggravating circumstances." The information clearly charged appellant with rape. BIR alleged that petitioner failed to file his income tax returns and. Amendment of information 27. If there is no designation of the Court. 2007. 8424. it is required that "the complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by The accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on March 5. On May the statute. without leave of court. The CTA ruled that the prosecution’s amendment is punishable under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. After the plea and during the trial. thus on June 12. 1998 to June Less Center’/Mendez Medical Group. 1998. express reference to "Mendez Medical Group. NO. 174461. J. As a phrase descriptive of a sole prohibits the prosecution from seeking a substantial amendment. the addition of the phrase "doing business under the qualification under the second paragraph of Section 14." without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.’" Given the nature of a sole 19." 28. They waived the 2.1998 to June 19. the CTA implicitly ruled that there was in fact no amendment of the date in the FACTS: Petitioner and her son Johan were charged with homicide for information by correctly citing what the original information alleges. the change in the date of substantial right of the petitioner as accused. (ii) the addition of the phrase "doing business under the name and style the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment of a complaint even after the of Mendez Medical Group. Jr (Mallo) on July 19. Interestingly. however. name and style" is merely descriptive of the nature of the business organization established by the petitioner as a way to carry out the Once the accused is arraigned and enters his plea. we agree with the prosecution that petitioner has no reason to that since the accused officially begins to prepare his defense against the complain for the inclusion of the phrase "Mendez Medical Group. One of these "Mendez Medical Group" because this entity is nothing more than rights is the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature the shadow of its business owner . LETICIA I. subject to the proprietorship.petitioner himself. It is clear that consistent We cannot see how these amendments would adversely affect any with the rule on amendments and the jurisprudence. a right which is given life during the arraignment of the accused of the charge of against him. Rule 110 of 2002. The complaint was petitioner is "doing business under the name and style of ‘Weigh later amended changing the date of commission from July 19.1998 . The "change" in the date from 2001 to 2002 and the addition of the change the nature of the crime. particularly proprietorship. RTC find both the petitioner and Johan guilty of homicide based on 27 | P a g e . and is not prejudicial to the accused. BRION In the present case. the prosecution additionally alleged that pre-trial. and the trial on the merits accordingly followed. Section 14 practice of his profession." (iii) the change and/or addition of the branches of plea but only if it is made with leave of court and provided that it can be done petitioner’s operation. then the prosecution must establish its case on the basis of the prosecution has attached copies of petitioner's paid advertisements making same information. or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as G. in denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. the commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment . KUMMER vs. 2013 to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are considered merely as formal amendments. Section 14. The theory in law is At any rate. 1998. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Amendments that do not charge another offense different from that charged in the original one. the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the "entity" mentioning those that may prejudice the rights of the accused.it does not 1. SEPTEMBER 11. In the amended information. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) amendment is sought before the accused enters his plea. the arraignment. and cause of accusation against him. the amendments sought by the prosecution pertains to The date of commission in the complaint charging the accused of homicide (i) the alleged change in the date in the commission of the crime from 2001 to was amended from July 19. Both accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. allegedly shooting Jesus Mallo." In the accusation on the basis of the recitals in the information read to him during Reply-Affidavit it submitted during the preliminary investigation. and (iv) the addition of the phrase "for income earned.R. does not affect the essence of the offense nor phrase "for income earned" deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment. were due to the genuineness. prosecution eyewitnesses affect their credibility In the present case. the process of affidavit-taking may sometimes amount The petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction with the CA. more so if the same were affirmed by the CA. In fact. as well as the corroborative testimony of the other questions. documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Moreover. The CA affirmed the RTC judgment. Moreover. which carry no complaint direct bearing on the crucial issue of the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. thus allowing the whole statement to that the RTC erred. the basic rule is that the Supreme 1) Variance between the eyewitnesses’ testimonies in open court and their Court accords great respect and even finality to the findings of credibility of affidavits does not affect their credibility the trial court. coupled with ready suggestions intended to elicit answers. an affidavit is incomplete. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Ramon Cuntapay and Amiel Malana It is oft repeated that affidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. The inconsistencies in their affidavit. The petitioner ruled that the discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his also claimed that she was not arraigned on the amended complaint for which affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily she was convicted. This is the critical point. Indeed. 28 | P a g e . Generally. the petitioner pointed inconsistencies in their affidavits and execution and authenticity testimonies open court. that prosecution witnesses. they reasoned. among others: (1) in giving credence to the testimonial be taken out of context. the latter prevails ISSUES: because affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered to be inferior to 1) Whether the discrepancies between the affidavit and testimonies of the the testimony given in court. The chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public A close scrutiny of the records reveals that Malana and Cuntapay positively document. who both testified that the petitioner shot Mallo which was coupled by the Oftentimes. It and firmly declared in open court that they saw the petitioner and Johan shoot is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and Mallo. we have results finding the petitioner positive for gunpowder residue. later turn out not to be wholly descriptive of the series of events as the affiant knows them. the inconsistencies refer only to minor details that are not critical to RULING: Petition denied the main outcome of the case. As a public document. narration. As between the joint affidavit and the testimony given in open court. She averred to putting words into the affiant’s mouth. the affiant is asked standard petitioner’s right hand. this petition discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete. we find it undeniable that Malana and Cuntapay positively 2) Whether paraffin test results is admissible as evidence identified the petitioner as one of the assailants. resulting in its seeming contradiction positive findings of gunpowder nitrates on the left hand of Johan and on the with the declarant’s testimony in court. (2) in considering the paraffin test The court is not unmindful of these on-the-ground realities. the person who made the report need not be presented in court oversight of the administering official in typing the exact details of their to identify. In her attempt to impugn the credibility of prosecution eyewitnesses Malana 2) Public documents are admissible in court without further proof of their due and Cuntapay. Hence. evidence of Cuntapay and of Malana despite the discrepancies between their sworn statements and direct testimonies. Worse. the rule on authentication does not apply. as in this case. describe and testify how the report was conducted. not 3) Whether there is a need for the petitioner to be arraigned in the amended the inconsistencies that the petitioner repeatedly refers to. of the presence of gunpowder residue amendment was of this nature and did not need a second plea. the infliction of slight physical injuries constituted an act of ingredient of the offense. Furthermore. amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the Petitioner averred that at the time of the alleged incident on July 13. The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Quash the Information. private respondent admitted that her would no longer be available after the amendment is made. ANGELES CITY (PAMPANGA) 3) Change in the date of the commission of the crime. In her affidavit. the dating relationship between the petitioner and the offended party. the forensic chemist does not under the complaint is still available after the amendment. would no longer be available was no longer in a dating relationship with private respondent. as the information will permit. notwithstanding the fact that it was Captain Benjamin the change in the date of the commission of the crime of homicide is a formal Rubio who was presented in court to identify the chemistry report and not the amendment . in fact. is merely a formal amendment. albeit ascribing their presence from a match she allegedly lighted. no arraignment is required. As a matter of fact. any time as near as to the actual date at which date the offense was committed. It did not consider material the fact that the parties’ dating relationship had ceased prior to the It is not even necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise incident. as amended. need to be presented as witness to identify and authenticate the chemistry the same line of defenses used by the petitioner. he complaint or information. Applying these rules and principles to the prevailing case. 29 | P a g e . CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) In the present case. This is also true with respect report. relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing 1988 to June 19. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment of a After examining the supporting evidence. the defense not apply to public documents. the entries in the chemistry report are prima facie to the pieces of evidence presented by the petitioner. as it originally stood. The latter posted provided that it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the a cash bond for his provisional liberty and filed a Motion for Judicial accused. or a difference of only one month. 2009. It is clear that the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and consistent with the rule on amendments and the jurisprudence cited above. issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner. In other words. The effected evidence of the facts they state. hence. the essence of the offense nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the report may still be admitted because the requirement for authentication does new averment.The RTC denied petitioner’s motion. thus.R. The act may be alleged to have been committed at violence against women and their children as defined in Sec. the victim when the physical harm was committed. where the disparity is G. the records of the RULING: As correctly ruled by the RTC. when any evidence the accused might have 9262 was inapplicable. No.it does not change the nature of the crime. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT her fingers. the RTC found probable cause and complaint even after the plea but only if it is made with leave of court and consequently. 2013 not great. Under the circumstances. FACTS: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262 Section 14. ratiocinating that since the parties had admitted a prior dating time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material relationship. 193960 January 7. RA after the amendment is made. and is not prejudicial to the accused. the petitioner herself admitted the presence of gunpowder nitrates on 29. the ISSUE: Whether or not amendment is necessary to reflect the cessation of precise time is not an essential ingredient of the crime of homicide. 1988. it is immaterial whether the case evidently show that the amendment in the complaint was from July 19. 3(a) of RA 9262. KARLO ANGELO DABALOS vs. The RTC Ruling . as this was. Further. does not affect the forensic chemist who actually conducted the paraffin test on the petitioner. that is. and when any relationship with petitioner had ended prior to the subject incident. evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information. on the left hand of Johan and on the right hand of the petitioner. The Court granted the petition and acquitted Dr. Sec. without leave of court. MARCH 10. Solidum civilly liable would speculate on the cause of hypoxia and the court refused to do so. hear or move. giving the prosecutor a period of two (2) prejudice. was part of a surgical team of malpractice cannot be had. The manner of administration of anesthesia was not necessarily the cause of hypoxia that PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerald. Hence. qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. and cancelled his bail. His colleagues filed for MR to exclude them from solidary liability as to the damages. 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that an acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt of reasonable doubt? information may be amended. SEC. FERRO CHEMICALS. the RTC was correct exempt him from civil liability. without any pronouncement on costs of the suit. as the prosecution failed to present any witness with special medical against a doctor. pay damages amounting to P600. he could no longer see. 4 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. as there was no sufficient proof that Dr. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) the levels of anesthesia during Gerald’s operation. DR. in form or in substance. The case was transferred to RTC-Family Court. his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doctors in Ospital ng Maynila who conducted a pull-through operation doubt. In the present case. Although the acquittal of Dr. Solidum. an anesthesiologist. Solidum can be held civilly liable after being Furthermore. Amendment of complaint or information. There was no firm and competent quash the same. (creation of anal opening by resection of large intestines) on Gerald Gercayo. The Office filed an information in MeTC Manila solely against Dr. a three-year old child with an imperforate anus.. the circumstances established do not present in directing the amendment of the Information and in denying the motion to factual and legal bases for doing so. During the operation. FERNANDO SOLIDUM VS. showing how the injury to Gerald had been caused. to be in accord sentenced him to be imprisoned. to wit: costs. 2014 RESOLUTION: The court found the res ipsa loquitur inappropriate. the court shall order that an amendment be made. 30. Solidum of the crime. GARCIA vs. ISSUE: Whether or not Dr. at any time before the accused enters his plea. to his damage and Court finds the Order of the RTC. PEOPLE for civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence. Solidum. 2014 with the City Prosecutor of Manila.R. by amendment. INC. As the determination of negligence and FACTS: Dr. Gerald experienced bradycardia (low heart rate) and went into a coma. Gerald’s mother filed a complaint against the attending physicians G. for failing to monitor and regulate properly 30 | P a g e . The same can be said for the dismissal of the criminal negligence reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries by the RTC and CA case. 192123. ANTONIO M. the RULING: No. Solidum had been negligent during the NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the conviction for operation. but then.000 plus with Sec. to which the court acceded. GR NO. Solidum would not automatically accused petitioner has not yet been arraigned. and relationship between the petitioner and the offended party. No. subsequently regained consciousness. this appeal.If the motion to quash is the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC on the case as a textbook example of based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured res ipsa loquitur. 4. Upon appeal. To adjudge Dr. 172505 October 1. He 31. which found the days to amend the Information to reflect the cessation of the dating doctor guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. hence. and ISSUE: Whether Ferro Chemicals. Antonio Garcia. Inc. On September 6. the civil liability before the Regional Trial. 1988. For this reason. for allegedly misrepresenting to Ferro Chemicals. The civil liability based on delict is extinguished when the court In the decision dated December 12. fraudulent act or fraudulent means which constitute When the trial court’s decision was appealed as to its criminal aspect in the the very cause or the only motive which induced the private complainant to petition for certiorari before this court. Inc. The deed was for the sale and purchase of 1997 on the civil aspect of the case to the Court of Appeals on the ground that shares of stock from various corporations. Inc. "A") is wanting in the case at bar. Antonio hearing the criminal action declares that ‘the act or omission from which the Garcia was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence and ruled that private civil liability may arise did not exist’. which were included in civil liability ex delicto the contracts entered into between Antonio Garcia and Ferro Chemicals.00 as actual loss with legal interest and attorney’s fees in the signing of the agreement.. Inc.000. and one proprietary membership in the Manila appeal is without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate petition for certiorari Polo Club. granted the appeal and awarded Ferro Chemicals. Inc. Inc. its trial is Ferro Chemicals. was entitled to the awards given as proprietary membership in the Manila Polo Club. These shares of stock were in the name of Antonio under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the criminal aspect.00. recovery of civil liability ex delicto. is asserted in both actions before On August 25. 1997. the class "A" share in Alabang Country Club.000. filed a complaint for estafa against Antonio Garcia inherently intertwined with the criminal action. Inc. its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of the criminal action. out of extreme caution. the July 29. the civil aspect thereof is deemed enter into the questioned deed of sale (Exh. Thus. the element of false pretense. Thereafter. 1996 of the Regional Trial Court. criminal action. Ferro Chemicals. RULING: The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on the acts or omissions that constitute the criminal offense. the Court of Appeals. Ferro Chemicals. 1989. did not agree to the amount of ₱20. This notice of Alabang Country Club. included in the appeal.. The contract was allegedly entered into to prevent these shares of due course thereto. Inc." It alleged: Herein extinction of the civil action. 1997 order of the Regional Trial Court as to the civil aspect of the case." complainant was aware of the status of the subject CLUB SHARES. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) FACTS: Antonio Garcia. and Ferro Chemicals. as seller.000. of stock was entered into between Antonio Garcia and Ferro Chemicals. the amount of that Antonio Garcia can redeem the properties sold within 180 days from the ₱1. 2005. entered into a deed of absolute· sale and purchase of appealing the Decision dated 12 December 1996 and the Order dated 29 July shares of stock on July 15. Inc. Inc.. Inc.. Antonio Garcia filed an action for to disclose the Philippine Investment and Savings Organization’s lien over the specific performance and annulment of transfer of shares. However. including one class "A" share in it is notin accordance with the law and the facts of the case. the relief prayed for by Ferro Chemicals. as buyer. whether the latter is instituted with or separately 31 | P a g e . hence. Inc. were sold at public auction to Philippine Investment System Organization. ex delictois impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. private complainant shall endeavor to seek the stock from being sold at public auction to pay the outstanding obligations of consolidation of this appeal with the said petition. that is. Thus. that the shares subject of the contracts entered into were free from all civil liability ex delictois instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the liens and encumbrances. that it is Garcia. through Ramon private complainant hereby gives notice. club shares. a deed of right of repurchase over the same shares of stock subject of the deed of absolute sale and purchase of shares On the other hand. If the action for the Inc. The notice of appeal filed was entitled "Notice of Appeal Ex Gratia [T]he extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry with it the Abudantia Ad Cautelam (Of The Civil Aspect of the Case). appealed to the Court of Appeals this court and the Court of Appeals. Thus. in its decision dated August 11. The appellate court found that Antonio Garcia failed repurchase the shares of stock. upon the giving of Garcia.. Inc. The court sees no more reason to discuss the issue presented by the parties in light of the foregoing discussion. as well as all proceedings. The offended party may still claim civil liability ex happened around a month before petitioner stepped down from office as delicto if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the governor. resulting in the the offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto: (a) if the acquittal is issuance of a Final Evaluation Report dated 16 Apr. it still had to In these situations. petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated. notwithstanding the accused’s acquittal. any party to a case may demand expeditious action to Province of Negros Occidental in the amount of P20M which allegedly all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. 2001. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted its investigation. the petition is granted to set aside ISSUE: Whether the SB gravely abused its discretion in finding that CA’s decision. Consequently. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) from the criminal action. the conclusion is different if private complainant reserved was instituted. inter alia. out that petitioners never raised any objections regarding the purported delay in the proceedings during the interim. Other co-petitioners later adopted Coscolluela’s motion. This is not the situation here. Hence. act or omission from which the liability may arise exists. the filing of an appeal as to the civil aspect of the case go through careful review and revision before its final approval. the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted. assailing the acquittal of the accused. a Resolution was prepared. requesting for assistance to investigate administrative in nature. SANDIGANBAYAN HELD: YES. either judicial or quasi- the anomalous purchase of medical and agricultural equipment for the judicial. 2003 Resolution and that is inherently attached to the offense is likewise appealed. complaint into a criminal case against petitioners. the civil liability ex delicto Petitioners alleged that they learned about the 27 Mar. finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. if the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision recommended the filing of the corresponding information. A person’s right to speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under the Constitution. the respondents filed their Opposition to Motion to Quash. that although the Information was originally dated 27 Mar. be it civil or complaint from People’s Graftwatch. Private complainant cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from that of the state without violating the doctrine Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash. COSCUELLA vs. the Office of the Ombudsman received a letter. In this accord. This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in FACTS: On 9 Nov. arguing. petitioners (b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil. 2003. 32 | P a g e . explaining filing of the criminal case in accordance with Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 2012 which upgraded the based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required. that his constitutional of non-forum shopping. It also pointed cannot be considered as forum shopping. 32. 2003. and However. right to speedy disposition of cases was violated as the criminal charges against him were resolved only after almost eight (8) years since the complaint On the other hand. The appeal of Information only when they received a copy of the latter shortly after its filing the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the petition for certiorari with the SB (19 Jun 2009). Jurisprudence has enumerated three instances when. criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases. of the trial court acquitting the accused and private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to institute a separate civil action. the right to institute the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto before the Regional Trial Court or institute a separate civil action prior to the In reply. and (c) if filed their respective counter-affidavits. On 27 Mar. 2. PURIFICACION F. before whom the case was elevated via a the prosecution o the defense has been given the chance to present any petition for review. Section 1. absent this pronouncement. No civil liability could be whether petitioners indeed committed the acts or omissions from which any adjudged against her because of her acquittal from the criminal charge. vehicle. upon the filing of a criminal action. Despite receipt of the demand letter. FELIPE SECTION 1. Rule 120 ROC. Well-settled is the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted alleged malfeasance. Purificacion gave ₱200. subject to certain exceptions. it does not necessarily follow that petitioners During the preliminary investigation. Frederick took possession of the separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action). RTC affirmed the MeTC stating that omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Thus. no additional payment had been made. Thereafter. assuming that the same is payment to amicably settle the civil aspect of the case. Despite non-payment. the RTC considered Purificacion to be an herein discussed. reserves the right to institute it Son purchased. Conversely. as a matter of course. Purificacion was estopped from denying that she issued the check as a "show check" to boost the credit standing of Frederick and that Nissan agreed not to Based on the violation of petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases as deposit the same. however. On appeal. While the foregoing pronouncement should. refused to replace the check giving the reason that she was not the one who purchased the vehicle. the Province is not ISSUE: WON Purificacion may be made liable precluded from instituting a subsequent civil case based on the delict if only to recover the amount of P20M in public funds attributable to petitioner’s RULING: Yes. Purificacion act on all complaints lodged before it. a demand letter was served upon Purificacion. 2. unless the judgment of acquittal explicitly declares that the act or her civilly liable to Nissan. 22 (BP 22) action is instituted. NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS vs. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from was filed by petitioner against respondent for her issuance of a postdated the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless check in the amount of ₱1. — (a) When a criminal FACTS: A criminal complaint for violation or Batas Pambansa Blg. which was subsequently dishonored the offended party waives the civil action. but holding delict. Institution of criminal and civil actions.00. in consideration of a Nissan separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action (unless the Terrano 4x4 sports and utility vehicle (SUV) from Nissan which Respondent’s offended party waives the civil action. reserves the right to institute it upon presentment due to "STOP PAYMENT". the Court is unable to make a definite pronouncement as to of contract between Nissan and Purificacion. Frederick. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that: 33. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) Being the respondents in the preliminary investigation proceedings. the present case stands to be dismissed even before either accommodation party. it was not Because of this. who lived with her. The letter informed her of the dishonor of the it was the Office of the Ombudsman’s responsibility to expedite the same check and gave her five (5) days from receipt within which to replace it with within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly cash or manager’s check. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. The CA. Further. civil liability on their part might arise as prescribed under Sec. proven in a subsequent case which the Province may opt to pursue. Sec.00 as partial are entirely exculpated from any civil liability. result in the acquittal of the petitioners. granted the petition reasoning out that there was no privity evidence. 33 | P a g e . Rule 111 ROC provides that an acquittal in a criminal case does not bar private offended party from pursuing a subsequent civil case based on the MeTC rendered its judgment acquitting Purificacion of the charge.000.020.000. (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. Consequently. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. through the petitioner’s duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case. : Petitioners argue that the CA gravely acquittal. and (c) the civil liability of the accused does petitioners pleaded not guilty. Atencia’s disqualification violatedthe respondent’s worthless check. The civil action shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action. while commit the acts or omission imputed to him. is not found to be criminally liable. 34 | P a g e . rights to intervene and be heard in the bigamy case. who was then living in the United States and however. the public prosecutor joined the petitioners in disqualifying Atty. 2014 prosecution of the offense for the recovery of civil liability where the civil action BRION. 196508 September 24. No. LEONARDO A. regardless of her intent. (b) the court declares that the Consequently. if the judgment is of Atty.18 The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a During the pre-trial. A verified complaint-affidavit alleging the commission of the crime specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as of bigamy was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Antipolo. Amelia opposed the omnibus motion. requested Benito he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action Yao Chua and Wilson Go to commence the criminal proceedings against the does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. this time under the name of Leonardo A. During the subsistence of The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying his marriage to Amelia. Trial of It can. Atencia from appearing in the case. Atencia’s disqualification. she to participate in the proceedings and was even called to stand as a witness remains civilly liable because the act or omission. the respondent was never denied her right Purificacion issued the bouncing check. the country during the whole proceedings on the bigamy case. Amelia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition accused. then the necessary penalties and civil liabilities arising from the before the CA. civil liability. be concluded that if the judgment is conviction of the the case ensued thereafter. the finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from private offended party. not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted. allegedly contracted a second marriage with Erlinda Talde that took that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. 2006 resolution disqualifying Atty. On arraignment. Apollo V. Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly allows an offended party to intervene by counsel in the G. Atty. issuing its March 3. from which her civil liability arises. VILLALON and ERLINDA TALDE-VILLALON vs. place on June 2. and that Atty. INTERVENTION ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. an Information was filed with the RTC. Atencia to intervene in the case. even with Atty. Atencia. then the imposition of the civil liability will depend on whether or not erred when it ruled that: the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in the act or omission from which it might arise exists. Atencia’s disqualification violated the respondent’s rights to intervene and be heard in the bigamy case. AMELIA CHAN RULING: YES. Atencia as private Purificacion was charged with violation of BP 22 for allegedly issuing a prosecutor. therefore.16 If the accused. the liability of the accused is only civil. On the contrary. except when the offended party waives the civil action. it does not necessarily mean that could not personally file a case for bigamy in the Philippines. Amelia.: for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is instituted with the criminal action. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) FACTS: Amelia Chan married Leon Basilio Chua. J.R.17This rule more petitioners. 1993. the making and issuing of but the respondent never appeared before the court because she was out of the subject check. Chua. Leonardo filed an omnibus motion with the RTC which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not seeking to disqualify Atty. The RTC granted Leonardo’s omnibus motion. only preponderance of evidence is required. 34. The civil aspect of every criminal case is based on the principle Villalon. The petition was granted and annulled the order disqualifying offense or crime shall be imposed. Thus. Atencia appeared in behalf of Amelia. They contend that. evidently exists. During the trial. Atencia from intervening in not a petition for review is the proper remedy. The fact that the respondent. the CA found no such waiver from or reservation made by the reconsideration which was. however. As a consequence of Yalong’s failure to file a notice of 450. Petition for Certiorari with Petition for Bail (certiorari petition) before the RTC had secured the services of an attorney in the Philippines reveals her which denied the petition. YLAGAN appeal is dismissible. she did not surrender within 15 days from the date of the criminal action. Ylagan. it cannot be gainsaid that the RTC took cognizance of and resolved Yalong for the crime of violation of BP 22. She filed a motion for In this case. It is fundamental that a petition for certiorari is an original action and. August 28. Section 2(a). law the right to participate through counsel in the prosecution of the offense with respect to the civil aspect of the case. the rules on appeal or acknowledge the same. Yalong filed a motion for the bigamy case as the respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA properly dismissed the subject petition for review on the ground of improper appeal. and to put an end to controversies. it same. Thus. While the Rules of Court do not specifically state that the 35. when Ylagan presented the subject check for payment. The CA dismissed the subject petition for review on willingness and interest to participate in the prosecution of the bigamy case the ground that the order of the RTC was issued in the exercise of its original and to recover civil liability from the petitioners. however. denied. Yalong averred compliance with such requirements is considered fatal and has the effect of that she already paid the said loan but did not require Ylagan to issue a receipt rendering the judgment final and executory. issued to her a postdated check in the similar had attained finality which thereby bars Yalong from further contesting the amount. such promulgation. Yalong pleaded the aforesaid petition in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. JURISDICTION/ VENUE HELD: No. is afforded by reconsideration which was. Yalong filed a respondent. 2013 original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the latter court. should have filed a notice of appeal with the RTC instead of a petition for trial ensued. Hence. who was already based abroad. Ylagan filed the instant case. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) reserves the right to institute it separatelyor institutes the civil action prior to the MTCC Decision. rules of procedures are liberally construed. After period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non- several demands from Yalong. Upon arraignment. the RTC should have jurisdiction – where appeal [by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC] – and allowed. this petition. jurisprudence dictates that the perfection of an appeal within the was dishonored and returned her for the reason of “Account Closed”. she did not file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies under the law. Rule 41 of the Rules nonetheless provides that appeals to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its GR NO 187174. She also claimed that the subject check belonged must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable to forestall or to her husband and that while she knew that the said check did not cover avoid unreasonable delays in the administration of justice. Ylagan testifies that Yalong borrowed from her review with the CA. YALONG vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LUCILA inappropriate filing of a petition for review instead of a required notice of C. the RTC Decision cash. However. it was already signed by her husband when she handed it to orderly discharge of judicial business. and as payment therof. being the offended party. The MTCC found Yalong guilty. Hence. Atty. FACTS: Respondent Ylagan filed a criminal complaint against Petitioner as such. Aggrieved. and she remained at large. Yalong not guilty to the said charge. She then filed a notice of appeal which was also denied on the ground provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting that Yalong had lost the remedies available to her under the law when she appeals are strictly applied and are only relaxed in very exceptional failed to appear without justifiable reason at the scheduled promulgation of circumstances on equitable considerations. and should not have disqualified. which are not present in the 35 | P a g e . The case was then set for pre-trial and therafter. to ensure an sufficient funds. Verily. FELY Y. the denied. A motion for reconsideration was Though as a general rule. To be sure. denied.000 with a verbal agreement that the same would be paid back to her in appeal with the RTC within the proper reglementary period. 1995. however. which the latter turned down. hence. He reported the since Falsification of Public Document under Article 172(1) of the RPC. Hence. Atibula compared the contents of Volume 266 with the remedy and perforce was properly dismissed by the CA. Macapagal then directed be raised at any stage of the proceedings. and became aware of the Original Decisions.R. 188694. 1995. Atibula saw Dario outside the CA Investigators. Jr. 1995. He claimed that it was Castro who Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged asked him to deliver the said package to Atibula. an inspection of the air–conditioning units at the office of the CA Reporter’s Division was conducted. Tablate reported the incident to then CA Presiding 36. Macapagal. CASTRO v. Atibula. a certain Nelson de the present petition. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. Records. Atienza denied having anything to do with to the office – followed a few minutes later by Dario – and searched for the the questioned incidents as he was not even summoned by the CA Clerk of aforementioned decision which was found compiled in Volume 260 of the CA Court or the Chief of the Reporter’s Division. the subject petition for review was the wrong no one. whereby it was FACTS: Atienza and Castro (petitioners) are employees of the CA.000. PEOPLE Justice Nathanael P. index of the decisions and noticed that there were two new documents inserted therein. questions of jurisdiction Atibula to ascertain who borrowed the volume. The rule is well–settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may Having been notified of Volume 266’s return. Arnel Macapagal. Atibula refused and immediately left. Manila. party. At the of their “concerted efforts through previous or simultaneous acts and deeds”. On March 20. the RTC did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Case exchange for Volume 260. 1995. charged. As Dario was scanning through the said volume. and requested the NBI to conduct an OF THE PHILIPPINES investigation on the matter. Thereafter. they are not precluded from questioning the same. As it stands. 1968 in one of the volumes of the CA Original Decisions. G. Atienza offered Atibula the amount of P50. immediately amended. was Falsification of Public Document between Atienza and Dario for profit in view invited by Castro to attend Atienza’s birthday party in Ermita. On incident only when he and Castro were subpoenaed by the NBI Special March 24.” as January 28 to February 12. ISSUE: Whether the court has a jurisdiction over the case On April 21. disclosed may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal. The petitioners were found guilty by the RTC for the crime compound. otherwise known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts pursuant to Section 32(2) of On May 9. February 12. RICARDO L. No. Atibula returned of Falsification of Public Document. De Pano. the accused were charged for the crimes of Robbery and the latter in searching for a certain CA decision. Atibula discovered that Volume 266 covering the period from BP129. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) instant case. Records Officer I air conditioning unit” and there was conspiracy to commit the crime of and Custodian of the CA Original Decisions in the CA Reporter’s Division. However. 2014 On the second week of July 1995. Division. at about past noon. the Assistant Chief of the CA Reporter’s is punishable by prision correccional and a fine of not more than P5.000. Atienza introduced Atibula to a certain Dario and asked him to assist After investigation. On May 18. jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the bag containing the missing Volume 266. 36 | P a g e . Atty. who then instructed him (Atibula) to hide the Volumes in a safe place. assigned discovered that the perpetrators gained entry to the office of the CA Reporter’s to its Budget Division and holding the positions of Budget Officer I and Utility Division “by passing through the hole on the concrete wall after removing the Worker I. While petitioners raised this jurisdictional defect for the first time in reported the same to Atty. falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts.00 in HELD: No. Clerk IV detailed at the CA Reporter’s Division. 1969 was missing and. which incident to Atty. Castro.00. by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Atty. handed to Atibula a Indeed. Dario requested Atibula to insert a Decision dated September 26. 1995. Separately. after office hours. which provides that the of files any dilatory plea. whether or not a public officer profited or will profit thereby. shall be within the jurisdiction of the RTC. 6938 would be punishable by imprisonment of not less than accused considering that the accused is a private person and the public six (6) months nor more than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one official Enrile is already deceased. In this case. The only thing extinguished by ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF MCTC JAGNA-GARCIA- the death of Enrile is his criminal liability. and considering that violation of case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the [Sec] 46 of R. HON.00). HERNANDEZ. 200465. the contention of the accused that by reason of the pesos (P5. on behalf of the government.. The Supreme Court held that it is a well settled rule that the RULING: YES. DKT PHILS. PEOPLE 37. It does not mean that the allegations of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that 39. GO G. GR No. On appeal. The dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. ASISTIO vs. that no public officer was charged hence B. CA reversed and set aside the RTC Order and remanded the case records to the RTC for further proceedings. the accused. April 20. ISSUE: Whether or not SB acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused due to his voluntary appearance? ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the case? RULING: Yes. is untenable.. there was a mistake on the part of the accused act of an accused in posting bail and in filing motions seeking affirmative relief and RTC in the use and interpretation of the provision mentioned above in is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same. Furthermore. voluntary appearance when he filed a motion for consolidation and when he posted bail. the and stated that SB has already acquired Jurisdiction over Go because of his RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant case. officers and committee members) question at the very earliest opportunity. 129. Chairman and President of PIATCO. then secretary of the DOTC. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) 38. ANA LOU B. 2015. DE CASTRO. The prosecution complied with the order thousand pesos (P1. prosecution against Go may not prosper.000. INC. MANUEL A. REPRESENTED BY ATTY.R. HENRY T.P. OR THE their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. Go (Go). Blg. NAVAJA v.A.000. EDGAR BORJE 37 | P a g e . MTC. into any contract of transaction case arguing that the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case.” RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. 25 March 2014 FACTS: Asistio was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative FACTS: Arturo Enrile (Enrile). 168539. which under before the filing of the information. entered Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative of which she into a Concession Agreement in violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 was the Chairperson and Managing Director. Henry T. No. If he gives bail. or imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not death of Enrile.00). or both at the discretion of the Court. MCTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with The Sandiganbayan (SB) gave the prosecution ten (10) days to show that the imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years. holding that the MeTCs. in conspiracy with Code of the Philippines (RA 6938) before the RTC for allegedly defrauding A. Petitioner moved to dismiss the “Entering. demurs the complaint in relation to paragraph 3 of Section 124 of RA 6938. It appears that the applicable accused to question the court’s jurisdiction over his person shall raise the provision is Section 46 (liability of directors. the public officer whom he was alleged to have conspired more than ten (10) years or both at the court's discretion. he thereby submits his person to the jurisdiction of liable person shall upon conviction suffer a fine of not less than Five thousand the court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 182926. PEOPLE FACTS: Sometime in October 2003. Makati Branch. Upon maturity. but to no avail. respondent Richard Natividad. the committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case. (2) post-dated Metrobank checks and assured petitioner that they will be has no jurisdiction over the case because not one of the essential elements honored upon maturity. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) G. Again. the Bank. and claimed and Bing Nanquil. Bohol. drawn from occurred in Jagna. falsified a receipt by making it appear that she incurred meal expenses in the amount of P1. After the last delivery. dishonored by the drawee bank. Bohol. However. while some occur in another. DOCTRINE: It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one SC RULING: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. facie case that such crime was committed in Jagna. at Garden Cafe. purchased construction materials for their project inside the Subic Freeport Hernandez. Thus. San Lorenzo. December 09. 2004. Pampanga branch. introducing themselves as contractors doing business in reimbursement for it. ISSUE: Whether or not MeTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over the case. Jagna. it being understood that court may validly take cognizance of the case. within the territorial jurisdiction of the MCTC of Jagna. Consequently. court.R. petitioner attempted to deposit cognizance of the case due to improper venue. however. Accordingly. Milo Malong of the actual amount of P810. the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. Bohol. which means that the acts material and essential thereto occur in one municipality or territory. June 22. It is well settled that of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the violation of BP 22 cases is categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. two (2) the Court holds that Navaja's case for falsification of private document falls Informations were filed against respondent and Milo Malong. prompting her to file a complaint with the City the allegations of the complaint or information and not by the result of proof. Makati City. Prosecution Office. Zone from petitioner Armilyn Morillo. ISSUE: Whether the MCTC of Jagna-Bohol has jurisdiction over the case. No. document before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jagna-Garcia. petitioner Ana Lou B.R. ARMILYN MORILLO VS. the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acts have been by the allegations in the complaint or information. be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in 38 | P a g e . Stated adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere differently. respondent issued two RULING: Yes. if the evidence the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. 198270. 2015 was still its Regional Sales Manager of DKT Phils. hence. respondent paid none of the essential elements of the crime of falsification of private document P20.00. And once it is so shown.810. instead FACTS: Sometime in July 2003. Bohol. Navaja. the checks in her savings account at Equitable PCI Bank.000. Contrary to Navaja's argument that the MCTC of Jagna. a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may else. while she G. the court Furthermore. petitioner communicated the dishonor to respondent and his partners and demanded for payment. 2015 40. owner of Amasea General Merchandize Navaja filed a Motion to Quash and Defer Arraignment on the ground that and Construction Supplies. the checks were once again dishonored for the reason allegations in the Information and the complaint-affidavit make out a prima that the account from which they were drawn was already a closed account. Upon deposit in her savings account at Equitable PCI of falsification of private document was committed within its jurisdiction. Makati City. the MCTC had no jurisdiction to take Metrobank. Immediately thereafter.00 in cash and issued two (2) post-dated checks.00. petitioner made several demands from respondent and his Guided by the settled rule that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by partners. They were. Navaja is charged with the crime of falsification of private Pampanga City under the name and style of RB Custodio Construction. on August 12. Bohol. No. Bohol. encashment can be vested with jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of BP 22. from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters and while simultaneously marked the seized plastic sachet with his initials. That he had previously effected numerous arrests. Thus. Rizal headed towards 5th Avenue when someone who was riding a deposited and presented for encashment at the Makati Branch of Equitable motorcycle called him from behind. a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance (0.: injuries for which he was brought to the Diosdado Macapagal Hospital for proper treatment. 2013 each time he failed to answer and eventually mauling him when he continued to deny knowledge about the cellphone. PO3 de Leon his presumably perfect vision. and delivered in Pampanga does not strip off the Makati MeTC of its claimed that on the date and time of the incident. The MeTC of Makati. Thereafter. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) part committed. delivered. Subsequently. he was walking alone along jurisdiction over the instant case for it is undisputed that the subject check was Avenida. PO3 de Leon. Consequently. 2006 at around 11:30am as PO3 Renato de Leon drugs. appellant sustained head PERLAS-BERNABE. PO2 Randulfo Hipolito for examination. and instant case and rendered its decision in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. "Michelle" and "Hipolito" forced him to answer questions about a stolen cellphone. (PO3 de Leon) was driving his motorcycle on his way home along 5th Avenue. Appellant approached the person. 201363 March 18. The following day he was charged for illegal possession of FACTS: On December 25.000. tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. there is no denying. a dangerous drug. took his wallet which contained ₱1. firing a gun right beside his ear G. which contained 0. a criminal case for violation of BP Subsequently. is 39 | P a g e . Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of the court of the place where the check was deposited or presented for dangerous drugs. Applying these principles. who then told him not to run. all involving shabu. he was brought to the Sangandaan Headquarters where two other police officers." took him to the LUALHATI headquarters’ firing range. the place where the check is drawn. correctly took cognizance of the turned out to be PO3 de Leon. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. holding and The RTC convicted appellant for the crime charged. the plastic sachet. PO3 de Leon turned over the marked evidence as well as the 22 may be filed in any of the places where any of its elements occurred – in person of appellant to the investigator. therefore. NAZARENO VILLAREAL y names he recalled were "Michelle" and "Hipolito. even with apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver. Thus. he saw appellant from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters. the fact that the check subject of the instant case was drawn. issued.03 gram) inside the plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. appellant denied PO3 de Leon’s allegations and instead issued. of white crystalline substance. There. Appellant was brought to the 9th Avenue police station where he was detained and mauled by eight other ARREST detainees under the orders of PO3 de Leon. appellant was charged with Guided by the foregoing pronouncements. particular. appellant tried to escape but was quickly RULING: No.00. ISSUE: W/N appellant was lawfully arrested without warrant Upon seeing PO3 de Leon. The Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon. whose 41. Thus. that violation of Section 11. would be able to identify with reasonable brought appellant to the 9th Avenue Police Station where PO3 de Leon accuracy. or Upon qualitative examination. therefore.03 gram dishonored. who PCI Bank.R. driving a motorcycle. frisked him. alighted appellant’s conviction from his motorcycle and approached the appellant whom he recognized as someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession. In his defense. No. The CA sustained scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of shabu. J. Police about a supposed drug transaction by one named Glenn Salvador. 2002. 19062. The incident took place outside the family’s bedroom his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning while [Lisa’s] mother and brother were as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been not in the house. [Lisa] was at him P200. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw in appellant’s hands was indeed shabu. Like in previous incidents. No. ISSUE: Is the failure of the police officers to conduct a physical inventory and photograph of the illegal items seized a ground to make the arrest illegal? The following day. at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning. [Lisa] was raped for the third consecutive time by appellant while police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team. led by PO2 Soriano. November 27. No. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 that in a buy-bust situation. or on December 21. Bulacan since she was fourteen (14) years old. the marking of The next day. 2013 G. Although appellant succeeded in touching and kissing [Lisa’s] private parts. 2001. She was again threatened not to tell inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will not render anyone of the incident. This time. appellant attempted to insert his penis seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Nonetheless. SALVADOR G. Because of this information. 190318. otherwise. appellant approached her and heated-plastic sachet of shabu took place. It is clear from the earlier cited Sec. [Lisa] stayed with them in their house in x x x. 43. the QC Police. February 10. time of the incident. includes the marking) is made at the place where the search warrant is served. 2001. when the other justifiable grounds." [Lisa] cried. he will kill both [Lisa] and her was not made in his presence at the scene of the crime. appellant again approached [Lisa] and removed both their shorts and underwear. After satisfying his lust. shall into [Lisa’s] vagina while the latter was sleeping on her folding bed. PEOPLE vs. Salvador then sold On December 27. Malolos. PEOPLE vs. the mother of private FACTS: A report was filed by a confidential informant before the Quezon City complainant [Lisa]. she was threatened not to tell of a court-issued warrant. or on December 28. removed his shorts and underwear as well as that of [Lisa’s]. He went on top of her RULING: No. PO2 Soriano immediately arrested thereafter.00 worth of shabu. his arrest was mother. appellant left without saying a word. At the illegal.R. Momentarily. the failure to conduct a physical and inserted his penis into her vagina. preserved. 2014 FACTS: Appellant was charged of 3 counts of Rape and acts of lasciviousness. When the exchange of the buy-bust money and the sala watching television. [Lisa] and [appellant] were alone in the house as [Lisa’s] brother and mother were out for work. VELASCO 42. or on December 29.R. not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. The accused was found guilty by the lower courts and filed the then mounted [Lisa] and inserted his penis into her vagina. he did not push through with his intention of raping her for fear 40 | P a g e . 2001. It is in the latter case that physical inventory (which anyone of the incident. "noncompliance with [the] requirements under A year thereafter. hence. [Lisa] testified that white fluid came out of not confuse buy-bust situation from search and seizure conducted by virtue appellant’s penis. PO2 Soriano posed as a buyer of shabu. In a buy-bust operation. set-up a buy- bust operation. He Salvador. at midnight. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the members of the family were asleep. also at around 11:00 o’clock in the the dangerous drug may be done in the presence of the violator in the nearest morning. He warned her not present appeal on the ground that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu to report the incident to anybody. Appellant is the live-in partner of [AAA]. Appellant should they were alone in the house. any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the the police were illegal since it was not supported by a valid warrant. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) of getting caught by the other family members who were sleeping just a few feet away from them. the backup team rushed to the scene and arrest herein appellants and the seven others. and seizure conducted by arraignment. With regard to purported irregularities that attended appellant’s of the defenses denies all the charges against the appellants. the asset introduced PO2 healed lacerations at 6 and 7 o’clock positions. court convicted appellants and was affirmed by CA. When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged signal. Upon reaching the target area. 5(a). While PO2 Noble was inspecting its CA: Affirmed. contents. Thus. even if appellant’s warrantless arrest were proven to be indeed warrantless arrest to be valid. For this type of Nevertheless. or is attempting to commit a crime. the against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. Ranada of having in his control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia. he noticed smoke coming from a table inside the house of the couple around which were seven persons. common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation. The arrest was effected after Marcelino and were charged with the crimes of sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble the sachet of shabu and a den. that she had for formed and proceeded to Marcelino’s and Myra’s residence on board two shallow healed hymenal lacerations at 2 and 3 o’clock positions and deep private vehicles. two requisites must concur: "(1) the person to invalid. and effects accused must be made before he enters his plea. FACTS: Appellants Marcelino Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. ISSUE: Whether the court a quo gravely erred in not finding the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant as illegal. objection is deemed waived. The trial consideration. search. Marcelino warrantless arrest. P200. They thus procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the posit that their right to be secure in their persons. The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. a buy-bust operation team was Richard Ivan Viray states that [Lisa] is in a non-virgin state. Hence. houses. PEOPLE vs. otherwise. Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in flagrante delicto. because jurisprudence also instructs us that the illegal arrest of an accused is actually committing." A sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any ISSUE: WON THE ARREST WAS LEGAL irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before RULING: Appellants argue that the arrest. and gave the same to PO2 Noble. we are of the same persuasion as the Court of Appeals surmised that their arrest was due to a misunderstanding he had with a former which ruled that such a plea comes too late in the day to be worthy of police officer named Rey who bought a VCD player from his shop. this petition. 44. (2) such overt is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. papers. PO2 Noble was handed with a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance after paying RTC: Guilty of 3 counts of Rape and acts of lasciviousness. The witnesses RULING: No. 41 | P a g e . and. Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu. thus. such a scenario would still not provide salvation to appellant’s cause be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. COLLADO This is precisely what happened in the present case. The medico legal report submitted by public physician Relying on the information given by an asset. M. but they take steps to quash the Informations on such ground. appellants’ clerk of court and the court staff exhibited hostility. Under Section 13. MAGLEO vs. The personnel was said this issue upon their appeal to the appellate court. annoyance and indifference. Rule 126 of the respondent judge and the latter agreed to fix the amount of bail at ₱40. PASIG CITY bondsman went to their branch that day." Moreover. however. treated the proceeding.17 42 | P a g e . Even assuming that the bondsman indeed went to their branch. it is true that under the that the amount of bail recommended was erased to bar her from posting the Constitution. REGIONAL TRIAL court personnel treated the bondsman with hostility."31 This proscription.000. the subsequent search and respondent judge is in running her office. Respondent CoC and the staff. initially refused to sign the order and advised weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the them to file a motion to lift the warrant of arrest. they claimed that no COURT. Pursuant to the above-mentioned rule. 2014 any information due to the confidentiality of the court records. commission of an offense without a search warrant." them. they can no longer question the validity thereof as there is no while on her way to the NBI office. any to be reluctant in giving any information and asked. Neither did 166. assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of Investigation (NBI) forcibly arrested her on June 15. No. she judicial warrant. Despite such omission. she examined the order of arrest and it appeared Anent their claim of unreasonable search and seizure. RTC. Hence. Rules of Court. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) there is no other logical conclusion than that the arrest made by the police FACTS: Complainant is the accused in the aforementioned criminal case. respondent judge still issued a warrant of arrest on June 9. appellants were actually committing the said crimes. ESTHER P. to inquire on the amount of the complainant’s bail. admits of exceptions. nadampot nyo na ba 45. they claimed that there was nothing wrong even if the court JUAN-QUINAGORAN and BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ATTY. officers was a valid warrantless arrest since the same was made while the She stated that she did not receive a notice of hearing for June 8.They only raised the personnel said that there was no bail indicated. BOTH OF BRANCH 166. "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous Respondent judge. a lady agent called the personnel of Branch showing that they objected to the same before their arraignment. "a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a bond for her temporary liberty. otherwise.16 With respect to the allegation that the ADONIS LAURE. She was surprised when agents of the National Bureau of Moreover. "Nadampot ninyo na ba. 2011. The next day. According to complainant. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE siya." The factual milieu of this case clearly shows that the search was made after appellants were lawfully Complainant avers that these acts show how cruel. She added that appellants. disregard of respect. complainant’s son and her lawyer talked to The arrest of the appellants was lawful. on June 16. By this omission. She claimed that on the same day. one of which bondsman with hostility. personnel indeed asked the same.00. the court personnel were justified in not divulging A. Pasig City. RTJ-12-2336 November 12. objections on the legality of their arrest are deemed to have been waived by nadampot nyo na ba siya. it becomes unreasonable and any evidence instructed her bondsman to proceed to Branch 166 to inquire about the proper obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any amount of bail. however. ignorant and unorganized arrested. BAIL The respondents averred that complainant failed to identify the court personnel who allegedly said "Nadampot ninyo na ba. It would also show that respondent seizure made by the police officers were likewise valid. partiality and wanton claim of unreasonable search and seizure must fail. is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. 2011. 2011. however. 2011. the June 9.00 was forfeited and an order of arrest was issued. the bond shall be declared ISSUE: W/N the respondent committed transgressions in the performance of forfeited. Respondent judge has to appear for a hearing or trial. Such provisional liberty could be taken away if she would Moreover. complainant was "[w]hen a respondent released on bail fails to appear on the day fixed for the released on that same day. or impose the same amount of bail at ₱40. hearing on June 8. 2011 hearing. the Rules of Court40 governs such that a motion must be filed to seek affirmative relief. it is sufficient that the bail bond was fixed after complainant was accordance with the law and jurisprudence. respondent judge acted within the scope As a consequence of failing to attend the trial when so required.00. it is not required by the Rules of Court that the amount of their duty warranting the imposition of disciplinary penalties? new bail bond be stated in the bench warrant. a bench of her authority when she required complainant’s son and lawyer to file an ex warrant was issued against complainant. acted on the motion and complainant was released immediately from NBI custody.39 It must be noted that complainant was only granted provisional liberty when she applied for bail. hearing. however.18 undeniably notified of the June 8. She alsostated that it was already beyond the control of the court if According to respondent judge. This Court is convinced that respondent judge acted in discretion.000. 2011 hearing but she failed to attend. arrested. Absent any abuse of RULING: NO. Rule 15 of the court or the Rules of Court. complainant was the amount of ₱40." 46. The Court cannot chastise respondent judge for an act not required by the Rules. there is nothing in the Rules which mandates a judge to motu violate any of the undertakings stated therein.19 When complainant’s amount of bail bond and (2) for not motu proprio lifting the bail bond when lawyer.37 As stated above. MELCHOR D. Without any provision to the contrary. the original bail bond in unjustifiably failed to attend so. she promptly complainant’s son and lawyer showed their willingness to apply for bail. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. In the present case. Section 1. A bench warrant is defined as a writ parte motion to lift the order of arrest.36 The provision on bench warrant is immediately entertained complainant’s son and lawyer when they came to her expressed under Section 9. 2011 order of arrest failed to state the PNP officers attempted to serve the warrant of arrest despite the order a bail bond because complainant jumped bail by failing to appear in court for lifting the same. decrease or retain the amount of bail based on the guidelines. the court may issue another order of arrest or may order the bond for his appearance to be forfeited and confiscated. The Court finds this acceptable because when an accused fails to appear in person as required. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) The respondents likewise stressed that the order of arrest did not state a bond Jurisprudence dictates that the primary requisite before a bench warrant shall for complainant’s temporary liberty because she jumped bail by failing to be issued is that the absent-party was duly informed of the hearing date but appear in court for the June 8.000. has disobeyed a subpoena. When the motion was filed and the issued directly by a judge to a law-enforcement officer. 2011. Respondent judge explained that she did not immediately sign the draft order Complainant also averred that respondent judge committed erroneous granting bail because she could not motu proprio lift the warrant of arrest as conduct (1) when she issued a bench warrant without specifically stating the there was no motion filed by the complainant’s lawyer. filed the proper motion to lift the order of arrest. Thus. Such would be the proper time for the judge to consider whether to increase. especially for the arrest prosecutor did not express any objection. respondent judge deemed it fit to of a person who has been held in contempt. One of the conditions for bail is proprio lift the bench warrant once the accused expresses his intent to be that the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by released on bail.38 Also. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court which states that branch despite her scheduled hearing and as a result. BRITA 43 | P a g e . or both. x x x from making a final assessment of the evidence after shabu. Cecilia L. He claimed Secretary Arturo Enrile (Secretary Enrile) in entering into a contract which is that there was no buy-bust operation and that he was – merely a victim of grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The FACTS: Two separate Informations3 were filed against appellant before the Court is not convinced. trial judge from making a final assessment of the evidence before him after the daughter-in-law of appellant’s common-law wife. 2005. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) G. "[A] grant of bail does not prevent [the trial court. in an Information dated January 13. Article II of RA 9165. appellant filed a Petition for Bail. 191260 November 24. to Philippine Air violation of Section 5. (PIATCO) for the construction. ISSUE: Whether the grant of bail in his favor means that the evidence of guilt is not strong. However..R. however. after finding that the evidence of the prosecution was not that Among those charged was herein respondent. It is not an uncommon occurrence that an accused person granted (Duhaylongsod). a the parties filed a Joint Motion for Transfer/Re-Raffle13 which was granted. Article II of the same law as it found that the maintenance of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On March 10. operation and case for violation of Section 11.A. Article II of RA 9165 strong. sufficiently established the elements prior to the issuance of the resolution finding probable cause. v. no buy-bust operation was actually conducted and that no shabu was recovered from him. herein respondent for violation regular manner. 47. Branch 70. the SB issued an Order. While there was likewise a finding of probable witnesses. Hence. through the to Evidence as it found the evidence against appellant for the charge of Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).23 "[s]uch both charges. for his defense. for having supposedly conspired with then DOTC post bail. RTC ruled that the positive testimonies of the prosecution of Section 3(g) of R. certain Ma. reconsidered and set aside the RTC-Pasig and allowed appellant to and President of PIATCO. the present appeal. which prior leave. Inc. the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon of the police officers who were presumed to have performed their duties in a found probable cause to indict. No. PEOPLE vs. GO RTC-Pasig. appellant offered the testimonies of Maygene Fernandez (Fernandez). 2004. 3019. coupled with the object evidence consisting of the seized cause against Secretary Enrile. CA affirmed the RTC Decision. 28090. the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. Baldoz.A. he was no longer indicted because he died substance that tested positive for shabu. 2014 RULING: NO. RTC-Pasig denied both appellant’s Petition for Bail and Demurrer nullified the various contracts awarded by the Government. Their testimonies aimed to establish that when bail is convicted in due course. Jr. Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Immediately after his arraignment wherein he pleaded not guilty to full trial on the merits. the case was re-raffled to RTC-Taguig."22 As the Court ruled in People v. Inc. Thus. did not resolve the Petition for Bail until after the FACTS: The Information filed against respondent is an offshoot of this Court's prosecution rested its case9and appellant filed a Demurrer to Evidence10 with Decision in Agan. Subsequent to the above Decision. 3019. a neighbor. proffered denial. Branch 70. as] RTC of Pasig City. respondent was charged before the SB. 2005. to wit: 44 | P a g e . Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III). Meanwhile. RTC-Taguig adjudged appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5. Co. among others. frame-up. In support of his Petition for appreciation [of evidence] is at best preliminary and should not prevent the Bail. Ombudsman against several individuals for alleged violation of R. who was then the Chairman strong. Pesayco filed a complaint with the Office of the Accordingly. of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Appellant asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his claim that the evidence of the prosecution is not strong enough to prove his guilt. Subsequently. One was for selling and the other for illegal possession of the trier of facts." appellant was arrested. and Olivia Duhaylongsod full trial. It gave credence to the testimonies On September 16. RTC Taguig. it dismissed the Terminals.. appellant. MELCHOR D. FACTS: Two separate Informations were filed against appellant before the As ruled in La Naval Drug vs. The prosecution also argued that the SB has exclusive jurisdiction was not confined to his opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest but over respondent's case. from making demurs to the complaint or files any dilatory plea or pleads to the merits." 45 | P a g e . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CA [236 SCRA 78. If he so wishes not operation was actually conducted and that no shabu was recovered from him." already acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent by reason of his voluntary appearance. Such an appearance gives the court jurisdiction over The prosecution complied with the above Order contending that the SB has the person. When a defendant voluntarily appears. his alleged co-conspirator. jurisdiction. and not an accused in this case. 191260 November 24. appellant offered the testimonies from expressly or impliedly. "[L]ack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived either In support of his Petition for Bail. If he gives bail. he a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits.R. No. Thus. Order requiring the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over his person. even if he is a private person. respondent did not make any special appearance to question the jurisdiction of the SB over his person prior to his posting of bail HELD: Yes. he is deemed witnesses aimed to establish that when appellant was arrested. to waive this defense. If the appearance is for any deceased. in order to avoid the submission of G. he must do so seasonably by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court. the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. 28090 only came after the SB issued an person to the jurisdiction of the court. his Motion to Quash the or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief is tantamount to submission of his Information in Criminal Case No. In the instant case. as the trier of facts. thereby gives the court jurisdiction over his person. 2014 his body to the jurisdiction of the court he must raise the question of the court’s jurisdiction over his person at the very earliest opportunity. Petitioner may not be heard now to deny said court’s jurisdiction over him. petitioner’s participation in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan posted bail. no buy-bust to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. After arraignment. he shall be deemed to have submitted himself to that jurisdiction. A grant of bail does not prevent the trial court. otherwise. because he was also covered other matters which called for respondent court’s exercise of its alleged to have conspired with a public officer. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) The prosecution is given a period of ten (10) days from today within which to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over Moreover. when he filed a motion for consolidation and when he Verily. is already separate purpose of objecting to said jurisdiction. BRITA When a defendant in a criminal case is brought before a competent court by virtue of a warrant of arrest or otherwise. it must be for the sole and and the public official Arturo Enrile. In fact. The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in posting bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation. he pleaded not guilty and filed Petition for Bail. 86]: RTC for violation of RA 9165. it has been held that: 48. "[w]here the appearance is by motion for the purpose of objecting the person of the accused considering that the accused is a private person to the jurisdiction of the court over the person. other purpose. ISSUE: Whether the private respondent’s act of posting bail and filing his motion for consolidation vests the SB with jurisdiction over his person. for selling of shabu and illegal possession of the same. The Court has taken into consideration other ISSUE: Whether the grant of bail in favor of the appellant means that the circumstances. "[A] grant of bail does not prevent [the trial court. reconsidered and set petition for certiorari of the petitioner which ordered the provisional release of aside the RTC-Pasig’s Omnibus Order of and allowed appellant to post bail. the present appeal. or even nil. such as respondent’s advanced age and poor health. and present disposition of respect for the legal processes. 213847. RULING: No. By its decision. Case was re-raffled to RTC-Taguig. x x x from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on on the basis alone of the judicial discretion to deny bail would be probably the merits. it adjudged appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating of RA 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life ISSUE: Whether the SC granted preferential treatment to respondent when imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500. which then Ombudsman to Assail the Resolution dated August 18. The Court is not the very serious crime in court was quite unique and very rare. It gave credence to the his petition for bail was granted on account of his advanced age and the testimonies of the police officers who were presumed to have performed their instability of his health. which is to ensure that an for Bail and Demurrer to Evidence as it found the evidence against appellant accused would appear during his trial and would continue to submit to the for the charge of violation of Section 5. however. July 12. 2015 granting the find the evidence of the prosecution was not that strong. AND PEOPLE OF The petitioner has proven with more than sufficient evidence that he would THE PHILIPPINES not be a flight risk. SANDIGANBAYAN. 2016 prosecution rested its case and appellant filed a Demurrer to Evidence with prior leave. the parties filed a Joint Motion for Transfer/Re-Raffle which FACTS: This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the was granted by RTC-Pasig." Such appreciation of evidence is at best preliminary and should unjust. RTC-Pasig denied both appellant’s Petition The primary but limited purpose of granting bail.00.000. There was really no reasonable way for the Court to deny bail to him simply Appellant asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his claim that the evidence of because his situation of being 92 years of age when he was first charged for the prosecution is not strong enough to prove his guilt. the CA affirmed the said RTC Decision through a Decision17 emphasizing that such right should be curtailed only if the risks of flight from dated November 18. 2009. In an Omnibus Order.000. JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. Article II of RA 9165 strong. duties in a regular manner. the records demonstrated that the risks of flight were low. Hence. as] the trier of advanced age and unstable health condition in order to deny his right to bail facts. The contentions of appellant deserve scant consideration. To ignore his convinced.000. did not resolve the Petition for Bail until after the G. Here. existed. his past evidence of guilt against him is not strong. 49. his advanced age and fragile state of health have minimized the likelihood that he would make himself scarce and escape from 46 | P a g e . Juan Ponce Emile in Case No. No.00 in the Sandiganbayan. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) The RTC-Pasig. jurisdiction of the court to answer the charges levelled against him. In a Decision by RTC-Taguig. To equate his situation with that of the other accused indicted for a not prevent the trial judge from making a final assessment of the evidence similarly serious offense would be inherently wrong when other conditions before him after full trial. RULING: No. Subsequently. the Court has recognized his right to bail by On appeal. the length of his public service. For one.R. It is not an uncommon occurrence that an accused significantly differentiating his situation from that of the latter's unquestionably person granted bail is convicted in due course. SB-14-CRM-0238 upon posting of a cash bond of Php 1. and his individual public and private reputation. this jurisdiction were too high. 9 the Court has pronounced that "the principal factor considered (in bail fixing). More than 2 years from the issuance of the Application for Probation on 7 September 2007. petitioner is not entitled to probation. the charges levelled against him. ENRIQUE ALMERO vs. which was to ensure that the petitioner would appear during his trial and benefit of the accused. the grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court. affirming the order of RTC Cebu which denied due course to the notice of appeal of Atty. and had even neglected to inform the patient suffering from various medical conditions. CA however reversed the RTC ruling and upheld the MTC’s decision in denying the application for Section 2. ERWIN. Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to would continue to submit to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to answer a penitent qualified offender. in Villasenor v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES FACTS: Atty. Accordingly." The practice of bail fixing ISSUE: Is petitioner entitled to probation? supports this purpose. Bonsubre filed a case of estafa against the Yerros before RTC. G. and appearance of the accused. The medical findings and petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the denial of his opinions have" been uncontested by the Prosecution even in their present application for probation. ATTY. and only incidentally for the bail. FEBRUARY 11. reasoning that he was dismissal. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) the jurisdiction of our courts. fundamentally misplaced. Bonsubre for the criminal aspect of estafa. 2014 Private prosecutor manifested that there was an on-going settlement between parties and that they would file the necessary motion relative thereto. ALL SURNAMED YERRO innocent. 50. NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision and RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT THE TRIAL resolution of CA." may be granted by the court to a deserving defendant. 16 which. It is to be exercised The Court has given due regard to the primary but limited purpose of granting primarily for the benefit of organized society. 205952. Bail exists to ensure society's interest in having the accused answer to a criminal prosecution without unduly restricting 51. RTC dismissed the MTC found him petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer prision case for failure of prosecution to comply with the court’s directive and the correccional in its medium and maximum periods. On 8 January 2007 the well as the necessary motion as manifested. belated learning of the order and believing in good faith that the case merely 47 | P a g e . Rule 114 of the Rules of Court expressly states that one of the probation. SEGUNDO BONSUBRE vs. The notion that bail is required to punish a person GR NO. habitually absent. The testimony of Dr. could pose significant risks to his life. In its order. ERICO. or of his flight to avoid punishment. an act of grace and clemency conferred by the State. singly or court of his change of address. Director The prosecutor opposed his application on the ground that he was known to of the Philippine General Hospital. showed that the petitioner was a geriatric be uncooperative. Gonzales. Probation is not a right but determination of which most factors are directed. ruling of MTC and remanded the case to the latter. to the RULING: No. thus collectively. Jose C. is the probability of the a mere privilege. therefore. conditions of bail is for the accused to "appear before the proper court whenever required by the court or these Rules. Thus. Atty. Upon appeal the RTC reversed and set aside the Motion for Reconsideration. Abano. It does not perform the function of preventing or licensing the commission of a crime. 2015 accused of crime is. AND his or her liberty and without ignoring the accused's right to be presumed RITCHIE. Petitioner filed an accused’s right to speedy trial. claiming a informed of his conviction only upon being served the warrant for his arrest. The FACTS: Petitioner is accused in a criminal case for reckless imprudence prosecution failed to furnish the RTC a copy of the compromise agreement as resulting in homicide and multiple physical injuries. The MTC denied his application. Bonsubre’s new collaborating counsel filed an MR.R. No. 188191 March 12. the RTC denied the motions and held that the dismissal. the RTC dismissal order is a final order that is not appealable and is immediately executory. feloniously misappropriate. to liquidate or render formal accounting of her collections or return the aforesaid RULING: No.R. BABMPC found that "there was a discrepancy of some speedy trial had been violated. did then and there wilfully. the said accused failed and still fails. 1999 onwards after BABMPC discovered discrepancies RTC. the appeal to SC. it was Atty. Bonsubre’s own fault. Aside from the considerable lapse of time from the dismissal to the and fraud in her records." ₱90. Atty. misapply and convert toher personal use and benefit the total collection of One Hundred Eighty[-]Five Thousand Five ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the RTC ruling which denied Hundred Eighty[-]Four Pesos and 06/100 (₱185. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES However. MR was and/or abuse of confidence. and the decision and resolution of the several hearings and motions. As to the provisional dismissal and ₱185. Hence. amended MR. 2014 a notice of appeal. grounded on failure to prosecute had long become final and executory. part of BABMPC’s records. Such unjustified delay on his part clearly prejudiced the respondents. Bonsubre filed G. MARGIE BALERTA vs. Here.584. including an amended MR and second CA were affirmed. as prosecution neither presented the asked by the petitioner’s counsel about where exactly was the discrepancy compromise agreement nor filed the required motion to that effect such that shown in the copy of the bank’s ledger and pages of a passbook. with unfaithfulness remedy of appeal was lost through the Atty. When Criminal Procedure have not been met. Bonsubre who caused the delay. while the rest of the compromise agreement. to testify. 8. the respondents are not estopped from invoking their right to speedy and Ambros knew more about the matter. RTC held that an independent civil action may be instituted tom collect the amount stipulated in the previous agreement. which was denied due course relative to the criminal aspect on the ground of the Yerros’ right to speedy trial. Atty. the prosecution presented BABMPC’s Manager. Bonsubre thus filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Rule 117 of the Rules on amount related to the records of the cooperative kept by the petitioner.000. After RESOLUTION: The petition is denied. unlawfull yand also denied through a resolution. Hence. being then an employee/cashier of Balasan civil aspect. Timonera answered that he is not an accountant Hence. which were no order was in fact issued granting the provisional dismissal of the case. Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BABMPC)[.06. the said accused. far from complying with her obligation. No. but she stopped reporting for jurisdiction. 205144 November 26. He alleged that petitioner neither court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of resigned nor was terminated from employment.00. petitioner must prove that the trial Napoleon Timonera (Timonera).584. In this case. CA dismissed the certiorari petition for failure to collected amount to the depository bank which is the Balasan Rural Bank. A dismissal grounded on the denial of the right of the accused amount to the Balasan Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative. the requisites in Sec. their right to Upon audit.06) Philippine Currency the notice of appeal on the criminal aspect of the case? and despite repeated demands.] was in[- saying that the Yerros are estopped from invoking the aforementioned right ]charge of collecting and keeping the collections turned over to her by the after they have reached a compromise agreement to provisionally dismiss the collectors of the cooperative [and of] account[ing] for and deposit[ing] the case until its full settlement. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) achieved in accordance with the terms of the compromise agreement.000. trial. certiorari may lie to challenge such order. 48 | P a g e . While During the pre-trial. to to speedy trial has the effect of acquittal that would bar the further prosecution its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of ₱185. but prosecute for almost 3 years from the time it was dismissed by the RTC.00 of which in the passbook. 52. reconsideration. but gave due course to the FACTS: Margie Balerta. no such grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the work from June 19. of the accused for the same offence. 1999. Over the funds."52 forced opening of her table and drawers which occurred on June 25. stated that she can no longer find the receipts. with the accessory penalty provided by law.000. "Fundamental is the precept in all criminal prosecutions. is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof required for conviction in criminal cases. including an audit conducted in her own behalf. vouchers and books in her drawers showing the cash advances of Timonera. Balerta held the funds in behalf of BABMPC. which were mere physical or material possession. The petitioner emphasized title. The petitioner defense had made any formal offer of documentary evidence. it does not CA affirms the decision of the RTC. 1999. to pay [BABMPC] ₱185. which was reflected in a past monthly audit. She also informed the police that the amount of ₱5." 49 | P a g e .06 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. together never formally offered as well. ISSUE: the latter’s table and drawers were opened through the use of duplicate keys I. Hence. drawers was however a common practice between the petitioner and De Asis. five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as did not take the witness stand especially since documentary evidence were minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The petitioner likewise in the instant case.00. She confronted BABMPC about the missing cash.896. II.584. the petitioner testified that the lastday she reported for work as a cashier in BABMPC was on June 17. the amount remains unsettled.41 RULING: On the other hand. Whether or not Balerta is entitled to an acquittal considering that a kept by De Asis. by itself alone. The witness failed to state with certainty where in the records RTC finds the [petitioner] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of held by the petitioner were the discrepancies shown. Her guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Mombay and the bank personnel years. It was thus fatal for the Estafa by misappropriation and hereby sentences [the petitioner to] five (5) prosecution’s cause that Ambros. She of the funds as an element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation is absent protested that the audit was conducted in her absence. Timonera got angry that Yes. The RTC and the CA faulted the petitioner for not offering countervailing evidence. Considering alleged that Timonera was ill motivated when he initiated the filing of the the absence of formal offers of documentary evidence. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code.) to discharge the onus probandi. which she can set up against BABMPC. She was not however furnished a copy of the audit report. she had day when the petitioner reminded him of his cash advances. it date. the Court finds that juridical possession month salary. to other projects in violation of the rules of the cooperative. The petitioner was nothing more that Timonera had exceeded the allowable cash advance amount of one than a mere cash custodian. The evidence of the prosecution was able justify a conviction to be handed on that ground because the "[c]ourts cannot to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that [the petitioner] committed magnify the weakness of the defense and overlook the prosecution’s failure estafa by misappropriation under Art. it is significant to point out that neither the prosecution nor the was missing. To The court does not find Timonera’s testimony as incredible. Still. the judgments criminal complaint against her and to evade his financial liabilities from rendered by the RTC and the CA solely hinged on who was more credible BABMPC relative to his cash advances and the money which he had diverted between the two witnesses. De Asis. The use of the duplicate keys to open each other’s office cashier possesses no juridical possession over the funds he or she holds. that the constitutive acts of the offense must be established with unwavering exactitude and moral The petitioner proceeded to the Balasan Police Station to report about the certainty because this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. but she held no independent right or already equivalent to his salaries for five months. She was aware of the shortage of ₱1. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) Timonera also testified that without the petitioner’s presence and permission.00 kept in the drawers At the outset. prevail and the court must acquit. Dahil and Castro were charged in three separate charged. produces absolute certainty. but the RTC ruled that the same was not fatal considering that a photocopy of the marked money was presented and identified by the In the case now under consideration. The CA denied. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences. their be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. the nature of the facts to which they testify. the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance 50 | P a g e . the Court acquits the petitioner not arresting officers. MARGIE BALERTA. PEOPLE vs. It did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by Dahil because she is found absolutely innocent of the crime charged. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 31. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of however. the police officers. as in this are testifying. is conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Information before the RTC for the violation of Sec. The marked money was lost in the custody of the amount of ₱185. The Court and Castro explaining that it could easily be concocted with no supporting acquits merely because reasonable doubt exists anent her guilt. the The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the case of prosecution had failed as well to present preponderant evidence from which selling and possession of illegal drugs against the accused. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. viz: procedural safeguards which generated clouds of doubts as to the identity of the seized items presented in evidence. intelligence. hence this appeal. such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence improbability of their testimony. however.R. 2002. However. in the instant case. the paltry evidence for the prosecution.06. II of RA 9165 for the sale of marijuana. Hence. the court may consider all the facts and evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot circumstances of the case. the presumption of innocence must personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. Moreover. of evidence. and also their and the other is compatible with guilt. the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) "Concededly. Section 1. 00693 is REVERSED. In the case at bar. The accused appealed to the CA and argued that there were irregularities on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal items Rule 133.5. (Underscoring "In a criminal case. DAHIL merely of Timonera’s testimony. their interest or want of interest. cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as the evidence on the issues involved lies. unless his guilt is ours) shown beyond doubt. the probability or case. Preponderance of evidence. how determined."57 The court may also consider the number of witnesses. consisting 53. petitioner can still be held civilly liable to BABMPC if preponderant evidence exist to prove the same. The petitioner. casts doubts anent the guilt of the petitioner. CR Moral certainty only is required. the witnesses’ manner of testifying. Section 1 of the Rules of Court indicates how preponderance of seized from them. This. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as."58 ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa. excluding possibility of error. All the elements the Court can determinately conclude that the petitioner should pay BABMPC of the crimes were established. The acquittal of the accused from the crime charged does not necessarily negate the existence of civil liability. The prosecution witnesses exhibited gross disregard of the evidence shall be determined. the proof. or that degree of proof which produces No. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. 2012 in CA-G. — In civil cases. and does not amply rebut her right to be presumed innocent of the crime FACTS: On 1 Oct. Art.584. The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of Third. immediately (1) conduct a physically inventory and (2) photograph the same Their testimonies are summarized as follows: in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized. On appeal. ISSUE: WON Pet constitutional righrts were violated The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of RULING: No. According to the CA decision. 21 of RA 9165 were not observed. the petitioners guilt were proven beyond The appeal is GRANTED. procedures provided in Sec. after having taken First. Laguna. whose identity is not yet known. The said provision requires the apprehending team. hearts. a The victim was brought to the emergency room of JP Rizal Hospital. attempted to bring the latter to a hospital. their presence during the hazing. 51 | P a g e . The attending physician in his medico-legal report stated that Villanueva was a victim of hazing. it was Sergeant when they chanced upon the victim. Their involvement in the hazing of Villanueva is not merely 54. the victim. Allegedly. The representative from the media and the DOJ. and any elected public official. Such explanation is unacceptable considering The defense presented seven (7) witnesses to prove the innocence of the that they conducted a surveillance on the target for a couple of weeks. reasonable doubt by the sequence of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The victim did not respond to the resuscitation and was thereof. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) ISSUE: Whether the law enforcement officers substantially complied with the FACTS: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba. He was thereafter brought to the hospital gave a the flimsy excuse that they failed to immediately conduct an inventory where the attending physician was unable to rescucitate him. in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members Property seized signed by the arresting officers and Kagawad Pamintuan. counsel. testified that it was their investigator who prepared the document while SPO1 Licu’s testimony was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their investigator. not breathing who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy and had no heartbeat. Information4 against the petitioners for taking the life of one Marlon Villanueca during an initiation rite and being then members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity HELD: NO. DUNGO vs. there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were the Anti-Hazing Law. and that out of the goodness of their Dela Cruz who prepared the said document. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES based on prima facie evidence but was also established by circumstantial evidence. CA ruled that the dismissed the petition of photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or Dungo and Sibal for being bereft of merit. there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Petitioner Dungo alleges that he and his friend was only on their to Pansol Inventory of Property Seized. PO2 Cruz hit from one of the master initiaters. Their testimonies are summarized as follow: Second. pronounced dead. the and officers. filed the chain of custody procedure required by RA 9165. to The prosecution presented twenty (20) witnesses to prove the crime charged. PO2 Cruz on the other hand. petitioners. or his/her representative or counsel. Aside from inducing Villanueva to attend the initiation rites and the seized items were preserved. a representative from the media and the DOJ. because they did not bring with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the documents. Although the prosecution offered in evidence the Inventory of the and present thereat. and any elected public official attending physician observed that Villanueva was motionless. the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after copious amounts of alchohol suddenly dropped to the floor after receiving a seizure and confiscation as it was only done at the police station. after seizure and confiscation. The perspective on the status of the accused . ZAFRA vs. through falsification of public documents was filed against him and found To justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence. there was a discrepancy for a total of requisites: (1) there are more than one circumstance. as the author of the crime. 2014 concealment is highly probable. After thorough through circumstantial evidence require the existence of the following examination of documents. documents on the basis of the finding that he had been negligent in the performance of his duties as Revenue District Officer. These defenses. FACTS: Zafra (petitioner) was the only Revenue Collection Agent of the BIR of San Fernando La Union from 1993-1995 on July 6. As properly held by the RTC. (2) the inference must P614. and (3) the combination of all circumstances but Zafra did not comply. time. on the other hand.R. An audit was The rules on evidence and precedents to sustain the conviction of an accused conducted on the cash and non-cash accountability of Zafra. because they are easy to concoct and fabricate. PEOPLE OF THE beyond reasonable doubt. to the of several counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public exclusion of all others. the combination of guilty thereof. The presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond corroboration of defense witness Rivera was suspect because she was the reasonable doubt. MANOLITO GIL Z.in all criminal prosecutions. RIGHTS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused 55. the petitioners did not present credible and. For in the absence of direct evidence. 52 | P a g e . presented the defense of to him did not constitute negligence. In criminal law. the PHILIPPINES prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Thus. however. likewise. and that he could not be convicted of denial and alibi. The audit team required Zafra to restitute the missing amount be based on proven facts.93. and it was only logical and emotional that she would stand mean such degree of proof that produces absolute certainty. 176317 July 23. the CA affirmed the conviction of Zafra and further circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as opined that he should also be guilty of malversation through negligence. No. it is critical to start with the law's own starting of the petitioners by prosecution witnesses Sunga and Ignacio. 1995. do not hold much weight because they had so much at unprejudiced mind. to the criminal liability of the accused. the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard. is required for a conviction. Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where G. Time and time again. this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Only moral by the man she loved and cared for. proof beyond reasonable doubt does not girlfriend of Dungo. Stated differently. if not impossible. intentional malversation and malversation through negligence at the same this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses. 18 cases for malversation of public funds produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. to prove. Jurisprudence requires that the circumstances must be established to form an unbroken chain of events The petitioner contends that the RTC and the CA erroneously convicted him leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. that the acts imputed Petitioners Dungo and Sibal.151. must fail. On appeal. he is testimonies of the defense witnesses also lacked credibility and reliability. stake in the outcome of the case. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) these defenses cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification In considering a criminal case. disinterested witnesses to substantiate their defenses While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt of denial and alibi.: circumstances. J. The testimonies of their fellow fraternity certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an brothers. If direct evidence is insisted on under all BERSAMIN. 180416 remains pending before the SC. After preliminary investigation. ADERITO Z. which ordered the order. A motion for 56. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. 89724. there can be no double jeopardy. Upon learning that a 53 | P a g e . FACTS: Private respondents filed before a criminal complaint for violation of the Order of Revival that followed should be declared null and void. Like the Order of Dismissal. Even if it were assumed that the findings by the CA warranted final outcome of the pending case.R. They thereafter filed a Petition for Certiorari. While said Section 74 of BP 68 against the petitioners. JAY G. which had been arraigned. REYNALDO TORRES. leaving him open to being convicted of whatever crimes the Court be considered to have acted with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the would ultimately conclude from the records to have been actually committed assailed orders. Thus. 89724 because the Cause and to Defer the Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest Pending jurisdiction to act on and entertain the case had already been acquired by this Determination. which the MTC granted. No. The MTC no Petitioners then filed an Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable longer had the authority to dismiss Criminal Case No. 2007. No. the same infirmity of having been issued without jurisdiction. QUIAMBAO and ERIC C. 180416. The private respondents thereafter filed a RONNIE TORRES motion for reconsideration. CESAR T. There is no double jeopardy because the MTC. While 57. it naturally follows that all the issuances and/or orders issued petitioners. 2007 (Order of Revival) recalling the Order of Dismissal and malversation through negligence at the same time. and reinstating the criminal information in Criminal Case No. the MTC cannot jeopardy. 89724 on June 18. Hence. provides for the inherent power of the courts to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO TORRES y NAVA. the present petition. Since petition holding that there was no probable cause to hold the petitioners for the MTC clearly had no jurisdiction to issue the Order of Dismissal and the trial. They were arraigned on January 29. The MTC’s Order of Revival is void. Order of Revival. 89724. 180416 to await the RULING: Yes. No. It then directed to MTC to dismiss the case for want of probable cause. It further ordered the suspension of the proceedings in G. and Case No. the Court would not but its motion was denied. PILAPIL vs PEOPLE OF THE reconsideration was denied. SUMBILLA ISSUE: Did the reinstatement of the revival of the dismissed case by the MTC place the petitioners in double jeopardy? GR NO 185267. the MTC issued an Order ISSUE: Whether or not Zafra may be convicted of intentional malversation dated September 17. The petitioners moved for reconsideration his being guilty only of malversation through negligence. Hence. they brought an appeal to the SC via petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law. 2007. it suffers from the petitioners were charged two informations before the MTC of Pasig City. The RTC granted the dismissal of the criminal case. It is axiomatic and archived Criminal Case No. PHILIPPINES. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 2014 HELD: No. public funds through falsification of public documents because his appealing It found that the MTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it revived the convictions kept the door ajar for an increase in his liability. and BONIFACIO C. order merely sought to correct the previous Order of Dismissal. the MTC dismissed Criminal TORRES.R. The MTC denied the motion and set the arraignment of the Court. A motion for reconsideration was denied. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) petition for certiorari had been filed before the SC. Since the RTC’s Order has not yet that by appealing he waived the constitutional protection against double attained finality in view of the pendency of G. YUJUICO. A petition for certiorari with application of a TRO and/or Writ of by the lower court relative to the issue pending review will become null and Preliminary Injunction was filed seeking for the partial annulment of MTC’s void. is not a court of competent jurisdiction. be barred from holding him liable for the intentional crime of malversation of Prohibition and Mandamus. the RTC ruled that the Order of Revival was by him within the terms of the allegations in the informations under which he pursuant to Section 5(g) of Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court. September 17. Likewise.R. 189850 September 22. No. he is deemed to have abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition the victim when the latter resisted. upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate. it must be proven as conclusive as the homicide instead of murder. 2001 in Manila. Thereupon. the appellant and his co-accused was to rob Espino and his killing was only trial court charged De Leon.). which was alleged in wife and daughter-in-law. Antonio and Yoyong were charged with Murder while should be left undisturbed as being final and executory which cannot be Danilo. De Leon. When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court. which is then called September 21. an amended lnformation was filed before the the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the charging siblings Reynaldo Torres (Reynaldo).. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) G. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the decision ISSUE: Whether the acquittal of the accused-appellant in the robbery charge of the trial Court. conspiring together rob Emilio A. (De Leon. shoots and hack Prasmo using the Information and duly established by the prosecution. who took the money of Prasmo. Ronnie parties. Espino (Espino) who was killed on whole case open to the review of the appellate court. However. et al. Hence. errors as may be found in the appealed judgment. DANILO DE LEON AND YOYONG DE LEON for him because his brothers got involved in an altercation that resulted in the death of someone. he Torres (Ronnie) and appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the homicide committed against Jaime M. BAYANI DE LEON. the RTC FACTS: On 2 March 2002. Manila where they had a drinking session which lasted until they fell asleep. Espino was rushed to the hospital but was on double jeopardy since it became the duty of the appellate court to correct pronounced dead on arrival. Prasmo (Prasmo). "An appeal in a criminal case opens FACTS: On January 28. They did not leave their friend’s house until the following morning 58. et al. the CA found that the primary intention of killing itself and not a mere afterthought by the accused.R. robbery. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. when appellant appealed the RTC’s judgment of conviction for latter his belt-bag. Marilou Garcia in Information instead of murder. they were found guilty of murder after it found the et al. appellant could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the Appellant denied any participation in the crime. Danilo De Leon (Danilo) and Yoyong De Leon (Yoyong). sumpak.A. he waives his right not to be subject to double jeopardy.M. of the crime of Murder instead of Robbery incidental to the robbery. To sustain the The C. Tayuman. 197546. when the accused filed an appeal by an accused. modified the ruling of the RTC finding appellant guilty of robbery with conviction of robbery with homicide. Tondo . Espino while he was on board his car and travelling along C.38 cal revolver. In view thereof. he was told that policemen were looking DE LEON. with Homicide. GR NO. The RTC held that robbery was not duly established. by blocking his path and forcibly grabbing from the In other words. 2004. Antonio De Leon acquitted the accused of the crime special complex crime of robbery with (Antonio). 54 | P a g e . samurai and . together with his qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. 2014 HELD: No. He testified that he was with RTC by finding him guilty of robbery with homicide as charged in the his girlfriend. Bayani De Leon (Bayani). homicide. That on the occasion of the said robbery the accused killed murder. Bayani. Recto Avenue corner Ylaya St. whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant. ANTONIO when they went home. was guilty of a separate crime of overturned without violating the proscription against double jeopardy. Merlita Hilario at the house of their friend. 23 MARCH 2015 The crime of robbery not having been indubitably established. Jay Torres (Jay). it cannot convict the accused of robbery. vs. without justifiable cause. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was The court promulgated the Decision in absentia. al. 2015 In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of FACTS: Petitioners were officers of the PNP on special detail with the NBI. al. and the judgment was without justifiable cause. may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. The Sandiganbayan found Jaylo. Rule 120. et. guilty of known address or thru his counsel. et. Within fifteen (15) and warrants for their arrest issued. Rule 120. or convicted. against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. All RULING: Section 6. days from promulgation of judgment. However. the defendant was acquitted. homicide. Nos. at the promulgation of the constitutional right of Danilo against double jeopardy? judgment of conviction. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city. REYNALDO H. however. He shall state Counsel for Jaylo. the judgment separate crime of Robbery on the ground of double jeopardy. the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. found accused guilty of the crime of murder and not robbery with homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence is a judgment of acquittal as to the Section 6. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court erred in its ruling for violating the for failure to appear. (2) a court of competent justifiable cause. The his bondsman or warden and counsel. the appellate court erred when it found Danilo guilty of a it was rendered. et.R. in the conduct of which the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last heroin sellers were killed. the notice to him shall be served at his last known address. without follows: (1) a valid complaint or information. of the Rules of Court states: crime of robbery alone. (3) the defendant had pleaded to the charge. The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled. Acquittal based on the ground of insufficiency of SECTION 6. xxx 59. 183152-54 January 21. JAYLO. the judgment may be RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO COUNSEL promulgated by the clerk of court. Promulgation of judgment. RTC acquitted Danilo for the who failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall crime of robbery for lack of sufficient evidence. SANDIGANBAYAN The proper clerk of court shall givenotice to the accused personally or through (There is no issue involving the right of the accused to counsel. in the promulgation of the judgment of conviction? jurisdiction. the promulgation shall be made by recording the Petitioners were involved in a buy-bust operation. Therefore. the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison. if the conviction is for a light offense. — The judgment is promulgated by evidence is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which jeopardy. The Court held that the elements of double jeopardy are as ISSUE: What are the effects of the non-appearance of the accused. he shall lose the remedies available in these rules entered in the criminal docket. judgment despite notice. RULING: Yes. requiring him to be present at the issue involved pertains to promulgation of judgment in absentia) promulgation of the decision. The decision of RTC which lose the remedies available against the said judgment. moved for reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves denied the same ruling that the accused lose the remedies available to them 55 | P a g e . of the Rules of Court provides that an accused the elements are present in the instant case. al. G. we were to assume that the failure of Jaylo to appear at the promulgation was due to failure to receive notice thereof. Surely they cannot later on expect to be allowed to mother title. On March 24. the accused cannot FACTS: Sometime in February 2005. swindling under Article 316. paragraphs 1 and 2. When the accused on bail fail to present themselves at G. of the Rules of Court also provides Naval paid a down payment totaling P100. invoke the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to grant them relief from its judgment of conviction. of the Revised Penal Code. It was only then that Naval discovered that the lot sold to him had been the subject of a dispute between the Petitioners did not surrender within 15 days from the promulgation of the petitioner's family and JS Francisco. Thus. the petitioner offered for sale to Eric invoke its jurisdiction to seek relief. respectively. and state the reasons for their absence. Even if house demolished. the Decision of the Sandiganbayan attained finality 15 days reckoned from 17 April 2007. In order to regain their standing in court. Naval demanded from the petitioner the judgment of conviction. it is not a justifiable reason. within 15 days from the On June 3. PEOPLE OF THE an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122). but the latter refused to heed these demands. the petitioner told Naval that the title to In this case. He should Petitioner was charged and convicted with the crime of other forms of have filed a notice of change of address before the Sandiganbayan. When the accused fail to present AGAINST HIM/HER themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. 56 | P a g e . the accused house on the subject land.000. 184320. they are considered to have lost their standing in court. During the negotiations for this sale. 2015 the promulgation of a judgment of conviction.R. Naval built his judgment of conviction. 2003.00. Davao City. petitioners have just shown their lack of faith in the jurisdiction of the land she was selling had no problems. Davao City. it is incumbent upon the accused to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation. before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Neither did they ask for leave of court to avail return of the amount he paid for the land. must do as follows: 1) surrender and 2) file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies. and then asked permission the remedy by which the accused who were absent during the promulgation from the petitioner if he could construct his house on the land he bought. NO. CLARITA ESTRELLADO-MAINAR vs. stating the reasons for their absence. he shall be allowed to avail of For the failure of petitioners to regain their standing in court and avail said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. PHILIPPINES The reason is simple. Rule 120. Naval (Naval) portions of land located in Matina Aplaya. It is well to note that Section 6. as well as to pay the value of the themselves of the remedies. as amended. 2005. JULY 29. Francisco) demolished Naval's house. the parties executed an Agreement to Buy and Sell where the petitioner agreed to sell to Naval a 200-square meter portion of the land. themselves of the remedies against the judgment of conviction. representatives from JS Francisco & Sons. Without any standing in court. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) that his absence was for a justifiable cause. After may reverse the forfeiture of the remedies available to them against the the petitioner issued an Authorization dated March 24. Inc. because it determines the availability of their possible remedies RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO BE INFORMED OF THE CHARGES against the judgment of conviction. they lose the remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and 60. (JS date of the promulgation of judgment. The petitioner also informed Naval the Sandiganbayan by not appearing before it for the promulgation of the that the area subject of the proposed sale would "still be segregated from the judgment on their cases. 2003. The Information states that they defraud Highdone Company Ltd. Li Luen Ping. However. trial dates were subsequently would be a violation of her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the postponed due to his unavailability. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is right to a public trial and to meet the witnesses against him face to face. requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense Cambodia is an infringement of the constitutional right of the petitioners to must be alleged in the Information. the Agreement to Buy and Sell between the petitioner and Naval Company Ltd. mortgaged and foreclosed by CHINA BANK CORPORATION. The The trial courts erroneously convicted the petitioner of other forms of swindling prosecution's complaining witness. July 18. any encumbrance.e. requirement is the "safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts" as it enables the judge to test the witness' credibility through his manner and RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION deportment while testifying.. This Information was crafted in such a way that only one represented by Li Luen Ping. by pretending to and fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory located in the be the lawful owner x x x) did not constitute ground for conviction under Bataan Export Processing Zone (BEPZ) in Mariveles. Cambodia. representing that the said deed is a First Mortgage when in also did not contain any representation by the petitioner that the property truth and in fact the accused well knew that the same had been previously being sold was free from any encumbrance. The comprised must be alleged in the Information. No. It is not without exceptions. The private prosecutor filed with the accusation against her. The Information in the present case did not allege that the charged before the MeTC Manila for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the petitioner made an express representation that the property sold is free from RPC. GO. MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping. however.. HARRY L. This is true by the title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his Information.R. To uphold the Laos. he could not make the long travel Section 14(2) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that an accused to the Philippines by reason of ill health. Information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute and aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense. vs. encumbered. and the alleged representations which they made to the effect that they have chattels installed manner through which such offense was committed (that is. ET. Article 316. AL. Upon arraignment. traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in petitioner's conviction for an offense other than that charged in the Information order to attend the hearing. by means of false manifestations and fraudulent particular crime was charged (i. paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure ISSUE: Whether or not deposition taking of the complaining witness in Laos. petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. Deed of Mortgage for a consideration in favor of ML Resources and Highdone Significantly. PEOPLE ISSUE: Whether the petitioner's right to be informed of the charges against her was violated when the specific acts complained of as constituting the G. alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos. The examination of crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and not witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open court. Tonny Ngo. as the Rules 57 | P a g e . Section 6. Section 8 of said rule provides that the confront the said witness face to face. Bataan. paragraph 1). has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The real nature of the SC RULING: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. FACTS: Petitioners Harry Go. which may be committed even by the owner of the property. executed a paragraph 2. Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were RULING: Yes. DOCTRINE: Cambodia and that. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) 61. 185527. 2012 offense was not alleged in the Information. a frail old businessman from under Article 316. Indeed. upon doctor's advice. this Court concludes that the language of Section 15 Rule 119 must be interpreted to require the parties to present testimony at the hearing through live witnesses. said rule substantially provides that he should be conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. 58 | P a g e . rather than by means of deposition. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The opponent demands confrontation. or of being gazed upon by him. more particularly of a prosecution witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial. the testimonial examination should be made before the court. Thus. but for the purpose of cross examination which cannot be had except by the direct and personal putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers. The main and essential purpose of requiring a witness to appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for the adverse party the opportunity of cross-examination. not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness. whose demeanor and credibility can be evaluated by the judge presiding at the hearing. The condition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced age falls within the provision of Section 15 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. For purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases.face confrontation in a public criminal trial in the presence of the presiding judge and the cross- examination of a witness in a foreign place outside the courtroom in the absence of a trial judge. CONSOLIDATED CASE DIGESTS in Remedial Law Review 2 (1st BATCH) of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony. where the case is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15. or at least before the judge. There is a great deal of difference between the face-to. Nowhere in the said rule permits the taking of deposition outside the Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not. However.