1. Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398, 14 Apr 2005, 456 SCRA 45 Crisostomo is a co-accused in a conspiracy to kill Renato Suba.

. He is a police officer and jail guard at Solano Municipal Jail, Nueva Vizcaya. Calingaya n, a co-accused, was minor on the time of the commission. The other co-accused ( total 7) were at large. Renato died in cell number 4 which he was alone. Only Calingayan was the witness. It was portrayed that Renato committed suicide because he hang himself with a blanket. There were inconsistencies in the records showing the number of the prisoners. Crisostomo was the jail guard at the time it happened. Based on evidence, suicide was ruled out as there were internal injuries besides the next. The inconsistencies of the records and the manner how the mur der was done were merely circumstantial against Crisostomo because it did not di rectly point to Crisostomo. Prosecution failed to produce evidence necessary to overturn the presump tion of innocence. A alleged waiver of right of Crisostomo is void because his absence is n ot tantamount to waiver. The waiver was entered by Sandiganbayan and not Crisost omo. Moreover, when Crisostomo was absent, the court had no quorom to proceed wi th the trial. Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the defense. Court held that Crisostomo and Calingayon are innocent due to reasonable doubt. 2. Andrado v. People, G.R. No. 135222, 04 Mar 2005, 452 SCRA 685 A group of police officers went to the field to check a complaint (Bagui o City). After it, they went to Morlow Restaurant. They ate snacks. While Cpl. U gerio was talking to a a girl, Andrada approached and scolded him. Sumabong iden tified himself as a policeman and advised Andrado to pay his bill and leave. Whi le Sumabong was paying the bill, he heard Ugerio moaning in pain. He saw Andrado hacking Ugerio with a bolo. Apparently, Andrado was drunk. Andrado ran away and Sumabong was unable to catch him. Ugerio was rushed to the hospital and lived. Andrado was arrested in a w aiting shed when Sumabong went back to the police station. They went back to the restaurant and witnesses positively identified Andrado as the assailant. Andrado claimed that it was self defense because he was threatened and c ollared. He was then brought outside were he cited self defense by using a bolo in a newspaper. He also claimed that his lawyer was incompetent. SC held conviction. If he believed his lawyer was incompetent, he should have dimissed his lawyer. Prosecution was able to prove frustrated murder with the element of alevosia as it was proven that Andrado hacked Ugerio at the back while he was sitting. 3. Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, 29 Jul 2005, 465 SCRA 465 Petitioner Olivarez (64 y/o) was convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness und er RA 7610. Victim is Cristina Elition. Cristina was a 16 year old high school student who worked with her broth ers under Olivarez. One weekend, Olivarez called Cristina and asked whether she has given the money to her money. Then Olivarez grabbed her, touched her breasts and kissed him in the lips. Cristina resisted and pushed him away and went back to work. She was crying. She told her mother she didn't want to go back to work . She told her mother what happened and they complained in the Barangay Hall (Sa n Pedro, Laguna). The mother demanded 30K as settlement but Olivarez refused. Olivarez claimed that the information did not state the complete essenti al elements in the crime. SC held that the information was complete. Elements are: Acts of lasciviousness (proven) Performed with a child exploited in prositution or subjected to other sexual abuse (proven)

 Child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. Although the information does not state the age, a copy of the complaint was attached which stated the age of Cristina. It is deemed part of the informa tion. Thus, while it is necessary to allege the essential elements of the crim e in the information, the failure to do so is not an irremediable vice. When the complaint or the resolution by the public prosecutor which contain the missing averments is attached to the information and form part of the records, the defec t in the latter is effectively cured, and the accused cannot successfully invoke the defense that his right to be informed is violated. 4. Libuit v. People, G.R. No. 154363, 13 Sep 2005, 469 SCRA 510 Libuit was charged with Estafa. Del Mundo delivered his car to Paeng Mot orworks. It was the mechanic, Bautista who received the car and running the shop . However, it was proved that Bautista abandoned it and Libuit resumed. It was f irst promised that the repairs would finished in two weeks but it was not done. Hence, del Mundo gave another two weeks. When he returned, he learned that his c ar was already missing and reported it to the police. During trial, Del Mundo's lawyer, Atty. Mendoza withdrew after his first cross-examination. Libuit requested for time to hire another lawyer and it was granted. He hired a new lawyer, Atty. Dimayuga. His new lawyer failed to attend hearing despite notices. SC held that the petitioner was not deprive of his right to counsel. The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio for the acc used who has no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is m andatory only at the time of arraignment. No such duty exists where the accused has proceeded to arraignment and then trial with a counsel of his own choice At the most, the appointment of a counsel de oficio in a situati on like the present case would be discretionary with the trial court 5. 6. 7. 8. st Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, 09 Sep 2005, 469 SCRA, 439 Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, 15 Jun 2005, 460 SCRA 197 Yulo v. People, G.R. No. 142762, 04 Mar 2005, 452 SCRA 705 Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Again Maguindanao Governor Ampatuan, A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, 14 Jun 2011