Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CriimPro
NO - Under Section 5, adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon
complaint filed by offended spouse and must indicate both concubine and offending spouse.
Under Rule II in Procedures for Criminal Cases, the investigating officer may conduct a
Rosa S. Busuego filed a case of Concubinage, VAWC and Grave Threats against clarificatory hearing where the parties shall be present but without right to examine the
Amendment of criminal
her husband Alfredo. In the complaint filed by Rosa, she failed to indicate witness being questioned. Rosas complaint contained more than just Concubinage charges.
information is allowed without
Busuego v. Office of Alfredos two concubines, Sia and De Leon. Upon receiving this comment from The Ombudsman deemed it fit to hold a hearing in order to determine the need to implead
it being dismissed.
Alfredo, the Ombudsman conducted a clarificatory hearing to have Rosa amend the alleged concubines pursuant to Article 344 of the RPC. It is allowed by law to amend such
the Ombudsman
the defect in her complaint. Alfredo contends that the Ombudsmans oversight defect before institution of the trial.
G.R. No. 196842,
of the exclusion of Sia and de Leon as party-respondents violates Section 5 of YES. The Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the determination of probable cause
October 9, 2013 The Ombudsman has full
Rule 110 and warrants outright dismissal of the case. during a preliminary investigation. This is the reason why judicial review of the resolution of
discretionary authority in the
(W/N the case should be dismissed for failure to implicate the concubines in the the Ombudsman in the exercise of its power and duty to investigate and prosecute felonies
(Concubines not determination of probable
Concubinage case). and/or offenses of public officers is limited to a determination of whether there has been a
cause during a preliminary
impleaded) (W/N the Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the determination of probable grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Courts are not
investigation.
cause during a preliminary investigation.) empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman
merely followed the provisions of its Rules of Procedure. No information may be filed and
no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the ombudsman
in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbyan, or of the proper Deputy
Ombudsman in all other cases.
CriimPro
Section 10 Place of the Commission
As ruled in Foz, Jr. v. People, for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the As ruled also in Union Bank v.
Navaja v. De Castro DKT Philippines filed against petitioner Navaja falsification charges by making
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within People, the venue of action and
G.R. No. 182926, it appear she incurred meal expenses in the amount of 1.8 M instead of the actual
the jurisdiction of the court. Section 10 supports this and states that only when venue is an of jurisdiction are deemed
June 22, 2015 amount of 810k at Garden Caf, Jagna, Bohol. Navaja filed a motion to quash on
essential ingredient will it be necessary to be specific. In falsification, the venue is the place alleged where the Info states
the ground that none of the essential elements of the crime of falsification
where the document was falsified. The information sufficiently alleged that she did so while that the offense was done or
occurred in Jagna, Bohol, hence the MCTC had no jurisdiction to take the case.
(falsification at in the restaurant in Bohol. The complaint-affidavit also alleged she committed the crime there. some of its elements occurred at
The information stated that she did there and wilfully falsify a commercial
It has been ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the information and a place within jurisdiction of
Garden Caf, Bohol) receipt in Garden Caf
NOT by the result of the proof. the court.
CriimPro