Sie sind auf Seite 1von 53

JURISDICTION is the commission of the criminal acts in furtherance of the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.

In the language of Sec. 4 of RA 7080, for purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it is
HANNAH SERRANA VS SANDIGANBAYAN sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative
of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy [to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
DOCTRINE: It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the wealth]. On the other hand, all that the court needs to determine, by preponderance of
Sandiganbayan—the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in evidence, under RA 1379 is the disproportion of respondents’ properties to his legitimate
P.D. No. 1606. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regents, which includes income, it being unnecessary to prove how he acquired said properties. As correctly
the UP Student Regent. formulated by the Solicitor General, the forfeitable nature of the properties under the
provisions of RA 1379 does not proceed from a determination of a specific overt act
Plainly, estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject
committed by the respondent public officer leading to the acquisition of the illegal wealth.
to the twin requirements that: 1) the offense is committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in Section 4(A) of PD No. 1606, as amended, and that; 2) The offense is On the issue of lack of jurisdiction, petitioner argues that the SB did not acquire
committed in relation to their office. jurisdiction over her person and that of her children due to a defective substituted service
of summons. There is merit in petitioners’ contention.
It is well-established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At
most, it is merely incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign functions of the Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides for the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer. requirements of a valid substituted service of summons: “If the defendant cannot be served
within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section [personal service on
A UP Student Regent is a Public Officer. A public office is the right, authority, and duty
defendant], service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants
created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed or enduring at the
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by
pleasure of the power, an individual is interested with some portion of sovereign functions
leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent
of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
person in charge thereof.”
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regents. The Sandiganbayan, also has
It is basic that a court must acquire jurisdiction over a party for the latter to be bound by
jurisdiction over the other officers enumerated in PD No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People, the
its decision or orders. Valid service of summons, by whatever mode authorized by and
SC held that while the first part of Sec. 4(A) covers only officials with Salary grade 27 and
proper under the Rules, is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a person.
higher but who are by express provisions of law placed under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provisions of law. Sec. 4(A)(1)(g) of PD No. In the instant case, it is undisputed that summons for Forfeitures I and II were served
1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors and personally on Maj. Gen. Carlos Flores Garcia, who is detained at the PNP Detention Center,
trustees, or manager of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities, or who acknowledged receipt thereof by affixing his signature. It is also undisputed that
educational foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed substituted service of summons for both Forfeitures I and II were made on petitioner and
out, the Board of Regents performs functions similar to those of a board of trustee of a her children through Maj. Gen. Garcia at the PNP Detention Center. However, such
nonstock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as substituted services of summons were invalid for being irregular and defective.
contemplated by PD No. 1606.
Requirements as laid down in Manotoc vs CA
GARCIA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
1. Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e., the party relying on substituted service or
DOCTRINE: The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over actions for forfeiture under Republic the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of
Act No. 1379, albeit the proceeding thereunder is civil in nature—the civil liability for prompt service within a reasonable time. Reasonable time being “so much time as is
forfeiture cases does not arise from the commission of a criminal offense. necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do,
conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be done, having a regard for
Forfeiture Cases and the Plunder Cases have Separate Causes of Action; the Former Is Civil
the rights and possibility of loss, if any[,] to the other party.” Moreover, we indicated therein
in Nature while the Latter Is Criminal.
that the sheriff must show several attempts for personal service of at least three (3) times
A forfeiture case under RA 1379 arises out of a cause of action separate and different from on at least two (2) different dates.
a plunder case, thus negating the notion that the crime of plunder charged in Crim. Case
2. Specific details in the return, i.e., the sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons
absorbs the forfeiture cases. In a prosecution for plunder, what is sought to be established
the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service.
3. Substituted service effected on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at salary grade "23." He was charged with homicide punishable by reclusion temporal. Hence,
defendant’s house or residence; or on a competent person in charge of defendant’s office or the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged conformably to Sections 20 and
regular place of business. 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.

ESCOBAL VS GARCHITORENA The petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7975 should not be applied retroactively has no
legal basis. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law, which
DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the may be applied retroactively.
allegations in the Information or the Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the
commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application PEOPLE VS HENRY GO
thereof.
DOCTRINE: The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has exclusive original
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of RA 3019 committed by certain public officers,
as amended by P.D. No. 1861 over crimes committed by public officers in relation to their as enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who
office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate relation between the office and the are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers.
offender and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information—it is not
enough to merely allege in the Information that the crime charged was committed by the It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, there is no longer any public officer
offender in relation to his office because that would be a conclusion of law with whom respondent can be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean,
however, that the allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that
Under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No. 1861, the Sandiganbayan had their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of
exclusive jurisdiction in all cases involving the following: Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it
remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent. Stated
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft differently, the death of Secretary Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer who
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the allegedly violated Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019. In fact, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
Revised Penal Code; for Luzon found probable cause to indict Secretary Enrile for infringement of Sections 3 (e)
and (g) of R.A. 3019.14 Were it not for his death, he should have been charged.
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their
office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A.
simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than 3019, among others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in
prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00 …. conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must,
in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over crimes the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the
committed by public officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone.
the intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties
must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to merely allege in the Information that RAMISCAL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
the crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office because that
would be a conclusion of law. The amended Information filed with the RTC against the DOCTRINE: In finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who has the full discretion
petitioner does not contain any allegation showing the intimate relation between his office to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan. Once the
and the discharge of his duties. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense charged case has been filed with the said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the
when on November 24, 1995, it ordered the re-amendment of the Information to include Ombudsman which has full control of the case.
therein an allegation that the petitioner committed the crime in relation to office. The trial
court erred when it ordered the elevation of the records to the Sandiganbayan. It bears Sec 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules provides that only one motion for reconsideration or
stressing that R.A. No. 7975 amending P.D. No. 1606 was already in effect. reinvestigation of an approved order or resolution shall be allowed xxxxx the filing of a
motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filling of the corresponding
Under Sec. 2 of said law, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the resolution subject
office but occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade below "27," the proper of the motion
Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with
Under Sec. 11 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the arraignment may be suspended if More than three decades ago, the Court, in Jalandoni v. Endaya, acknowledged the
there exists unsoundness of mind, prejudicial question and a pending petition for review of unmistakable import of the said provision: There is no need to make mention again that it
the resolution of the prosecutor in the DOJ in which the suspension shall not exceed 60 is a court of first instance [now, the Regional Trial Court] that is specifically designated to
days. Ramiscal Jr., failed to show that any of the instances constituting a valid ground for try a libel case. Its language is categorical; its meaning is free from doubt. This is one of
suspension of arraignment obtained in this case. those statutory provisions that leave no room for interpretation. All that is required is
application. What the law ordains must then be followed.
With respect to the finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who has the full
discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the This exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC over written defamations is echoed in
Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with the said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, Bocobo v. Estanislao, where the Court further declared that jurisdiction remains with the
and no longer the Ombudsman which has full control of the case. Ramiscal Jr., failed to trial court even if the libelous act is committed “by similar means,” and despite the fact that
establish that Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion, thus, there is probable the phrase “by similar means” is not repeated in the latter portion of Article 360. In these
cause in the filing of the case. cases, and in those that followed, the Court had been unwavering in its pronouncement
that the expanded jurisdiction of the municipal trial courts cannot be exercised over libel
PEOPLE VS BENIPAYO cases. Thus, in Manzano v. Hon. Valera, we explained at length that: The applicable law is
still Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which categorically provides that jurisdiction
DOCTRINES: over libel cases [is] lodged with the Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
1. Jurisdiction in libel cases belong to the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. This Court already had the opportunity to rule on the matter in G.R. No. 123263, People vs.
MTC of Quezon City, Branch 32 and Isah v. Red wherein a similar question of jurisdiction
2. The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions
over libel was raised. In that case, the MTC judge opined that it was the first level courts
seeking affirmative relief is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of
which had jurisdiction due to the enactment of RA 7691. Upon elevation of the matter to
the court.
us, respondent judge’s orders were nullified for lack of jurisdiction, as follows:
3. The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has exclusive original jurisdiction “WHEREFORE, the petition is granted: the respondent Court’s Orders dated August 14,
in all cases involving violations of RA 3019 committed by certain public officers, as 1995, September 7, 1995, and October 18, 1995 are declared null and void for having been
enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who issued without jurisdiction; and said Court is enjoined from further taking cognizance of
are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers. and proceeding with Criminal Case No. 43-00548, which it is commanded to remand to the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for proper disposition.”
The Court observes that the parties have argued at length in their pleadings on the issue of
whether the alleged criminal acts of respondent are committed in relation to his office. They Another case involving the same question was cited as resolving the matter: “Anent the
are of the conviction that the resolution of the said question will ultimately determine which question of jurisdiction, we ** find no reversible error committed by public respondent
court–the RTC or the Sandiganbayan–has jurisdiction over the criminal cases filed. The Court of Appeals in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The
Court, however, notes that both parties are working on a wrong premise. The foremost contention ** that R.A. 7691 divested the Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction to try libel
concern, which the parties, and even the trial court, failed to identify, is whether, under our cases cannot be sustained. While libel is punishable by imprisonment of six months and
current laws, jurisdiction over libel cases, or written defamations to be more specific, is one day to four years and two months (Art. 360, Revised Penal Code) which imposable
shared by the RTC with the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, if the said courts do not have penalty is lodged within the Municipal Trial Court’s jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691 (Sec.
concurrent jurisdiction to try the offense, it would be pointless to still determine whether 32 ), said law however, excludes therefrom ** cases falling within the exclusive original
the crime is committed in relation to office. jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts **. The Court in Bocobo vs. Estanislao, 72 SCRA
520 and Jalandoni vs. Endaya, 55 SCRA 261, correctly cited by the Court of Appeals, has
Uniformly applied is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a laid down the rule that Regional Trial courts have the exclusive jurisdiction over libel cases,
case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless a hence, the expanded jurisdiction conferred by R.A. 7691 to inferior courts cannot be
latter statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. Article 360 (RPC) as amended by applied to libel cases.”
RA 4363, is explicit on which court has jurisdiction to try cases of written defamations,
thus: The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided Conformably with [these] rulings, we now hold that public respondent committed an error
for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the now RTC of the in ordering that the criminal case for libel be tried by the MTC of Bangued.
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the
offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.
For, although RA 7691 was enacted to decongest the clogged dockets of the Regional Trail over defamations in writing or by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of
Courts by expanding the jurisdiction of first level courts, said law is of a general character. jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to (public) office, similar to the expansion of
Even if it is a later enactment, it does not alter the provision of Article 360 of the RPC, a law the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and original jurisdiction
of a special nature. “Laws vesting jurisdiction exclusively with a particular court, are to try written defamation cases regardless of whether the offense is committed in relation to
special in character, and should prevail over the Judiciary Act defining the jurisdiction of office. The broad and general phraseology of Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1606, as
other courts (such as the Court of First Instance) which is a general law.” A later enactment amended by Republic Act No. 8249, cannot be construed to have impliedly repealed, or
like RA 7691 does not automatically override an existing law, because it is a well-settled even simply modified, such exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC.
principle of construction that, in case of conflict between a general law and a special law,
the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of their enactment. Jurisdiction conferred by Since jurisdiction over written defamations exclusively rests in the RTC without
a special law on the RTC must therefore prevail over that granted by a general law on the qualification, it is unnecessary and futile for the parties to argue on whether the crime is
MTC. committed in relation to office. Thus, the conclusion reached by the trial court that the
respondent committed the alleged libelous acts in relation to his office as former COMELEC
Moreover, from the provisions of R.A. 7691, there seems to be no manifest intent to repeal chair, and deprives it of jurisdiction to try the case, is, following the above disquisition,
or alter the jurisdiction in libel cases. If there was such intent, then the amending law gross error. This Court, therefore, orders the reinstatement of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-02-
should have clearly so indicated because implied repeals are not favored. As much as 109406 and Q-02-109407 and their remand to the respective Regional Trial Courts for
possible, effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law cannot be further proceedings. Having said that, the Court finds unnecessary any further discussion
repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication. of the other issues raised in the petitions.”
Furthermore, for an implied repeal, a pre-condition must be found, that is, a substantial
conflict should exist between the new and prior laws. Absent an express repeal, a LACSON VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior one unless an irreconcilable
inconsistency or repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws. The two laws, in DOCTRINE: Under Section 4, par. b of RA 8249, what determines the Sandiganbayan’s
brief, must be absolutely incompatible. In the law which broadened the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender; In enacting RA 8249, the
first level courts, there is no absolute prohibition barring Regional Trial Courts from taking Congress simply restored the original provisions of PD 1606 which does not mention the
cognizance of certain cases over which they have been priorly granted special and exclusive criminal participation of the public officer as a requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the
jurisdiction. Such grant of the RTC (previously CFI) was categorically contained in the first Sandiganbayan.
sentence of the amended Sec. 32 of B.P. 129. The inconsistency referred to in Section 6 of
In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation
RA 7691, therefore, does not apply to cases of criminal libel.
to the office if it is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while
Lastly, in Administrative Order No. 104-96 issued 21 October 1996, this Court delineated he was in the performance of his official functions. Such intimate relation must be alleged
the proper jurisdiction over libel cases, hence settled the matter with finality: in the information which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
However, upon examination of the amended information, there was no specific allegation of
“RE: DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL COURTS FOR KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY, CARNAPPING, facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to
DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES AND OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND JURISDICTION IN LIBEL CASES. x x x x “LIBEL CASES SHALL does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed
BE TRIED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THEM TO the latter while in their custody. The stringent requirement that the charge set forth with
THE EXCLUSION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged
CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS.” to have committed in relation to his office was not established.
(Underscoring supplied)
Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder
As we have constantly held in Jalandoni, Bocobo, People v. Metropolitan Trial Court of was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP
Quezon City, Br. 32,[41] Manzano, and analogous cases, we must, in the same way, declare officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore,
herein that the law, as it still stands at present, dictates that criminal and civil actions for within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the
damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously or separately with Sandiganbayan.
the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. A subsequent enactment of a law defining the
jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or SANCHEZ VS DEMETRIO
modification, the specific provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction
DOCTRINE: The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the Sanchez should have filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel the filing of charges against
information or otherwise render the same defective and neither does it affect the said two other persons.
jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the information.
DISINI JR VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
The court ruled that where there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicide
committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that the power to issue subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial
the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of function. Executive agencies have the power to issue subpoena as an adjunct of their
rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. In effect, the presence of homicide investigatory powers.
qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide
committed on the occasion or by reason of rape, loses its character as an independent Sec. 21 provides that the RTC shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of
offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a qualifying circumstance. RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) including any violation committed by a
However, by fiction of law, it merged with rape to constitute an constituent element of a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the
special complex crime of rape with homicide with a specific penalty which is in the highest elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer
degree. system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage
is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was
The petitioner and his six co-accused are not charged with only one rape committed by him in the Philippines.
in conspiracy with the other six. Each one of the seven accused is charged with having
himself raped Sarmenta instead of simply helping Sanchez in committing only one rape. In There shall be designated special cybercrime court manned by specially trained judges to
other words, the allegation of the prosecution is that the girl was raped seven times, with handle cybercrime cases
each of the seven accused taking turns in abusing her with the assistance of the other six.
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Afterwards, their lust satisfied, all seven of them decided to kill and thus silence Sarmenta.
Every one of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually raping Sarmenta JIMENEZ VS SORONGON
and later killing her instead of merely assisting the petitioner in raping and then slaying
her. The separate informations filed against each of them allege that each of the seven DOCTRINE: The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can
successive rapes is complexed by the subsequent slaying of Sarmenta and aggravated by represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in the SC.
the killing of Allan Gomez by her seven attackers. The separate rapes were committed in
succession by the seven accused, culminating in the slaying of Sarmenta. It is well-settled that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest[,]" "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by
The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Interest means material interest or an interest in
competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere
the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not interest in the question involved. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as
reflected in the record. The trial courts impressions of the star witnesses for the State bind distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or
this Court, for we accord great respect if not finality, to the findings of the trial court on the consequential interest. When the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest,
credibility of witnesses. Further, all the appellants relied on the defense of denial/alibi but the suit is dismissible.
positive identification by credible witnesses of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime,
demolishes the alibi. Procedural law basically mandates that "[a]ll criminal actions commenced by complaint or
by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor."
Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez brought a Petition for Certiorari before this Court, In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before this Court, the OSG is the appellate
challenging the order of the respondent Judge Demetriou denying his motion to quash the counsel of the People, pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
Information filed against him and six other persons for alleged rape and homicide. One of Administrative Code.
the arguments of Mayor Sanchez was that there was discrimination against him because of
the non-inclusion of two other persons in the Information. We held that even this Court The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent
cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. This ruling has been
sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. However, if there was an repeatedly stressed in several cases and continues to be the controlling doctrine.
unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors, Mayor
While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be allowed to pursue the This requirement accords with the presumption of innocence in his favor, pursuant to
criminal action on his own behalf (as when there is a denial of due process), this which he is always presumed to have no independent knowledge of the details of the crime
exceptional circumstance does not apply in the present case. he is being charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of the information determine
the crime of which he stands charged and for which he must be tried thoroughly accords
PEOPLE VS VALDEZ with common sense and with the requirements of plain justice, x x x.

DOCTRINE: The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or MIGUEL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have
been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in DOCTRINE: The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the crime is described in
the complaint or information. intelligible terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused
is duly informed of the offense charged
For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as In Bedruz vs Sandiganbayan, the court considered the opposition of the accused (Motion to
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the Suspend Pendente Lite) as sufficient to dispense with the need to actually set the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is prosecution’s motion for hearing.
controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made In the case at bar, while there was no pre-suspension hearing held to determine the validity
by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein of the information/suspension, the court believed that the pleadings filed for and against
recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to them achieved the goal of the procedure. The right to due process is satisfied not by just
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, oral arguments but by the filing and the consideration by the court of the parties’
and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be pleadings, memoranda and other position papers.
sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged.
Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a due process requirement, when an accused
circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the public official is given an adequate opportunity to be heard on his possible defenses against
definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements a mandatory suspension under RA 3019, then an accused would have no reason to
of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation complain that no actual hearing was conducted. It is well settled that to be heard does not
against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where
the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, has been accorded, no
denial of procedural due process exists.
The averments of the informations to the effect that the two accused "with intent to kill,
qualified with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength did x x x PEOPLE VS SORIA
assault, attack and employ personal violence upon" the victims "by then and there shooting
DOCTRINE: The allegation in the information of the various ways of committing the of ense
them with a gun, hitting [them]" on various parts of their bodies "which were the direct and
should be regarded as a description of only one of ense and the information is not thereby
immediate cause of their deaths" did not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances
rendered defective on the ground of multifariousness.
describing how treachery attended each of the killings. It should not be difficult to see that
merely averring the killing of a person by shooting him with a gun, without more, did not 1. Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape
show how the execution of the crime was directly and specially ensured without risk to the under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is referred to as rape through sexual intercourse.
accused from the defense that the victim might make. Indeed, the use of the gun as an Carnal knowledge is the central element and it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for there are other instruments that could serve On the other hand, rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by
the same lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the term treachery constitute a sufficient sexual assault. The perpetrator commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into
averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not an another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal
averment of a fact. In short, the particular acts and circumstances constituting treachery orifice of another person.
as an attendant circumstance in murder were missing from the informations.
The RTC and the CA found the accused guilty of rape through sexual intercourse but It is
x x x. The requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to inform the accused of the evident from the testimony of AAA that she was unsure whether it was indeed appellant’s
nature and cause of the charge against him in order to enable him to prepare his defense. penis which touched her labia and entered her organ. AAA stated that she only knew that it
was the “bird” of her father which was inserted into her vagina after being told by her that would convince us with certainty that it was indeed the penis of appellant that was
brother BBB. Clearly, AAA has no personal knowledge that it was appellant’s penis which placed into her vagina.
touched her labia and inserted into her vagina. Hence, it would be erroneous to conclude
that there was penile contact based solely on the declaration of AAA’s brother, BBB, which Based on the evidence adduced, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
declaration was hearsay due to BBB’s failure to testify. the crime of rape by sexual assault.

The court however found it inconsequential that AAA could not specifically identify the UNION BANK VS PEOPLE
particular instrument or object that was inserted into her genital. What is important and
relevant is that indeed something was inserted into her vagina. Moreover, the prosecution DOCTRINE: The venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where
satisfactorily established that appellant accomplished the act of sexual assault through his the Information states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients
moral ascendancy and influence over “AAA” which substituted for violence and occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
intimidation. Thus, there is no doubt that appellant raped AAA by sexual assault.
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the
It is also improbable for appellant’s wife to have dared encourage their daughter AAA to file place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the
the charges publicly expose the dishonor of the family unless the rape was indeed jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two- fold. First, the
committed. jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can
only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
2. The Information in this case did not specify with certainty whether appellant committed Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of
the rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, or rape by sexual having an accused on trial in the municipality of province where witnesses and other
assault as described in paragraph 2 thereof. The Information stated that appellant inserted facilities for his defense are available.
his penis into the genital of "AAA," which constituted rape by sexual intercourse under the
first paragraph of Article 266-A. At the same time, the Information alleged that appellant Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional
used force and intimidation to commit an act of sexual assault. While these allegations consequences. In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and
cause ambiguity, they only pertain to the mode or manner of how the rape was committed the court which has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
and the same do not invalidate the Information or result in the automatic dismissal of the of Criminal Procedure provides that subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
case. "[W]here an offense may be committed in any of the different modes and the offense is instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was
alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, the indictment is sufficient, committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
notwithstanding the fact that the different means of committing the same offense are
The above provision should be read in light of Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
prohibited by separate sections of the statute. The allegation in the information of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: Place of commission of the offense. – The
various ways of committing the offense should be regarded as a description of only one
complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the
offense and the information is not thereby rendered defective on the ground of
offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within
multifariousness." Any objection from the appellant with respect to the Information is held
the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes
to have been waived failing any effort to oppose the same before trial. He therefore can be
an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.
convicted of rape through sexual intercourse or rape by sexual assault, depending on the
evidence adduced during trial. Both provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only
in the court where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential
In determining whether appellant is indeed guilty of rape through sexual intercourse under
ingredients took place. In other words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed
paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, it is essential to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he
sufficiently alleged where the Information states that the offense was committed or some of
had carnal knowledge of "AAA". There must be proof that his penis touched the labia of
its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
"AAA" or slid into her female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, to
ensure his conviction of rape by sexual intercourse.

We reviewed the testimony of "AAA" and found nothing therein that would show that she RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
was raped through sexual intercourse. While "AAA" categorically stated that she felt
something inserted into her vagina, her testimony was sorely lacking in important details SOLIDUM VS PEOPLE
DOCTRINE: DOCTRINE: An acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused is not
exempt from civil liability, which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
1. Civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence.
In Manantan v. CA, we discussed the consequences of an acquittal on the civil liability of
The circumstances that have been established do not present the factual and legal bases the accused as follows. "Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on
for validly doing so. His acquittal did not derive only from reasonable doubt. There was the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not
really no firm and competent showing how the injury to Gerard had been caused. That the author of the actor omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil
meant that the manner of administration of the anesthesia by Dr. Solidum was not liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission
necessarily the cause of the hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerard. cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil
Consequently, to adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable would be to speculate on the cause of liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted
the hypoxia. We are not allowed to do so, for civil liability must not rest on speculation but must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation
on competent evidence. contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused
2. The civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability, which may be
criminal action refers only to that arising from the offense charged. proved by preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in Article 29
of the Civil Code, where the civil action for damages is "for the same act or omission." x x x.
In criminal prosecutions, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is deemed
instituted with the criminal action refers only to that arising from the offense charged. A reading of the CA decision would show that Phillip was acquitted because the prosecution
Ospital ng Maynila, being an artificial entity, had not been charged along with Dr. Solidum. failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [S]ince the acquittal is based on
The lower courts thereby acted capriciously and whimsically, which rendered their reasonable doubt, [Phillip] is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by
judgment against Ospital ng Maynila void as the product of grave abuse of discretion preponderance of evidence only. In Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., we explained the
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. concept of preponderance of evidence as follows:
For one, Ospital ng Maynila was not at all a party in the proceedings. Hence, its x x x Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
fundamental right to be heard was not respected from the outset. The RTC and the CA on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of
should have been alert to this fundamental defect. Verily, no person can be prejudiced by a the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a
ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a party. Such a rule phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is
would enforce the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto.
Moreover, Ospital ng Maynila could be held civilly liable only when subsidiary liability
would be properly enforceable pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. But the In discrediting [Castillo's] allegation that she gave [Phillip] US$100,000.00 in May 2002, the
subsidiary liability seems far-fetched here. The conditions for subsidiary liability to attach CA found that: (1) [Castillo] failed to show how she was able to raise the money in such a
to Ospital ng Maynila should first be complied with. Firstly, pursuant to Article 103 of the short period of time and even gave conflicting versions on the source of the same; (2)
Revised Penal Code, Ospital ng Maynila must be shown to be a corporation "engaged in any [Castillo]failed to require respondent to sign a receipt so she could have a record of the
kind of industry." The term industry means any department or branch of art, occupation or transaction and offered no plausible reason why the money was allegedly hand-carried
business, especially one that employs labor and capital, and is engaged in industry. toHong Kong; (3) [Castillo's] claim of trust as reason for not requiring [Phillip] to sign a
However, Ospital ng Maynila, being a public hospital, was not engaged in industry receipt was inconsistent with the way she conducted her previous transactions with him;
conducted for profit but purely in charitable and humanitarian work. Secondly, assuming and (4) [Castillo's] behavior after the alleged fraud perpetrated against her was inconsistent
that Ospital ng Maynila was engaged in industry for profit, Dr. Solidum must be shown to with the actuation of someone who had been swindled.
be an employee of Ospital ng Maynila acting in the discharge of his duties during the
operation on Gerald. Yet, he definitely was not such employee but a consultant of the LIM VS. KOU CO PING
hospital. And, thirdly, assuming that civil liability was adjudged against Dr. Solidum as an
employee (which did not happen here), the execution against him was unsatisfied due to DOCTRINE: If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent
his being insolvent. to the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of
the criminal action. Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil
CASTILLO VS SALVADOR liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the of ended party may pursue the two types of civil
liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without of ending the rules on forum shopping, Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34
litis pendentia, or res judicata. and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be
filed separately by the offended party even without reservation. The commencement of the
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under
separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: (1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers
liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before
(2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued independently of the the commencement of the criminal action.
criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,” as provided in Article 31 of the Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first a
Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort). It may also be based on an act or criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted,
omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from the and the other a civil case for quasi-delict—without violating the rule on non-forum
criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation, shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. The
fraud and physical injuries”). commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the civil action for
quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on the acts or omissions that the same act or omission of the defendant. In most cases, the offended party will have no
constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently intertwined with the criminal reason to file a second civil action since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act
action. For this reason, the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal or omission of the accused. In some instances, the accused may be insolvent, necessitating
offense. If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of another case against his employer or guardians.
the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of
the criminal action. The civil liability based on delict is extinguished when the court Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he
hearing the criminal action declares that “the act or omission from which the civil liability is accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the
may arise did not exist.” present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in a
separate civil action.” This is only fair for two reasons.
The independent civil liabilities are separate from the criminal action and may be pursued
independently, as provided in Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code, which state that: First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect
that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate
ART. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused does not file a
omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in since the period
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.

ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured of the Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy which is
party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused from filing a separate civil
require only a preponderance of evidence. action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case, is
to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the law.
Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities,
jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue the two types of civil liabilities Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is
simultaneously or cumulatively, without offending the rules on forum shopping, litis proper.
pendentia, or res judicata.
PEOPLE VS ROMERO
CASUPANAN VS LAROYA
DOCTRINE: The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
DOCTRINE: The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission criminal liability as well as the civil liability ex delicto.
he is accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of
the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in Pursuant to the doctrine established in People vs. Bayotas, the death of the accused
a separate civil action.” pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
liability ex delicto. The criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a
defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in
liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case. another tribunal.

Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility
the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity “that
the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case,” therefore, the civil
Thus, the outcome of this appeal pertains only to the remaining accused-appellant, Martin case does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the
L. Romero. civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.
However, the court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of sound discretion,
MAGISTRADO VS PEOPLE and upon proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide
by the outcome of another case pending in another court, especially where the parties and
DOCTRINE: There is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,
the issues are the same, for there is power inherent in every court to control the disposition
according to law, proceed independently of each other.
of cases on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that: litigants.

Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.—A petition for suspension of the Where the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be questions raised in the first action are settled, the second action should be stayed. The
filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its time and effort, those of counsel and
filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. the litigants. But if proceedings must be stayed, it must be done in order to avoid
multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments, confusion
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.—The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the between litigants and courts. It bears stressing that whether or not the trial court would
previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue suspend the proceedings in the criminal case before it is submitted to its sound discretion.
raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed. PIMENTEL VS PIMENTEL

The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial DOCTRINE: Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for
question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. A prejudial question is defined as that which parricide. Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would
arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, warrant the suspension of the criminal action. There is a prejudicial question when a civil
and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue
determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because
question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt
distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal
For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend criminal action, it must appear not only action. Clearly, the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal case for
that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal frustrated parricide. As such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on
prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was filed subsequent to the filing of
the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. the criminal action.

Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant
suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the the suspension of the criminal action.
following requisites must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to
There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending,
those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the
and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the
issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal Here, the CA aptly observed the intra-corporate dispute, posed a prejudicial question to
case. Criminal Case. To be sure, the Civil involves the same parties herein, and is for nullification
of JMD’s meetings, election and acts of its directors and officers, among others. Court
A prejudicial question is defined as: “x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which intervention was sought to ascertain who between the two contesting group of officers
is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to should rightfully be seated at the company’s helm. Without resolution of the civil case,
another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but petitioners’ authority to commence and prosecute the Criminal case against respondents
so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for qualified theft in JMD’s behalf remained questionable, warranting the suspension of the
for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts criminal proceedings.
intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also
that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of 2. In the case at bar, the CA correctly ruled that Judge Tiongson-Tabora acted with grave
the accused would necessarily be determined.” abuse of discretion when she ordered the arrests of respondents Isip and Liclican despite
the existence of a prejudicial question. Judge Tiongson-Tabora cannot deny knowledge of
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is the pendency of Civil Case No. 6623-R as the judge presiding over its JDR. As correctly held
whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital by the CA.
obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this case,
since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all Judge Tiongson-Tabora is well-aware of the existence of said prejudicial question that
the acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which, should have barred the filing of the criminal complaint against petitioners Liclican and Isip,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioner’s will.16 At for the simple reason that a juridical person can only act through its officers, and the issue
the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. in the main case submitted for JDR before Judge Tiongson-Tabora is one for nullification of
The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the petition for Declaration of Nullity meetings, election and act of directors and officers, injunction and other reliefs. Thus, she
of Marriage is granted, it will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the knows for a fact that there is a question as to who are the legitimate directors of JMD such
time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner that there is doubt as to whether private respondents are in a position to act for JMD.
and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time
of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent. RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

J.M. DOMINGUEZ VS LICLICAN FENEQUITO VS VERGARA, JR.

DOCTRINE: As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question generally exists in a DOCTRINE: It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG which has authority to file
situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in an appeal with the RTC. Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order
the former an issue that must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to
because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative represent “the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale proceedings.” On the other hand, Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled
behind the principle is to avoid two conflicting decisions, and its existence rests on the “Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the
concurrence of two essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or Provincial and City Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such National Prosecution Service,” which was the law in force at the time the appeal was filed,
issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. provides that the provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to as prosecutor) “shall have
charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal
1. As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a ordinances in the courts of such province or city and shall therein discharge all the duties
civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue incident to the institution of criminal prosecutions.”
that must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the
issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt 1. The Court notes at the outset that one of the grounds relied upon by the CA in
or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle is to dismissing petitioners’ petition for review is the latter’s failure to submit copies of pleadings
avoid two conflicting decisions, and its existence rests on the concurrence of two essential and documents relevant and pertinent to the petition filed, as required under Section 2,
elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. While petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, they,
raised in the criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not however, failed to comply with these requirements. Worse, they did not even mention
the criminal action may proceed. anything about it in the said Motion. Section 3, Rule 42 of the same Rules provides: “Sec.
3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.—The failure of the petitioner to comply person already creates probable cause to indict petitioners for the crime of falsification of
with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other public document.
lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the In the instant case, the Court finds no justification to depart from the ruling of the RTC
dismissal thereof.” that the offense charged was committed and that herein petitioners are probably guilty
thereof.
Moreover, it is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of
due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and With respect to respondent’s legal personality to appeal the Order of the MeTC, suffice it to
in accordance with the provisions of law. An appeal being a purely statutory right, an say that the appeal filed with the RTC was made with the express conformity of the public
appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. prosecutor who handles the case.
Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not
difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG which has authority to file an appeal
appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to with the RTC. Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order No. 292,
be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to represent “the
and caprices of appellants. In the instant case, petitioners had all the opportunity to Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.”
comply with the Rules. Nonetheless, they remained obstinate in their non-observance even On the other hand, Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled “Reorganizing the
when they sought reconsideration of the ruling of the CA dismissing their petition. Such Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City
obstinacy is incongruous with their late plea for liberality in construing the Rules. On the Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution
above basis alone, the Court finds that the instant petition is dismissible. Service,” which was the law in force at the time the appeal was filed, provides that the
provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to as prosecutor) “shall have charge of the
2. A final order is one that which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal ordinances in
particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what the courts of such province or city and shall therein discharge all the duties incident to the
has been determined. Upon the other hand, an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose institution of criminal prosecutions.” In consonance with the above-quoted provision, it has
of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done upon its merits. The RTC been held by this Court that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the
Decision is beyond cavil interlocutory in nature. It is essentially a denial of petitioners’ prosecution of offenses before the trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal
motion to quash because it leaves something more to be done x x x, i.e., the continuation of trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts and the regional trial courts. Since the appeal, in
the criminal proceedings until the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined. the instant case was made with the RTC of Manila, it is clear that the City Prosecutor or his
Specifically, the MeTC has yet to arraign the petitioners, then proceed to trial and finally assistant (in this case, the Assistant City Prosecutor) had authority to file the same.
render the proper judgment.
Moreover, petitioners’ reliance on Presidential Decree No. 911 is misplaced, as the cited
Petitioners contend that the PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report, provision refers only to cases where the assistant fiscal or state prosecutor’s power to file
submitted as evidence by respondent to the prosecutor’s office, showed that the findings an information or dismiss a case is predicated or conditioned upon the prior authority or
therein are not conclusive and, thus, insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. approval of the provincial or city fiscal or the Chief State Prosecutor. There is nothing in the
The Court is not persuaded. said law which provides that in cases of appeal an Assistant City Prosecutor or a State
Prosecutor may file the same only upon prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor or
It is clear from a perusal of the cited PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report the Chief State Prosecutor. Stated differently, unless otherwise ordered, an Assistant City
No. 048-03 that the document examiner found that the signatures appearing in the Prosecutor or a State Prosecutor may file an appeal with the RTC, questioning the dismissal
questioned Deed of Sale as compared to the standard signatures “reveal divergences in the by the MeTC of a case for lack of probable cause, even without prior authority or approval
manner of execution and stroke structure [which is] an indication that they WERE NOT of the City Prosecutor or the Chief State Prosecutor.
WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.” The Court agrees with the prosecutor’s
pronouncement in its Resolution dated September 22, 2003, that although the findings of BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION VS REYES
the PNP Crime Laboratory were qualified by the statement contained in the Report that “no
definite conclusion can be rendered due to the fact that questioned signatures are DOCTRINE: It must be remembered that the finding of probable cause was made after
photocopies wherein minute details are not clearly manifested,” the fact that an expert conducting a preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic
witness already found that the questioned signatures were not written by one and the same judicial appraisal of the merits of a case. Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime
has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused In reversing the finding of probable cause that the crime of estafa has been committed, the
is guilty thereof. Secretary of Justice reasoned out that, [the] theory of conversion or misappropriation is
difficult to sustain and that under the crime of estafa with grave abuse of confidence, the
It is not disputed that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the presumption is that the thing has been devoted to a purpose or is different from that for
Secretary of Justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of which it was intended but did not take place in this case. The CA, in sustaining the
direct control and supervision over said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, ruled that the element of
reverse or modify their rulings. Review as an act of supervision and control by the justice misappropriation or conversion is wanting. It further ratiocinated that the demand for the
secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it, are
administrative remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the circumstantial evidence of misappropriation, however, the said presumption is rebuttable
initial steps of an administrative activity or by an administrative agency should be and if the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing delivered
corrected by higher administrative authorities, and not directly by courts. in trust, he may not be held liable for estafa.

This Court need not overemphasize that in a preliminary investigation, the public It must be remembered that the finding of probable cause was made after conducting a
prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is appraisal of the merits of a case. Its purpose is to determine whether (a) a crime has been
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not call for the application of committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty
rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. thereof.
The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A
preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ This Court need not overemphasize that in a preliminary investigation, the public
evidence. Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception of evidence for both parties to prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to
substantiate their respective claims. engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not call for the application of
It is not disputed that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.
Secretary of Justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code,9 exercises the power of The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A
direct control and supervision over said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’
reverse or modify their rulings. Review as an act of supervision and control by the justice evidence. Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception of evidence for both parties to
secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of substantiate their respective claims.
administrative remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the
initial steps of an administrative activity or by an administrative agency should be A review of the records would show that the investigating prosecutor was correct in finding
corrected by higher administrative authorities, and not directly by courts. the existence of all the elements of the crime of estafa. Reyes did not dispute that she
received in trust the amount of P23,423,327.50 from petitioner as proven by the checks
In the present case, after review and reconsideration, the Secretary of Justice reversed the and vouchers to be used in purchasing the parcels of land. Petitioner wrote a demand letter
investigating prosecutor’s finding of probable cause that all the elements of the crime of for Reyes to return the same amount but was not heeded. Hence, the failure of Reyes to
estafa are present. Estafa, under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, is committed deliver the titles or to return the entrusted money, despite demand and the duty to do so,
by― constituted prima facie evidence of misappropriation.

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).―Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means To reiterate, probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
mentioned herein below: x x x x circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within
the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: (a) x x x (b) By he was prosecuted.22 Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter
misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other is, or may be, well founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would
personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean “actual or positive cause” nor does it
even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a
having received such money, goods, or other property; x x x finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission opinion by the investigators considering that Engr. Tria’s widow, Mrs. Pura Tria,
complained of constitutes the offense charged. categorically admitted her knowledge of the said transaction. Neither was the OP persuaded
by the NBI’s "kiss of death" theory since it is but a customary way of greeting a friend to
ABANADO VS BAYONA shake hands and hence it cannot imply that respondent utilized this as a signal or
identification for the gunman to shoot Engr. Tria. Respondent’s alleged indifference
DOCTRINE: The Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS) Manual immediately after Engr. Tria was gunned down while conversing with her, was also negated
states that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor should be attached to the by the affidavit of an employee of Philippine Air Lines based at the Pili Airport, stating that
information only “as far as practicable.” Thus, such attachment is not mandatory or right after the incident took place he saw respondent in the radio room in shock and was
required under the rules being given water by another person.
The conduct of a preliminary investigation is primarily an executive function. The courts Considering the totality of evidence, the OP was convinced there was nothing suspicious or
must consider the rules of procedure of the Department of Justice in conducting abnormal in respondent’s behavior before, during and after the fatal shooting of Engr. Tria
preliminary investigations whenever the actions of a public prosecutor is put in question. as to engender a well-founded belief of her complicity with the killing of Engr. Tria.
The Department of Justic-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS) Manual states that the Petitioners, however, maintain that the records are replete with abundant proof of
resolution of the investigating prosecutor should be attached to the information only as far respondent’s complicity in the murder of Engr. Tria.
as practicable. Such attachment is not mandatory or required under the rules.
Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
HEIRS OF NESTOR TRIA VS OBIAS the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It is a
DOCTRINE: The justice secretary is not precluded from exercising his power of review over
reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded, such a state
the investigating prosecutor even after the information has already been filed in court; The
of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and
justice secretary’s subsequent resolution withdrawing the information or dismissing the
prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so
case does not cause the court to lose jurisdiction over the case.
The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It
Under the procedure for preliminary investigation provided in Section 3, Rule 112 of the
is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. A finding of probable cause merely binds
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, in case the investigating prosecutor
over the suspect to stand trial; it is not a pronouncement of guilt. On the other hand,
conducts a hearing where there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or witness,
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
"[t]he parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of previous agreement to
examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may be
commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial
asked to the party or witness concerned." Hence, the non-referral by the OP to the DOJ of
evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or
the motion for reconsideration of respondent, in the exercise of its discretion, did not violate
inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and
petitioners’ right to due process. The findings of the prosecutor with respect to the
design, concerted action, and community of interest.
existence or non-existence of probable cause is subject to the power of review by the DOJ.
We reverse the OP’s ruling that the totality of evidence failed to establish a prima facie case
Indeed, the Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the resolution of the prosecutor,
against the respondent as a conspirator in the killing of Engr. Tria. To begin with, whether
after which he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding
or not respondent actually conspired with Aclan and Ona need not be fully resolved during
information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for
the preliminary investigation. The absence or presence of conspiracy is factual in nature
dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties. In reversing the DOJ’s
and involves evidentiary matters. The same is better left ventilated before the trial court
finding of probable cause, the OP found merit in the argument of the respondent that the
during trial, where the parties can adduce evidence to prove or disprove its presence.
DOJ’s finding that she was with Aclan when she went to the residence of Engr. Tria early in
the morning of May 22, 1998, was not sufficiently established. The OP gave more weight to Preliminary investigation is executive in character. It does not contemplate a judicial
the affidavit of Calayag stating that Aclan was not around when they and respondent, function. It is essentially an inquisitorial proceeding, and often, the only means of
among other visitors, were at Engr. Tria’s house at that time -- than that account given by ascertaining who may be reasonably charged with a crime. Prosecutors control and direct
SA Eduarte, which was uncorroborated. the prosecution of criminal offenses, including the conduct of preliminary investigation,
subject to review by the Secretary of Justice. The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is
As to the double sale allegedly committed by the respondent from which the latter’s strong
merely to determine whether the executive determination was done without or in excess of
motive to liquidate Engr. Tria was inferred, the OP found this as a mere expression of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are Procedure. Given the express provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, we
not subject to review unless made with grave abuse. find irrelevant Judge Javellana’s argument that referral to the Lupon is not a jurisdictional
requirement. The following facts are undisputed: People v. Celeste, et al. were not referred
After a careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, we find no such grave abuse to the Lupon, and the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss based on this ground. Judge
when the Secretary of Justice found probable cause to charge the respondent with murder Javellana should have allowed and granted the Motion to Dismiss (albeit without prejudice)
in conspiracy with Aclan and Ona. filed by the accused in People v. Celeste, et al. (hindi ko sure) Judge Javellana did not
provide any reason as to why he needed to conduct a preliminary investigation in People v.
The following facts and circumstances established during preliminary investigation were Lopez, et al. Judge Javellana cannot be allowed to arbitrarily conduct proceedings beyond
sufficient basis to incite reasonable belief in respondent’s guilt: (a) Motive - respondent had those specifically laid down by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, thereby
credible reason to have Engr. Tria killed because of the impending criminal prosecution for lengthening or delaying the resolution of the case, and defeating the express purpose of
estafa from her double sale of his lot prior to his death, judging from the strong interest of said Rule. Without any showing that the accused in People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez,
Engr. Tria’s family to run after said property and/or proceeds of the second sale to a third et al. were charged with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in
party; (b) Access - respondent was close to Engr. Tria’s family and familiar with his work Article 328 of the Revised Penal Code the appropriate penalty for the accused would be
schedule, daily routine and other transactions which could facilitate in the commission of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods which under Article 329(a) of the
the crime eventually carried out by a hired gunmen, one of whom (Aclan) she and her Revised Penal Code, would be imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6)
father categorically admitted being in her company while she visited Engr. Tria hours before months. Clearly, these two cases should be governed by the Revised Rule on Summary
the latter was fatally shot at the airport; (c) Suspicious Behavior -- respondent while Procedure.
declaring such close personal relationship with Engr. Tria and even his family, failed to give
any satisfactory explanation why she reacted indifferently to the violent killing of her friend PEOPLE VS VALENCIA
while they conversed and shook hands at the airport.
DOCTRINE: 1. Information can be filed without a preliminary investigation against an
Indeed, a relative or a friend would not just stand by and walk away from the place as if accused arrested without warrant.
nothing happened, as what she did, nor refuse to volunteer information that would help the
authorities investigating the crime, considering that she is a vital eyewitness. Not even a 2. Preliminary investigation; deemed waived when not invoked.
call for help to the people to bring her friend quickly to the hospital. She would not even
dare go near Engr. Tria’s body to check if the latter was still alive. All the foregoing A person who is lawfully arrested, without a warrant pursuant to paragraph 1(b), Section 5,
circumstances, in our mind, and from the point of view of an ordinary person, lead to a Rule 113, Rules of Court 23 should be delivered to the nearest police station and proceeded
reasonable inference of respondent’s probable participation in the well-planned against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. 24 Under said Section 7, Rule 112, 25 the
assassination of Engr. Tria. prosecuting officer can file the Information in court without a preliminary investigation,
which was done in the accused-appellant’s case
UY VS JAVELLANA
Since the records do not show whether the accused-appellant asked for a preliminary
DOCTRINE: The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure does not provide for a preliminary investigation after the case had been filed in court, as in fact, the accused-appellant
investigation prior to the filing of a criminal case under said Rule signified his readiness to be arraigned, 27 the Court can only conclude that he waived his
right to have a preliminary investigation, 28 when he did, in fact, pleaded "Not Guilty" upon
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure only requires that a his arraignment.
preliminary investigation be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an
of ense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and PCGG VS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ
one (1) day without regard to the fine.
DOCTRINE: 1. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been
Judge Javellana committed a blatant error in denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
accused in People v. Celeste, et al. and in insisting that said Motion was a prohibited been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean
pleading, even though the case was never previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa "actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on
as required by Sections 18 and 19(a) ofthe Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. A case opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry whether there is
which has not been previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa shall be dismissed sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or
without prejudice. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to comply with the Lupon omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
requirement is an exception to the pleadings prohibited by the Revised Rule on Summary
2. Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of
there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person constitutes the offense charged.
charged should be held responsible for it. Being merely based on opinion and belief, a
finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than
evidence to secure a conviction. "[A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion for the full not, a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and
and exhaustive display of [the prosecution's] evidence. The presence and absence of the convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining
passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits." Hence, "the validity and merits of a probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the
party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on
better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level." common sense. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably
It must be stressed that the Court has consistently refrained from interfering with the guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there
discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the existence of probable cause and to decide is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
whether or not an Information should be filed. Nonetheless, the Court is not precluded from
reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is a charge of grave abuse of discretion. Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been charged should be held responsible for it. Being merely based on opinion and belief, a
done in an arbitrary or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient
to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at evidence to secure a conviction. "[A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion for the full
all in contemplation of law. The Court's pronouncement in Ciron v. Gutierrez is instructive and exhaustive display of [the prosecution's] evidence. The presence and absence of the
on this matter, to wit: elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be
passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits." Hence, "the validity and merits of a
xxx this Court's consistent policy has been to maintain noninterference in the party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are
determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level."
grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. This observed policy is based not only on
respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the Ombudsman gravely
Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the abused its discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against individual respondents
Court will be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of for lack of probable cause, as will be explained hereunder.
investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to
complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely As already stated, individual respondents were accused of violating Section 3 (e) of RA
swamped with cases if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the 3019, the elements of which are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer
part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in
court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.] (Emphasis and underscoring in the conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
original) faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
In this regard, it is worthy to note that the conduct of preliminary investigation proceedings advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. In the same vein, they were
- whether by the Ombudsman or by a public prosecutor - is geared only to determine likewise charged with violation of Section 3 (g) of the same law, which has the following
whether or not probable cause exists to hold an accused-respondent for trial for the elements: (a) that the accused is a public officer; (b) that he entered into a contract or
supposed crime that he committed. In Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr., the Court defined probable transaction on behalf of the government; and (c) that such contract or transaction is grossly
cause and the parameters in finding the existence thereof in the following manner, to wit: and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. Notably, private individuals may also
be charged with violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with public officers.
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such
facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed Finally, it was error for the Ombudsman to simply discredit the TWG's findings contained
and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean "actual or positive in the Executive Summary which were adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee for being hearsay,
cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable self-serving, and of little probative value. It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the
belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence to initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence should not be
applied in the course of its proceedings. In the recent case of Estrada v. Ombudsman, the The determination by the Department of Justice of the existence of probable cause is not a
Court declared that hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in quasi-judicial proceeding. However, the actions of the Secretary of Justice in affirming or
preliminary investigations because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not reversing the findings of prosecutors may still be subject to judicial review if it is tainted
finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. Citing a case decided by the Supreme with grave abuse of discretion.
Court of the United States, it was held that probable cause can be established with hearsay
evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay, viz.: Under the Rules of Court, a writ of certiorari is directed against "any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions." A quasi-judicial function is "the
Justice Brion's pronouncement in Unilever that "the determination of probable cause does action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to
not depend on the validity or merits of a party's accusation or defense or on the investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions
admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented" correctly recognizes the doctrine in the from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."
United States that the determination of probable cause can rest partially, or even entirely, Otherwise stated, an administrative agency performs quasi-judicial functions if it renders
on hearsay evidence, as long as the person making the hearsay statement is credible. In awards, determines the rights of opposing parties, or if their decisions have the same effect
United States v. Ventresca, the United States Supreme Court held: as the judgment of a court.

While a warrant may issue only upon a finding of "probable cause," this Court has long In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence of
held that "the term 'probable cause' . . . means less than evidence which would justify an accused. The prosecutor only determines "whether there is sufficient ground to engender
condemnation," x x x and that a finding of "probable cause" may rest upon evidence which a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent-is probably
is not legally competent in a criminal trial, x x x As the Court stated in Brinegar v. United guilty thereof, and should be held for trial." As such, the prosecutor does not perform
States x x x, "There is a large difference between two things to be proved (guilt and probable quasi-judicial functions. In Santos v. Go:
cause), as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like
difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them." Thus, hearsay may [T]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of
be the bases for issuance of the warrant "so long as there ... [is] a substantial basis for the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. Preliminary
crediting the hearsay." x x x And, in Aguilar, we recognized that "an affidavit may be based investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering the persons
on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant," who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare-his
so long as the magistrate is "informed of some of the underlying circumstances" supporting complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose
the affiant's conclusions and his belief that any informant involved "whose identity need not except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
be disclosed..." was "credible" or his information "reliable." x x x. probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that
determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it. is the courts,
Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining
probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely Though some cases describe the public prosecutors power to conduct a preliminary
preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties, x x x. investigation as quasi-judicial in nature, this is true only to the extent that, like quasi-
judicial bodies, the prosecutor is an officer of the executive department exercising powers
DE LIMA VS REYES akin to those of a court, and the similarity ends at this point. A quasi-judicial body is as an
organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature which affects the
DOCTRINE: The prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making. A quasi-judicial agency
innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. performs adjudicatory functions such that its awards, determine the rights of parties, and
Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering their decisions have the same effect as judgments of a court. Such is not the case when a
the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to public prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause to file
prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no an information against a person charged with a criminal offense, or when the Secretary of
purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there Justice is reviewing the formers order or resolutions.
is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal makes that
determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, In Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal. mandamus was filed against the Secretary of Justice's issuance of a department order. The
assailed order directed all prosecutors to forward all cases already filed against Celso de los
Angeles of the Legacy Group to the Secretariat of the Special Panel created by the items were plainly visible, the police officers were justified in seizing them. Considering that
Department of Justice. Saraum’s arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.
The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers found and seized in the shanty are,
This court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitions for certiorari and prohibition therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded from a valid search and seizure.
are directed only to tribunals that exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The issuance Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged,
of the department order was a purely administrative or executive function of the Secretary the Court has no choice but to sustain the judgment of conviction.
of Justice. While the Department of Justice may perform functions similar to that of a court
of law, it is not a quasi-judicial agency: Considering that Saraum failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness
on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, such findings deserve great weight
The fact that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the Government does not make it a and are deemed conclusive and binding. Besides, a review of the records reveals that the
quasi-judicial office or agency. Its preliminary investigation of cases is not a quasi-judicial CA did not err in affirming his conviction.
proceeding. Nor does the DOJ exercise a quasijudicial function when it reviews the findings
of a public prosecutor on the finding of probable cause in any case. Indeed, in Bautista v. The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court has held that a preliminary investigation is not a paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1)
quasi-judicial proceeding, stating: . . . [t]he prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia
not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
rule-making functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often the any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. In this
only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to case, the prosecution has convincingly established that Saraum was in possession of drug
enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the paraphernalia, particularly aluminum tin foil, rolled tissue paper, and lighter, all of which
merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed were offered and admitted in evidence.
and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the
fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is Saraum was arrested during the commission of a crime, which instance does not require a
the courts, ultimately, that pass judgment on the accused, not the fiscal. warrant in accordance with Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure. In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he
There may be some decisions of the Court that have characterized the public prosecutor's is committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of
power to conduct a preliminary investigation as quasi-judicial in nature. Still, this the arresting officer. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must
characterization is true only to the extent that the public prosecutor, like a quasi-judicial concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
body, is an officer of the executive department exercising powers akin to those of a court of committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt
law. act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

But the limited similarity, between the public prosecutor and a quasi-judicial body quickly Here, the Court is unconvinced with Saraum’s statement that he was not committing a
ends there. For sure, a quasi-judicial body is an organ of government other than a court of crime at the time of his arrest. PO3 Larrobis described in detail how they were able to
law or a legislative office that affects the rights of private parties through either apprehend him, who was then holding a disposable lighter in his right hand and a tin foil
adjudication or rule-making; it performs adjudicatory functions, and its awards and and a rolled tissue paper in his left hand, while they were in the course of arresting
adjudications determine the rights of the parties coming before it; its decisions have the somebody. The case is clearly one of hot pursuit of "Pata," who, in eluding arrest, entered
same effect as the judgments of a court of law. In contrast, that is not the effect whenever a the shanty where Saraum and Esperanza were incidentally caught in possession of the
public prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause in illegal items. Saraum did not proffer any satisfactory explanation with regard to his
order to file a criminal information against a person properly charged with the offense, or presence at the vicinity of the buy-bust operation and his possession of the seized items
whenever the Secretary of Justice reviews the public prosecutor's orders or resolutions. that he claims to have "countless, lawful uses." On the contrary, the prosecution witnesses
have adequately explained the respective uses of the items to prove that they were indeed
RULE 113 – ARREST drug paraphernalia. There is, thus, no necessity to make a laboratory examination and
finding as to the presence or absence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or any illegal
SARAUM VS PEOPLE substances on said items since possession itself is the punishable act.
DOCTRINE: The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the shanty for The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the shanty for objects
objects relating to the crime and seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of relating to the crime and seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of their
their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia. As these
lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia. As these items Neither has the prosecution established that the rigorous conditions set forth in Section 5
were plainly visible, the police officers were justified in seizing them. Considering that (b), Rule 113, have been complied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just been committed
Saraum’s arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful. and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had
The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers found and seized in the shanty are, committed it. As already discussed, the factual backdrop of the instant case failed to show
therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded from a valid search and seizure. that PO3 Calag had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably committed by
Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, Comerciante. Verily, it is not enough that the arresting officer had reasonable ground to
the Court has no choice but to sustain the judgment of conviction. believe that the accused had just committed a crime; a crime must, in fact, have been
committed first, which does not obtain in this case.
Even if We consider the arrest as invalid, Saraum is deemed to have waived any objection
thereto when he did not raise the issue before entering his plea. "The established rule is In this relation, the Court finds respondent's assertion that there was a valid "stop and
that an accused may be estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move frisk" search made on Comerciante untenable. In People v. Cogaed, the Court had an
for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment. Any objection opportunity to exhaustively explain "stop and frisk" searches:
involving the arrest or the procedure in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise the objection is "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law
deemed waived." In this case, counsel for Saraum manifested its objection to the admission enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the
of the seized drug paraphernalia, invoking illegal arrest and search, only during the formal commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the
offer of evidence by the prosecution. privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The balance
lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present where the police officer finds himself or
COMERCIANTE VS PEOPLE herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer.
Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal
DOCTRINE: The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present where the police behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern - based on facts that they
officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the themselves observe - whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a
police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must
and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern - based on facts that observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
they themselves observe - whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly,
a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must x x x x Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an opportunity to
observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. confer with a judge to determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, one of the
earliest cases adopting the "stop and frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, this court
the Court finds it highly implausible that PO3 Calag, even assuming that he has perfect approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable cause:
vision, would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy especially from a distance of
around 10 meters, and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee
hour miniscule amounts of white crystalline substance inside two (2) very small plastic with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in
sachets held by Comerciante. The Court also notes that no other overt act could be properly the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
attributed to Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Calag that the former
had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Verily, the acts of For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion
standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter cannot in any supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if Comerciante and his companion were believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
showing "improper and unpleasant movements" as put by PO3 Calag, the same would not
have been sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement further. It does not have to be
113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.31 That his reasonable suspicion bolstered probable cause, but it cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a genuine reason to serve the
by (a) the fact that he had seen his fellow officers arrest persons in possession of shabu; purposes of the "stop and frisk" exception:
and (b) his trainings and seminars on illegal drugs when he was still assigned in the
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not required to conduct a
province are insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw in
"stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a
Comerciante was indeed shabu.
"stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons
concealed about him.
In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must ANTIQUERA VS PEOPLE
not rely on a single suspicious circumstance. There should be "presence of more than one
seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of DOCTRINE: The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is
criminal activity." The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." not enough to sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not
Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless
reasonable search. arrest.

LUZ VS PEOPLE The prosecution’s theory, upheld by both the RTC and the CA, is that it was a case of valid
warrantless arrest in that the police officers saw accused Antiquera and Cruz through the
DOCTRINE: At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to door of their house, in the act of having a pot session. That valid warrantless arrest gave
inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of the officers the right as well to search the living room for objects relating to the crime and
arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and thus seize the paraphernalia they found there.
to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be used against them.
The prosecution contends that, since the seized paraphernalia tested positive for shabu,
There was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic they were no doubt used for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or
violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. introducing dangerous drug into the body in violation of Section 12 of Republic Act 9165.
That the accused tested negative for shabu, said the prosecution, had no bearing on the
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to crime charged which was for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, not for illegal use of
answer for the commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person dangerous drugs. The prosecution added that even assuming that the arrest of the accused
to be arrested or by that persons voluntary submission to the custody of the one making was irregular, he is already considered to have waived his right to question the validity of
the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical his arrest when he voluntarily submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction by entering a
restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an plea of not guilty.
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on
the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a “peace officer or a
necessary. Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to
procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.”
confiscation of the drivers license of the latter. This is an arrest in flagrante delicto. The overt act constituting the crime is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, petitioner could
not be said to have been under arrest. There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to But the circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto.
arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the
ticket, the period during which petitioner was at the police station may be characterized 1. The police officers claim that they were alerted when they saw two unidentified men
merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that suddenly rush out of 107 David Street, Pasay City. Since they suspected that a crime had
the only reason they went to the police sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged been committed, the natural thing for them to do was to give chase to the jeep that the two
down almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they fleeing men boarded, given that the officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. Running
were waiting there. There was no intention to take petitioner into custody.Even if one were after the fleeing suspects was the more urgent task but the officers instead gave priority to
to work under the assumption that petitioner was deemed arrested upon being flagged the house even when they heard no cry for help from it.
down for a traffic violation and while awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the
requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with. At the time a person is arrested, it 2. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice anything amiss going on in the house from
shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and the street where they stood. Indeed, even as they peeked through its partially opened door,
must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of their they saw no activity that warranted their entering it.
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might
Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized
make could be used against them. It may also be noted that in this case, these
the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned rule.
constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only after petitioner
Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was
had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. GRANTED.
likewise illegal. Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the police officers
allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid
search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas is found GUILTY of undue delay in resolving a motion and of
the crime charged, the Court has no choice but to acquit the accused. gross ignorance of the law or procedure in granting an application for bail without affording
the prosecution due process.
One final note. The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself
is not enough to sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not On innumerable occasions this Court has impressed upon judges that, as mandated by the
carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless Code of Judicial Conduct, they owe it to the public and the legal profession to know the
arrest.” very law they are supposed to apply to a given controversy. They are called upon to exhibit
more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, to be
PEOPLE VS VASQUEZ conversant with the basic law, and to maintain the desired professional competence.

DOCTRINE: Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before The propriety of the dismissal, on motion of the accused, on jurisdictional grounds is,
the accused enters his plea on arraignment. however, a matter for judicial adjudication and the proper recourse of a party aggrieved by
the decision of a judge is to appeal to the proper court, not file an administrative complaint.
At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his
arrest. We reiterated in People v. Tampis52 that "[a]ny objection, defect or irregularity However, having failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Ubiadas is liable for
attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. undue delay in rendering a decision or order which is a less serious charge under Section 9
Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any
irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction."53 The Court takes the occasion to reiterate the injunction that a judge is called upon to
Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto balance the interests of the accused who is entitled to the presumption of innocence until
of selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation. His arrest, his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable him to prepare his defense
thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5(a), Rule 11354 of the Revised Rules on Criminal without being subject to punishment prior to conviction, against the right of the State to
Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful. Having established the protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements.
validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds that the warrantless seizure
of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid. We held in People v. Cabugatan In the exercise of his power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any
that: person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient, the Ombudsman is
This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not absolute and authorized to call on prosecutors or lawyers in the government service for assistance.
such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by
jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) Judge Ubiadas was not only aware of complainant’s designation, hence, belying his
customs searches, (4) waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry explanation that he must have overlooked the same. It also shows his ignorance of the
search), and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless provision of the Ombudsman Act which does not require the presence of a special reason
arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid for the designation or deputization by the Ombudsman of any prosecutor or government
warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) lawyer to assist him.
arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped
prisoners. (Citation omitted.)Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by invoking ZUNO VS CABEBE
belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and the subsequent search upon his person.
DOCTRINE: The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of evidence cannot be
RULE 114 – BAIL downplayed, these are considered aspects of procedural due process for both the
prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail.
FLORESTA VS UBIADAS
In Docena-Caspe vs. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas,we held that jurisprudence is replete with
DOCTRINE: Judges owe it the public and the legal profession to know the very law they are decisions on the procedural necessity of a hearing, whether summary or otherwise, relative
supposed to apply to a given controversy. to the grant of bail, especially in cases involving offenses punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, where bail is a matter of discretion. Under the present
Rules, a hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion.It
must be stressed that the grant or the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of
discretion, hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is conversant with the law and the Rules and maintain professional competence; and by the
strong, and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of very nature of his office, should be circumspect in the performance of his duties. He must
judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the latter to properly exercise render justice without resorting to shortcuts clearly uncalled for. Obviously, respondent
his discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is failed to live up to these standards.
strong. In fact, even in cases where there is no petition for bail, a hearing should still be
held. GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SPEC. ADM. REGION VS OLALIA

There is no question that respondent judge granted bail to the accused without conducting DOCTRINE: The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the
a hearing, in violation of Sections 8 and 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. If bail can be granted in
Procedure. deportation cases, the Court sees no justification why it should not also be allowed in
extradition cases—clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail must be
In Cortes vs. Catral, we laid down the following rules outlining the duties of the judge in viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for
case an application for bail is filed: the promotion and protection of human rights.

1. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section
18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure); Ratio Decidendi

2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the
guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the
discretion (Section 7 and 8, id.); right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of On the other hand, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under
the prosecution; the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh
process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty.
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bail bond (Section 19, id.); otherwise the petition should be denied. In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in Government of United States of America
v. Hon. Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B.
Based on the above-cited procedure, after the hearing, the court’s order granting or Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo GR No. 153675 April 2007, that the constitutional
refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence of the prosecution and based provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, the same being available only in
thereon, the judge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so criminal proceedings. The Court took cognizance of the following trends in international
presented is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. Respondent judge did not law:
follow the above Rules and procedure enumerated in Cortes. He did not conduct a hearing
before he granted bail to the accused, thus depriving the prosecution of an opportunity to 1. the growing importance of the individual person in public international;
interpose objections to the grant of bail. Irrespective of his opinion on the strength or
weakness of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, he should have conducted a hearing 2. the higher value now being given to human rights;
and thereafter made a summary of the evidence of the prosecution. The importance of a
3. the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling
bail hearing and a summary of evidence cannot be downplayed, these are considered
their treaty obligations; and
aspects of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense; its absence will
invalidate the grant or denial of bail. 4. the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law,
on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.
Respondent’s contention is bereft of merit. There is no indication in the records of the
criminal case that the prosecution has intentionally delayed the trial of the case. Even In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the
assuming there was delay, this does not justify the grant of bail without a hearing. This is worth of the individual and the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the
utter disregard of the Rules. The requirement of a bail hearing has been incessantly ruling in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail.
stressed by this Court. In the same vein, the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be
PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN accused. Probable cause is meant such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information
DOCTRINE: Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
evidence of guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause for the arrest of
is great. A grant of bail does not prevent the trier of facts, the same Anti-Graft Court, from the accused is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged of crimes from the
making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits. tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.

Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of Under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 2, Article III of the
guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is great. 1987 Constitution, the judge must make a personal determination of the existence or non-
Here, ever since the promulgation of the assailed Resolutions a little more than four (4) existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Under Section 1, Rule 112 of the
years ago, Jinggoy does not, as determined by Sandiganbayan, seem to be a flight risk. Rules on Criminal Procedure, the investigating prosecutor, in conducting a preliminary
investigation of a case cognizable by the RTC, is tasked to determine whether there is
As we see it, the rulings in Castelo and Ty Sui Wong are not on all-fours applicable to and sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and
of governing sway to the issue of the propriety of revoking Jinggoy’s release on bail. As it the respondent therein is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A preliminary
were, the petitioner erroneously equates the provisional grant of bail to respondent Jinggoy investigation is for the purpose of securing the innocent against hasty, malicious and
to his virtual acquittal in Criminal Case No. 26558. Petitioner is wrong. Castelo and Ty Sui oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime,
Wong contextually dealt with the guilt of culprits therein for the crimes of murder after all from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial.
the evidence had been adduced. Unlike in this proceeding, the propriety of a grant of bail,
given the evidence for or against the bail application, was not an issue in Castelo and Ty If the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause for the filing of the Information against
Sui Wong. And in the present case, respondent Sandiganbayan is still in the process of the respondent, he executes a certification at the bottom of the Information that from the
determining the facts and merits of the main case. evidence presented, there is a reasonable ground to believe that the offense charged has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Such certification of the
With the view we take of this case, the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of investigating prosecutor is, by itself, ineffective. It is not binding on the trial court. Nor may
discretion in issuing its assailed resolutions, because the grant of bail therein is predicated the RTC rely on the said certification as basis for a finding of the existence of probable
only on its preliminary appreciation of the evidence. cause for the arrest of the accused.
OKABE VS GUTIERREZ LEVISTE VS CA
DOCTRINE: Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is a new one, DOCTRINE: Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s
intended to modify previous rulings of the Court that an application for bail or the interest in pretrial liberty and society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial.
admission to bail by the accused shall be considered as a waiver of his right to assail the An erroneously convicted accused who is denied bail loses his liberty to pay a debt to
warrant issued for his arrest on the legalities or irregularities thereon; Curative statutes are society he has never owed; Under what circumstances an accused may obtain bail pending
by their essence retroactive in application. appeal is a delicate balance between the interests of society and those of the accused; In
the exercise of discretion in the grant of bail pending appeal, the proper courts are to be
In determining the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the
guided by the fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending appeal should be
accused, the judge should not rely solely on the said report.[The judge should consider not
exercised not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons, considering
only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit/affidavits and the
that the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court.
documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses,
as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if Under Sec 5 of Rule 114 bail is discretionary, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Under par. 3 of the same
Information. The duty to make such determination is personal and exclusive to the issuing rule if the penalty impose is more than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail
judge. He cannot abdicate his duty and rely on the certification of the investigating be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following
prosecutor that he had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law and or other circumstances:
the Rules of Court, as amended, and found probable cause for the filing of the Information.
1. that he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the
The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the
2. that he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the The general rule: Any person, before conviction of any criminal offense, shall be bailable.
conditions of his bail without a valid justification;
Exception: Unless he is charged with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua [or life
3. that he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; imprisonment] and the evidence of his guilt is strong.

4. that the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or Thus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been established that the evidence of
guilt is strong. Where evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted according to the
5. that there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the discretion of the court.
appeal.
Thus, Sec. 5 of Rule 114 also provides: Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the
That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary pending appeal and it cannot be said that Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
CA committed grave abuse of discretion. After conviction by the trial court, the imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and
presumption of innocence terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends, acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not
from then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. transmitted the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial
court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
ENRILE VS SANDIGANBAYAN bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
DOCTRINE: Primary objective of bail – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on
measure of the accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the
subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to ensure that the accused appears at consent of the bondsman.
trial.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the
Bail is a right and a matter of discretion – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the
1987 Constitution and repeted in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.” crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

1. Bail as a matter of right – due process and presumption of innocence. b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification;
Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This right is c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail.
d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial and so the
amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the
required, but no higher than what may be reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. appeal.

Bail as a matter of discretion The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of
the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case.
Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeted in Sec. 7,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: Thus, admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life imprisonment, or reclusion
perpetua subject to judicial discretion. In Concerned Citizens vs. Elma, the court held:
Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not “[S]uch discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of
bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, liberty.” Bail hearing with notice is indispensable (Aguirre vs. Belmonte). The hearing
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. should primarily determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
The procedure for discretionary bail is described in Cortes vs. Catral: DOCTRINE: While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be
owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient
a) In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the showing that the property is under appellants control or possession.
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section
18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended); The records are void of any evidence to show that petitioner owns the nipa hut in question
nor was it established that he used the said structure as a shop. The RTC, as well as the
b) Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail CA, merely presumed that petitioner used the said structure due to the presence of
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the electrical materials, the petitioner being an electrician by profession.
guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound
discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra) The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and
presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the
c) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of drugs. With the prosecution’s failure to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner’s
the prosecution; control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In considering a
criminal case, it is critical to start with the law’s own starting perspective on the status of
d) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the the accused — in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid
bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied. unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or
that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and
2. Petitioner's poor health justifies his admission to bail.
satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the
The Supreme Court took note of the Philippine's responsibility to the international constitutional presumption of innocence.
community arising from its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We
MIGUEL VS SANDIGANBAYAN
therefore have the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to
liberty and due process and for detainees to avail of such remedies which safeguard their DOCTRINE: To be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard
fundamental right to liberty. Quoting from Government of Hong Kong SAR vs. Olalia, the also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or
SC emphasized: pleadings, has been accorded, no denial of procedural due process exists.
x x x uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every In deference to the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and the
person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which cause of the accusation against him,[31] Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
provides: “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect Criminal Procedure (Rules) requires, inter alia, that the information shall state the
for human rights.” The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and designation of the offense given by the statute and the acts or omissions imputed which
promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained constitute the offense charged. Additionally, the Rules requires that these acts or omissions
or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide without and its attendant circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and in
delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being
Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under charged x x x and for the court to pronounce judgment.
detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These
remedies include the right to be admitted to bail. (emphasis in decision) The test of the informations sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible
terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly
Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. They arbitrarily ignored the objective informed of the offense charged. In particular, whether an information validly charges an
of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial and unwarrantedly offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information shall
disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Petitioner. As such establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. The raison
the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Fix Bail. It acted detre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
whimsically and capriciously and was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a defense.
positive duty [to allow petitioner to post bail].
In arguing against the validity of the information, the petitioner appears to go beyond the
RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED standard of a person of common understanding in appreciating the import of the phrase
acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality. A reading of the information clearly
DEL CASTILLO VS PEOPLE
reveals that the phrase acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality was merely a
continuation of the prior allegation of the acts of the petitioner, and that he ultimately Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel
acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted benefits and guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
advantages to his co-accused private individuals. This is what a plain and non-legalistic
reading of the information would yield. • The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and
cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not
Suspension is valid. part of the custodial investigation process. This is because during a police line-up, the
process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the
Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of
the line-up.
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised • An exception to this rule is when the accused had been the focus of police attention at the
Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be start of the investigation. In the case at bench, appellant was identified in a police line-up
convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, by prosecution witnesses from a group of persons gathered for the purpose. However, there
but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits was no proof that appellant was interrogated at all or that a statement or confession was
which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative extracted from him. During the police line-up, the accusatory process had not yet
proceedings have been filed against him. commenced.

Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a due process requirement, when an accused • Assuming there was interrogation, any allegation of violation of rights during custodial
public official is given an adequate opportunity to be heard on his possible defenses against investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or
the mandatory suspension under R.A. No. 3019, then an accused would have no reason to confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their conviction. Here,
complain that no actual hearing was conducted. It is well settled that to be heard does not appellant was convicted based on the testimony of a prosecution witness and not on his
only mean oral arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where alleged uncounseled confession or admission.
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, has been accorded, no
denial of procedural due process exists. SANICO VS PEOPLE

PEOPLE VS LARA DOCTRINE: If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a
result was so serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the
DOCTRINE: The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial litigation ought to be reopened to give to the client another chance to present his case.
investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or
a part of custodial investigation. Without doubt, the petitioner could reasonably expect that his counsel would afford to him
competent legal representation. The mere failure of the counsel to observe a modicum of
There was no legal compulsion to afford him a counsel during a police line-up since the care and vigilance in the protection of the interests of the petitioner as the client — as
latter is not part of custodial investigation and this does not constitute a violation of his manifested in the multiple defects and shortcomings discovered in the petition for review —
right to counsel. was gross negligence in any language because the defects were plainly avoidable by the
simple application of the relevant guidelines existing in the Rules of Court. If the
• That he stood at the police line-up without the assistance of counsel did not render incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a result was so serious
Sumulong's identification of Lara inadmissible. The right to counsel is deemed to have that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be
arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins and being made to stand in a reopened to give to the client another chance to present his case. The legitimate interests of
police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial investigation. the petitioner, particularly the right to have his conviction reviewed by the RTC as the
superior tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the altar of technicalities.
• People v. Amestuzo: The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the
so-called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial PEOPLE VS AYSON
investigation. Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect DOCTRINE: The rights guaranteed a person under Art. III, Sec. 12 of the Constitution are
taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to not available when he is not under custodial investigation. Thus, a statement or confession
the person to elicit incriminating statements. voluntarily given by an employee during an administrative investigation that he had
malversed his employer’s funds is admissible although without a prior information of said The absence of the records in the trial court [was] due to the fact that the records of the
rights and without the assistance of counsel. case were elevated to the Court of Appeals, and the prosecutions failure to comply with the
order of the court a quo requiring it to secure certified true copies of the same. What is
The handwritten admission and statement of accused were declared to be admissible. glaring from the records is the fact that as early as September 21, 1995, the court a quo
already issued an Order requiring the prosecution, through the Department of Justice, to
Right Against Self-Incrimination secure the complete records of the case from the Court of Appeals. The prosecution did not
comply with the said Order as in fact, the same directive was repeated by the court a quo in
The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
an Order dated December 27, 1995. Still, there was no compliance on the part of the
Constitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under
prosecution. It is not stated when such order was complied with. It appears, however, that
compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is
even until August 5, 2002, the said records were still not at the disposal of the trial court
NOT to "be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
because the lack of it was made the basis of the said court in granting the motion to
The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning.It prescribes an "option of dismiss filed by co-accused Concepcion.
refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry.” It simply
It is likewise noticeable that from December 27, 1995, until August 5, 2002, or for a period
secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refue to answer any
of almost seven years, there was no action at all on the part of the court a quo. Except for
particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to
the pleadings filed by both the prosecution and the petitioners, the latest of which was on
incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific
January 29, 1996, followed by petitioner Sarucas motion to set case for trial on August 17,
question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at
1998 which the court did not act upon, the case remained dormant for a considerable
any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to
length of time. This prolonged inactivity whatsoever is precisely the kind of delay that the
appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness
constitution frowns upon.
receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and
answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to him, the answer to RULE 116 – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
which may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strength
of the constitutional guaranty. PEOPLE VS ESTOMACA

That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the DOCTRINE: Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment should be made in open
judge, or other officer presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative court by the judge himself or by the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of the
obligation to advise a witness of his right against selfincrimination. It is a right that a complaint or information with the list of witnesses stated therein, then reading the same in
witness knows or should know, in accordance with the well-known axiom that everyone is the language or dialect that is known to him, and asking him what his plea is to the charge.
presumed to know the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, in the The requirement that the reading be made in a language or dialect that the accused
very nature of things, neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in advance understands and knows is a mandatory requirement, just as the whole of said Section 1
the character or effect of a question to be put to the latter. should be strictly followed by trial courts. This the law affords the accused by way of
implementation of the all-important constitutional mandate regarding the right of an
The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or automatically operational. It accused to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled at him and is,
must be claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the protection does not come therefore, really an avenue for him to be able to hoist the necessary defense in rebuttal
into play. It follows that the right may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to thereof. It is an integral aspect of the due process clause under the Constitution.
claim it at the appropriate time.
The transcript of the arraignment shows that it merely consisted of the bare reading of the
VILLAREAL VS PEOPLE 5 complaints. It was reported in the transcript that “Reading the information/complaint to
the accused in Ilonggo/local dialect”. Since it was stated in the singular, the court
DOCTRINE: The right to a speedy trial is violated when the proceeding is attended with
speculates whether all 5 complaints were actually ready, translated or explained to him on
unjustified postponements of trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to elapse
a level within his comprehension considering his limited education. Parenthetically, there
without the case being tried and for no cause or justifiable motive.
was no statement of record that appellant fully understood that medium of expression. This
The SC did not see any grave abuse of discretion in the CAs dismissal of the case against assumes added significance since Ilonggo, or properly called Hiligaynon, is a regional
accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the basis of the violation of their right to language, spoken in a major part of Iloilo province, Negros Occidental and, with variations,
speedy trial. in Capiz.
Within a province or major geographical area using a basic regional language, there may be The accused is mistaken. When the hearings for his petition for bail were conducted, the
other local dialects spoken in certain parts thereof. If said indication in the aforequoted trial court had already acquired jurisdiction over his person. Settled is the rule that
portion of the transcript intended to convey that Ilonggo is merely a local dialect and was jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
also the idiom referred to, the same is egregious error; it would be different if local dialect appearance.19 In the case at bar, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
was used to denote an alternative and different medium but, inexplicably, without appellant when he was arrested on 19 March 1997. His arrest, not his arraignment,
identifying what it was. conferred on the trial court jurisdiction over his person.

The significance of this distinction is found right in the provision of Section 1(a) of Rule 116 Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an
which, cognizant of the aforestated linguistic variations, deliberately required that the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose
complaint or information be read to the accused in the language or the dialect known to of arraignment is, thus, to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his
him, to ensure his comprehension of the charges. life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him
of why the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against him.
The Court takes judicial notice, because it is either of public knowledge or readily capable
of unquestionable demonstration, that in the central and northwestern part of Iloilo Admittedly, appellant was arraigned after the case was submitted for decision. The question
province and all the way up to and throughout Antique, including necessarily San Joaquin is: Were appellant’s rights and interests prejudiced by the fact that he was arraigned only
where the offenses were committed and of which appellant and his family are natives, the at this stage of the proceedings?We do not think so. Appellant’s belated arraignment did
local dialect is known as kinaray-a. Barring previous exposure to or as a consequence of not prejudice him. This procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the
extended social or commercial intercourse, kinaray-a is not readily understandable to nor trial without raising any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. In fact, his
spoken by those born to the Hiligaynon regional language or who have lived in the areas counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. His counsel’s active participation
under its sway for an appreciable period of time. The converse is true for those whose in the hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the charges against him;
native tongue is the dialect of kinaray-a, since they are generally not well-versed in Ilonggo, otherwise, his counsel would have objected and informed the court of this blunder.
or Hiligaynon. Since all the complaints are not only in English but in technical legal Moreover, no protest was made when appellant was subsequently arraigned. The parties
language, we are again at sea as to whether and how the indictments were translated to did not question the procedure undertaken by the trial court. It is only now, after being
Ilonggo and/or to kinaray-a, or that the appellant was truly and honestly made aware of convicted and sentenced to two death sentences, that appellant cries that his constitutional
the charges and, especially, the consequences of his guilty plea thereto. The records are right has been violated. It is already too late to raise this procedural defect. This Court will
silent and do not reveal anything on this point, nor how the dialogue between the presiding not allow it.
judge and appellant was translated. Yet a man's life is at stake while this Court wrestles
with that dilemma created by an omission of official duty. Since no valid judgments can be In People v. Cabale and People v. Atienza where the same issue was raised under similar
had upon an invalid arraignment, the cases were set aside and were remanded to the trial circumstances, we held that while the arraignment of appellant was conducted after the
court. cases had been submitted for decision, the error is nonprejudicial and has been fully cured.
Since appellant’s rights and interests were not prejudiced by this lapse in procedure, it only
PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN follows that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him was not violated.
DOCTRINE: Procedural defect of belated arraignment was cured when the counsel of the
accused participated in the trial without raising any objection that his client had yet to be DAAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN
arraigned.
DOCTRINE: 1. Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the
Pangilinan assails his conviction because he was not properly arraigned. Since he was prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
arraigned only after the case was submitted for decision, said irregularity, he argues, is a approval—it usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only
procedural error which is prejudicial to the appellant and is tantamount to denial of his one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than
constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. He claims that his that for the graver charge.
subsequent arraignment did not cure the defect in the trial proceedings because at the time
the petition for bail was heard, the trial court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over his 2. Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings but it
person. may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished
presenting its evidence and rested its case.
Plea bargaining is authorized under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal allow the accused to make such plea.11 Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a
Procedure, to wit: SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed
with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused.
to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After
arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser In People of the Philippines v. Villarama, the Court ruled that the acceptance of an offer to
offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is
information is necessary. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98) a matter that is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court. However,
Villarama involved plea bargaining after the prosecution had already rested its case.
Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. Sections 1
and 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, require plea bargaining to be considered by the trial As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, as in the present case, the trial
court at the pre-trial conference,viz: SEC. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In all court's exercise of its discretion should neither be arbitrary nor should it amount to a
criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies such
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in
Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion,
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for prejudice, or personal hostility; and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an
in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law, or to
the following: act at all in contemplation of law.

(a) plea bargaining; In the present case, the Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner's plea offer on the ground that
petitioner and the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the proposal would redound to
(b) stipulation of facts; the benefit of the public. The Sandiganbayan believes that approving the proposal would
"only serve to trivialize the seriousness of the charges against them and send the wrong
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties; signal to potential grafters in public office that the penalties they are likely to face would be
lighter than what their criminal acts would have merited or that the economic benefits they
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; are likely to derive from their criminal activities far outweigh the risks they face in
committing them; thus, setting to naught the deterrent value of the laws intended to curb
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
graft and corruption in government."
defense; and
Apparently, the Sandiganbayan has proffered valid reasons in rejecting petitioner's plea
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects
offer. However, subsequent events and higher interests of justice and fair play dictate that
of the case.
petitioner's plea offer should be accepted. The present case calls for the judicious exercise
SEC. 2. Pre-trial agreement. – All agreements or admissions made or entered during the of this Court's equity jurisdiction.
pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
In the cases at bar, there is no dispute that JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN has already
otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters
restituted the total amount of P18,860.00 as per official receipt issued by the provincial
referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court.
government of Leyte dated February 26, 2002. In short, the damage caused to the
But it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished government has already been restituted by the accused.
presenting its evidence and rested its case. Thus, the Court has held that it is immaterial
There is also no dispute that accused DAAN voluntarily surrendered in the instant cases.
that plea bargaining was not made during the pre-trial stage or that it was made only after
Moreover, the accused is also willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense which to our mind,
the prosecution already presented several witnesses.
merits consideration.
Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court presents the basic requisites upon which plea
PEOPLE VS JANJALANI
bargaining may be made, i.e., that it should be with the consent of the offended party and
the prosecutor,10 and that the plea of guilt should be to a lesser offense which is DOCTRINE:
necessarily included in the offense charged. The rules however use word may in the second
sentence of Section 2, denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to
1. All trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused’s plea of guilty, for frustrated murder charge. The Court further notes that prior to the change of plea to one of
while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other confessions of guilt—one through an
solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews, as stipulated by both accused
meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction; The requirement for a judge during pretrial), and the other via judicial admission (pretrial stipulation). Considering the
to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment. foregoing circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the
“searching inquiry” in this instance. Remanding the case for rearraignment is not
2. The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in cases warranted, as the accused’s plea of guilt was not the sole basis of the condemnatory
in which it was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a “guilty” plea to judgment under consideration.
the accused—the conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are
mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion ABS-CBN CORP. VS GOZON
or duress; mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and
consequences of their guilty plea. TOPIC: SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment.—Upon motion by the proper party, the
arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused appears to be
3. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully
sole basis of the judgment. understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the
court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such
The SC ruled that the trial court judges are required to observe the following procedure purpose; (b) There exists a prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for review of the
under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court: resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of
the President; provided that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital of ense; reception of evidence.—When the accused pleads counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the DOCTRINE: The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also filed in Court any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of
present evidence in his behalf. the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in
The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment. Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge
In People v. Galvez, the Court noted that since accusedappellant’s original plea was “not on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive
guilty,” the trial court should have exerted careful effort in inquiring into why he changed jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
his plea to “guilty.” addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if
this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after
Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in
a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records
cases in which it was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a “guilty” plea
of the investigation.
to the accused, as it appears in this case. In People v. Alborida, this Court found that there
was still an improvident plea of guilty, even if the accused had already signified in open The trial court should have proceeded with respondents Dela PeñaReyes and Manalastas’
court that his counsel had explained the consequences of the guilty plea; that he arraignment after the 60-day period from the filing of the Petition for Review before the
understood the explanation of his counsel; that the accused understood that the penalty of Department of Justice. The trial court erred when it did not act on the criminal case during
death would still be meted out to him; and that he had not been intimidated, bribed, or the interim period. It had full control and direction of the case.
threatened.
The suspension of the arraignment should always be within the limits allowed by law. The
The conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by doctrine in Crespo v. Judge Mogul was reiterated in Mayor Balindong v. Court of Appeals
the rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress; where this court reminded the Department of Justice Secretary to refrain from entertaining
mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and petitions for review when the case is already pending with this court: In order to avoid a
consequences of their guilty plea. This requirement is stringent and mandatory. situation where the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal
Nevertheless, the High Court is not unmindful of the context under which the re- may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable,
arraignment was conducted or of the factual milieu surrounding the finding of guilt against refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when
the accused. The Court observes that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty the complaint or information has already been filed in the Court. The matter should be left
to another charge—multiple murder—based on the same act relied upon in the multiple
entirely for the determination of the Court. The trial court should have proceeded with alleged in the Information as supplemented by the bill. It is for this reason that the failure
respondents Dela PeñaReyes and Manalastas’ arraignment after the 60day period from the of an accused to move for a bill of particulars deprives him of the right to object to evidence
filing of the Petition for Review before the Department of Justice on March 8, 2005. It was which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less
only on September 13, 2010 that the temporary restraining order was issued by the Court general terms which sufficiently charges the defendants with a definite crime.
of Appeals. The trial court erred when it did not act on the criminal case during the interim
period. It had full control and direction of the case. As Judge Mogul reasoned in denying Sec, 9 Rule 116, Bill of particulars.—The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill
the motion to dismiss in Crespo, failure to proceed with the arraignment “disregards the of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify
requirements of due process and erodes the Court’s independence and integrity.” the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

ENRILE VS PEOPLE In general, a bill of particulars is the further specification of the charges or claims in an
action, which an accused may avail of by motion before arraignment, to enable him to
DOCTRINE: The grant or denial of a motion for bill of particulars is discretionary on the properly plead and prepare for trial. In civil proceedings, a bill of particulars has been
court where the Information is filed. As usual in matters of discretion, the ruling of the trial defined as a complementary procedural document consisting of an amplification or more
court will not be reversed unless grave abuse of discretion or a manifestly erroneous order particularized outline of a pleading, and is in the nature of a more specific allegation of the
amounting to grave abuse of discretion is shown. The rule requires the information to facts recited in the pleading. The purpose of a motion for bill of particulars in civil cases is
describe the offense with sufficient particularity to apprise the accused of the crime charged to enable a party to prepare his responsive pleading properly. In criminal cases, a bill of
with and to enable the court to pronounce judgment. The particularity must be such that particulars details items or specific conduct not recited in the Information but nonetheless
persons of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what the Information means. The pertain to or are included in the crime charged. Its purpose is to enable an accused: to
general function of a bill of particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard know the theory of the government’s case; to prepare his defense and to avoid surprise at
against surprises during trial. It is not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the trial; to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same
the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall not be required to include in the offense; and to compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence. In
bill of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove the dealing with a motion for a bill of particulars in a criminal case, judges should observe that:
elements of the offense charged or how the people intend to prove any item of factual (a) the remedy is distinct from a motion to quash in the sense that it presupposes that the
information included in the bill of particulars. acts or offenses constituting the offense (or the ultimate facts that comprise the crime’s
component elements) are already stated in the Information, albeit may be couched in vague
The grant or denial of a motion for bill of particulars is discretionary on the court where the language; (b) the remedy is, as mentioned, not meant to supply evidential information (or
Information is filed. As usual in matters of discretion, the ruling of the trial court will not be evidentiary facts); and (c) the particulars to be allowed are only those details that would
reversed unless grave abuse of discretion or a manifestly erroneous order amounting to allow a man of ordinary intelligence, as may be reasonable under the circumstances, to,
grave abuse of discretion is shown. again, properly plead during his arraignment and to prepare his defense for trial.
Accordingly, the analysis involved in motion for bill of particulars should go beyond a
In the light of all these considerations, we hold that the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the simple ultimate factsevidentiary facts dichotomy. If the Information is lacking, a court
petitioner’s motion for a bill of particulars, on the ground that the details sought to be should take a liberal attitude towards its granting and order the government to file a bill of
itemized or specified are all evidentiary without any explanation supporting this conclusion particulars elaborating on the charges. Doubts should be resolved in favor of granting the
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Some of the desired details are material facts that bill to give full meaning to the accused’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Notably, the
must be alleged to enable the petitioner to properly plead and prepare his defense. The government cannot put the accused in the position of disclosing certain overt acts through
Sandiganbayan should have diligently sifted through each detail sought to be specified, and the Information and withholding others subsequently discovered, all of which it intends to
made the necessary determination of whether each detail was an ultimate or evidentiary prove at the trial. This is the type of surprise a bill of particulars is designed to avoid. The
fact, particularly after Enrile stated in his Reply that the “desired details” could not be accused is entitled to the observance of all the rules designated to bring about a fair
found in the bundle of documents marked by the prosecution. We cannot insist or verdict. This becomes more relevant in the present case where the crime charged carries
speculate that he is feigning ignorance of the presence of these desired details; neither can with it the severe penalty of capital punishment and entails the commission of several
we put on him the burden of unearthing from these voluminous documents what the predicate criminal acts involving a great number of transactions spread over a considerable
desired details are. The remedy of a bill of particulars is precisely made available by the period of time.
Rules to enable an accused to positively respond and make an intelligent defense.
RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH
A bill of particulars guards against the taking of an accused by surprise by restricting the
scope of the proof; it limits the evidence to be presented by the parties to the matters PEOPLE VS LACSON
DOCTRINE: The interpretation of Sec. 8 of Rule 117 to the effect that in the event that the prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy
accused is prosecuted anew with the same offense, albeit under an identical information, of the order of dismissal.
the new proceedings being conducted as if the accused has been charged afresh has in its
favor the soundest policy considerations based no less on the fundamental objectives of Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. It is a
procedural rules. positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its
meaning. Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional
Section 1 (g) of Rule 116—Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme dismissal of the case No objection or With my conformity, the writing amounts to express
Court circular, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case. The mere inaction or silence
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the pendency or a motion of the accused to a motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to.
to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment
shall be excluded in computing the period. A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express consent to such
provisional dismissal. If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express consent
Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal.—A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the of the accused, the case may be revived only within the periods provided in the new rule.
express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. On the other hand, if a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without the express consent
of the accused or over his objection, the new rule would not apply. The case may be revived
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) or refiled even beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of the accused to oppose
years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance the same on the ground of double jeopardy or that such revival or refiling is barred by the
of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by statute of limitations.
imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become
permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. The case may be revived by the State within the time-bar either by the refiling of the
Information or by the filing of a new Information for the same offense or an offense
Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and before the Court of necessarily included therein. There would be no need of a new preliminary investigation.
Appeals, the respondent is burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first However, in a case wherein after the provisional dismissal of a criminal case, the original
paragraph thereof, namely: witnesses of the prosecution or some of them may have recanted their testimonies or may
have died or may no longer be available and new witnesses for the State have emerged, a
1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a new preliminary investigation must be conducted before an Information is refiled or a new
provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused Information is filed.
move for a provisional dismissal of the case;
In this case, the respondent has failed to prove that the first and second requisites of the
2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; first paragraph of the new rule were present when Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissed Criminal
Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689. Irrefragably, the prosecution did not file any
3. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally;
motion for the provisional dismissal of the said criminal cases. For his part, the respondent
4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the merely filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for examination of
case. prosecution witnesses alleging that under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and the
decision of this Court in Allado v. Diokno, among other cases, there was a need for the trial
The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar court to conduct a personal determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant
in the second paragraph of the new rule. The raison d’ etre for the requirement of the of arrest against respondent and to have the prosecution’s witnesses summoned before the
express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him court for its examination.
from subsequently asserting that the revival of the criminal case will place him in double
jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included therein. The respondent contended therein that until after the trial court shall have personally
determined the presence of probable cause, no warrant of arrest should be issued against
Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall the respondent and if one had already been issued, the warrant should be recalled by the
become permanent one year after the issuance thereof without the case having been trial court. He then prayed therein that: 1) a judicial determination of probable cause
revived, the provision should be construed to mean that the order of dismissal shall become pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the Constitution be conducted by this Honorable Court,
permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has and for this purpose, an order be issued directing the prosecution to present the private
control of the prosecution6 without the criminal case having been revived. The public complainants and their witnesses at a hearing scheduled therefor; and 2) warrants for the
arrest of the accused-movants be withheld, or, if issued, recalled in the meantime until the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the
resolution of this incident. Other equitable reliefs are also prayed for. accused with or without leave of court.

The respondent did not pray for the dismissal, provisional or otherwise, of Criminal Cases In the case under consideration, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case against respondent
Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99- 81689. Neither did he ever agree, impliedly or expressly, to a for insufficiency of evidence, even without giving the prosecution the opportunity to present
mere provisional dismissal of the cases. its evidence. In so doing, it violated the prosecutions right to due process. It deprived the
prosecution of its opportunity to prosecute its case and to prove the culpability of the
PANAGUITON VS DOJ accused.

DOCTRINE: The prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for It was therefore erroneous for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case under the premises.
preliminary investigation against the accused. Petitioner’s filing of his complaint-affidavit Not only did it not consider the ground invoked by respondent Dumlao; it even dismissed
before the office of the City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995 signified the commencement of the case on a ground not raised by him, and not at the appropriate time. The dismissal was
the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively interrupted the thus without basis and untimely.
prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under B.P. Blg. 22.
SORIANO VS PEOPLE
Act No. 3326 is the law applicable to offenses under special laws which do not provide their
own prescriptive periods. DOCTRINE: The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3
(a),19 Rule 117 of the1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the averments
Act 3326 provides: “Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would
of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law.
thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The
prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, The trial court may not consider a situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal
and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting complaint or information. Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners against the
jeopardy.” charge under the information must be proved by them during trial. Such facts or
circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the information on
It must be pointed out that when Act No. 3326 was passed on 4 December 1926, the ground that the material averments do not constitute the offense.
preliminary investigation of criminal offenses was conducted by justices of the peace, thus,
the phraseology in the law, "institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and Petitioners assail the validity of the informations against them on the ground that more
punishment," and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a complaint is filed with the than one (1) offense is charged. They point that Soriano was charged with violation of
justice of the peace for preliminary investigation, the prescription of the offense is halted. DOSRI Rules and with estafa thru falsification of commercial document for allegedly
“the term ‘proceedings’ should now be understood either executive or judicial in character”. obtaining loans from RBSM. Thus, they claim that the informations were duplicitous;
To rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account hence, they should be quashed.
of delays that are not under his control.
Indisputably, duplicity of offenses in a single information is a ground to quash the
PEOPLE VS DUMLAO Information under Section 3(e), Rule 11713 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
Rules prohibit the filing of a duplicitous information to avoid confusing the accused in
DOCTRINE: Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a Motion to Quash— preparing his defense.
insufficiency of evidence is a ground for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution
rests its case. By duplicity of charges is meant a single complaint or information that charges more than
one offense.15 Section 13 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure clearly
Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a Motion to Quash. Insufficiency of states:
evidence is a ground for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests its case.
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: Duplicity of Offense. – A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only
in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses.
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss Otherwise stated, there is duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when a single Information
the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the charges more than one offense.
In this case, however, Soriano was faced not with one information charging more than one The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3 (a), Rule 117
offense, but with more than one information, each charging a different offense - violation of of the1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the averments in the
DOSRI rules in one, and estafa thru falsification of commercial documents in the others. information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish
Ilagan, on the other hand, was charged with estafa thru falsification of commercial the essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law. The trial court may not
documents in separate informations. Thus, petitioners erroneously invoke duplicity of consider a situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal complaint or information.
charges as a ground to quash the Informations. Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners against the charge under the
information must be proved by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not
Petitioners also contend that Soriano should be charged with one offense only, because all constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the information on the ground that the
the charges filed against him proceed from and are based on a single act of obtaining material averments do not constitute the offense.
fictitious loans. Thus, Soriano argues that he cannot be charged with estafa thru
falsification of commercial document, considering that he is already being prosecuted for We have reviewed the informations and find that they contain material allegations charging
obtaining a DOSRI loan. Soriano with violation of DOSRI rules and estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents.
The contention has no merit.
In Criminal Case Nos. 1719 & 1980 for violation of DOSRI rules, the informations alleged
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a single act or incident might offend two or that Soriano was the president of RBSMI, while Ilagan was then its general manager; that
more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, thus justifying the filing of several during their tenure, Soriano, with the direct participation of Ilagan, and by using the
charges against the accused. names of Virgilio Malang and Rogelio Mañaol, was able to indirectly obtain loans without
complying with the requisite board approval, reportorial and ceiling requirements, in
In Loney v. People, this Court, in upholding the filing of multiple charges against the violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 37722 as amended.
accused, held: As early as the start of the last century, this Court had ruled that a single
act or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions Similarly, the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1720 & 1981 charge petitioners with
of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense. The only estafa thru falsification of commercial document. They allege that petitioners made it
limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice put in appear that Virgilio J. Malang and Rogelio Mañaol obtained loans and received the proceeds
jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense." In People v. Doriquez, we held that two (or thereof when they did not in fact secure said loans or receive the amounts reflected in the
more) offenses arising from the same act are not "the same" — x x x if one provision [of law] promissory notes and other bank records.
requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does not, x x x. Phrased
elsewise, where two different laws (or articles of the same code) define two crimes, prior The information in Criminal Case No. 1720 further alleges the elements of estafa under
jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both Article 315 (1)(b)23 of the RPC to wit: (i) that money, goods or other personal property be
offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any
an essential element of the other. other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (ii) that there
be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on
Consequently, the filing of the multiple charges against petitioners, although based on the his part of such receipt; (iii) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
same incident, is consistent with settled doctrine. prejudice of another; and (iv) that there is demand made by the offended party to the
offender.
As aptly pointed out by the BSP in its memorandum, there are differences between the two
(2) offenses. A DOSRI violation consists in the failure to observe and comply with The information in Criminal Case No. 1981, on the other hand, further alleged the following
procedural, reportorial or ceiling requirements prescribed by law in the grant of a loan to a essential elements of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a)24 of the RPC: (i) that there must be a
director, officer, stockholder and other related interests in the bank, i.e. lack of written false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (ii) that such false pretense, fraudulent
approval of the majority of the directors of the bank and failure to enter such approval into act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
corporate records and to transmit a copy thereof to the BSP supervising department. The commission of the fraud; (iii) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
elements of abuse of confidence, deceit, fraud or false pretenses, and damage, which are fraudulent act, or fraudulent means—that is, he was induced to part with his money or
essential to the prosecution for estafa, are not elements of a DOSRI violation. The filing of property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and (iv) that,
several charges against Soriano was, therefore, proper. as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. The informations in Criminal Case
Nos. 1720 & 1981, thus, charge petitioners with the complex crime of estafa thru
Petitioners next question the sufficiency of the allegations in the informations, contending falsification of commercial documents.
that the same do not constitute an offense.
Verily, there is no justification for the quashal of the Information filed against petitioners. second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a)
The RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions. after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid
plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the
In fine, the Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The proper
procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on Since we have held that the Order granting the motion to dismiss was committed with grave
his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and if after abuse of discretion, then respondents were not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal
trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner dismissal or termination of the case. Ergo, the fifth requisite which requires the conviction
authorized by law.25 Thus, petitioners should not have forthwith filed a special civil action and acquittal of the accused, or the dismissal of the case without the approval of the
for certiorari with the CA and instead, they should have gone to trial and reiterated the accused, was not met. Thus, double jeopardy has not set in.
special defenses contained in their motion to quash. There are no special or exceptional
circumstances in the present case that would justify immediate resort to a filing of a CO VS NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS
petition for certiorari. Clearly, the CA did not commit any reversible error, much less, grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. DOCTRINE: While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and adheres to a
policy of speedy administration of justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable
CEREZO VS PEOPLE opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial
for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial.
DOCTRINE: Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the court, any
disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to Co’s charge that his right to a speedy trial was violated is baseless. Obviously, he failed to
dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial court should not rely solely and show any evidence that the alleged “vexatious, capricious and oppressive” delay in the trial
merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is the court’s was attended with malice or that the same was made without good cause or justifiable
bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must motive on the part of the prosecution. This Court has emphasized that “‘speedy trial’ is a
be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the relative term and necessarily a flexible concept.”In determining whether the accused's right
prosecutor or the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on to speedy trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the
courts. proceedings.The factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason
therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such
Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it delay. Surely, mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the
rests on the sound discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all, do not
to withdraw an Information, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on the exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances
findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is the court’s bounden duty peculiar to each case. “While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and
to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be embodied adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, we cannot deprive the State of a
in a written order disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. Unjustified postponements which
the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts. prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused
to speedy trial.”
By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution of the
DOJ Secretary, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive PEOPLE VS DE LEON
duty enjoined by law. The said Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and
violated the complainant’s right to due process. They were void, had no legal standing, and DOCTRINE: A Buy-bust operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of
produced no effect whatsoever. apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is
undertaken.
This Court must therefore remand the case to the RTC, so that the latter can rule on the
merits of the case to determine if a prima facie case exists and consequently resolve the A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for
Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information anew. It is beyond cavil that double jeopardy the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal
did not set in. plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective
method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal
Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy safeguards is undertaken.
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a
The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and corroborated on important points by each other’s testimonies and the circumstances
ruled that the elements of the crime were sufficiently established, thereby affirming the disclosed through the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, and "to such extent
decision of the CA. that their trustworthiness becomes manifest."

RULE 119 – TRIAL As co-conspirators, Abutin and Tampelix can testify on the criminal plan of the
conspirators. Where a crime is contrived in secret, the discharge of one of the conspirators
SALVANERA VS. PEOPLE is essential because only they have knowledge of the crime. The other prosecution
witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the crime, as, in fact, there is none. No one except the
DOCTRINE: In the discharge of an accused in order that he may be a state witness, the conspirators knew and witnessed the murder. The testimonies of the accused and proposed
following conditions must be present, namely: state witnesses Abutin and Tampelix can directly link petitioner to the commission of the
crime.
(1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an offense;
VDA. DE MANGUERRA VS. RISOS
(2) The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case;
DOCTRINE: It is thus required that the conditional examination be made before the court
(3) The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each
where the case is pending. It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so that he can
proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
attend the examination, subject to his right to waive the same after reasonable notice. As to
(4) The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and the manner of examination, the Rules mandate that it be conducted in the same manner as
an examination during trial, that is, through question and answer.
(5) The trial court is satisfied that:
It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in the
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is presence of the judge. This is especially true in criminal cases in order that the accused
requested; may be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pursuant to his
constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face. It also gives the parties and their
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the counsel the chance to propound such questions as they deem material and necessary to
offense committed, except the testimony of said accused; support their position or to test the credibility of said witnesses. Lastly, this rule enables
the judge to observe the witnesses’ demeanor.
c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material
points; This rule, however, is not absolute. As exceptions, Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court
provide for the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party to an action.
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and, These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of witnesses or as modes of
discovery. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, allow the conditional
turpitude. examination of both the defense and prosecution witnesses.
To require Parane and Salazar to corroborate the testimony of Abutin and Tampelix on the It is thus required that the conditional examination be made before the court where the
exact same points is to render nugatory the other requisite that "there must be no other case is pending. It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so that he can attend the
direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the examination, subject to his right to waive the same after reasonable notice. As to the
testimony of the state witness." The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not manner of examination, the Rules mandate that it be conducted in the same manner as an
have to consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state examination during trial, that is, through question and answer.
witnesses. The Supreme Court ruled that a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of
a fellow criminal than by any other method. If it is shown that the statements of the PEOPLE VS. JIMENEZ
conspirator are corroborated by other evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity.
Even if the confirmatory testimony only applies to some particulars, we can properly infer DOCTRINE: The requirement is that a state witness does not need to be found to be the
that the witness has told the truth in other respects. It is enough that the testimony of a least guilty; he or she should not only "appear to be the most guilty."
co-conspirator is corroborated by some other witness or evidence. In the case at bar, we are
satisfied from a reading of the records that the testimonies of Abutin and Tampelix are
By jurisprudence, "most guilty" refers to the highest degree of culpability in terms of When the Decision was promulgated, only Estanislao was present. Subsequently thereafter,
participation in the commission of the offense and does not necessarily mean the severity of without surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and
the penalty imposed. While all the accused may be given the same penalty due to Domingo joined Estanislao in their Joint Motion for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of
conspiracy, yet one may be considered to have lesser or the least guilt taking into account the Rules, RTC not only failed to cause the arrest of the respondents who were at large, it
his degree of participation in the commission of the offense. What the rule avoids is the also took cognizance of the joint motion.
possibility that the most guilty would be set free while his co-accused who are less guilty in
terms of participation would be penalized. RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint MR with respect to the
respondents who were at large. It should have considered the joint motion as a MR that
Thus, as a rule, for purposes of resolving a motion to discharge an accused as a state was solely filed by Estanislao. Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their
witness, what are controlling are the specific acts of the accused in relation to the crime standing in court. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes from
committed. prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits
to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the
The SC ruled that from the evidence submitted by the prosecution in support of its motion court.
to discharge Montero, it appears that while Montero was part of the planning, preparation,
and execution stage as most of his co-accused had been, he had no direct participation in ASISTIO VS. PEOPLE
the actual killing of Ruby Rose. While Lope allegedly assigned to him the execution of the
killing, the records do not indicate that he had active participation in hatching the plan to DOCTRINE: “Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted
kill Ruby Rose, which allegedly came from accused Lope and Jimenez, and in the actual because the evidence does not show that the defendant's guilt is beyond reasonable doubt;
killing of Ruby Rose which was executed by accused Lennard. Montero’s participation was but dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty.
limited to providing the steel box where the drum containing the victim’s body was placed, Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court of competent
welding the steel box to seal the cadaver inside, operating the skip or tug boat, and, jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within the
together with his co-accused, dropping the steel box containing the cadaver into the sea. territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient
in form and substance, etc."
The discharge of an accused to be utilized as a state witness because he does not appear to
be the most guilty is highly factual in nature as it largely depends on the appreciation of In this case, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case not for
who had the most participation in the commission of the crime. The appellate courts do not insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Notably, the
interfere in the discretionary judgment of the trial court on this factual issue except when RTC did not decide the case on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of petitioner's guilt or
grave abuse of discretion intervenes. innocence based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution. This being the case the RTC
order of dismissal does not operate as an acquittal hence may still be subject to an appeal
PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO under Rule 41 of the ROC.

DOCTRINE: Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, The accused-appellee cannot also contend that she will be placed in double jeopardy upon
allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to this appeal. It must be stressed that the dismissal of the case against her was premised
wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever upon her filing of a demurrer to evidence, and the finding, albeit erroneous, of the trial
necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is court that it is bereft of jurisdiction. The requisites that must be present for double
for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of competent
such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived. jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been
convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of
The RTC erred in taking cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration despite the the accused. There is no double jeopardy in this case as the dismissal was with the
absence of the other accused during the promulgation of judgment. Section 14(2), Article III accusedappellee's consent, that is, by moving for the dismissal of the case through a
of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the demurrer to evidence he is deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy.
trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea,
whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification CABRADOR VS. PEOPLE
purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which
case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the DOCTRINE: One can avail of a demurrer to evidence only after the plaintiff or the
proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived. prosecution has rested its case. Resting one’s case requires a formal offer of evidence which
has been commented on or has been opposed and the court has already ruled on the formal PEOPLE VS. TAN
offer of evidence together with the opposition or comment thereto.
DOCTRINE: The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was
The SC ruled that Cabador filed a motion to dismiss, not a demurrer to evidence. He did sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3)
not waive his right to present evidence. There are 2 stages in the trial proper of a criminal the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or
case: (1) prosecution's presentation of evidence against the accused; and (2) accused's acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his express consent. The only instance when
presentation of evidence in his defense. If after the first stage, the evidence appears double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
insufficient to support a conviction, the trial court may at its own initiative or on motion of
the accused dispense with the second stage, and dismiss the criminal action. There is no Double jeopardy applies. In People v. Sandiganbayan, this Court explained the general rule
point for the trial court to hear the evidence of the accused in such a case since the that the grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final and
prosecution bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The order of cannot be appealed.
dismissal amounts to an acquittal.
The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form
But because some have in the past used the demurrer in order to delay the proceedings in and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had
the case, the remedy now carries a caveat. When the accused files a demurrer without leave been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the
of court, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and the case shall case was dismissed without his express consent.
be considered submitted for judgment.
The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr.,
To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion to dismiss, this Court stated that the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the
the Court must consider the ff: the allegations in it were made in good faith; the stage of the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
proceeding at which it is filed; the primary objective of the party filing it.
This exception is inapplicable to the factual milieu herein. RTC did not abuse its discretion
Cabador in his MTD pointed out how the trial dragged on for years; the gaps between in the manner it conducted the proceedings of the trial, as well as its grant of respondent’s
hearings were long, with hearings often postponed due to the absence of the prosecutor. demurrer to evidence.
And it was compounded by the repeated motions for extension by the prosecutor to make
the formal offer, and its failure to make such offer. He invoked his right to speedy trial. Thus, the question to be resolved, given the factual molding of herein petition, is "did the
RTC violate petitioner’s right to due process?" Petitioner was given more than ample
In criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the accused's opportunity to present its case as gleaned from the factual antecedents which led to the
right to speedy trail. This denial is characterized by unreasonable, vexatious, and grant of respondent’s demurrer.
oppressive delays without fault of the accused, or by unjustified postponements that
unreasonably prolonged the trial. This was the main thrust of Cabador’s motion to dismiss Lastly, even if this Court were to review the action taken by the RTC in granting the
and he had the right to bring this up for a ruling by the trial court. demurrer to evidence, no grave abuse can be attributed to it as it appears that the 29-page
Order granting the demurrer was arrived at after due consideration of the merits thereto.
Cabador did not state what evidence the prosecution had presented against him to show in As correctly observed by the CA, RTC extensively discussed its position on the various
what respects such evidence failed to meet the elements of the crime, something that is issues brought to contention by petitioner. One of the main reasons for the RTC’s decision
fundamental in ay demurrer. It did not touch on any particular testimony or documentary to grant the demurrer was the absence of evidence to prove the classes of shares that the
exhibit. He could not do so because he did not know that the prosecution finally made its Best World Resources Corporation stocks were divided into, whether there are preferred
offer of exhibits on the same date he filed his MTD. shares as well as common shares, or even which type of shares respondent had acquired.

A demurrer assumes that the prosecution has already rested its case. In this case, after the Withal, it bears to stress that the fundamental philosophy behind the constitutional
prosecution filed its formal offer, the trial court still needed to give Cabador an opportunity proscription against double jeopardy is to afford the defendant, who has been acquitted,
to object to the admission of those exhibits. It also needed to rule on the formal offer. And final repose and safeguard him from government oppression through the abuse of criminal
only after such a ruling could the prosecution be deemed to have rested its case. The MTD processes.
was filed before he could object to the offer, before the trial court could rule on the offer,
and before the prosecution could rest its case. It cannot be said that he intended his MTD IMPERIAL VS. JOSON
to serve as a demurrer. He cannot be declared to have waived his right to present evidence
in his defense.
DOCTRINE: The right to speedy trial is considered violated only when the proceeding is Trial court effectively failed and /or refused to weigh the prosecution’s evidence against Go,
attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. which it was duty-bound to do as a trier of facts; considering that the case involved
hundreds of millions of pesos of OCBC depositors’ money – not to mention that banking
The accused’s right to speedy trial was not violated. Designed to prevent the oppression of industry is impressed with public interest, the trial court should have conducted itself with
the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time and circumspection and engaged in intelligent reflection in resolving issues. Demand is not an
to prevent delays in the administration of justice, said right is considered violated only element of the felony. Furthermore, as the beneficiary of the proceeds, Go is presumed to
when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. be the author of the falsification. It is irrelevant that the proceeds of supposed loans were
made payable to entities other than the alleged borrowers. The bottom line is that they are
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN encashed using bank funds, and the proceeds were deposited in Go’s bank savings and
current accounts and used to fund personal checks.
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and
the dismissal order may not be appealed because it would place accused in double PEOPLE VS. PEPINO
jeopardy. It is still reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65.
DOCTRINE: Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is
Actual damage to government arising from non-liquidation of cash advance is not an done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for
essential element. Instead, mere failure to timely liquidate is the gravamen of the offense. identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to
Even if Sandiganbayan proceeded from an erroneous interpretation of law, the error identify the suspect. It is also done thru lineups where a witness identifies the suspect from
committed was an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. The error committed is of such a group of persons lined up for the purpose x x x In resolving the admissibility of and
nature that can no longer be rectified on appeal by prosecution because it would place relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
accused in double jeopardy. Such error cannot be corrected because double jeopardy had circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness'
already set in. opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention
at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of
BANGAYAN, JR. VS. BANGAYAN
certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, acquittal of accused or dismissal of case against him can the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
only be appealed by Solicitor General. Court cannot review an order granting demurrer to
At any rate, the appellants' respective convictions in this case were based on an
evidence. Acquitting the accused on ground by insufficiency of evidence is of such based on
independent in-court identification made by Edward and Jocelyn, and not on the out-of-
the merits, thus to do so will place accused in double jeopardy.
court identification during the police lineup.
Double jeopardy already set in. All 4 elements of double jeopardy are present. A valid
The illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the
information for bigamy was filed against petitioners. They pleaded not guilty to charges
guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability. It is much too late in the day
against them and subsequently case was dismissed after the prosecution rested its case. If
to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information had been filed, the
the court finds that the evidence is not sufficient and grants demurrer, such dismissal of
accused had been arraigned, the trial had commenced and had been completed, and a
the case is one on the merits, which is equivalent to acquittal of the accused. Even if trial
judgment of conviction had been rendered against her.
court had incorrectly overlooked the evidence against petitioners, it only committed an
error of judgment and not one of jurisdiction, which could not be rectified by certiorari. It Applying the totality-of-circumstances test , there was thus ample opportunity for Edward -
must be shown that a party was deprived of his opportunity to be heard. before and after the gun had been pointed at him - to view the faces of the three persons
who entered his office. In addition, Edward stated that Pepino had talked to him "[a]t least
PEOPLE VS. JOSE GO
once a day" during the four days that he was detained. Edward also saw Gomez seated at
DOCTRINE: Court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is the front seat of the getaway metallic green Toyota Corolla vehicle. In addition, the
merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient to sustain the abductors removed the tape from Edward's eyes when they arrived at the apartment, and
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. To be sufficient, evidence must prove: (1) that among those whom he saw there was Gomez. According to Edward, he was able to take a
commission of crime and (2) precise degree of participation by the accused. Thus, when the good look at the occupants of the car when he was about to be released.
accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is
On the part of Jocelyn, she was firm and unyielding in her identification of Pepino as the
sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
person who pointed a gun at her husband while going down the stairs, and who brought
him outside the premises of Kilton Motors. She maintained that she was very near when The particular liability that each accused is responsible for depends on nature and degree
Pepino was taking away her husband; and that she could not forget Pepino's face. of his participation in commission of crime.

Police lineup conducted at the NBI was not suggestive. We note that there were seven Finding guilt of Ida as an accomplice in rape is dependent on proving the guilt of principal
people in the lineup; Edward was not compelled to focus his attention on any specific accused. Ida participated in commission of crime by previous acts but her participation, not
person or persons. While it might have been ideal if there had been more women included being indispensable, was not that of a principal but as an accomplice. Community of design
in the lineup instead of only two, or if there had been a separate lineup for Pepino and for between acts of Tampus and Ida is present.
Gomez, the fact alone that there were five males and two females in the lineup did not
render the procedure irregular. There was no evidence that the police had supplied or even Civil liability arising from the crime is shared by all the accused. The courts have discretion
suggested to Edward that the appellants were the suspected perpetrators. to determine the apportionment of civil indemnity which the principal, accomplice, and
accessory are respectively liable for, without guidelines with respect to basis of allotment.
Defense witness Reynaldo, however, maintained that Pepino and Gomez were among those Each of the participants should be liable only for acts actually committed by him. The
already presented to the media as kidnapping suspects by the DOJ a day before the police power of the courts to grant indemnity and damages demands factual, legal and equitable
lineup was made. In this sense, the appellants were already the focus of the police and were justification, and cannot be left to speculation and caprice.
thus deemed to be already under custodial investigation when the out-of-court
identification was conducted. Since Tampus died before final judgment, his civil indemnity ex delicto is extinguished. His
share in civil indemnity and damages cannot be passed over to the accomplice. And even if
Nonetheless, the defense did not object to the in-court identification for having been tainted Tampus were alive, Ida would only have been subsidiarily liable for his share of the civil
by an irregular out-ofcourt identification in a police lineup. They focused, instead, on the indemnity. With death of Tampus, Ida’s subsidiary liability with respect to this amount is
legality of the appellants' arrests. also eliminated, following the principle that accessory follows the principal.

The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is HIPOS SR. VS. BAY
more favorable to him.
DOCTRINE: Mandamus is never available to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in
RULE 120 – JUDGMENT a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of
either. If petitioners believed that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of
LLAMAS VS. CA discretion in issuance of Order denying Motion to Withdraw Information, the proper remedy
of petitioners should have been to file a petition for certiorari against the assailed order.
DOCTRINE: The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases. Furthermore, once a criminal complaint or an information is filed in court, any disposition
or dismissal of the case or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the
Rule 47 limits the scope of the remedy to judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil
jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court.
actions of RTC for which ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petitions for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The remedy Remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not
cannot be resorted to when RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal discretionary one. While judge refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw Information can be
case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not permit such recourse, compelled by mandamus to act on the same, he cannot be compelled to act in a certain
for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of 1997 Revised Rules of way, i.e. to grant or deny such Motion. The trial court, when confronted with Motion to
Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases as stated in Sec 18 Withdraw Information on ground of lack of probable cause, is not bound by the resolution
Rule 124: only Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56. of the prosecuting arm of the government, but is required to make an independent
assessment of the merits of such motion, a requirement satisfies by the respondent judge
PEOPLE VS. MONTECLAROS
in the case at bar.
DOCTRINE: When a crime is committed by many, each one has a distinct part in the
PEOPLE VS. LORENZO
commission of crime and though all the persons who took part in commission of the crime
are liable, the liability is not equally shared among them. It becomes relevant to determine DOCTRINE: Presumption of innocence of accused is fleshed out by procedural rules which
the particular amount for which each accused is liable when they have different degrees of place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused in guilty of offense charged
responsibility in the commission of crime and consequently, differing degrees of liability. by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.
In both illegal sale and illegal possession prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acquittal shall state
if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of drug. It must be established with moral whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused
certainty. Non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the When the exoneration is merely due to the failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
apprehending officers. reasonable doubt, the court should award the civil liability in favor of the offended party in
the same criminal action. In other words, the extinction of the penal action does not carry
There must be a Chain of evidence. However, in this case, it was not certain when and with it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a
where the said marking was done nor who had specifically received and had custody of the final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. In case of
specimens thereafter. Prosecution did not present poseur-buyer who had personal exoneration of the accused, the civil liability may still arise when one, by reason of his own
knowledge of the transaction. The lone witness of prosecution was at least four meters act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for
away from accused and poseur-buyer. With that distance, it was impossible for him to hear petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he
the conversation. committed had caused damage to the spouses. Based on the records of the case, Court
found that the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner did not cause any damage to
Facts and circumstances create a doubt as to whether sachets of shabu seized were the spouses Alonto. Moreover, the defective notarization does not ipso facto invalidate the Deed
same one that were released to Camp Crame and submitted for laboratory exam. of Absolute Sale, the transfer of said properties from spouses Alonto to petitioner remains
valid. Hence, when on the basis of said Deed of Absolute Sale, petitioner caused the
PEOPLE VS. BARON
cancellation of spouses Alonto’s title and the issuance of new ones under his name, and
DOCTRINE: Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to produce a conviction that the appellant thereafter sold the same to third persons, no damage resulted to the spouses Alonto.
conspired with his coaccused in committing the crime of robbery with homicide. His claim
The Court cannot sustain the alternative sentence imposed upon the petitioner, to wit: to
that he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury could
institute an action for the recovery of the properties of spouses Alonto or to pay them actual
not be sustained because there was no genuine, imminent, and reasonable threat,
and other kinds of damages. Sentences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in
preventing his escape that compelled him to take part in the commission of the offense
the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the alternative. While a judge has the
charged.
discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose both in the alternative. He
There is no direct evidence proving that the appellant conspired and participated in must fix positively and with certainty the particular penalty.
committing the crime. However, his complicity may be proved by circumstantial evidence,
PEOPLE VS. ASIS
which consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of
the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Circumstantial DOCTRINE: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a
evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. (2) While certiorari
the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; (c) the combination may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary
of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a
judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. (3) An appellate court in
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results to a fair and reasonable a petition for certiorari cannot review a trial court s evaluation of the evidence and factual
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. findings. Errors of judgment cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari
can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of grave abuse of
The appellant had other opportunities to escape since he traveled with his co-accused for
discretion.
more than 10 hours and passed several transportation terminals. However, he never tried
to escape or at least request for assistance from the people around him. Certiorari is the proper remedy A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the
remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level.
ABELLANA VS. PEOPLE
Since appeal could not be taken without violating Abordo s constitutionally guaranteed
DOCTRINE: Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or
right against double jeopardy, the OSG was correct in pursuing its cause via a petition for
omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for petitioner
certiorari under Rule 65 before the appellate court. Exception to Finality-of-Acquittal
to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he committed had
Doctrine In our jurisdiction, we adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a
caused damage to the spouses.
judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The rule, however, is not without As early as 1952, in Infante v. Provincial Warden of Negros Occidental, the Court already
exception. In several cases, the Court has entertained petitions for certiorari questioning opined that evasion of service of sentence is an essential element of prescription of
the acquittal of the accused in, or the dismissals of, criminal cases. In People v LouelUy, penalties. Later, Tanega v. Masakayan, et al. expounded on the rule that the culprit should
the Court said that petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate upon clear showing escape during the term of imprisonment in order for prescription of penalty imposed by
by the petitioner that the lower court in acquitting the accused: (1) Committed reversible final sentence to commence to run.
errors of judgment (2) Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
or denial of due process. Such commission of the lower court renders its judgment void. No We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final
double jeopardy When the order or dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape during the term of such
in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double imprisonment.
jeopardy is not violated.
Applying existing jurisprudence in this case, the Court, therefore, rules against petitioners.
Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy. OSG s For the longest time, they were never brought to prison or placed in confinement despite
petition for certiorari before the CA, however, is bereft of merit While the CA was erroneous being sentenced to imprisonment by final judgment. Prescription of penalty of
of dismissing the petition, the OSG s petition for certiorari if given due course is bereft of imprisonment does not run in their favor. Needless to state, respondent trial court did not
merit. While certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the motion for execution
such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly and in eventually granting the same.
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.
A reading of the OSG petition fails to show that the prosecution was deprived of its right to Extinction of Civil Liability
due process. Also, what the OSG is questioning are errors of judgment. This, however,
In the instant case, it is obvious that the heirs of Atty. Roblete did not file a motion for
cannot be resolved without violating Abordo s constitutionally guaranteed right against
execution within the five-year period or an action to revive the judgment within the ten-year
double jeopardy. An appellate court in a petition for certiorari cannot review a trial court s
period. Worse, other than the bare allegation that the judgment has not been enforced
evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. Errors of judgment cannot be raised in a
because the public prosecutor has not acted on the request to file a motion for execution,
Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those
no persuasive and compelling reason was presented to warrant the exercise of Our equity
involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion. Error of Judgment v Error of
jurisdiction. Unfortunately for private respondent Roblete, the instant case does not fall
Jurisdiction Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of
within the exceptions afore-stated. It cannot be claimed that the delay in execution was
judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari.
entirely beyond their control or that petitioners have any hand in causing the same.
An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its
In so far as the civil liability arising from the offense is concerned, a motion for execution
jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the
should be filed in accordance with Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules and existing
court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is
jurisprudence.
tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the
extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will botbe issued to cure errors by the trial court MORILLO VS. PEOPLE
in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said
findings and its conclusions of law. It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are categorized as transitory or continuing
crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their
BASILONIA VS. VILLARUZ consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such
cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acts have been
The determination of whether respondent trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting a motion for execution which was
taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a
filed almost twenty (20) years after a judgment in a criminal case became final and
continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where
executory necessarily calls for the resolution of the twin issues of whether the penalty of
the offense was in part committed.
imprisonment already prescribed and the civil liability arising from the crime already
extinguished. It may be argued, however, that the instant petition ought to be dismissed outright due to
certain procedural infirmities. Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
Prescription of Penalty
Administrative Code provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. Specifically, it shall The only case in which the word dismissal is commonly but not correctly used, instead of
represent the Government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the the proper term acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented all its: evidence, the
Court of Appeals. Thus, as a general rule, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court defendant moves for me dismissal and the court dismisses the ease on the ground that the
or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted evidence tails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty; for in such
by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State. case the dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the case is decided on the merits. If the
prosecution fails to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction
There have been instances, however, where the Court permitted an offended party to file an of the court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it
appeal without the intervention of the OSG, such as when the offended party questions the were so the defendant could not be again prosecuted before the court of competent
civil aspect of a decision of a lower court, when there is denial of due process of law to the jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, the defendant may again be prosecuted
prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the for the same offense before a court of competent jurisdiction.
State and the private offended party, when there is grave error committed by the judge, or
when the interest of substantial justice so requires. Thus, petitioner’s resort to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court cannot be struck down as
improper. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the parties raise only
Corollary, a judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under questions of law because the Court, in its exercise of its power of review, is not a trier of
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, facts. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby evidence presented by the parties-litigants.
rendering the assailed judgment null and void. If there is grave abuse of discretion,
granting the aggrieved party’s prayer is not tantamount to putting the accused in double In the instant case; the lone issue invoked by petitioner is precisely “whether the Court of
jeopardy, in violation of the general rule that the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error Appeals erred when it ruled that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City did not have
proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case. This is jurisdiction over the case despite clear showing that the offense was committed within the
because a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and the prosecution is jurisdiction of said court.” Evidently, therefore, the instant petition was filed within the
barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be bounds of our procedural rules for the issue herein rests solely on what the law provides on
violated. the given set of circumstances insofar as the commission of the crime of BP 22 is
concerned.
Thus, it may be argued that since the instant petition is one for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not under Rule 65, and was not filed by the OSG In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the
representing the interest of the Republic, the same should be summarily dismissed. The complaint or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the
unique and special circumstances attendant in the instant petition, however, justify an complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time
adjudication by the Court on the merits and not solely on technical grounds. of its commission. Thus, when a case involves a proper interpretation of the rules and
jurisprudence with respect to the jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints filed
First of all, the Court stresses that the appellate court’s dismissal of the case is not an therewith, it deals with a question of law that can be properly brought to this Court under
acquittal of respondent. Basic is the rule that a dismissal of a case is different from an Rule 45.
acquittal of the accused therein. Except in a dismissal based on a Demurrer to Evidence
filed by the accused, or for violation of the right of the accused to a speedy trial, the Thus, when there exists meritorious grounds to overlook strict procedural matters, the
dismissal of a criminal case against the accused will not result in his acquittal. Court cannot turn a blind eye thereto lest the administration of justice be derailed by an
overly stringent application of the rules. Rules of procedure are meant to be tools to
This argument or reasoning is predicated on a confusion of the legal concepts of dismissal facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in
and acquittal. Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted the way of achieving substantial justice. As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no
because the evidence does not show that defendant’s guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally construed.
but dismissal does tint decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the
Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court of competent court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought
jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within the not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help
territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action
in form and substance, etc. for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on
appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and
cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases (b) the evidence could not have been discovered at the trial even with the exercise of
while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and (d) the evidence must affect the merits of the case and produce a different
CA decision reversed. RTC decision affirming MeTC’s decision is reinstated. result if admitted. In this case, although the firearm surfaced after the trial, the other
conditions were not established.
RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must be one that could not, by the exercise of
ESTINO VS. PEOPLE due diligence, have been discovered before the trial in the court below. The determinative
test is the presence of due or reasonable diligence to locate the thing to be used as evidence
DOCTRINE: Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of a new trial before a
in the trial.
judgment of conviction becomes final when new and material evidence has been discovered
which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the Under the circumstances, Briones failed to show that he had exerted reasonable diligence
trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment. to locate the firearm; his allegation in his Omnibus Motion that he told his brothers and
sisters to search for the firearm, which yielded negative results, is purely self-serving. He
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative and remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan
also now admits having taken the firearm and having immediately disposed of it at a
for new trial in relation to the conviction of Estino and Pescadera for violation of Sec. 3(e) of
nearby house, adjacent to the place of the incident.
R.A. 3019.
Hence, even before the case went to court, he already knew the location of the subject
We resolve to grant petitioners a chance to prove their innocence by remanding the case to
firearm, but did not do anything; he did not even declare this knowledge at the trial below.
the Sandiganbayan for a new trial of Criminal Case No. 26192. Rule 121 of the Rules of
In any case, we fail to see how the recovery of the firearm can be considered material
Court allows the conduct of a new trial before a judgment of conviction becomes final when
evidence that will affect the outcome of the case; the recovery of the subject firearm does
new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with
not negate the commission of the crime charged.
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and
admitted would probably change the judgment. SALUDAGA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Although the documents offered by petitioners are strictly not newly discovered, it appears DOCTRINE: The Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the
to us that petitioners were mistaken in their belief that its production during trial was evidence was discovered after trial (in this case, after investigation); (b) such evidence could
unnecessary. In their Supplemental Motion and/or Motion for New Trial, they stressed that not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it
they no longer presented the evidence of payment of RATA because Balabaran testified that is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that,
the subject of the charge was the nonpayment of benefits under the 1999 budget, without if admitted, will probably change the judgment.
mention of the RATA nor the 1998 reenacted budget. It seems that they were misled during
trial. They were precluded from presenting pieces of evidence that may prove actual The Pornelos affidavit cannot qualify as newly-discovered evidence as it was already in
payment of the RATA under the 1998 reenacted budget because the prosecutions evidence existence prior to the re-filing of the case.
was confined to alleged nonpayment of RATA under the 1999 budget.
Under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered
BRIONES VS. PEOPLE evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial (in this case, after investigation); (b)
such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable
DOCTRINE: For new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching,
concurrence of the following conditions must obtain: (a) the evidence must have been and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.
discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered at the trial even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, The Pornelos affidavit, which petitioners claim as newly-discovered, was executed by affiant
corroborative, or impeaching; and (d) the evidence must affect the merits of the case and way back in November 29, 2000, as correctly found by the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, it
produce a different result if admitted. In this case, although the firearm surfaced after the cannot be considered as newly found evidence because it was already in existence prior to
trial, the other conditions were not established. the re-filing of the case. In fact, such sworn affidavit was among the documents considered
during the preliminary investigation. It was the sole annexed document to petitioners’
For new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of Supplement to Motion for Reinvestigation, offered to dispute the charge that no public
the following conditions must obtain: (a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial; bidding was conducted prior to the execution of the subject project.
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE change the judgment. It is essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in
seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial but nonetheless failed to secure it. In
DOCTRINE: To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of conviction on the basis this case, however, such records could have been easily obtained by the accused and could
of such evidence, it must be shown that the evidence was "newly discovered." Evidence, to have been presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Hence, the
be considered newly discovered, must be one that could not, by the exercise of due JAGO records cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence. There was nothing that
diligence, have been discovered before the trial in the court. prevented the accused from using these records during the trial to substantiate their
position that the shooting incident was a result of a military operation. The Court finds and
The affidavit of said police officer cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence as the so rules that the Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division acted in excess of its jurisdiction
defense failed to show that it has exerted efforts during trial to secure testimonies of Jurado when it nullified the November 27, 1998 Decision and granted a new trial for Criminal Case
and others. No. 4219. There is excess of jurisdiction where the respondent court, being clothed with the
power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law.
To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of conviction on the basis of such
evidence, it must be shown that the evidence was "newly discovered" pursuant to Section RULE 122-125 - APPEALS
2,10 Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended.
MACAPAGAL VS. PEOPLE
Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must be one that could not, by the exercise of
due diligence, have been discovered before the trial in the court below.11 Movant failed to DOCTRINE: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must
show that the defense exerted efforts during the trial to secure testimonies from police contain a certified true copy or duplicate original of the assailed decision, final order or
officers like Jurado, or other persons involved in the investigation, who questioned or judgment. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be sufficient ground for the
objected to the apprehension of the accused in this case. Hence, the belatedly executed dismissal of the petition.
affidavit of Jurado does not qualify as newly discovered evidence that will justify re-opening
of the trial and/or vacating the judgment. In any case, we have ruled that whatever flaw The Court notes that the instant case suffers from various procedural infirmities which this
that may have initially attended the out-of-court identification of the accused, the same was Court cannot ignore and are fatal to petitioner’s cause. It appears that petitioner assails not
cured when all the accused-appellants were positively identified by the prosecution only the denial by the RTC of her notice of appeal but likewise seeks the reversal of her
eyewitness during the trial. conviction for estafa. For reasons that will be discussed below, the petition is bound to fail,
because of petitioner’s complete disregard of the procedural rules and the orders of the
PAYUMO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN Court.

DOCTRINE: New and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not First, petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her notice
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced of appeal. Sections 2 and 3, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lay down
and admitted would probably change the judgment, as one of the grounds to grant a new the rules on where, how and when appeal is taken.
trial; requisites.
Second, even if we treat this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still
On the propriety of the grant by the Special Fifth Division of the motion for new trial in dismissible for violation of the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court has
Criminal Case No. 4219, the Court finds the same to be devoid of any legal and factual concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this should not
basis. Rule 121, Section 2(b) of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that: new be taken as granting parties the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to
and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable which an application will be directed. Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there are
diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted special, important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the
would probably change the judgment, as one of the grounds to grant a new trial. The petition, which are not present in this case.
records of the JAGO relative to the February 26, 1980 incident do not meet the criteria for
newly discovered evidence that would merit a new trial. Third, even if we ignore the above non-compliance and consider the petition as an appeal of
the trial court’s decision convicting her of estafa, again, we cannot do so for yet another
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the fatal procedural shortcoming committed by petitioner. As stated earlier, petitioner elevated
following requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said to this Court not only the Order denying her notice of appeal but also the Decision
evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of convicting her of estafa and the Order denying her motion for reconsideration. In utter
reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or disregard of the rules of procedure, petitioner attached to the petition only the June 29,
impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably 2010 RTC Order denying her notice of appeal but she failed to attach a clearly legible
duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed decision convicting her of estafa The existence of conspiracy was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Quidet is
and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. A petition for review on certiorari criminally liable only for his individual acts. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must contain a certified true copy or duplicate original come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The
of the assailed decision, final order or judgment. Failure to comply with such requirement essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy can be inferred from and established
PEOPLE VS. MORALES by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interests. However, in determining whether conspiracy
DOCTRINE: "The accused must not have opportunity for escape of self-defense" exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness
does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose, which
Since according to the ruling in the case of People v. Del Rosario. Under Article 12 of the
are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is proof
Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the
establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.
compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal
or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom. In Del Rosario, however, As a general rule, factual findings of the trial court, which is in a better position to evaluate
we held that for such defense to prosper the duress, force, fear intimidation must be the testimonial evidence, are accorded respect by this Court. But where the trial court
present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is substance which can affect the result of the case, this Court is duty-bound to correct this
not enough -By not availing of the chance to escape (since the other accused were waiting palpable error for the right to liberty, which stands second only to life in the hierarchy of
for them at the distance of 1 kilometer) their allegation of fear or duress becomes constitutional rights, cannot be lightly taken away. In the instant case, we find that the
untenable, for it to apply: it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Quidet conspired with Taban and
leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat. Tubo in committing the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide.
The fear (threats against family members), were not of imminence as to prevent any chance BALABA VS. PEOPLE
of escape, and that this fear they allegedly suffered does not suffice to grant them the
exempting circumstance. Upon Balaba’s conviction by the trial court, his remedy should have been an appeal to the
Sandiganbayan. Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 (RA 8249), which
The acts done by the appellants (was involved in the initial abduction, feeding/guarding the further defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, reads:
children while they are w/ them, instructing the father to go to Gumi for the ransom)
clearly shows that there was close coordination, indicating a common purpose or design. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Where all the accused acted in concert at
the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown by such acts that they had the There is nothing in said paragraph which can conceivably justify the filing of Balaba’s
same purpose or common design and were united in its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently appeal before the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, the Court of
established. Appeals is bereft of any jurisdiction to review the judgment Balaba seeks to appeal.

It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and In Melencion v. Sandiganbayan, we ruled: An error in designating the appellate court is not
coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony. fatal to the appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper appellate court should
be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once made within the said period, the
QUIDET VS. PEOPLE designation of the correct appellate court may be allowed even if the records of the case are
forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50
While, generally, factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect by this Court, the
of the Rules of court would apply. The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules
Court may look into such factual matters when the trial court has overlooked,
of Court reads: "An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright."
can affect the result of the case.
In this case, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing the appeal only after the
expiration of the period to appeal. The trial court promulgated its Decision on 9 December
2002. Balaba filed his notice of appeal on 14 January 2003. The Court of Appeals issued due course must be strictly enforced as they are considered indispensable interdictions
the Decision declaring its lack of jurisdiction on 15 December 2004. Balaba tried to correct against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. The purposes for
the error only on 27 January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day period to appeal from the such statutory requirement are twofold: first, to avoid delay in the administration of justice
decision of the trial court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and, second, to
dismissed Balaba’s appeal because of lack of jurisdiction. put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which are precisely
why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of
PEOPLE VS. OLIVIO every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time.

Trial courts are mandated not only to look at the direct examination of witnesses but to the However, in exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the
totality of evidence before them. In every case, the court should review, assess and weigh giving of due course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and
the totality of the evidence presented by the parties. It should not confine itself to oral mandatory rules of procedure. Certain elements are considered or the appeal to be given
testimony during the trial. due course, such as: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (2) the merits
of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party
We cannot convict appellants for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide when favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) lack of any showing that the review sought is
the evidence relied upon by the trial court is plainly erroneous and inadequate to prove merely frivolous and dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby.
appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing less than moral
certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or circumstantial evidence. A review of the records shows that the evidence to make a determination of petitioner’s civil
liability is already at the disposal of the trial court. For example, the checks covering the
In view of the foregoing, acquittal of the accused-appellants is in order. amounts owed by petitioner to respondent in the total amount of P3,300,000.00 were
already submitted by petitioner to the trial court as Annexes to the Motion to Quash28 that
One final note. The other accused, Joey Zafra, who is identically circumstanced as the
she filed. Neither can it be said that petitioner’s right to due process shall be violated if her
other appellants and who was likewise convicted on the same evidence, does not appear to
civil liability be determined in the same case.
have perfected an appeal from the trial court’s judgment. The record does not show the
reason therefor. PEOPLE VS. TARUC
Be that as it may, the present rule is that an appeal taken by one or more several accused DOCTRINE: Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to
shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to
court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Our pronouncements here with respect to the the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the
insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to convict appellants beyond reasonable doubt are court.
definitely favorable and applicable to accused Joey Zafra. He should not therefore be
treated as the odd man out and should benefit from the acquittal of his co-accused. In fact, 1. The escape of the accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from
under similar conditions and on the same ratiocination, Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the exercising its review jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital
Rules of Court has justified the extension of our judgment of acquittal to the co-accused punishment. Automatic review being mandatory, it is not only a power of the court but a
who failed to appeal from the judgment of the trial court which we subsequently reversed. duty to review all death penalty cases. In this case, considering that the penalty imposed by
the trial court was death, the Court of Appeals rightly took cognizance of the case. Upon
GUASCH VS. DELA CRUZ review by the appellate court, however, it modified the penalty from death to reclusion
perpetua.
DOCTRINE: In exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the
giving of due course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and 2. By escaping prison, accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal. In People v.
mandatory rules of procedure. Certain elements are considered for the appeal to be given Ang Gioc,18 the Court enunciated that: “There are certain fundamental rights which
due course, such as: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (2) the merits cannot be waived even by the accused himself, but the right of appeal is not one of them.
of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or not, as he
favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) lack of any showing that the review sought is pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. When the accused flees after
merely frivolous and dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby. the case has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be deemed to have waived his
right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him x x x.”
As a general rule, the statutory requirement that when no motion for reconsideration is
filed within the reglementary period, the decision attains finality and becomes executory in
The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily submits to the ***Some in the Court disagrees. They contend that probation is a mere privilege granted by
jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment the state only to qualified convicted offenders. Section 4 of the probation law (PD 968)
against him. While at large, he cannot seek relief from the court, as he is deemed to have provides: That no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
waived the appeal. Thus, having escaped from prison or confinement, he loses his standing has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Since Arnel appealed his
in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to its jurisdiction, he is deemed to have conviction for frustrated homicide, he should be deemed permanently disqualified from
waived any right to seek relief from the court. applying for probation.***

By putting himself beyond the reach and application of the legal processes of the land, While it is true that probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that Arnel has the right to
accused-appellant revealed his contempt of the law and placed himself in a position to such privilege; he certainly does not have. What he has is the right to apply for that
speculate, at his pleasure on his chances for a reversal. In the process, he kept himself out privilege. The Court finds that his maximum jail term should only be 2 years and 4 months.
of the reach of justice, but hoped to render the judgment nugatory at his option. Such If the Court allows him to apply for probation because of the lowered penalty, it is still up to
conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part of the appellate court. the trial judge to decide whether or not to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into
account the full circumstances of his case.
Accused-appellant, in the case at bar, has remained at large for most of the proceedings
before the RTC, as well as for the entirety of the pendency of his appeal before the Court of VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE
Appeals, and even until now when his appeal is pending before this Court. He cannot so
audaciously hope that his appeal before this Court would succeed. DOCTRINE: The finality of a CA decision will not bar the state from seeking the annulment
of the judgment via a Rule 65 petition; finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule 120
TIU VS. PEOPLE does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal judgments.

DOCTRINE: Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions Only the accused may appeal the criminal aspect of a criminal case, especially if the relief
on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal being sought is the correction or review of the judgment therein. This rule was instituted in
proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals. order to give life to the constitutional edict against putting a person twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. It is beyond contention that the accused would be
At the outset, the Court finds that the petition is defective since it was not filed by the exposed to double jeopardy if the state appeals the criminal judgment in order to reverse an
Solicitor General. Instead, it was filed by Tiu, the private complainant in Criminal Case No. acquittal or even to increase criminal liability. Thus, the accused’s waiver of the right to
96-413, through his counsel. Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or appeal – as when applying for probation – makes the criminal judgment immediately final
defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State and executory.
in criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals.20 Tiu, the offended
party in Criminal Case No. 96-413 is without legal personality to appeal the decision of the Our explanation in People v. Nazareno is worth reiterating: Further prosecution via an
Court of Appeals before this Court. Nothing shows that the Office of the Solicitor General appeal from a judgment of acquittal is likewise barred because the government has already
represents the People in this appeal before this Court. On this ground alone, the petition been afforded a complete opportunity to prove the criminal defendant’s culpability; after
must fail. failing to persuade the court to enter a final judgment of conviction, the underlying reasons
supporting the constitutional ban on multiple trials applies and becomes compelling. The
COLINARES VS. PEOPLE reason is not only the defendant’s already established innocence at the first trial where he
had been placed in peril of conviction, but also the same untoward and prejudicial
DOCTRINE: When an accused who appeals may still apply for probation on remand of the consequences of a second trial initiated by a government who has at its disposal all the
case to the trial court powers and resources of the State.
Ordinarily, Arnel Colinares would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he having Unfairness and prejudice would necessarily result, as the government would then be
appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. allowed another opportunity to persuade a second trier of the defendant’s guilt while
strengthening any weaknesses that had attended the first trial, all in a process where the
But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds
government’s power and resources are once again employed against the defendant’s
that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of
individual means. That the second opportunity comes via an appeal does not make the
four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision
effects any less prejudicial by the standards of reason, justice and conscience. It must be
correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the
clarified, however, that the finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule 120 does not
right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC.
confer blanket invincibility on criminal judgments. We have already explained in our on certiorari shall raise only questions of law.34 Moreover, such review is not a matter of
Decision that the rule on double jeopardy is not absolute, and that this rule is inapplicable right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and
to cases in which the state assails the very jurisdiction of the court that issued the criminal important reasons.
judgment.
In other words, when the CA imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
In such instance, however, no review of facts and law on the merits, in the manner done in an accused may: (1) file a notice of appeal under Section 13(c), Rule 124 to avail of an
an appeal, actually takes place; the focus of the review is on whether the judgment is per se appeal as a matter of right before the Court and open the entire case for review on any
void on jurisdictional grounds, i.e., whether the verdict was rendered by a court that had question; or (2) file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to resort to an appeal
no jurisdiction; or where the court has appropriate jurisdiction, whether it acted with grave as a matter of discretion and raise only questions of law.
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In other words, the review is
on the question of whether there has been a validly rendered decision, not on the question In this case, the CA affirmed the RTC decision imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua
of the decision’s error or correctness. Under the exceptional nature of a Rule 65 petition, upon the petitioners. The latter opted to appeal the CA decision via a petition for certiorari
the burden — a very heavy one — is on the shoulders of the party asking for the review to under Rule 45. Consequently, they could only raise questions of law. Oddly, the petitioners
show the presence of a whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of began to assail the existence of conspiracy in their reply,36 which is a question of fact that
jurisdiction; or of a patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of a would require an examination of the evidence presented. In the interest of justice, however,
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law or to act in and due to the novelty of the issue presented, the Court deems it proper to open the whole
contemplation of law; or to an exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by case for review.
reason of passion and hostility.
Ultimately, the SC ruled against Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr, Affirming the
DUNGO VS. PEOPLE findings of the CA.

DOCTRINE: The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due MANANSALA VS. PEOPLE
process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and
the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or
An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties
higher court authority. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and
of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from,
and in accordance with the provisions of law. increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case
No. 00-5-03, dated October 15, 2004, governs the procedure on the appeal from the CA to wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in
the Court when the penalty imposed is either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.31 the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other
According to the said provision, "[i]n cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the
imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
appeal filed with the Court of Appeals." law.

Hence, an accused, upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment had The elements of Falsification of Private Documents under Article 172 (2) of the RPC are: (a)
been imposed by the CA, can simply file a notice of appeal to allow him to pursue an appeal that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in Article 171 (7) of
as a matter of right before the Court. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for the same Code; (b) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and (c)
review on any question including one not raised by the parties.32 Section 13(c), Rule 124 that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
recognizes the constitutionally conferred jurisdiction of the Court in all criminal cases in committed with intent to cause such damage.
which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
On the other hand the elements of Falsification under Article 171 (4) of the RPC are as
An accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to an appeal by certiorari to the follows: (a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration
Court via Rule 45 under the Rules of Court. An appeal to this Court by petition for review
of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and RULE 126- SEARCH AND SEIZURE
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.
MICLAT VS. PEOPLE
In the instant case, the MeTC, RTC, and CA all correctly found Manansala guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the aforesaid crime, considering that: (a) as UMC's Petty Cash DOCTRINE: [Under Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II of RA No. 9165; and the
Custodian, she is legally obligated to disclose only truthful statements in the documents implementing provision of Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
she prepares in connection with her work, such as the subject report; (b) she knew all Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165], the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with
along that Siy never made any cash advance nor utilized the proceeds thereof for her the rule is not fatal. It does not render petitioner’s arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced
personal use; (c) despite such knowledge, she still proceeded in revising the subject report against him inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the
by inserting therein a statement that Siy made such a cash advance; and (d) she caused evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of
great prejudice to Siy as the latter was terminated from her job on account of the falsified the guilt or innocence of the accused."
report that she prepared. Basic is the rule that findings of fact made by a trial court are
accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear As to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls within the established
disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case or any exceptions. Verily, no less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and
clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes
findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this unreasonable, and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose
Court, as in this case. in any proceeding. The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject
to legal and judicial exceptions, namely: (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
While the conviction of Manansala for the aforesaid crime was proper, it was error for the arrest; (2) Search of evidence in "plain view"; (3) Search of a moving vehicle; (4) Consented
MeTC to appreciate the "mitigating circumstance" of acting under an impulse of warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and Frisk; and (7) Exigent and emergency
uncontrollable fear and for the RTC and the CA to affirm in toto the MeTC's ruling without circumstances.
correcting the latter court's mistake.
The seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner was not
To begin with, "acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear" is not among the mitigating only incidental to a lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview of the "plain view"
circumstances enumerated in Article 13 of the RPC, but is an exempting circumstance doctrine.
provided under Article 12 (6) of the same Code. Moreover, for such a circumstance to be
appreciated in favor of an accused, the following elements must concur: (a) the existence of Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that
an uncontrollable fear; (b) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (c) the fear of an view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed. For such defense to prosper, the evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law
duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain
be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law
In the instant case, while the records show that Manansala was apprehensive in enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from
committing a falsity in the preparation of the subject report as she did not know the which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
repercussions of her actions, nothing would show that Lacanilao, or any of her superiors at inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open
UMC for that matter, threatened her with loss of employment should she fail to do so. As to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
there was an absence of any real and imminent threat, intimidation, or coercion that would
have compelled Manansala to do what she did, such a circumstance cannot be appreciated It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to
in her favor. Hence, as there should be no mitigating circumstance that would modify sight. Since petitioner’s arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant
Manansala's criminal liability in this case - and also taking into consideration the before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the petitioner was the result of a
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law - she must be sentenced to suffer the penalty warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in plain view of the
of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence
minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as to prove petitioner’s guilt of the offense charged.
maximum.
[Under Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II of RA No. 9165; and the implementing
provision of Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA
No. 9165], the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the drugs seized, that appellant was
does not render petitioner’s arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him not accompanied by counsel, and that no representative from the media and the DOJ were
inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary present. However, this Court has already previously held that non-compliance with Section
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal, or make the items seized
innocence of the accused." inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items. While it is true that the arresting officer failed to state
Here, the requirements of the law were substantially complied with and the integrity of the explicitly the justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21, this does not
drugs seized from the petitioner was preserved. More importantly, an unbroken chain of necessarily mean that appellant’s arrest was illegal or that the items seized are
custody of the prohibited drugs taken from the petitioner was sufficiently established. The inadmissible. The justifiable ground will remain unknown because appellant did not
factual antecedents of the case reveal that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the plastic question the custody and disposition of the items taken from her during the trial. Even
sachets to PO3 Antonio when he was arrested. Together with petitioner, the evidence seized assuming that the police officers failed to abide by Section 21, appellant should have raised
from him were immediately brought to the police station and upon arriving thereat, were this issue before the trial court. She could have moved for the quashal of the information at
turned over to PO3 Moran, the investigating officer. There the evidence was marked. The the first instance. But she did not. Hence, she is deemed to have waived any objection on
turn-over of the subject sachets and the person of the petitioner were then entered in the the matter.
official blotter. Thereafter, the Chief of the SDEU endorsed the evidence for laboratory
examination to the National Police District PNP Crime Laboratory. The evidence was PEOPLE VS. TUAN
delivered by PO3 Moran and received by Police Inspector Jessie Dela Rosa. After a
qualitative examination of the contents of the four (4) plastic sachets by the latter, the same DOCTRINE: A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or description that points
An unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs had, therefore, been established by the out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads
prosecution from the arresting officer, to the investigating officer, and finally to the forensic the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. In the case
chemist. There is no doubt that the items seized from the petitioner at his residence were at bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was
also the same items marked by the investigating officer, sent to the Crime Laboratory, and specific enough. There was only one house located at the stated address, which was
later on tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. accused-appellants residence, consisting of a structure with two floors and composed of
several rooms.
PEOPLE VS. MARIACOS
1. The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors:(1) it
DOCTRINE: Over the years, the rules governing search and seizure have been steadily must be issued upon probable cause;(2) the probable cause must be determined by the
liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;(3) in the determination of
This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and
persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge – a such witnesses as the latter may produce; and(4) the warrant issued must particularly
requirement which borders on the impossible in instances where moving vehicle is used to describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. This exception is easy to
understand. A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store, The only issue is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of probable
dwelling house or other immobile structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant cause; and particular description of the place to be searched and things to be seized.
when the search is conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles Probable cause generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that
be sought. the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. It likewise refers to the
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and
Given the discussion above, it is readily apparent that the search in this case is valid. The prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s)
vehicle that carried the contraband or prohibited drugs was about to leave. PO2 Pallayoc or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by
had to make a quick decision and act fast. It would be unreasonable to require him to law is in the place to be searched. Before a search warrant can be issued, it must be shown
procure a warrant before conducting the search under the circumstances. Time was of the by substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being
essence in this case. The searching officer had no time to obtain a warrant. Indeed, he only connected with criminal activity, and that the items will be found in the place to be
had enough time to board the vehicle before the same left for its destination. searched.
A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid From these standards, the Court finds that the questioned act of the police officers
great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that constituted a valid “stop-and-frisk” operation. The search/seizure of the suspected shabu
determination. Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought initially noticed in petitioner’s possession - later voluntarily exhibited to the police operative
out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to - was undertaken after she was interrogated on what she placed inside a cigarette case, and
believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense after PO1 Cruz in introduced himself to petitioner as a police officer. And, at the time of her
sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. Such substantial basis exists in arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact attempted to flee after the
this case. Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the Search Warrant for police officer had identified himself. Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse petitioner
Tuan’s residence after said judge’s personal examination of SPO2 Fernandez, the applicant; of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
and Lad-ing and Tudlong, the informants. SPO2 Fernandez based his Application for and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses prevail over
Search Warrant not only on the information relayed to him by Lad-ing and Tudlong. He that of petitioner.
also arranged for a test buy and conducted surveillance of Tuan.
MARIMLA VS. PEOPLE
2. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant
can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it DOCTRINE: As a rule, search warrants should be filed with the court within whose
from other places in the community. A designation or description that points out the place territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed (Sec. 2 (a), Rule 126, Rules of Court).
to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace
officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. In the case at bar, the The exceptions to the general rule are:
address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific
(a) for compelling reasons, it can be filed with the court within whose judicial region the
enough. There was only one house located at the stated address, which was accused-
offense was committed or where the warrant is to be served;
appellant’s residence, consisting of a structure with two floors and composed of several
rooms. (b) but if the criminal action has already been filed, the application for a search warrant
can only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending; and
ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE
(c) in case of search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession
DOCTRINE: In a “stop-and-frisk,” it is essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light
of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001, the
person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
Tariff and Customs Code, the Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of
about him. Such a “stop-and-frisk” practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest
absence or are not physically present in the station, the ViceExecutive Judges of the RTC of
of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police
Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the NBI, PNP
officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a
and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force
person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable
(PAOC-TF), and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF).
cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and selfpreservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow the hierarchy of courts. However, in
armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police exceptional cases, the Court, for compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the
officer. issues raised, may take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it. In this case, the
Court opts to take cognizance of the petition, as it involves the application of the rules
The circumstances under which petitioner was arrested indeed engender the belief that a
promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its rule-making power under the Constitution.
search on her person was warranted: The police officers were on a surveillance operation as
At the heart of the present controversy are A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, Clarifying the Guidelines
part of their law enforcement efforts when PO1 Cruzin saw petitioner placing a plastic
on the Application for the Enforceability of Search Warrants, which was enacted on
sachet containing white crystalline substance into her cigarette case. Given his training as
January 25, 2000; and A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
a law enforcement officer, it was instinctive on his part to be drawn to curiosity and to
which took effect on December 1, 2000, specifically, Section 2, Rule 126 thereof.
approach her. That petitioner reacted by attempting to flee after he introduced himself as a
police officer and inquired about the contents of the plastic sachet all the more pricked his From the above, it may be seen that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge
curiosity. and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications
for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, and REACT-TF. On
the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the 2.This Court has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of
application for search warrant shall be filed with: (a) any court within whose territorial authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
jurisdiction a crime was committed, and (b) for compelling reasons, any court within the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is claims it to be. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
Petitioners also assert that the questioned Search Warrant was void ab initio. They where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in
maintain that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, which was enacted on January 25, 2000, was no which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
longer in effect when the application for search warrant was filed on February 15, 2002. chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
They argue that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the
2000, should have been applied, being the later law. Hence, the enforcement of the search chain to have possession of the same.
warrant in Angeles City, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC Manila, was in
violation of the law. The petitioners’ contention lacks merit. A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered
that the guidelines on the enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall continue from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be
until further orders from this Court. In fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. In this case, the
reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC entitled Guidelines On The Selection And Designation Of chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was duly established from the time the heat-
Executive Judges And Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives And Duties, which explicitly sealed plastic sachets were seized and marked by IO1 Pagaragan to its subsequent turnover
stated that the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by to Atty. Gaspe of the PDEA Office in Quezon City. IO1 Pagaragan was also the one who
the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the personally delivered and submitted the specimens composed of 293 sachets of shabu to the
Rules of Court. PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The specimens were kept in custody
until they were presented as evidence before the trial court and positively identified by IO1
PEOPLE VS. PUNZALAN Pagaragan as the very same specimens he marked during the inventory.

I. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does
not undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. - No appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of
search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized/confiscated
lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present during the
initial search, the search was witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence, the
search was valid since the rule that "two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality" must be present applies only in the absence of either the lawful
occupant of the premises or any member of his family.

To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following


elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. In the case at bench, the
prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty the guilt of the accused-appellants
for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellants were caught in
actual possession of the prohibited drugs during a valid search of their house. It bears
stressing that aside from assailing the validity of the search, accused-appellants did not
deny ownership of the illegal drugs seized. They have not proffered any valid defense in the
offense charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.