You are on page 1of 4

Rule 117 Cases


Case Facts Ruling
Elizalde vs. Pet. Elizalde, et. al were charged with the crime of libel after NO. The denial is not valid. The SC nullified the order of Resp. judge
Gutierrez publishing the testimony of Jaime Jose in a pending Maggie denying to motion to quash.
76 SCRA 448 de la Riva rape case where in he mentioned the name of
Vincent Crisologo (offended party) who was one of the 4 The published article is covered under the protection of the free press
principal accused. Pet. Elizalde, et. al filed a motion to quash provision found in the Constitution. “The newspapers should be given
the information on the ground of their constitutional right to leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and
freedom of expression, and freedom of the press. effectively perform their important role in our democracy. In the
preparation of the stories, press reporters have to race with their
Resp. Judge Gutierrez denied their motion to quash deadlines; and consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they
should not be held into account, to a point of suppression, for honest
W/N the denial of Judge Gutierrez is valid? mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words (Quisimbing v. Lopez,
People vs. CFI Accused Arrozal, Flores and 20 unknown John Does were YES. The Information charged an offense. The SC agree with the
Quezon charged with Qualified theft of logs under Sec. 68 of PD 705 PEOPLE.
68 SCRA 305 after confederating and willfully enter a private-owned land
of Pujalte and illegally cut and steal 60 logs of different The facts alleged have met all the essential elements of the offense
species, without any consent of owner, or any permit or defined in the law. The logs subject of the complaint were taken not
agreement thereof, amounting to a total of 50k including from a public forest but from a private land registered in the name of
gov’t charges. Pujalte deceased father. The fact that only the state can grant a license
agreement does not make the state the owener of all the logs and
Accused file a motion to quash the information because the timber products produced in the Philippines. However, it should be
facts charged do not constitute an offense because of the noted that OWNERSHIP IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of the
failure to allege the true owner of the land (the state is not offense defined in Sec. 60, PD 705. Thus, the failure of the information
the owner of the land but rather a private individual), which to allege the true owner of the forest products is not material, it was
the trial court accepted and ordered the dismissal of the sufficient that it alleged that the taking was without any authority or
information. On the other hand, the PEOPLE appealed the license from the government.
decision of the RTC arguing that the information
substantially alleged all the elements of the crime of the
qualified theft under Sec. 68 of PD 705.

W/N the appealed petition should be granted?

People vs. Abad
165 SCRA 57
People vs. Dela Rosa Accused Berti deny was charged with violation of Sec. 3602 The SC dismissed the instant petition.

98 SCRA 191 of the Tariff and Customs Code (RA 1937) after she brought
28pcs. Gold bars with markings at the MIA, Pasay by means As a general rule, a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations
of false statements when she place the gold bars in the of the information do not constitute an offense charged should be
pockets of her vest for the purpose of avoiding it to be resolved on the basis alone of said allegations whose truth and veracity
appraised and be taxed by the customhouse of the airport. In are hypothetically admitted. However, additional facts not alleged in
the 1/20/1969 amended information, it added facts such as the information, but admitted or not denied by the prosecution may be
the 28 gold bars amounted to approximately to P209k, that invoked in support of the motion to quash (People v. Navarro, 75 Phil.
Berti has denied carrying with her valuable and taxable items 516).
in her possession; and she did not indicate in her Baggage
declaration and entry form that she had with her the 28 gold We see no reason to prohibit the fiscal from making, all candor,
bars. admission of undeniable facts, because the principle can never be
sufficiently reiterated that such official’s role is to see that justice is
On 1/10/1969, Accused Berti filed a motion to quash on the done.
ground that the facts in the information did not constitute
the offense charged. The CFI Judge questioned both The allegations in the Amended Information as to the alleged falsity of
Information and the Amended Information stating the 28 the customs declaration the alleged omission and other supposedly
gold bar are not “imported articles and the conduct of the false statements become immaterial for being not required to be made
accused consistently indicated the absence of any intention under EO 408.
to import, and that this conduct harmonizes completely with
her act of merely writing the word “TOURIST” instead of
giving the description of the articles she was carrying on her
Baggage Declaration and Entry.
Case Facts Ruling
People vs. Adolfo Jose Adolfo was charged and found guilty of the crime of None. The CFI has no jurisdiction over the instant case.
13 SCRA 599 damage to property through reckless imprudence arising out
of an accident by the CFI of Manila, and was sentenced to Jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined by the law
pay P485 damages to the offended party and P971 fine. in force at the time of the institution of the action and not by the law in
force at the time of the commission of the offense.
Adolfo appealed to the CA questioning the jurisdiction of the
CFI because it was alleged in the information that the Under Sec. 87(c) of Judiciary Act, which amended by RA 3828, which
amount of the damage sustained in P890 and the maximum took effect on June 22, 1963, it provides that offenses which the
penalty thereof (under Art. 365, RPC) is only a fine not more penalty provided by law is not more than P3k falls within the
than P2,600. However, under Sec. 87(c) of RA 3828 provides jurisdiction of the MTC.
that offenses which the penalty provided by law is not more
than P3k falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC. Therefore, Therefore, the CFI has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
the CFI has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
N.B.: RA 3828 is repealed

W/N CFI has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
instant case?
People vs. Casiano
1 SCRA 478
Antiporda vs. Accused Antiporda
321 SCRA 551
People vs. Munar
53 SCRA 278
Foz vs. People
603 SCRA 124
Case Facts Ruling
Valdepeñas vs. Ester Ulsano filed with the justice of peace a criminal Yes, the CFI has jurisdiction.
People complaint charging Maximo Valdepeñas with forcible
16 SCRA 871 abduction with rape. After preliminary investigation, justice Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon either his
of peace found probable cause, which led him to file an apprehension, with or without warrant, or his submission to the
information of forcible abduction with against Valdepeñas jurisdiction of the court. In the case at bar, it is not claimed that
before the CFI of Cagayan, which the court found him guilty. petitioner had not been apprehended or had not submitted himself to
On appeal, the CA modified the decision which convicted the jurisdiction of the court.
him of abduction with rape.

An MR and New trial was filed by Valdepeñas contesting that

the Ester was below 18 years old at the time of the
occurrence. The CA granted the MR and remanded the case
back to the CFI. The CFI rendered another decision
convicting Valdepeñas of abduction with consent. Again, An
MR was filed by the accused on the ground that the CFI had
no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, arguing that
there is no complaint for abduction with consent was filed by
Ester Ulsano.

W/N the CFI has jurisdiction of Valdepeñas?

Jimenez vs.
678 SCRA 151
Miranda vs. Tuliao
486 SCRA 377

Garcia vs. SB
603 SCRA 348
Case Facts Ruling
Romera vs. People
434 SCRA 467
People vs. Torpio
431 SCRA 9
(Including the
Double Jeopardy
Case Facts Ruling
People v. Espinosa
Potot v. People
Lasoy v. Zeñarosa
Mallari v. People
Braza v. SB
Cudia v. CA
People. Balisacan
Tangan v. People
People v. CA
516 SCRA 383
Galman v. SB
Caniza v. People
People v. Tan
Andres v. Cacdac
Esmeña v. Pogoy
Lejani v. People
Ivler v. San Pedro
People v. Velasco
Provisional Dismissal
Case Facts Ruling
People v. Lacson
400 SCRA 267
People vs.
360 SCRA 631