Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


Arañes v. Judge Occiano Judge Occiano is a presiding judge in Balatan WON Judge Occiano acted No, he acted outside his court’s jurisdiction
Cam Sur. He solemnized Aranez’ marriage in within his court’s Jurisdiction w h e n h e solemnized the marriage of Aranez in Nabua.
Nabua Cam Sur. when he solemnized the
marriage of Aranez in Nabua. The court held that “the territorial jurisdiction of
respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan,
Camarines Sur.
People v. Marlene In separate information’s filed Does the RTC of Valenzula have Yes. In the case at bar, the prosecution proved that
Olermo b e f o r e t h e R T C o f Valenzuela, Marlene jurisdiction? the element of offering, promising and advertising
Olermo was accused of crimes, one of which overseas employment took place in Olermo's office in
was illegal recruit ment in large scale. Valenzuela. In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be
O lermo contends that the RTC of tried in the territory wherein the offense was committed or
Valenzuela has no jurisdiction since the any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.
complainant's affidavit provides that he first met
Olermo in QC and that it was only
d u r i n g t r i a l t h a t complainant said that
he actually first met Olermo in Valenzuela
Purita Lim v. Judge Purita Lim filed 2 criminal cases with the RTC WON an MTC Judge has the No. An MTC Judge has no authority to grant bail to an
Dumlao Santiago City, Isabela, Branch 35, against authority to grant bail to an accused arrested outside his territorial jurisdiction. The
Herman Medina. Medina was detained by accused arrested outside his warrant of arrest was issued by the presiding judge of RTC
virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by Presiding territorial jurisdiction Branch 35 of Santiago City Isabela.
Judge Fe Madrid of Branch 35. Judge Dumlao
of the MTC of San Mateo Isabela issued 3 The order of release on account of posting bail should have
separate orders for the release of Medina on been issued by that court or in the absence or unavailability
the ground that he posted bail with his court of Judge Madrid, by another branch of RTC in Santiago City.
Rasmia Tabao v. Judge Tabao is the private complainant in a criminal WON Baratman is liable for YES. Barataman does not deny that the accused in Criminal
Barataman case involving abandonment of minor. Tabao gross ignorance of the law? Case was at large when the motion for bail on recognizance
alleges that Barataman issued an Order was filed and subsequently granted. It is a basic principle that
granting the motion for bail on recognizance bail is intended to obtain provisional liberty and cannot be
filed by the father of the accused Samsodin granted before custody of an accused has been acquired by
Tabao. the judicial authorities by his arrest or voluntary surrender.

It is self-evident that a court cannot grant provisional liberty to

one who is actually in the enjoyment of his liberty for it would
be incongruous to give freedom to one who is free.

In the case at bar, Barataman was fully cognizant that the

court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused who was still at large and yet he entertained and
granted his motion for bail. He violated a tenet in criminal
procedure which is too basic as to constitute gross ignorance
of the law, thus he is subject for disciplinary action.
Talag v. Judge Reyes This is an administrative complaint filed against Whether or not respondent The Court Administrator find that the charges filed against
Judge Amor A. Reyes of the Regional Trial judge show partiality, grave respondent are baseless.
Court, Manila for partiality, grave abuse of abuse of authority and
authority and oppression in connection with oppression? When complainant filed the omnibus motion on May 7, 2002,
entitled “People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over his person.
Talag.” Wherein Talag was charge for violation With the filing of Information, the trial court could then issue a
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and Estafa warrant for the arrest of the accused as provided for by
occasioned by the dishonor of four checks. Section 6 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure. The issuance of the warrant was not only
On May 12, 2003, complainant filed a verified procedurally sound but it was even required considering that
complaint before the Office of the Court respondent had yet to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
Administrator charging respondent Judge with complainant. Consequently, complainant’s charge that
partiality, grave abuse of authority and respondent Judge failed to act on the omnibus motion before
oppression allegedly committed. That the issuing the arrest warrant is untenable. Whether respondent
Information was filed on May 7, 2002 while the correctly disregarded the omnibus motion in view of the
warrant of arrest was issued May 23, alleged fatal defects is a judicial matter, which is not a proper
2003despite complainant’s pending omnibus subject in an administrative proceeding. It bears noting that
motion to defer issuance of warrant of arrest. respondent court immediately deferred the execution of the
Also, when the matter was elevated to the warrant of arrest upon issuance by the Court of Appeals of
Court of Appeals and a temporary restraining the TRO.
order was issued, respondent seemed to have
waited for the TRO to expire and for the Neither can we ascribe partiality nor grave abuse of authority
dismissal of complainant’s petition before the on the part of respondent for issuing anew an alias warrant
Court of Appeals because she did not resolve after the expiration of the Court of Appeals’ 60-day TRO. With
the motion for inhibition, and she immediately the lifting of the restraining order, no legal obstacle was left
issued a warrant of arrest against him after said for the issuance of the arrest warrant and thus set in motion
petition was dismissed. And Respondent had a the delayed prosecutorial process by acquiring jurisdiction
predisposition to deny the motions filed by over the person of the accused.
complainant since, although she was in haste
in issuing the warrant of arrest, she
nonetheless dilly-dallied in resolving the
motions filed by complainant
De Joya v. Judge This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition Whether probable cause exists YES. The documents submitted by the prosecution for the
Marquez seeking the nullification and setting aside of the to justify the issuance of the issuance of the warrant of arrest sufficiently establish the
warrant of arrest issued by Respondent Judge warrant of arrest existence of probable cause as required under Section 6,
against petitioner in a criminal case for Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. It
syndicated estafa. Petitioner and his co- bears remembering that in determining probable cause, the
accused were among the incorporators and average man weighs facts and circumstances without
directors of State Resources Development resorting to the calibrations of our technical rules of evidence
Management Corporation. The documents of which his knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on the
found in the records and examined by calculus of common sense of which all reasonable men have
respondent judge tend to show that Hao, one of an abundance. Thus, the standard used for the issuance of a
the accused, induced the private complainant warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for
Dy to invest more than P1M in the said establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence
corporation; issued several checks purportedly presented shows a prima facie case against the accused, the
representing the return of Dys investments, trial court judge has sufficient ground to issue a warrant of
which checks were however dishonored for arrest against him. It should be emphasized that before
being drawn against insufficient funds; and that issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine
the accused all knew of the corporations personally the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an
activities and transactions. Petitioner asserts accused.
that respondent judge erred in finding the
existence of probable cause that justifies the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against him and
his co-accused