criminal procedure (atty salvador ateneo law)

8/11/2019 Criminal Procedure (Atty Salvador Ateneo Law)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-procedure-atty-salvador-ateneo-law 1/119

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty. Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005

C!"!NA# P$C%&'%C!"!NA# P$C%&'%ATT. TAN'!# SA#*A&$ ATT. TAN'!# SA#*A&$ ++!ST!ST SS%"%ST% %"%ST% A ,005-,00A ,005-,00

!. &%+!N!T!$NS P%#!"!NA C$NS!&%AT!$NS

A. Definition1. Concerned with the procedural steps through which a criminal case

passes, commencing with the initial investigation of a crime andconcluding with the unconditional release of the offender.

2. A network of rules, which governs the procedural administration ofcriminal justice, that is, laws and courts rules (Black’s LawDictionar!.

3. "ethod prescri#ed # law for the apprehension and prosecution ofpersons accused of an criminal offense and for their punishment

in case of conviction (Clark’s Criminal $rocedure!

B. %ources1. $hilippine &ules of Criminal $rocedure (&ule '' to &ule ')*! of

the &ules of Court (took effect on +anuar ', '-!. /he &uleswere revised three more times. /he latest took effect onDecem#er ', )!.

2. '0* Constitution under Article 111 (Bill of &ights!3. various acts passed # the legislature like B$ Blg. ')4. $residential decrees5. 23ecutive 4rders6. Decisions of the %upreme Court

C. Criminal Law vs. Criminal $rocedure

Criminal #a Criminal Procedure Both relates to crimes Both relates to crimes

%u#stantive5 it defines crimes,treats of their nature andprovides for the their punishment

&emedial5 provides for themethod # which a personaccused of a crime is arrested,tried and punished

Declares what acts are punisha#le $rovides how acts are punished.

D. %stems of Criminal $rocedures

Systems &einition

a. 1n6uisitorial $rosecutions of crimes are wholl in the hands ofprosecuting officers and the court.

/he procedure is characteri7ed # %2C&2C8. $resence of accused #efore the magistrate is not a

re6uirement thus, magistrate can proceed with in6uirand judgment even in the a#sence of the accused.

+udgment does not #ecome final until it has #eenratified and confirmed # the court of last resort (9% vs.%amio!.

During the %panish period.

#. Accusatorial &e6uires all crimes e3cept private offenses (must #e

commenced # the complainant of the offended part!to #e prosecuted # a pu#lic prosecutor Accused has a right to #e heard personall or #

counsel $u#lic trial, right of accused against self:incrimination is

guaranteed. Accused enjos presumption of innocence; guilt must

#e proven #eond reasona#le dou#t /here is a right to appeal +udgment does not re6uire the imprimatur of the court

of last resort #efore t ma attain finalit. /here should #e moral certaint of guilt to defeat the

constitutional presumption of innocence ($eople vs.2got!.

c. "i3edsstem

Contemplates of two contending parties #efore thecourt, which hears them impartiall and renders judgment onl after trial (<ueto vs Catolico!.

"i3 of the last two sstems (e3. our law provides thatpreliminar e3amination must #e conducted # a judge#efore he issues a warrant of arrest which is an aspectof in6uisitorial sstem while accused has a right to #eheard, which is an aspect of the accusatorial sstem!

=ote5 Courts proceeding in our +udicial %etup is accusatorial or adversarial andnot in6uisitorial in nature. But there are opinions that our countr su#scri#esto the third sstem.

*ena *. *erga 1




2. Construction of rule1. &ules will #e li#erall construed, enough to protect the su#stantial

rights of the accused (section -, &ule ' of the &ules of Court!.2. &ules of Court should not #e interpreted as to sacrifice the

su#stantial rights of the litigants at the altar of technicalities to the

conse6uent impairment of the sacred rules of justice (Alon7o vs.>illamor!.

!!. 2'!S&!CT!$N

A. Definition1. Came from the Latin words ?juris@ and ?dico@ (1 speak # the law!

which means ?the power or the capacit given # the law to acourt or tri#unal to entertain, hear and determine controversies@($eople vs. "ariano!

2. /he right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed tothe final determination of a cause upon the pleading of evidence.

3. the power and authorit to hear and determine matters in

controvers according to esta#lished rules of law and to carr thesentence or judgment of the court into e3ecution ("orando vs.&ovira!.

4. >ested in the courts, not in the judges. /his when a complaint isfiled #efore one #ranch or judge (of the same court, e3. &/C! jurisdiction does not attach to said #ranch or judge alone. /rialma #e had or proceeding ma continue # and #efore another#ranch or judge.

B. Distinguished from venue/he particular countr or geographical area, which a court with jurisdiction ma hear and determine a case; place of trial.

2urisdiction *enue/reats the power of the court todecide the case on the merits

Deals with localit, the place wherethe suit ma #e had

%u#stantive (defines and regulatesrights or duties which gives rise to acause of action!

$rocedural ($rescri#es methods ofenforcing rights or o#tains redress fortheir invasion!

1n civil cases, venue can #e waived or#e a su#ject of agreement.1n criminal actions, venue cannot #ewaived or stipulated upon #ecause it isan element of jurisdiction.

C. hen does jurisdiction attach+urisdiction attaches when law has given a tri#unal capacit toentertain the complaint against the person or thing sought to #echarged or affected, and that such complaint has actuall #eenpreferred, and that such person or thing has #een properl #rought#efore the tri#unal to answer the charge therein contained (&epu#lic

vs. %unga!.

D. 23ercise of +urisdiction/he authorit to decide a cast and not the decision therein is what makes up a jurisdiction. here the jurisdiction over the person and su#ject matter, thedecision of all other 6uestions arising in the case is #ut an e3ercise of the jurisdiction (de >era vs. Avila!.

A court ma act, first, without jurisdiction (makes the judgment void!; andsecond, having power or jurisdiction, ma e3ercise it wrongl (decision iswrong and must #e reversed upon error!; or third, irregularl (must #ecorrected # motion!.

2. %ource1. +urisdiction must #e conferred #5('! Constitution()! Law in force at the t ime of the institution of the action

($eople vs. Adolfo!2. Cannot #e fi3ed # the will of the parties or diminished # the

omission or act of said parties3. Apportionment of jurisdiction is vested in the legislature; ma not

#e conferred on the court # the parties involved in the offense.

. Criminal +urisdiction1. Definition5 the power of the tri#unal to hear and tr a particular

offense and impose the punishment for it ($eople vs. "ariano!.2. hile a court has a#stract jurisdiction to and decide criminal cases

committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it cannot do so unless acomplaint or information has #een filed in court.

3. re6uisites(a! the offense is one which the court is # law authori7ed to take

cogni7ance of (+9&1%D1C/14= 4>2& %9B+2C/ "A//2&!.(#! the offense must have #een committed within its territorial

jurisdiction (+9&1%D1C/14= 4>2& /2&&1&/4&8!.(c! person charged with the offense must have #een #rought to

its presence for trial, forci#l # warrant of arrest or upon hisvoluntar su#mission to the court. (+9&1%D1C/14= 4>2& /2$2&%4= 4 /2 ACC9%2D!.

*ena *. *erga ,




=4/25 1t is a general rule that jurisdiction of a court over the su#ject matterof the action is a matter of law and ma not #e conferred # consent oragreement of the parties (98 vs. CA!

. +urisdiction over continuing crimes

=ote5 or continuous crime to e3ist, there should #e pluralit of actsperformed separatel during a period of time; unit of the penal provisioninfringed upon or violated and unit of criminal intent or purpose. /his ismeans that two or more violations of the same penal provision are unite in oneand the same intent leading to the perpetuation of the same criminal purpose($eople vs. Eapata and Bondoc!

3%N%A# '#%5 /he accused in a continuing or transitor offense ma #etried in an jurisdiction in which he is found (9% vs. Cunanan!. But the courtwhere the case was first filed ac6uires jurisdiction over the same to thee3clusion of all other courts, provided it has custod of the accused or has firstac6uired jurisdiction over his person.

. /erritorial +urisdiction1. Determined # the allegations in the information as to the situs ofthe crime and this determines, in the first instance, whether saidcourt has jurisdiction to tr this case.

2=2&AL &9L25 the offender must #e prosecuted in the territor where theoffense was committed.

2. 23ceptions5).' here the offense was committed under the e3ceptional

circumstance provided in Article ) of the &$C (although committedoutside $hilippine jurisdiction, these crimes are tria#le in $hilippinecourts!5

).'.' should the crime #e committed while on $hilippineship or airship

).'.) should the crime consist of counterfeiting or forger of

an coin or currenc note of the $hilippine 1sland oro#ligations and securities issued # the overnmentof the $hilippines.

).'.F %hould the accused #e lia#le for acts connected withthe introduction into these 1sland of the 4#ligationsand securities mentioned in the preceding num#er

).'. hile #eing pu#lic officers or emploees, shouldcommit and offense in the e3ercise of their functions

).'.G %hould commit an of the crimes against nationalsecurit and the law of nations

).) Cases of $irac

&eason5 /he law considers pirates ?hostes humani generis@. 1t iscommitted not against an particular state #ut against all mankind($eople vs. Lol:Lo and %arao!

).F here the offense is committed on a railroad train, in an aircraftor in an other pu#lic or private vehicle while in the course of its

trip. /he criminal actions ma #e instituted and tried in the courtof an municipalit or territor where such vehicle passed duringsuch trip including the place of departure and arrival (%ection ',&ule ''!.

). Crime was committed on #oard a vessel in the course of itsvoage. Action ma #e tried in the proper court of the first powerof entr or an municipalit or territor through which the vesselpassed su#ject to the generall accepted principles of internationallaw.

).G hen the %upreme Court, in the interest of truth and impartial justice, transfers the place of trial from one place to another.(Article Hiii, %ection G(!!

).- 1n cases of written defamation (Act F-F!

Criminal action will #e filed in the C1 of the province or cit wherethe li#elous article is printed and first pu#lished or where an ofthe offended parties reside. 1f one of the parties is a pu#lic officerwho office in the cit of "anila, the action shall #e filed in the C1of "anila or where he holds office.

1. +urisdiction over person of the accused I ac6uired upon either hisapprehension with or without a warrant or his voluntar su#mission tothe jurisdiction of the court (which ma #e effect # posting #ail orfiling a motion to 6uash.! But this ma #e waived.

+. Criminal +urisdiction5 how determined+urisdiction is determined # the fine and imprisonment prescri#ed #law or e3tent of the penalt which the law imposes together with other

o#ligations on the #asis of the facts as recited in the complaint orinformation constitutive of the offense charged.

J. Apportionment of +urisdiction1. 23tent of jurisdiction is ascertained #5'.' $ower conferred # e3press or implied provision of a statute'.) Constitution (article >111, %ection ' and )!5 Congress shall have the

power to define, prescri#e and apportion the jurisdiction of the variouscourt su#ject to the proviso that it ma not deprive the %C of its jurisdiction over cases set forth in Article >111 section G.

2. Criminal +urisdiction of courts

*ena *. *erga 4




(a! "etropolitan /rial Courts, "unicipal trial Courts and "unicipalCircuit /rial Courts

%ection F) of the +udiciar &eorgani7ation Act of '05 e3cept incases falling within the e3clusive original jurisdiction of the &/Cand %andigan#aan, these courts shall e3ercise e3clusive jurisdiction over

(i! all violations of cit and municipal ordinancescommitted within their respective jurisdiction

(ii! offenses punisha#le with imprisonment of note3ceeding - ears irrespective of the amount of fineand other accessor penalties. $rovided that inoffenses involving damage to propert throughcriminal negligence, the shall have original jurisdiction

(iii! offenses involving damage to propert throughcriminal negligence.

9nder $D '-- as amended # &A 0), "/C, "C/C, "e/C overgovernment officials and emploees where the penalt is not morethan - ears and officers charged do not fall under the jurisdiction

of the %andigan#aan (%alar grade )* and a#ove!=ote5 9nder &A *-'5 fine is no longer a factor in determining jurisdiction.(#! &egional trial Courts >ested the e3clusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the

e3clusive original jurisdiction of an court tri#unal or #od withpenalt higher than - ears,

Court with general jurisdiction 23ercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided # the first

level courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction(c! amil Courts I created under the amil courts Act of '* as e3clusive jurisdiction over cases5

(i! Criminal cases where one or more of the accuse is#elow '0 #ut not less than .

(ii! Cases against minors cogni7a#le under the Dangerous

Drugs Act.(d! Court of Appeals(e! %andigan#aan 23clusive jurisdictions over all cases involving

(i! >iolations of the Anti:raft and corrupt $ractices Act,&A 'F* and Chapter 11, section ) of /itle >11 of the&$C where one or more principal accused are officialsoccuping positions in the government (national andLocal officials with salar grade )* or higher!

Appellate jurisdiction over accused whose position is lower thansalar grade )*.

(f! %upreme Court

!. CAS%S

L. eneral $rinciplesP%$P#% *S. "A!AN$.&. =o L:G)* F +une '*-

acts5 ermogenes "arioano, a Liason officer # then incum#ent municipalmaor =olasco of %an +ose del "onte Bulacan, was authori7ed to receive from9%A1D for the use and #enefit of the said municipalit electric ca#lesmeasuring 'G ft and )G feet and a ca#le power measuring G)G ft. with atotal value of K*'*.G. 1nstead of delivering the said materials to the maor,he appropriated the same to his personal use to the prejudice of themunicipalit. /he provincial iscal of Bulacan then filed an information for2stafa against the accused with the Court of irst 1nstance of Bulacan. /heaccused filed a motion to 6uash on the ground contending that the court hasno jurisdiction over him considering that the militar commission had alreadtaken cogni7ance of the malversation case against "aor =olasco involving thesame su#ject matter. /he judge granted the motion, hence this appeal.

1ssue5 = the civil courts and militar commissions e3ercise concurrent jurisdiction over the offenses of 2stafa of goods allegedl committed # acivilian.

Decision5 +urisdiction is the #asic foundation of judicial proceeding, whichfundamentall means the power or capacit given # the law to court ortri#unal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies. 1t is theauthorit to hear and tr a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.

/he jurisdiction of courts is derived from the constitution and statutes in forceat the time of the commencement of the action. 9nder the +udiciar Act of', courts of irst 1nstance shall have jurisdiction over all crimes in which

the penalt provided # the law is imprisonment for more than si3 months, ora fine of more than two hundred pesos. /he crime committed # "ariano ispunished # imprisonment from months to two ears. /his falls under theoriginal jurisdiction of courts of first instance.

/he rule is that the court which first take cogni7ance of the case ac6uires jurisdiction thereof e3clusive of the other applies onl where #oth courts haveconcurrent jurisdiction over particular case charged. /he situation does notinvolve two tri#unal vested with concurrent jurisdiction over a particular crimeso as to appl this rule. As specificall stated in eneral order no , whichredefined the jurisdiction of militar tri#unals, the militar commission, is notvested with jurisdiction over the crime of 2stafa.

*ena *. *erga




'N!T%& STAT%S *S. 2'%*%S.&. =o. -) F August '')

acts5 4n several instances several men entered towns, all within the

jurisdiction of Am#os Camarines (which at the date of the commencement ofthe action were alread part of the province of /aa#as!, ro##ing, kidnappingand killing several persons. /he were charged with the crime of #rigandageand their guilt has #een esta#lished #eond reasona#le dou#t. /he appellants’counsel insists however that the court of /aa#as had no jurisdiction to tr theaccused for the reason that the territor where the acts complained of werecommitted #elonged to the $rovince of Am#os Camarines at the time of thecommission of the acts although it has #een since transferred to the $rovinceof /aa#as and that %ection F of Act =o G'0 is invalid as opposed to the$hilippine Bill.

1ssue5 = a court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in a particularlocalit prior to the time such localit was included within the jurisdiction of

such court

Decision5 the general rule is that jurisdiction of a court is determined # the('! geographical limits of the territor over which it presides, and ()! theactions it is empowered to hear and decide. A court has inchoate right of jurisdiction over all crimes committed within its jurisdiction, which is perfectedon the institution of the action. 1f however, it loses jurisdiction over aparticular action #ecause its territorial limits are restricted prior to theinstitution of the action, it also loses this inchoate right to jurisdiction in favorof the court to which the territor is transferred since it is unnecessar toprolong a court’s e3istence indefinitel after #eing legall a#olished.

/he territor where the acts complained of in the case at #ar were committedhaving #een transferred to the $rovince of /aa#as prior to the institution of

this action, the court of the that province where the units have #eentransferred shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. /heassumption of jurisdiction over crimes committed #efore jurisdiction wasconferred is not a violation of the e3 post facto clause.

/he decision was affirmed.

"AN!#A A!#$A& C$"PAN *S. ATT$N%-3%N%A#.&. =o. -)0* ' Decem#er ''

acts5 $laintiff filed an action for condemnation of certain real estate lands inthe C1 of /arlac. 1t is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is authori7ed

# law to construct a railroad line from $ani6ui to /aug in the province of/arlac. After filing the complaint. /he plaintiff, pending final determination ofthe action, took possession of and occupied the lands descri#ed in thecomplaint, #uilding its line and putting the same in operation. 4n the th of4cto#er, plaintiff gave notice to the defendants that a motion would #e madeto the court had no jurisdiction of the su#ject matter, #ecause as determined

# the plaintiff, the land sough to #e condemned was situated in the $rovinceof =ueva 2cija instead of $rovince of /arlac as alleged in the complaint.

1ssue5 = the C1 of /arlac has jurisdiction over the case

Decision5 %ection GG and G- of Act =o 'F- of the $hilippine Commission confer jurisdiction upon the Courts of irst 1nstance of these island with respect toreal estate stating that the jurisdiction of the C1 shall #e of two kinds5 4riginaland Appellate. 1t was the intention of the $hilippine commission to give to theC4 the most perfect and complete jurisdiction possi#le over the su#jectmatters mentioned in connection therewith. /here is no suggestion oflimitation. /he jurisdiction is universal. %o far as jurisdiction over su#jectmatter is concerned, the C1 of one province ma, if there is no o#jection #

an of the parties, take cogni7ance of an action in reference to real estatelocated in another province,

Certain statues confer jurisdiction, others provide for the procedure # whichthat jurisdiction is made effective. /he purpose of procedure is not to restrictthe jurisdiction to the court #ut to give it effectiveness.

/he laing of venue is procedural rather than su#stantive. 1t relates to the jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the su#ject matter. /heesta#lish a relation, not #etween the court and the su#ject matter, #ut#etween the plaintiff and the defendant.

/he $hilippine Commission has in fullest phrase given the C1 unrestricted jurisdiction over real estate in the 1sland # act no 'F- and that jurisdiction

ought not to #e held to #e withdrawn e3cept # virtue of an act e6uall e3pressor so clearl inconsistent therewith as to amount of the same thing.

>enue is not connected with jurisdiction over the su#ject matter. 1f the partiesconsent thereto there is no legal reason wh the C1 of "anila ma notcogni7ance of and determine a controvers affecting the tile to or an interest inreal estate situated in another province. ith the consent of the defendants,e3press or implied, the venue ma #e laid and the action tried in an provinceselected # the plaintiff. An one of the defendants who have lands ling inanother province ma also choose the venue. 1n such case, the action as to allthe defendants not o#jecting would continue as to the o#jecting defendants.

*ena *. *erga 5




/he plaintiff having #rought the action must su#mit itself to the jurisdiction ofthe court. 1t took advantage of the situation itself created and took possessionof the land while the case is #eing litigated. 1t is estopped from alleging thatthe court has no jurisdiction over it.

%"!#!$ %%S *S. &!A6.&. =o. 0*GF )- =ovem#er ''

acts5 /he protestee is 6uestioning whether the protestant’s certificate ofcandidac has #een dul filed. %uch will eventuall determine whether thecourt has jurisdiction over the matter. /he parties are in agreement that ifindeed the protestee filed his candidac, then the court has jurisdiction overthe case. 4therwise, the court will have to dismiss the case. /he aretherefore not 6uestioning whether the trial court has jurisdiction according tothe law.

1ssue5 = the trial court has or has no authorit to pass upon the validit of

the #allots adjudicated to the protestant, which have not #een challenged #the protestee in his counter protest.

Decision5 1t has #een held that the word ?jurisdiction@ as used in thecontri#ution and in the statues means ?jurisdiction as to the su#ject:matteronl, unless an e3ception arises # reason of its emploment in a #roadersense. +urisdiction over the su#ject:matter is the power to hear and determinecases of the general class to which the proceedings in 6uestion #elong and isconferred # the sovereign authorit which organi7es the court and defines itspowers.

1n order that the court ma validl tr and decide the case, it must have jurisdiction over the su#ject matter and jurisdiction over the persons of theparties. But in some instances, it is said that the court should also have

jurisdiction over the issue, meaning there# that the issue #eing tried anddecided # the court within the issues raised in the pleadings.

+urisdiction over the issue is different from jurisdiction over the su#ject:matter./he latter #eing conferred # law and the former # the pleadings. +urisdictionover the issue ma #e conferred # consent either e3press of implied of theparties. Although an issue is not dul pleaded, it ma #e validl #e tried anddecided if no timel o#jection is made thereto # the parties, this cannot #edone when jurisdiction over su#ject matter is involved. +urisdiction over theissue is an e3ception of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over thepersons of the parties.

/he original 6uestion posed # the court was not answered.

*%#'NTA vs. C7!%+8 P7!#!PP!N% C$NSTA9'#A.&. =o. L:*'0GG ) +anuar '00

acts5 $etitioner, a mem#er of the 1ntegrated =ational $olice of /aclo#an, wasdirecting traffic at around -$" in the intersection of Burgos:/arcela:Lucente%treets in /aclo#an Cit when he apprehended one &omeo Lo7ano, a motori7edtriccle driver, for a traffic violation. An altercation ensued which resulted inthe death of the latter. is widow filed an administrative complaint with the=A$4LC4", which found petitioner guilt of less grave misconduct andsuspended him for si3 months without pa.

$ending the case, &amon’s widow also filed another case for homicide at theiscal’s office in /aclo#an. inding prima facie evidence, the irst Assistant Citiscal recommended that the case #e referred to the /anod#aan whichendorsed the filling of the homicide case. /he said case was referred to themilitar authorities pursuant to $D '0G. /he general court "artial was

convened #ut petitioner assailed its jurisdiction over the case alleging that 24' in relation to 24 ') transferred jurisdiction over mem#ers of the $=$to the =A$4LC4".

1ssue5 = the eneral Court "artial has jurisdiction over the case.

Decision5 +urisdiction is the power with which courts are invested foradministering justice fore hearing and deciding cases. Courts in the $hilippineshave no common law jurisdiction or power, #ut onl those e3pressl conferred# the Constitution and statues and those necessaril implied to make thee3press powers effective.

1t is e3pressl stated under 24 '') that it is onl the operation supervisionand direction over all units of the 1ntegrated =ational $olice force stationed or

assigned in the different cities and municipalities that was transferred from the$hilippine Consta#ular to the cit or municipal government concerned.Likewise, 24 ' transferred merel the e3ercise of administrative controlover all units of the 1ntegrated =ational $olice throughout the countr to the$resident. /his is not the same as transferring of jurisdiction or authorit of acourt:martial to hear, tr and decide a criminal proceeding against a policeofficer.

hen the case was filed in '0), there can #e no 6uestion that the respondenteneral Court "artial had jurisdiction. %ince jurisdiction had properl #eene3ercised from the start, it remains with the militar court martial unless a lawe3pressl divests it of the jurisdiction. 1t is a rule that once jurisdiction is

*ena *. *erga




ac6uired, it remains until validl transferred # the proper authorit accordingto law.

1t is not intended # the legislators to repeal $D '0G, thus, the court martial’s jurisdiction remains.

' *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN.&. =o. 'G-G:* August '

acts5 $etitioner eorge 9 was the deput comptroller of the $hilippine =avdesignated to act on #ehalf of Captain ernande7, the latter’s supervisor, onmatters relating the activities of the iscal Control Branch. %i3 informations for2stafa through falsification of official documents and one information forviolation of %ection F of &A F' (anti:graft and corrupt practices act! werefiled with the %andigan#aan against the petitioner and ' other accused foralleged. /he petitioner was said to have signed a $.4. stating that the unitreceived ', pieces of seal rings when in fact, onl ' were ordered. /he%andigan#aan recommended that the infomations #e withdrawn against someof the accused after a comprehensive investigation.

$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash contending that it is the Court "artial andnot the %andigan#aan which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or theperson of the accused. $etitioner further contends that &A '0G whichprovides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.

1ssue5 = the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the su#ject criminal casesor the person of the petitioner

Decision5 /he fundamental rule is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined# the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. /hus,%andigan#aan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the time of the filingof the informations and as now prescri#ed # law. &A 0), the latestamendment of $D '-- creating the %andigan#aan provides that such will

have jurisdiction over violations of &A F' of mem#ers of the $hilippinesArm and air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of higher rank.

1n the case at #ar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of &A F'0, hisposition as Lieutenant Commander of the $hilippine =av is a rank lower than ?naval captains and all officers of higher rank@. 1t must #e noted that #oth the=A/9&2 of the 42=%2 and the $4%1/14= 4CC9$12D B8 /2 ACC9%2D areconditions %1=2 <9A =4= #efore %andigan#aan can validl take cogni7ance ofthe case. /hus, regular courts shall have e3clusive jurisdiction over the personof the accused as provided # the %andigan#aan Law which states that ?incase where none of the accused are occuping positions corresponding to

%alar rade )* or higher, e3clusive original jurisdiction shall #e vested in theproper &/C, "/C, "C/C or "2/C pursuant to B$ Blg. ').

Conse6uentl, it is the &/C which has jurisdiction over the offense chargedsince under %ection of &A F', the commission of an violation of said lawshall #e punished with imprisonment for not less than %i3 ears and 4ne

month to 1/22= ears. /he indictment of the petitioner therefore cannot fallwithin the jurisdiction of the "/C, "2/C or "C/C.

". +urisdiction determined # the position

S'9!&$ *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN.&. '))-F' ) +anuar '*

acts5 Baani %u#ido, then B1D Commissioner and &ene $arina, then B1D%pecial Agent conspired and caused the issuace of a warrant of arrest against+ames "aksimuk. /he accused knew hat "aksimuk’s deportation order wasnot et final and e3ecutor pending a "otion for &econsideration, resulting in

the detention of the latter which caused him undue injur. A case for ar#itrardetention was filed against the accused with the %andigan#aan. /hepetitioners filed a motion to 6uash contending that in view of the effectivit of&A **G, which is an act to %trengthen the unctional and %tructural4rgani7ation of the %andigan#aan, the %andigan#aan had no jurisdictionover the offense charged and the person of the accused. %aid motion wasdenied, hence this petition.

1ssue5 = the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the case at #ar

Decision5 /he court dismissed the case. 1t is true that the crime committed nolonger falls within the purview of &A **G. owever, &A **G onl took effectone ear after the commission of the crime charged. 1t must #e remem#eredthat for purposes of %ection of &A '-- which provides that %andigan#aan

has e3clusive jurisdiction over cases committed # pu#lic officer andemploees in relation to their office, the reckoning point is the time of thecommission of the crime.

9nder $D '--, the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over persons who at thetime of the commission of the crime is occuping a position having a %alarrade )* or higher. 1t is true that $arina held a position with a salar grade ofless than ?)*@. owever, he is #eing prosecuted as co:conspirator of theprincipal accused who held a position higher that grade ?)*@ thus, section of$D '-- which provides that ?in cases where none of the principal accused areoccuping the position to salar grade )* or higher, &/C, "/C, "2/C or "C/Cshall have e3clusive jurisdiction@ will appl.

*ena *. *erga :




1t must #e noted that #efore the enactment of &A **G, what matters is notthe kind of offense so long as it is alleged in the crime committed in relation tothe office of the pu#lic official, %andigan#aan has jurisdiction tr and hear thecase. /his has #een cured # %ection of &A **G # limiting its jurisdictiononl to persons (principal accused! having a salar grade of ?)*@. /his, #eing

a curative statute, ma #e given retroactive effect.

$etition was denied.

C'C$ *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN.&. =o 'F*'*:'0 0 e#ruar )

acts5 the raft 1nvestigation 4fficer found pro#a#le cause against &amonCuco for violation of %ection F of &A F' as well as %ection F2 of the sameact. /wo informations were recommended against Cuco and the otherrespondents. /he 4m#udsman approved the recommendation and theprosecution filed he information with the %andigan#aan. $etitioner filed amotion to 6uash for lack of jurisdiction contending that at the time of thecommission of the offense in '), he was occuping the position of Director11, %alar rade )-, thus &/C has jurisdiction over the case. /he prosecutiondid not oppose such action. /he %andigan#aan however denied the motion,hence, this appeal.

1ssue5 = the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction.

Decision5 /he %andigan#aan has no jurisdiction over violation of %ection Faand e of &A F' unless committed # pu#lic officials and emploeesoccuping position of regional director and higher with %alar rade ?)*@ andhigher. $etitioner admittedl occupied the position of Director 11 with salarrade ?)-@ under the Compensation and $osition Classification Act of '0thus, %andigan#aan incurred serious error of jurisdiction entitling petitioner to

the relief praed.

$etition was granted.

=. +urisdiction determined # the allegations of the complaint.

9'AA *S. P$#$.&. =o. *G* )- +anuar '0

acts5 $etitioner %olemnidad Buaa was an insurance agent of CountrBankers 1nsurance Corporation who was authori7ed to transact insurance

#usiness and collect premiums in #ehalf of the corporation. %he was re6uiredto make periodic reports and accounting of her transactions and remit premiumcollections to the principal office of private responded located in the Cit of"anila.

An audit was conducted on petitioner’s account which showed a shortage of

$hp F/. As a result, she was charged with 2stafa #efore the &/C withrespondent on. $olo. $etitioner filed a motion to dismiss which motion wasdenied # respondent +udge. /he su#se6uent motion for reconsideration ofthis order of denial was also denied.

$etitioner contends that &/C in "anila has no jurisdiction #ecause she is #asedin Ce#u Cit and the funds she allegedl misappropriated with collected inCe#u Cit.

1ssue5 = the &/C in "anila has jurisdiction

Decision5 /he general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to 6uash,#eing interlocutor in character cannot #e 6uestioned # certiorari and cannot#e su#ject of appeal. owever, this rule is su#ject to certain e3ceptions. /hereason is that it would #e unfair to re6uire the defendant or accused toundergo the ordeal and e3pense of a trial of the court had no jurisdiction overthe su#ject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper venue.

1t is a general rule that averments in the complaint or information characteri7ethe crime to #e prosecuted and the court #efore which it must #e tried.

%ection '' of the &evised &ules of Court provides5 1n all criminal prosecutionthe action shall #e instituted and tried in the court or municipalit or provincewherein the offense was committed or an of the essential elements thereoftook place.

/he su#ject information charges the petitioner with 2stafa committed during

the period '0 to +une '0) inclusive in the Cit of "anila. Clearl them.rom the allegations of the information the &/C of "anila has jurisdiction.

Besides, the crime of 2stafa is a continuing crime, which ma #e prosecuted atthe place where an of he essential elements of the crime took place. /hepetitioner clearl prejudiced private respondents in "anila and therefore, thecrime was committed here.

$etition was dismissed.

'S *S. 3A##%2$S.&. =o. ')*F 0 Decem#er ''*

*ena *. *erga ;




acts5 rom =ovem#er '' to 4cto#er ''- in the municipalit of Ce#u, theaccused "ariano allejos and complainant’s wife Benita Antio6uia had illicitrelations and #egot a child. /he complainant filed a complaint against the twoof the +ustice of $eace of the "unicipalit of Ce#u. "ariano was arrested #utBenita remained at large. "ariano was arraigned and was found guilt of

adulter. owever, "ariano filed a motion to suspend the trial until his co:defendant is arrested and #rought to the court. /he motion was denied.&ecord shows that the complaint included #oth defendants.

1ssue5 = the court could proceed with the trial of "ariano even if Benita isnot present.

Decision5 hile the complaint for the crime of adulter must #e presentedagainst #oth of the culprits and # the offended person, et the law permitsseparate trials for each. =ot onl is there no law re6uiring that the should #etried separatel, #ut there is a positive provision of law permitting them, to #etried separatel. %eparate trials ma #e had5 ('! when either of the partiesre6uest it; (#! when the government is satisfied that the man did not knowthat the woman was married; (c! when one of the parties has died #efore thetime of the trial; and (d! when one of the parties escaped the jurisdiction ofthe court and has not #een arrested.

"oreover, the law clearl provides that in furtherance of justice, the court magrant either of the parties the right and opportunit to adduce additionalevidence #earing upon the main issue in 6uestion. /he 6uestion of jurisdictionof the court is alwas a 6uestion of importance; and if the evidence isnecessar to prove the fact, as it is in all criminal cases, so far as the place ofthe commission of the crime is concerned, and the prosecution fails to provethat fact, in the interest of justice the court ma alwas admit additionalevidence.

%entence of lower court was affirmed.

4. +urisdiction ac6uired for the person of the accused.

%P'9#!C *S. S'N3A.&. =o. L:F0-F ) +une '00

acts5 /he complainant +ose Dadis filed a case for the attempted homicideagainst Ariston and &afael Anadilla. hile the case is pending, +ose Dadis filedan affidavit of desistance and was no longer interested in the prosecution ofthe case. +ose said that he had forgiven the accused and that his materialwitness could no longer #e contracted the court then lifted the order of arrest,cancelled the #ail #ond and ordered the release of the accused.

/he $rovincial iscal moved for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal,which was denied, hence this appeal.

1ssue5 = the court ma dismiss a criminal case on the #asis of an affidavitof desistance e3ecuted # the offended part, #ut without the motion to

dismiss filed # the prosecuting fiscal.

Decision5 /he filing of a complaint or information in the Court initiated acriminal action. /he Court there# ac6uires jurisdiction over the case. henafter the filing of the complaint or information a warrant of arrest of theaccused is issued # the trial court and the accused either voluntarilsu#mitted himself to the Court or was dul arrested, the court there#ac6uired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

A motion to dismiss the case filed # the fiscal should #e addressed to thecourt which has the option to grant or den the same. /he rule therefore inthis jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in court andisposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or ac6uittal of theaccused rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retainsthe direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while thecase is alread in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court #ecausethe determination of the case is within its e3clusive jurisdiction andcompetence. /he onl 6ualification is that the action of the court must notimpair the su#stantial rights of the accused or the right of the $eople to dueprocess of law.

But to avoid similar situation, the court takes the view tat while Cespo doctrinehas settled that the trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal caseshould #e dismissed, still, an move on the part of the complainant or offendedpart to dismiss the criminal case even if without o#jection of the accuse,should first #e referred to the prosecuting fiscal for his own vie on the matter.e is after all, in control of his prosecution of the case and he ma have his

own reasons wh the case should not #e dismissed.

$. +urisdiction is conferred # law and not # waiver

'N!T%& STAT%S *S. &% #A SANTA.&. =o. F'0' ' 4cto#er '*

acts5 /he complainant /eofila %evilla charges the defendant with the crime ofseduction under a promise of marriage at the time when she was less than )'ears of age. /he complaint was filed # her father when she was alread )ears old. /he court contends that the alleged seduction could onl #e

*ena *. *erga <




instituted and maintained at her instance since she was alread of legal age,otherwise the trial court shall have no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

1ssue5 = the court has jurisdiction over a complaint.

Decision5 as provided # the &$C, complainant can institute criminal action

against the defendant in cases of seduction should it #e proven that she isalread of the majorit age. Although the parents and guardians arementioned disjunctivel, still, the right to institute criminal proceedings incases of seduction is e3clusivel and successivel reposed in these persons inthe order in which the are named so that no one of them has authorit toproceed if there is an other person previousl mentioned therein with legalcapacit to appear and institute action.

9nder the Civil code, a woman )F ears of age is alread in the full possessionof her civil rights, save onl in certain e3ceptional cases e3pressl prescri#ed inthe code. /he right to appear and prosecute or defend an action in the court isnot one of these e3ceptions and, indeed, it is inherent to the full e3ercise ofcivil rights.

9nder the provision of the &$C, jurisdiction over the crime of seduction ise3pressl denied the trial court unless such jurisdiction #e conferred # one ofcertain persons specified in the law, in this case, # the offended personherself. /his is important not onl for the sufficienc of the complaint #ut goesdirectl to the jurisdiction of the court over the crime. Lack of jurisdiction overthe su#ject:matter is fatal and su#ject to the o#jection at an stage of theproceedings, either in court #elow or on appeal. here the su#ject matter isnot within the jurisdiction, the court ma dismiss the proceeding e3 meromotu.

+urisdiction over su#ject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred # thesovereign authorit, which organi7es the court; it is given onl # law and inthe manner prescri#ed # law and an o#jection #ased on the lack of such

jurisdiction cannot #e waived # the parties.

+udgment was reversed and the complaint was dismissed.

<. +urisdiction not conferred # consent

'S *S. %%S.&. =o.*) )0 April ')

acts5 the complaint charges the defendant with the crime of 2stafa andfalsification and alleges the former, #eing an emploee of the "anila Dagupan&ailwa issued a ticket to a passenger who was going from "anila to Caloocan

and continued his trip to "alolos. /he difference in the fare is ' peso and ))cents. /he ticket issued simulated that the tip was from "anila to Boacau andthe charge onl '0 cents, rendering the said amount to the compan whileappropriating the #alance of the sum.

/he complaint was not a#le to precisel designate the place where the

falsification was committed not where the appropriation occurred.

1ssue5 = the court of /arlac has jurisdiction to tr the case

Decision5 /he crime of 2stafa was committed at the where his account wasrendered and the stu# of the false ticket was turned it. 1n this case, the stu#sand false tickets were turned in /arlac. /he court in /arlac therefore has jurisdiction since it is within this territor that the accused made use of thedocument alleged to #e false and where the falsification was committed.

/he fact that the C1 took jurisdiction of the offense charged, #ecause in theopinion of the court, the place of the commission of the crime was not clearlshown, is not an o#stacle to the courts declaration itself to #e without jurisdiction as soon as the lack of jurisdiction appeared from the proceedingssu#se6uentl had. +urisdiction over criminal cases cannot #e conferred #consent.

/he appeal was granted.

&. 2stopped # laches to #ar attacks on jurisdiction

P%$P#% *S. %3'#A!$.&. =o. ''G' )F "arch )F, 'F

acts5 Accused together with several others murdered on "enardo arcia inLucena. During arraignment, the appellants entered a plea of not guilthowever, #efore the prosecution rested its case, &egalario and his accomplice

$a#illar, changed their plea to guilt. After trial, all appellants were foundguilt of the offense charged. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion forreconsideration on the 'th da of the 'G:da period for appeal, which wasdenied, # the trial court. /he then filed a notice of appeal, which was deniedfor having #een filed out of time (' das after the receipt of the first denial!.

1ssue5 = the court can still e3ercise jurisdiction over the case consideringthat the appeal was filed out of time.

Decision5 /he trial court was correct in rejecting appellant’s notice of appealsince it was filed #eond the reglamentar period. owever, as in $eople vs./amani, although the appeal of the accused was demonstra#l filed out of

*ena *. *erga 10




time, to o#viate the miscarriage of justice, the court nevertheless reviewed thecase and rendered judgment on the merits thereof in view of the fact that thefiling of the appeal out of time was due to the inadvertence of the defensecounsel. /he same ma also #e granted in the present case adopting theprinciple of estoppel # laches to #ar attack on jurisdiction.

T!2A" vs. S!9$N37AN$.&. =o. L:)'G 'G April '-0

acts5 %pouses %erafin and elicitas commenced a civil case against spouses%i#onghano to recover from them a sum of $hp '/M with legal interest. Awrit of attachment was issued # the court against the defendants properties#ut the same was soon dissolved. After trial, the court rendered judgment infavor of the plaintiffs and after the same had #ecome final and e3ecutor, thecourt issued a writ of e3ecution against the defendants. /he writ #eingunsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of writ of e3ecution againstthe %uret’s #ond. %u#se6uentl, the %uret moved to 6uash the writ on theground that the same was issued without summar hearing. /his was denied# the &/C. %uret appealed in the CA, which was against denied. /his time,the suret just asked for an e3tension in order for them to file the motion forreconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it file amotion to dismiss saing that # virtue of &A )- which is the +udiciar&eorgani7ation Act of '0, section 00 of t which placed within the originale3clusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions were the value of thesu#ject matter does not e3ceed $hp ),. C1 therefore has no jurisdictionover the case. /he 6uestion of jurisdiction was filed # the %uret onl 'Gears from the time the action was commence in the C1.

1ssue5 = the case should #e dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Decision5 After voluntaril su#mitting a cause and encountering an adversedecision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to 6uestion the jurisdiction orpower of the court.

/he rule is that jurisdiction over the su#ject matter is conferred upon thecourts e3clusive # law and as the lack of it affect the ver authorit of the curtto take cogni7ance of the case, the o#jection ma #e raised at an stage of theproceedings. owever, considering the facts and circumstance of the presentcases, a part ma #e #arred # laches from involving this plea for the firsttime on appeal for the purpose of annulling everthing done in the case. Apart cannot invoke a court’s jurisdiction and later on den it to escape apenalt.

%. Adherence of +urisdiction

&%#A C'6 vs. "$A.&. L:-G') )* April '00

Doctrine5 4nce jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up the end ofthe litigation.

acts5 &odolfo de la Cru7 is a mem#er of the Armed orce of the $hilippinesassigned to the 1ntelligence and 4peration %ection of the $C Compan,together with other $C me, received a mission order to proceed to Davao forthe purpose of verifing and apprehending persons who were engaged in illegalcockfighting which the complied with. /he operators of the illegal cockfights,including the deceased 2use#io Ca#ilto followed the soldiers on their wa #ackto the head6uarters. ighting ensued and in the scuffled, dela Cru7 shotCa#ilto.

/he petitioner was charged with homicide in the C1. Claiming that the crimefor which he was chaged was committed in relation to the performance of hisduties, petitioner filed a motion to transfer the case to the militar authoritiesso he could #e tried in a court martial. /he motion was denied.

1ssue5 " the civil courts have jurisdiction over the su#ject matter of thecase at #ar.

Decision5 4ne of the essential re6uisites of a valid court proceeding is that thecourt hearing the case must have jurisdiction over the su#ject matter of thecase. 1f the court is acting without jurisdiction, then the entire proceedings arenull and void. +urisdiction over the su#ject matter is determined # the statutein the force at the time of the commencement of action.

/he case was filed on August ), '*. 4n such date, # virtue of eneral4rder =o G, militar tri#unals created under general order =o. 0, e3ercisede3clusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed # militar personnel of the

A$ while in the performance of their dut provided that a certificate from the%ecretar of =ational defense for the purpose of determining whether theoffense was reall committed while in the performance of a dut. /his provisodoes not in an wa preclude the courts from making an finding as to whetheran offense is dut:connected. =or doe it make the certificate a conditionprecedent for the e3ercise # either civilian courts or militar tri#unals of their jurisdiction over offenses committed.

/he fact that there was a mission order and that the victim was shot whilepetitioner was e3ecuting the mission order compels the court to declare thatrespondent court was without jurisdiction.

*ena *. *erga 11





P%$P#% *S. "A3A##AN%S.&. =o. ''0'F:' '' 4cto#er '', 'G

Doctrine5 +urisdiction once ac6uired is not affected # su#se6uent legislative

enactment placing jurisdiction in another tri#unal. 1t remains with the courtuntil the case is finall terminated. %andigan#aan or the court as the casema #e cannot #e divested of jurisdiction over cases filed #efore them #reason &A **G. /he retain their jurisdiction until the end of litigation.

acts5 /he Dumancas spouses complained with the police saing that a certain&ufino argar and Danilo Lumngao swindled them. /he accused togetherwith civilian agents arrested and a#ducted the swindling suspects and forcedthem to produce the mone the got from the spouses. /he two were founddead a few das after. /wo informations for kidnapping for ransom withmurder were filed with the &/C against mem#ers of the $=$ and nine othercivilians who confederated with each other for the purpose of e3torting monethrough kidnapping the two victims. $etitioner contends that the crime wascommitted in the course of the performance of duties of the accused, thus,%andigan#aan should have jurisdiction # virtue of $D '--.

1ssue5 = the &/C of Bacolod or the %andigan#aan that has jurisdictionover the two criminal cases for kidnapping for ransom with murder whereinsome of the accused implicated as principals are mem#ers of the $=$.

Decision5 At the time the informations in the said cases were filed, the lawgoverning the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan was section of $D =o '-which provided that the %andigan#aan has original jurisdiction in all casesinvolving pu#lic officers and emploees who committed felonies in relation totheir office, which must #e alleged in the complaint. An offense is consideredas committed in relation to the office if it cannot e3ist without the office or ifthe office is the constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute.

1t is a fundamental rule that jurisdiction is determined # the allegations in thecomplaint or information. 1n the case at #ar, the information in the court donot indicate that the victims were killed in the course of the investigation.hat was alleged is that the accused, for the purpose of e3tracting ore3horting a sum of mone, a#ducted, kidnapped, detained and killed the twovictims. /he allegation of ?taking advantage of his position@ incorporated inthe information is not enough to #ring the offenses within the definition of ?offenses committed in relation to pu#lic office@.

/he %andigan#aan partl lost its e3clusive original jurisdiction in casesinvolving violation of &A F' as amended, &A =o. 'F* and the &$C. 1t

retains onl cases where the accused are national and local officials classifiedas rade ?)*@ and higher under the Compensation and $osition ClassificationAct of '0. &A =o **G cannot affect the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aansince jurisdiction once ac6uired is not affected # su#se6uent legislativeenactment placing jurisdiction in another tri#unal. 1t remains with the courtuntil the case is finall terminated. ence, the %andigan#aan or an other

courts cannot #e divested of jurisdiction.

1n the case at #ar, %andigan#aan has not et ac6uired jurisdiction over thesu#ject criminal cases as the informations were filed #efore the &/C.Assuming that the informations were filed with the said tri#unal, the%andigan#aan can no longer proceed to hear the cases in view of the e3pressprovision of %ection * of &A **G that all criminal cases in which the trial hasnot et #egun in the %andigan#aan shall #e referred to the proper courts.&/C was ordered to resume hearing the case.

' *S. C$'T $+ APP%A#S.&. =o. '' )0 +ul '*

acts5 hile &osa 9 was helping her hus#and manage their lum#er #usiness,she and a friend, Consolacion agreed to form a partnership wherein the latterwill contri#ute additional capital as industrial partner for the e3pansion of&osa’s lum#er #usiness. >arious sums amounting to $hp G,. wereclaimed to have #een given # Consolacion for the #usiness, #ut no receipt wasever issued. /he friendship of the two turned sour, thus, Consolaciondemanded the return of her investment #ut the checks issued # &osa were alldishonored for insufficienc of funds.

Consolaction filed a complaint for 2stafa and for violation of B$ )). /he "anila&/C ac6uitted the petitioner of 2stafa #ut convicted her of the charges underB$ Blg. )).

$etitioner contents that the trial court never ac6uired jurisdiction over the

offenses under B$ )) and assuming arguendo that she raised the matter of jurisdiction onl upon appeal, she cannot #e estopped from 6uestioning the jurisdiction

1ssue5 = the &/C of "anila ac6uired jurisdiction over the violations of theBouncing checks Law.

Decision5 /erritorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territor where thecourt has jurisdiction to take cogni7ance or to tr the offense allegedlcommitted therein # the accused. /his it cannot take jurisdiction over aperson charged with an offense allegedl committed outside that of that limitedterritor. +urisdiction of the court over a criminal case is determined # the

*ena *. *erga 1,




allegations in the complaint or information. 4nce it is shown, the court mavalidl take cogni7ance of the case. owever, if the evidence adduced duringthe trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the courtshould dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

1n the case at #ar, the crimes of 2stafa and violation of B$ are two different

offenses having different elements and necessaril, for the court to ac6uire jurisdiction, each of the essential ingredients of each crime has to #e satisfied./he respondent court is wrong to conclude that inasmuch as the &/C of "anilaac6uired jurisdiction over the 2stafa case then it also ac6uired jurisdiction overthe violation of B$ )).

=o proof has #een offered that the checks were issued, delivered, dishonoredor knowledge of insufficienc of funds occurred in "anila, which are essentialelements necessar for the "anila Court to ac6uire jurisdiction. B$ )) on theother hand, as a continuing offense, ma #e tried in an jurisdiction where theoffense was in part committee.

$etitioner also timel 6uestioned the jurisdiction of the courtAs provided # jurisprudence, we can see that even if a part fails to file amotion to 6uash, he ma still 6uestion the jurisdiction of the court later on.

/he general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over a su#ject matter of theaction is a matter of law and ma not #e conferred # consent or agreement ofthe parties. /he lack of jurisdiction of a court, ma #e raised at an stage ofthe proceeding, even on appeal.

owever, this rule has #een 6ualified in the case of /ijan vs, %i#onghanowherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court can #e held to #e #arred# laches. /his case however cannot #e applied in the case at #ar since theaccused is not guilt of laches.

&/C of "anila has no jurisdiction over the case.

Exceptions to the General Rule of Adherence to Jurisdiction

9!NA vs. SAN&!3AN9AAN41 SCA 5 01 $cto=er 1<<<

acts59!NA CAS%

4n %ept. *, ', the office of the 4m#udsman filed #efore the %andigan#aanone information for violation of art.)) of &$C (illegal use of pu#lic funds! and) for violation of &AF' (anti:graft!, which were amended on %ept 'G, ',

against +ejomar Bina alleging that these were committed in '* during hisincum#enc as "aor of "akati, then a municipalit of "etro "anila. 4n +une'F, 'G, after &A **G, redefining the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan, tookeffect ("a '-, 'G!, Bina filed a motion to refer his cases to the ?propercourt@ for further proceedings, #ut was denied # the %andigan#aan. As suchhe filed a petition for certiorari, prohi#ition and "andamus 6uestioning the

jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan #efore the %upreme Court."A3SASA CAS%

"ario "agsasa is the maor of the "unicipalit of %an $ascual,Batangas, all of his co:petitioners in this case are officials of the samemunicipalit. 4n April '-, ', >ictor Cusi, >:maor of the samemunicipalit, charged petitioners with violation of &AF' for overpaing>icente de la &osa (also petitioner herein! of /D& Construction for thelandscaping project of the %an $ascual Central %chool. A resolution # raft1nvestigation 4fficer Alarilla recommended the filing of the information with the%andigan#aan. owever, it was filed in the &/C of Batangas instead,peculiarl the information was signed # the same Alarilla.

%u#se6uentl, the Concerned Citi7ens of %an $ascual, #atangas, filed acomplaint #efore the 4m#udsman against the petitioners for the sameviolation. /hereafter another information alleging the same offense was filed#efore the %andigan#aan. $etitioners moved to 6uash the information allegingthat the %andigan#aan had no jurisdiction over the case.

hile the cases were pending, Congress enaceted &A0), redefiningthe jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan.

1ssue5 = the %andigan#aan e3ercises e3clusive original jurisdiction overcriminal cases involving municipal maors accused of violations of &AF' andArt.)) of the &$C. Considering that5

1. At the alleged commission of the crimes, municipal maors werenot classified as rade )*

/o support this contention, the presented certifications saing that

the salar the received was #elow that of the salar received # a grade )*officer. or Bina his salar was onl $', *Fmonth e6uivalent to rade ))and for "agsasa $'', 0)0month e6uivalent to rade )G. /he #ased thison &A-*G0 (Compensation and $osition Classification Act of '0!.

2. "unicipal "aors are not included in the enumeration in %ec.a('! of $d'-- as amended # &A **G.

$etitioners invoke the rule in statcon5 inclusion unius est e3clusion alterius5what is not included in those enumerated is deemed e3luded.

*ena *. *erga 14




3. Congressional records reveal that the law did not intend municipalmaors to come under the e3clusive original jurisdiction of the%andigan#aan

Decision5 /2 %A=D1A=BA8A= A% +9&1%D1C/14=. here a statute

changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot #eapplied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute.

/he Court does not su#scri#e to the manner # which petitioners classifrades. /he Constitution states that in providing for the standardi7ation ofcompensation of government officials and emploees, Congress shall take intoaccount the nature of the responsi#ilities pertaining to and the 6ualificationsre6uired of their positions, thus &A-*G0 provides that the rade depends uponthe nature of one’s position relative to another position. 1t is the person’sgrade that determines the salar not the other wa around.

1t is possi#le that a local gov’t official’s salar ma #e less than that prescri#edfor his rade since his salar also depends on the financial capa#ilit

of his respective government unit. =evertheless, it is the law, which fi3es theofficial’s grade.

&A -*G0 instructs the Dept. of Budget and "anagement (DB"! to prepare an1nde3 of 4ccupation %ervices listing the %alar rades of ov’t officials. Boththe '0 and '* version of said 1nde3 classifies municipal maorsunder rade )*, as such municipal maors come within the originaland e3clusive jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan.

&esort to %tatcon is not appropriate where the law is clear and unam#iguous./he enumeration under section a('! is not e3clusive.

Again statcon does not appl where the law is clear.

"$% $N 9!NA9nder sec.* of &A **G5 upon effectivit of this Act, all criminal cases

in which trial has not #egun in the %andigan#aan shall #e referred to theproper court. /he proper import of this section is laid down in Beng7on v.1nciong5

/he rule is that where a court has alread o#tained and ise3ercising jurisdiction over a controvers, its jurisdiction to proceedthe final determination of the cause is not affected # new legislationplacing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tri#unal. /hee3ception to the rule is where the stature e3pressl provided that it isintended to operate to actions pending #efore its enactment. herethe statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive

effect, it cannot #e applied to a case that was pending prior to theenactment of the statute.

/o this effect, &A **G is retroactive. 2ffects of %ection *5'. 1f trial of cases #efore the %andigan has alread #egun as of the

approval of &A**G, then &A **G does not appl.). 1f trial of cases #efore the %andigan has =4/ #egun as of the approval

of &A**G, then it applies.a. if # virtue of sec. of &A**G, the sandigan has jurisdiction

over the case, then the case shall #e referred to the sandigan.#. 1f # virtue of sec. of &A**G, the sandigan has no

jurisdiction, then the case shall #e referred to the regularcourts.

As the trial of Binay had not yet begun as of date of the approval of RA7975,the andigan retains !urisdiction over the case"

"$% $N "A3SASA$etitioners invoke the rule that jurisdiction of a court one it attaches

cannot #e ousted # su#se6uent event, although of such character which wouldhave prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. /he claimthat the filing of the info in the %andigan was a su#se6uent even which cannotoust the &/C of its jurisdiction./his rule has no application here as the &/C hadno jurisdiction over the case in the first place. urthermore, when the info wasfiled with the &/C &A**G was alread in effect, thus the need to #e referredto the %andigan.

$etitioners invoke that respondents are estopped from filing an infowith the %andigan considering that the had alread filed another info allegingthe same facts #efore the &/C. hile the court in certain cases has ruled thatestoppel prevents a part from 6uestioning the jurisdiction of the court that thepart himself invoked, estoppel remains the e3ception and not the rule, therule #eing that jurisdiction is vested # law. urthermore, the respondent inthis case is the %tate and estoppel is not applied to the %tate.

SANC7%6 and "ANA3A vs. SAN&!3AN9AAN

414 SCA :,4

acts5 $etitioners are officers of the $hil. Arm. Lt.Col. Lino %anche7 wasCommanding 4fficer, th $ost 2ngineer Detachment, ead6uarters andead6uarters %upport roup (%!, while "ajor >icente "anaga was :,%. 4n +une '-, 'F, court martial proceedings were initiated againstthem and audencio &omualde7 #ased on a report stating that there was aprima facie case against them for violation of Art. G of the articles of war forcausing the wrongful release of $hp G,G,* for pament of repair of 'office of the $hil. Arm, e6uivalent to 00.GGN completion of the work, when infact onl )GN of the work had #een completed to the damage of thegovernment. /he judge advocate of the $hil. Arm referred the findings to the

*ena *. *erga 1




provincial $rosecutor of &i7al, recommending the filing of info with the%andigan#aan

4n April 0, ', %anche7 was arraigned #efore the en. Court "artial =o.)while "anaga on +ul ', '. /he #oth pleaded not guilt. "eanwhile onApril '0, ', an info was filed against them #efore the %andigan for violation

of &A F'. $etitioners moved for the dismissal of the case #efore the%andigan alleging that it has no jurisdiction over the case as the court martialhad ac6uired original and e3clusive jurisdiction and that the acts complained of#efore the court martial and the %andigan are one and the same.

Decision5 Although the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction at the time the chargewas filed, it lost its jurisdiction upon the enactment of &A **G #ecause he falls#elow the rank of full colonel and trial has not et #egun.

#ACS$N vs. %>%C'T!*% S%C%TA401 SCA ,<;

acts5 see subse#uent $acson digests

Decision5 /he amendment in &A no 0) that in cases where none of theaccused are occuping positions corresponding to %alar grade ?)*@ or higher,as prescri#ed in the said &A -*G0, or militar and $=$ officers mentioneda#ove, e3clusive original jurisdiction thereof shall #e vested in the proper&//C, "/C, "e/C, "/C/, as the case ma #e in pursuant to B$ '). /heprevious law vests jurisdiction in the &/C where none of the principal accusedare occuping positions corresponding to %alar rade )*. /he term principalwas deleted so that under the amendment, if an accomplice #elongs to %alargrade )*, then jurisdiction is with the %andigan#aan even if none of theprincipals #elong to a lower salar grade. /he amendment was appliedretroactivel.

/. Action of the Court when determined that is had no jurisdiction

1. 9nder its supervisor authorit, the %upreme Court, even theCourt of Appeals ma properl refer the case to the court ofproper jurisdiction.

2. Courts of the 'st and )nd level are without authorit to order thetransfer. 1f the courts #elieve that it has no jurisdiction over thesu#ject matter, its jurisdiction is limited to simpl dismissing thecase.

'S *S. "$A#%S P?il 04

acts5 &osauro %a#ino, rancisco $rimoso and &omualdo &amos were arrestedin Caloocan while Bal#ino "orales was arrested in "ala#on, #oth municipalitiesare #eond the limits of the cit of "anila. /he were convicted in the C1 of"anila for the crime of Brigandage. 2vidence, however, discloses that theoffenses were committed in the $rovinces of Bulacan and &i7al.

Decision5 hen the record discloses that the crime as alleged in the complaintwas not committed in the province wherein the trial was had, and the accusedwas not arrested in that province and defendant had not fled there from, theCourt of irst 1nstance of that $rovince has no jurisdiction to impose sentence.1n such cases, of the court has reasona#le ground to #elieve that the crime has#een committed; the accused should #e remanded to the court of proper jurisdiction for trial.

!6A# C$""%C!A# 9AN@!N3 vs. !SAN!,, SCA 15; 0 "arc? 1<<5

acts5 1n a complaint filed a few das after the effectivit of &A*-'(e3panding the jurisdiction of municipal and metropolitan trial courts! with the"akati &/C, Lolita 2ncelan sought to recover from &CBC actual damages ofKG, or $'F*,-*G. &CBC moved for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction onthe ground that it is under the "etropolitan /rial Court ("/C! not the &/C, theprincipal demand praed for not #eing in e3cess of $),. &espondent &/C judge 1snani, instead of dismissing the complaint, transferred the entirerecords of the case to the "/C.

Decision5 1t has #een held that where the court has no jurisdiction at the timeof the filing of the complaint, instead of ordering the transfer, the court shoulddismiss the case.

%P'9#!C vs. AS'NC!$N,41 SCA ,11

acts5 Ale3ander Dionisio "anio, mem#er of the $=$, was assigned to theCentral $olice District Command %tation ) in =ovaliches, when he wasdispatched to Dumala %treet to respond to a complaint that a person wascreating trou#le there. Dionioso proceeded to the place, where hesu#se6uentl shot to death /%gt. &omeo %adang. hile trial for homicide wasalread in progress in the &/C of <C, the case was dismissed for refilling withthe %andigan#aan on the ground that it is the %andigan#aan which has jurisdiction over the case. /he private prosecutor moved for dismissal citingthe opinion of the %ec of the D4+ that crimes committed # $=$ mem#ers arenot cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan #ecause the fall within the e3clusive jurisdiction of the regular courts as provided in &A -*G and the

*ena *. *erga 15




%andigan#aan is not a regular court #ut a special court as stated in the '*Fconstitution and as the '0* constitution provides that the present anti:graftcourt shall continue to function and e3ercise it jurisdiction.

Decision5 /he Court sanctioned the transfer of cases from the &/C for lack of jurisdiction to the %andigan#aan.

/he court ruled that the %andigan#aan is a regular court. hile it is a specialcourt, it is a regular court within the conte3t of &A -*G #ecause ?it is a courtnormall functioning with continuit within the jurisdiction vested on it@ andthat the term regular courts is used in %ec. - of &A -*G to distinguish thesaid courts form courts:martial for it seeks to divest the latter of such jurisdiction and mandates its transfers to the former pursuant to the polic ofthe law to esta#lish a police force national in scope and civilian in character./he %andigan#aan is a regular court as stated in the Administrative Code of'0*.

owever, for the %andigan#aan to have jurisdiction it is necessar that theoffenses were committed # pu#lic officers in relation to their office. 1n here,there is no indication that the trou#le:maker was the victim and that he wasshot # Dionisio in the course of the latter’s mission. As such, the courtdirected the &/C of <C to conduct a preliminar hearing within 'G from receiptof decision, to determine if the crime was committed in relation to pu#lic office.1f it #e determined in the affirmative, the case shall #e transferred to the%andigan#aan as if the same were originall fined with it. 4therwise, the &/Cshould proceed with the trial of the case and render judgment thereon.

C'NANAN vs. AC%$,, SCA ;;

acts5 Accused, a $=$ officer was on a mission at Canda#a $ampanga. ewent out of the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a warning

shot, with the intention of restoring peace and order which was distur#ed and#roken # the fight #etween the victim and &ogelio Agustin and alter #etweenthe victim and one $fc. Basa. An information for murder was filed against theaccused. $etitioner now contents that he committed the offense charged inrelation to his pu#lic office. &/C ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the casesince the offense charged was done in the performance of petitioner’s officialfunctions thus the judge dismissed the case. A month after, the decision wasmodified stating that the same must #e transmitted with the %andigan#aan.

1ssue5 = the transfer was valid

Decision5 $etitioner contends that jurisdiction over the case was fi3ed in the&/C as the Asuncion ruling is inapplica#le, since here trial had alread endedand the case was su#mitted for decision when the Asuncion ruling waspromulgated. A transfer of his case to the %andigan#aan at this late state wille3pose him to dou#le jeopard of punishment for the same offense.

/he &/C’s initial assumption of jurisdiction does not prevent it formsu#se6uentl declaring itself to #e without jurisdiction as it was found out inthe hearing that Cunanan had committed the offence while he was in theperformance of his duties as policeman. e shot the victim in the course oftring to restore local pu#lic order which had #een #reached # a fistfight#etween the victim and ) other individuals. /he a#sence in the info of anallegation that Cunanan committed the offense charged in relation to his officeis immaterial and easil remedied. As the case had alread #een forwarded tothe %andigan#aan, the said info ma #e amended at an time #eforearraignment #efore the %andigan#aan, considering that such amendmentwould not affect the juridical nature of the offense charge, it would notprejudice Cunanan’s su#stantive rights. /here is no dou#le jeopard as the &/Cwas without jurisdiction and the dismissal of the info # the &/C was note6uivalent to ac6uittal, it simpl reflected that the proceedings therein wasterminated

#ACS$N vs. T7% %>%C'T!*% S%C%TA3.. No. 1,;0< ,0 2anuary 1<<<

acts5 $etitioner Lacson is assailing the constitutionalit of %ections and * of&A =o. 0) I an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the%andigan#aan. Lacson was #eing held lia#le for the killing of the JuratongBaleleng gang # elements of the Anti:Bank &o##er and 1ntelligence /askroup. 1t was contended that it was a ru#:out and not a shoot:out which tookplace on the night of "a '0, 'G.

/he $=$ officers were originall a#solved from an lia#ilit #ecause of thefinding of the Blancaflor Commission that the incident was a legitimate policeoperation. owever, after a review of 4m#udsman >illa, the findings weremodified thus Lacson and '' others were charged with murder. All of theaccused 6uestioned the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan saing that the &/Cshould take cogni7ance of the case at #ar since # virtue of &A **G, the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan was onl to cases were the principal accusedis a pu#lic officer with salar rade of ?)*@. 1t was contended that the highestprincipal accused in the amended information has the rank of Chief 1nspectoronl, and none has the e6uivalent of % )*.

*ena *. *erga 1




hile the motions for reconsideration were pending, &A 0) was passed #the Congress, which e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan # deletingthe word ?principal@ from the phrase ?principal accused@ in %ection ) of &A**G. /he new law now e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan tocover Lacson.

/he amended information mere alleges that the offense charged wascommitted # the accused pu#lic officer in relation to his office.

Decision5 /he court ordered the transfer of the cases from %andigan#aan forlack of jurisdiction to the &/C which has e3clusive jurisdiction over said cases.

C'C$ vs. SAN&!3AN9AAN3.. 14:01:-1; 0; +e=ruary ,000

Decision5 /he court ordered the %andigan#aan to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, #ut informed the 4m#udsman that it ma re:file the cases with thecourt of proper jurisdiction, the &/C of Eam#oanga Cit.

Concurring Decision (Davide!5 /he case should #e referred to the &/C insteadof #eing dismissed.

+. +urisdiction 4ver Dangerous Drugs Cases

"$A#%S vs. CA)0F %C&A )'' ') Decem#er '*

acts5 2rnesto "orales Cru7 was charged in the &/C of $asa with violationof %ection 'G of the Dangerous Drugs Act involving onl .G0* grams ofsha#u, as such the imposa#le penalt would at most #e onl prisioncorrectional (-mos.'da:- rs!. "orales moved to dismiss in light of the+udiciar &eorgani7ation Act of '0, it is the "etropolitan /rial Court which

has jurisdiction over the case. /his was denied, so he filed with the Court ofAppeals a petition for certiorari under &ule -G. But the petition was dismissedfor lack of jurisdiction as the CA adjudges that onl the %upreme court has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari 6uestioning the jurisdictionof an inferior court.

/he %upreme court held that the CA had jurisdiction in that the certiorari wasan original action and does not relate to the appellate jurisdiction of the CA.9nder sec ('! of B$ '), the CA has concurrent original jurisdiction with the%C pursuant to the constitution and the +udiciar Act of '0, to issue writs ofcertiorari, mandamus, prohi#ition, ha#eas corpus and 6uo warranto. /hese areoriginal actions not modes of appeals.

1ssue5 = the &/C has jurisdiction

Decision5 /he C1, Circuit Criminal Court and +uvenile and Domestic &elation’sCourt shall have concurrent original jurisdiction over all cases involvingoffenses punisha#le under &A *-'. $rovided that in cities or provinces where

there are +uvenile and Domestic &elations Courts, the said courts shall takee3clusive cogni7ance of cases where the offenders are under '- ears of age.

J. Criminal +urisdiction of &egional /rial Courts. (%ection ), +udiciar&eorgani7ation Act of '0 as amended # &A =o. *-'!

>ested the e3clusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within thee3clusive original jurisdiction of an court tri#unal or #od withpenalt higher than - ears.

Court with general jurisdiction 23ercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided # the first

level courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction

L. Criminal +urisdiction of "etropolitan and "unicipal /rial Courts1. %ection F) of the +udiciar &eorgani7ation Act of '0 as

Amended # %ection ) of &A *-'5 e3cept in cases falling withinthe e3clusive original jurisdiction of the &/C and %andigan#aan,these courts shall e3ercise e3clusive jurisdiction over

all violations of cit and municipal ordinances committed within their respective jurisdictionoffenses punisha#le with imprisonment of not e3ceeding - ears irrespective ofthe amount of fine and other accessor penalties. $rovided that in offensesinvolving damage to propert through criminal negligence, the shall haveoriginal jurisdictionoffenses involving damage to propert through criminal negligence.

2. 9nder $D '-- as amended # &A 0), "/C, "C/C, "e/C has jurisdiction over government officials and emploees where the

penalt is not more than - ears and officers charged do not fallunder the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan (%alar grade )* anda#ove!

=ote5 9nder &A *-'5 fine is no longer a factor in determining jurisdiction.

3. uidelines for the implementation of &A *-'F.' &/C no longer has original jurisdiction over offenses commute # pu#lic

offices and emploees in relation to their office where the offense ispunisha#le # more than ears, ) months up to - ears.

F.) ine was alread disregarded however, in cases where the onl penalt isfine, the amount thereof shall #e determined # the jurisdiction of thecourt in accordance with the original provisions of %ection F)()!of B$ ').

*ena *. *erga 1:




F.F 1f ine is more than $hp ,, the &/C has jurisdiction including thosecommute # pu#lic officers where amount of fine does not e3ceed %i3/housand.

". %pecial +urisdiction of Courts (%ection FG, Bp ')!=ote5 1n the a#sence of &/C judges, the "/C, "C/C and "e/C ma hear and

decide petitioner for writ of ha#eas corpus or application for #ail in criminalcases in the province or cit where a#sent &/C judge sits.

=. +urisdiction over $=$ # &egular Courts (Article -, &A -*!'. Criminal cases involving $=$ mem#ers shall #e within e3clusive

jurisdiction of the regular courts). Courts:martial appointed pursuant to $D '0G shall continue to tr

$C:1=4 mem#ers who were alread arraigned in pursuant toCommonwealth Act =o 0 (Article of ar! as amended # 24'*0 or "anual for Courts:"artial

F. Criminal cases not et arraigned when &A -*G took effect will #etransferred to the regular courts.

(a! &egular Courts I civil courts

(b) Courts "artial is not regular court (%eople vs" Asuncion! for thepertain to the e3ecutive department of the government and aresimpl instrumentalities of the e3ecutive power.

(c! $urpose of law5 remove jurisdiction over $=$ mem#ers fromcourts marital that transfer it within the $hilippine +udicial%stem.

4. +urisdiction 4ver Comple3 Crimes

A#+%&$ C'$S y. T'#$ vs. 3AC!A3.. No. #-<4 15 Aril 1<;;

acts5 Alfredo Cuos was charged #efore the "unicipal court of %an ernando,$ampanga, with homicide with multiple serious phsical injuries and damage to

propert through reckless imprudence. e was a driver of a cargo truck whichhad collided with a >olkswagen in a vehicular accident which resulted in thedeath of ' person and phsical injuries to others. e pleaded guilt at hisarraignment #ut #efore trial could commence he moved to remand the case tothe &/C alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the "unicipal Court. ealleged that since under the &$C the fine for his crime would correspond to F3the amount of damages and as the estimated damages was $hp '0,, hewould #e fine to up to $G,. 9nder the +udiciar Act of '0, "unicipalCourts onl had jurisdiction over cases punisha#le # a fine not e3ceeding $hp-, and less than - ears imprisonment. /he "unicipal judge denied themotion, hence this petition for Certiorari

Decision5 +urisdiction over the whole comple3 crime must logicall #e lodgedwith the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the ma3imum and mostserious penalt imposa#le on an offense forming part of the comple3 crime. Acomple3 crime must #e prosecuted integrall as it were, and not split into itscomponent offenses and the latter made the su#ject of multiple information

possi#le #rought in different courts.

$. +urisdiction of the %andigan#aan (&A 0) I An Act to %trengthen theunctional and %tructural 4rgani7ation of the %andigan#aan, Amending$D '--!.

%Bclusive 2urisdiction1.1 *iolations o A 401< (anti:raft and Corrupt $ractices Act!; *iolations

o 14:< (Act declaring orfeiture in avor of the %tate an propert oundto have #een unlawfull Ac6uired # an $u#lic 4fficer or 2mploee and$roviding for the $roceeding /herefore! and C?ater !!8 Section ,8 Title*!! 9oo !! o t?e PC (Article )'5 Direct Bri#er; Article )''5 1ndirectBri#er and Article )')5 Corruption of $u#lic 4fficers!, where one of theaccused are officials occupying positions in the governmentwhether in a permanent or interim capacity at the commission of

the offense:'.'.'. 4fficials of the e3ecutive #ranch occuping a salar grade of ?)*@ and

a#ove as classified # the Compensation and $osition Classification Actof '0.

$hil arm, air force colonels, naval captains and all officers ofhigher rank

$=$ officials with position of $rovincial director, seniorsuperintendent and higher.

Cit, special and provincial $rosecutors $residents, Directors, trustees of 4CC’s and %C9.

'.'.) "em#ers of Congress and officials classified as rade ?)@.'.'.F "em#ers of the judiciar without prejudice to the provisions of the

constitution'.'. "em#ers of the constitutional commissions'.'.G All other national and local offices with %alar rade ?)*@.

'.) 4ffenses and felonies whether simple or comple3ed with other crimecommitted # pu#lic offices (salar grade of )* and a#ove!.

'.F Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to 24 ' (Creation of $C!, ) (1ll:gotten wealth of the "arcoses!, ' (+urisdiction over cases involving 1llgotten wealth of the "arcoses! and ':A (Amendment of 24 '! issued in'0-.

*ena *. *erga 1;




'. $rivate 1ndividuals charged as co:principals, accomplice or accessorieswith the pu#lic officers or emploees including those emploed in 4CCs.

2. %Bclusive Aellate 2urisdiction over final judgments,resolutions or orders of the &/C whether in the e3ercise of their own

original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction

F. %Bclusive $riginal 2urisdictionF.' writs of mandamus, certiorari etc. arising from cases filed under24 ', ), ' and ':A, provided that the jurisdiction over thesepetitions shall not #e e3clusive of the %upreme Court.

P%$P#% *S. "A3A##AN%S ,< SCA ,1,

Doctrine5 %andiganan’s jurisdiction would depend on the %alar rade of thepu#lic officer involved provided that when a private individual is an accomplice,accessor or conspirator, the rule that ?accessor follows principal@ will #eapplied.

acts5 /he Dumancas spouses complained with the police saing that a certain&ufino argar and Danilo Lumngao swindled them. /he accused togetherwith civilian agents arrested and a#ducted the swindling suspects and forcedthem to produce the mone the got from the spouses. /he two were founddead a few das after. /wo informations for kidnapping for ransom withmurder were filed with the &/C against mem#ers of the $=$ and nine othercivilians who confederated with each other for the purpose of e3torting monethrough kidnapping the two victims. $etitioner contends that the crime wascommitted in the course of the performance of duties of the accused, thus,%andigan#aan should have jurisdiction # virtue of $D '--.

1ssue5 = %andigan#aan has e3clusive jurisdiction over the case at #ar

Decision5 At the time the informations were filed, the law governing the jurisdiction of %andigan#aan was section of $D '--, as amended # $D'0-'. /he %andigan#aan partl lost its e3clusive original jurisdiction in casesinvolving violation of &A =o. F' as amended, &A 'F* and Chapter 11%ection ), /itle >11 of the &$C. As conse6uences of these amendments, the%andigan#aan’s jurisdiction is onl retained in cases where the accused arethose enumerated in su#section A and generall national and local officialsclassified as rade ?)*@ and higher under the Compensation and $ositionClassification Act of '0 &A -*G0!. 1ts jurisdiction over other offenses orfelonies committed # pu#lic officials and emploees in relation to their office isno longer determined # the prescri#ed penalt (that which is higher that

prision correctional or imprisonment for - ears or a fine of $hp -,.!; it isenough that the are committed # those pu#lic officials and emploeesenumerated. owever, it retains its e3clusive original jurisdiction over civil andcriminal cases filed pursuant to 24 ', ), ' and ':A

/he $=$ officers onl has a %alar rade of ?'0@ therefore, %andigan#aan has

no jurisdiction over the case.

(a! +urisdiction over $u#lic 4fficers

SANC7%6 *S. &%"%T!$',,: SCA ,: 0< N$*%"9% 1<<4

acts5 /he $residential Anti:Crime Commission re6uested the filing ofappropriated chareges against several persons including "aor Antonio%anche7 of Calauan, Lagauna, in connection with the rape:sla of "ar 2ileen%armenta and the killing of Allan ome7. Acting on this re6uest, the $anel of%tate $rosecutors of the Department of +ustice conducted a preliminarinvestigation. %u#se6uentl, the prosecutors filed with the &/C of Calam#a *info against %anche7 and the other persons accused. owever, to avoidmiscarriage of justice the venue of the seven cases was transferred to $asig,where the were raffled to +udge arriet Demetriou.

%ache7 now contends that the proceedings conducted # the D4+ are null andvoid for want of jurisdiction, as such is vested in the 4ffice of the 4m#udsmanto conduct the investigation of all cases involving $u#lic 4fficers. /he Court,however, held that as in the case of Aguinaldo v. Dumagas, this authorit isnot e3clusive #ut rather a shared or concurrent authorit in respect of theoffense charged. 1n fact, other investigator agencies of the government suchas the D4+ ma conduct the investigation.%anche7 also contends that the case should come under the jurisdiction of the%andigan#aan as most of the accused are pu#lic officials.

Decision5 /he court held that the crime of rape with homicide does not fallunder paragraph ' of $D'-- as amended # $D'0-', which deals with the jurisdiction of the %andigan in graft and corruption cases. =either does it fallunder paragraph ) #ecause it is not an offense committed in relation to theoffice of the petitioner. /here is no direct relation #etween the commission ofthe crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner’s office as municipal maor#ecause pu#lic office is not an essential element of the crime charged. /heoffense can stand independentl of the office. "oreover, it is not even allegedin the info that the commission of the crime charged was intimatel connectedwith the performance of the petitioner’s official function. /hus, the case istria#le # the regular courts and not the %andigan#aan.

*ena *. *erga 1<




$rior to the amendment of &A **G, jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan forfelonies other than violation of &.A. =o F' as amended, otherwise known asthe Anti:raft and Corrupt $ractices Act, &A 'F* and Chapter 11, %ection ),/itle >11 of the &$C, em#race all other offenses provided, the offense wascommitted in relation to pu#lic office and the prescri#ed penalt is more than

si3 ears

' *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN4,1 SCA :: August 1<<<

acts5 $etitioner eorge 9 was the deput comptroller of the $hilippine =avdesignated to act on #ehalf of Captain ernande7, the latter’s supervisor, onmatters relating the activities of the iscal Control Branch. %i3 informations for2stafa through falsification of official documents and one information forviolation of %ection F of &A F' (anti:graft and corrupt practices act! werefiled with the %andigan#aan against the petitioner and ' other accused foralleged. /he petitioner was said to have signed a $.4. stating that the unitreceived ', pieces of seal rings when in fact, onl ' were ordered. /he%andigan#aan recommended that the infomations #e withdrawn against someof the accused after a comprehensive investigation.

$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash contending that it is the Court "artial andnot the %andigan#aan, which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or theperson of the accused. $etitioner further contends that &A '0G, whichprovides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.

1ssue5 = the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the su#ject criminal casesor the person of the petitioner

Decision5 1n the case at #ar, while the petitioner is charged with violation of&A F'0, his position as Lieutenant Commander of the $hilippine =av is a

rank lower than ?naval captains and all officers of higher rank@. 1t must #enoted 9nder the present law, #oth /2 =A/9&2 4 /2 42=%2 A=D /2$4%1/14=% occupied # the accused are the C4=D1/14=% %1=2 <9A =4=#efore the %andigan#aan can validl take cogni7ance of the case. /hus,regular courts shall have e3clusive jurisdiction over the person of the accusedas provided # the %andigan#aan Law which states that ?in case where noneof the accused are occuping positions corresponding to %alar rade )* orhigher, e3clusive original jurisdiction shall #e vested in the proper &/C, "/C,"C/C or "2/C pursuant to B$ Blg. ').

(#! 4ffense deemed committed in relation to pu#lic office

P%$P#% *S. 9AT$#$"%1, SCA

acts5 /he %andigan#aan convicted &olando Bartolome $ere7, %enior La#or&egulation 4fficer and Chief of the La#or &egulations %ection of the "inistr ofLa#or, and 2lino Coronel %antos, La#or &egulation 4fficer of the "inistr of

La#or, of the crime of alsification of 4fficial Document where the made itappear in the Civil %ervice $ersonal Data %heet of Bartolome that he had takenand passed the Career %ervice with a rating of *F.GN in "anila and that hewas a th ear AB student at 29, when in truth, as #oth accused knew,Bartolome had not taken the said e3am nor was he a th ear AB student in29.

Decision5 /he office must #e a constituent element of the crime as defined inthe statute. /he test is whether the offense cannot e3ist without the office.alsification of an official document is not within the jurisdiction of the%andigan#aan unless committed in relation the pu#lic office of the pu#licofficer.

/he information does not allege that there was an intimate connection #etweenthe discharge of official duties and the offense, thus, it cannot #e #roughtunder the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan.

NoteD E?en is an oense said to ?ave =een committed in relation tooiceD

eneral &ule5 offense ma #e considered as committed in relation to accused’soffice if the offense cannot e3ist without the office such that the office is aconstituent element of the crime as defined and punished in &$C (%eople vs"&ontilla!.

23ception5 here the offense charged in the information is intimatelconnected with the respective offices of the accused and was perpetuated while

the were in the performance, through irregular or improper, of their officialfunctions and had no personal motive to commit the crime and would not havecommitted it had the not held their pu#lic office and merel o#eed theinstruction of their superior office, the offense ma #e said to have #eencommitted in relation to their office (the victi' in this case (as )illed (hiledunder custodial investigation in a police substation, 'urder (as charged !(%eople vs" &onte!o!.

*ena *. *erga ,0




P%$P#% *S. "A3A##AN%S,< SCA ,1,

Doctrine5 1t is a fundamental rule that jurisdiction is determined # theallegations in the complaint or information. 1n the case at #ar, the informationin the court do not indicate that the victims were killed in the course of the

investigation. hat was alleged is that the accused, for the purpose ofe3tracting or e3horting a sum of mone, a#ducted, kidnapped, detained andkilled the two victims. /he allegation of ?taking advantage of his position@incorporated in the information is not enough to #ring the offenses within thedefinition of ?offenses committed in relation to pu#lic office@. 1n the case of&ontilla vs" *ilario +'urder (as co''ittee outside office house and for

personal or political 'otives, such an allegation was considered merel as anallegation of an aggravating circumstance, and not as one that 6ualifies thecrime as having #een committed in relation to pu#lic office

C'NANAN *S. AC%$)) %C&A 00 ' "arch 'G

acts5 accused, a $=$ officer was on a mission at Canda#a $ampanga. e

went out of the police station after hearing a commotion and fired a warningshot, with the intention of restoring peace and order which was distur#ed and#roken # the fight #etween the victim and &ogelio Agustin and alter #etweenthe victim and one $fc. Basa. An information for murder was filed against theaccused. $etitioner now contents that he committed the offense charged inrelation to his pu#lic office. &/C ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the casesince the offense charged was done in the performance of petitioner’s officialfunctions thus the judge dismissed the case. A month after, the decision wasmodified stating that the same must #e transmitted with the %andigan#aan.

1ssue5 = the modified decision is correct considering that the a#sence of jurisdiction on the part of the &/C #ecame apparent to the &/C onl A/2& thetrail and su#mission of the case decision.

Decision5 9nder $D '-) as amended # $D '0-', there are two re6uisites foroffenses to fall within the e3clusive and original jurisdiction of the%andigan#aan5 ('! the offence must have #een committed # the accusedpu#lic officer in relation to his office and (#! the penalt prescri#ed for theoffense must #e higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for si3 (-!ears of a fine of $hp -,..

here the killing committed # a $=$ officer was committed while in thecourse of tring to restore local pu#lic order, which had #een #reached # a

fistfight #etween the victim and two other individuals, the killing wascommitted in relation to the accused’s pu#lic office.

/he transfer to %andigan#aan was valid.

#ACS$N *S. %>%C'T!*% S%C%TA

F' %C&A )0

acts5 $etitioner Lacson is assailing the constitutionalit of %ections and * of&A =o. 0) I an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the%andigan#aan. Lacson was #eing held lia#le for the killing of the JuratongBaleleng gang # elements of the Anti:Bank &o##er and 1ntelligence /askroup. 1t was contended that it was a ru#:out and not a shoot:out which tookplace on the night of "a '0, 'G.

/he $=$ officers were originall a#solved from an lia#ilit #ecause of thefinding of the Blancaflor Commission that the incident was a legitimate policeoperation. owever, after a review of 4m#udsman >illa, the findings weremodified thus Lacson and '' others were charged with murder. All of theaccused 6uestioned the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan saing that the &/C

should take cogni7ance of the case at #ar since # virtue of &A **G, the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan was onl to cases were the principal accusedis a pu#lic officer with salar rade of ?)*@. 1t was contended that the highestprincipal accused in the amended information has the rank of Chief 1nspectoronl, and none has the e6uivalent of % )*. hile the motions for reconsideration were pending, &A 0) was passed #the Congress, which e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan # deletingthe word ?principal@ from the phrase ?principal accused@ in %ection ) of &A**G. /he new law now e3pands the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan tocover Lacson.

/he amended information mere alleges that the offense charged was

committed # the accused pu#lic officer in relation to his office.

1ssue5 = such an allegation is enough

Decision5 or jurisdiction over crimes committed # pu#lic officers in relationto pu#lic office to fall within jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan I the intimaterelation #etween the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must#e alleged in the information. /here must #e specific factual averment of thisrelation.

"ere allegation that the crime was committed in relation to pu#lic office is notwhat determines the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan. hat is controlling is

*ena *. *erga ,1




the SPECIFIC FACTUA AE!ATI"#S in the information that wouldindicate the close intimac #etween the discharge of the accuser’s officialduties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to 6ualif the crimeas having #een committed in relation to pu#lic office.

here the information alleged that principal accused committed the crime in

relation to the pu#lic office, #ut no specific allegation of facts that the shootingof the victim # said principal accused was intimatel related to the dischargeof their official duties as police officer, or does not indicate that the aid accusedarrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in theircustod. /he offense charged in the su#ject criminal case is plain murder andtherefore, within the e3clusive original jurisdiction of the &/C, not the%andigan#aan.

P%$P#% *S. CAE!#!N33.. N$. 11:<:0 ,; 2'# 1<<;

Decision5 1n the a#sence of an allegations that the offense was committed inrelation to the office of the accused or was necessaril connected with thedischarge of their functions, the &/C not the %andigan#aan, has jurisdiction to

hear and decide the case

(c! +urisdiction not determined # allegations

%P'9#!C *S. AS'NC!$N,41 SCA ,11 11 "arc? 1<<

acts5 Ale3ander "anio, a mem#er of the $=$ assigned to the central $oliceDistrict Command in <C was dispatched # his commanding officer to Dumala%treet to respond to a complaint that a person was creating trou#le there.Dionisio proceeded to that place, where he su#se6uentl shot to death %gt.&omeo %adang. An information for the crime of homicide was filed againsthim. &esponded judge, in view of the decision in Deloso vs. Domingo, which

sas that %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over offenses committed # pu#licofficials when the penalt prescri#ed # law for the offense is higher thanprision correccional, ordered the dismissal of the case and refilling with the%andigan#aan on the ground that the %andigan#aan and not the &/C whichhas jurisdiction over the case. /he original information did not disclose thatthe offense of homicide charged was committed in relation to the office of theaccused.

1ssue5 = the %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over the case.

Decision5 /he a#sence in an allegation that the crime was committed ?inrelation to his office@ was due to the erroneous doctrine in Deloso vs. Domingo,

which conveed the impression that such is not necessar. ence the action ofthe court to conduct a preliminar hearing to determine whether the crimecharged was committed # the respondents in relation to his office was valid.%ince it was proven that the act was done in relation to the accused’s office,the validit of the transfer of the case to the %andigan#aan cannot #e refuted.

or the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is the allegations that shallcontrol and not the evidence presented # the prosecution at the trial.

=ote5 /he Asuncion case has not however departed from the rule that !urisdiction is to be deter'ined by the allegations of the co'plaint . 4n thecontrar, it stressed that the pu#lic officers or emploees committed the crimein relation to their office must, however #e alleged in the information for the%andigan#aan to have jurisdiction over the case /he allegation is necessar#ecause of the un#ending rule that jurisdiction is determined # the allegationsof the information.

C'NANAN *S. AC%$,, SCA ;; 01 "arc? 1<<5

acts5 /he information for murder against Cunanan contained no avermentthat the offense charged was in relation to his pu#lic office, hence the courtproceeded to trial and after #oth parties presented evidence, the courtdeclared that the case must #e refilled to the %andigan#aan

1ssue5 = the refilling was valid

Decision5 +urisdiction over the offense charged is a matter that is conferred #law. herever the two re6uisites O('! the offence must have #een committed# the accused pu#lic officer in relation to his office and (#! the penaltprescri#ed for the offense must #e higher than prision correccional orimprisonment for si3 (-! ears of a fine of $hp -,..P are present,

jurisdiction is vested upon the %andigan#aan. /his is true even though theinformation originall filed #efore the &/C did not aver that the accused pu#licofficer committed the offense charged in relation to his office. 1n the a#sencein the old information filed #efore the &/C of an allegation that petitionerCunanan has committed the offense in relation to his office is 1""A/2&1ALinsofar as determination of the locus of jurisdiction is concerned.

&%#$S$ *S. &$"!N3$'' %C&A GG

acts5 overnor Deloso of Eam#ales went to pre:wedding cele#ration when hiscar was allegedl am#ushed. e was a#le to escape and later on learned that

*ena *. *erga ,,




the am#ushed were killed while his group suffered no casualties. Basedhowever on the testimonies of the eewitnesses, Delosos’s group was notam#ushed #ut were the ones who am#ushed the persons killed. /hus, themilitar servicemen of the overnor’s securit force were charged with murderwhile the civilians were investigated # the $rovincial iscal. /he governor wascharged with multiple murder.

/he governor now seeks to stop respondent "anuel Domingo, deput4m#udsman of Lu7on from conducting a preliminar investigation of thecharge against him of multiple murder contending that the om#udsman has no jurisdiction over the case for the acts were not connected with the performanceof the governor’s duties.

1ssue5 = the om#udsman has jurisdiction to investigate the charge ofmultiple murder allegedl committed # the petitioner as provincial governor.

Decision5 8es. /he constitution empowers the om#udsman to investigate anact or omission of an pu#lic official without an 6ualification that said act oromission must have #een committed or incurred in relation to his office.

/he 4m#udsman Act of '0 vests in the 4m#udsman primar jurisdictionover cases cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan. A murder charged against thepetitioner carries the penalt of reclusion temporal in its ma3imum period todeath hence, it is cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan and the 4m#udsman hasprimar jurisdiction to investigate it.

/he %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over offense committed # pu#lic officialswhen the penalt prescri#ed # law for the offense is higher than prisioncorrectional. /he murder charged against the petitioner carries the penalt ofreclusion temporal in its ma3imum period to death hence, it is cogni7a#le #the %andigan#aan, and the 4m#udsman has primar jurisdiction toinvestigate it.

/he law does not re6uire that the act or omission #e related to or #e connectedwith or arise from the performance of official dut. %ince the law does notdistinguish, neither should the court distinguish.

-ote. /he doctrine in this case (hich provides that the (hen the penalty prescribed by la( is higher than prision correccional, the andiganbayan has !urisdiction, (ithout stating the offense (as co''itted in relation to theoffender0s office is a &1/A2E"

(d! Distinguished from +urisdiction of the 4m#udsman over $u#lic4fficers

A3'!NA#&$ *S. &$"A3AS,,: SCA ,:

Decision5 /he +urisdiction of the 4m#udsman to investigate and $rosecute$u#lic 4fficers for an illegal act or omission is not e3clusive #ut a sharedconcurrent authorit in respect of the offense charged.

NAT!*!&A& *S. +%#!>.&. =o. '''-'- e#ruar '

Doctrine5 /he 4m#udsman’s primar power to investigate is dependent on thecases cogni7a#le # %andigan#aan. /he 4m#udsman’s primar jurisdiction isdependent on the cases cogni7a#le # the former. But the authorit isconcurrent with other similarl authori7ed agencies. owever, the4m#udsman ma take over the investigation of such case at an stage fromant investigative agenc # the government. /his is onl director.

acts5 "rs. Lourdes A6uino wrote a letter to the $=$ re6uesting them toinvestigate the "unicipal "aor of /arlac for the death of her hus#and %everinoA6uino. /he $=$ then re6uested the /arlac $rovincial $rosecutor to investigate

the petitioner for the death of the victim. $etitioner wrote to the secretar of justice re6uesting the preliminar investigation #e done in "anila, #ut this wasdenied. /he petitioner then moved to remand his case for preliminarinvestigation contending that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over thecase #ecause it was the 4m#udsman and not the provincial prosecutor whohas jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. &espondent judge denied thepetition.

Decision5 1n Deloso vs. Domingo, it was said that the 4m#udsman has thepower to conduct preliminar investigation on an illegal act or omission of anpu#lic official which is #road enough to encompass an crime committed # apu#lic official. owever, looking at the latest law on the %andigan#aan,%ection of said law provided that the %andigan#aan shall e3ercise e3clusive

jurisdiction in all cases involving5 a! offenses or felonies # pu#lic officers andemploees in relation to their office and #! penalt prescri#ed #e higher thanprison correctional or imprisonment for - ears or fine of $hp -,.. 1n thecase at #ar, the second re6uirement was met #ut the first is wanting.

"oreover, Deloso vs. Domingo has alread #een re:e3amined in the case ofAguinaldo vs. Domagas and %anche7 vs. Demetriou which #oth provided thatthe authorit of the 4m#udsman is not an e3clusive authorit #ut rather ashared or concurrent authorit in respect of the offense charged. Accordingl,the 4m#udsman ma take over the investigation of such case at an stagefrom an investigative agenc of the overnment. Also, a careful reading of%ection 'G of the 4m#udsman act would give us an idea an idea that the

*ena *. *erga ,4




4m#udsman’s investigator powers are #ut director in nature. /he petitionwas dismissed for lack of merit.

(e! Certiorari +urisdiction (conferred # &.A. **G!.(f! $u#lic 4fficer charged as accomplice of private individual

T$TAAN *S. +%#!>3.. No. ;1;: 0: August 1<;;

Decision5 %ection of $D =o. '-- as amended # $D '0-' provides in partthat in case private individuals are charged as co:principals, accomplices, oraccessories with the pu#lic officers or emploees, including those emploed ingovernment owned or controlled corporations the shall #e tried jointl withsaid pu#lic officers and emploees in ordinar courts. /he rule is that ?accessor follows the principal@. /hus, if the pu#lic officer or emploee ismere accomplice and the private individual as principal, the former shall #etried jointl with the latter in the ordinar courts. /he rationale is justified #the a#sence of a provision in $D '-- directing that all criminal cases involvingpu#lic officers and emploees, without distinction, #e tried # the%andigan#aan, even if the criminal involvement of the pu#lic officer is minor

or su#ordinate. /he jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan is not meant to #e all:encompassing or #road.

(g! 23clusive +urisdiction over $C cases

$#A3'% vs. TC3.. No. ;14;5 ,1 +e=ruary 1<;<

acts5 $etitioner 4laguer is 6uestioning the jurisdiction of the &/C in the caseat #ar. %ometime in '**, $hilippine +ournalist 1nc, pu#lisher of several dailperiodicals, o#tained a loan from Development Bank of the $hilippines. Due tosome financial difficult, $+1 re6uested the restructuring of the Loan with DB$.$+1 defaulted in its o#ligations, thus DB$ was a#le to control -*N of the stocks

and voting rights of the corporation, which ena#led 4laguer and four others tosit in the #oard. 4laguer was elected president of the #oard and due to someillegal acts done # him, private respondents filed for injunction and damagesin the &/C. 4laguer alleged that &/C has no jurisdiction over the case since$+1 was under the investigation of $C in connection with "arcos ill:gottenwealth.

1ssue = the $C has e3clusive jurisdiction over the case.

Decision5 /here is no dispute that the $+1 is under the se6uestration # the$C and that Civil case FG was filed in the %andigan#aan wherein $+1 waslisted as among the corporation involved the "arcos ill:gotten wealth.

9nder %ection ) of 24 =o. ', the %andigan#aan has e3clusive and original jurisdiction over all cases regarding the ?funds, mones, assets and propertiesillegall ac6uired # former $resident erdinand 2. "arcos, civil or criminal,including incidents arising from such cases. /he decision of the %andigan#aanis su#ject to review on certiorari e3clusivel # the %upreme Court.

1n the e3ercise if its functions, the $C is co:e6ual #od with the &/C and co:e6ual #odies have no power to control the other. /he &/C and the CA have no jurisdiction over the $C in the e3ercise of its powers under the applica#le 24and section )-, Article H>111 of the '0* Constitution and, therefore, ma notinterfere with the restrain or set:aside the orders and actions of the $Cacting for and in #ehalf of said Commission.


PC33 *S. P% FA.&. =4. **--F ') A$&1L '00

acts5 $C ordered the free7ing of assets, effects, documents and records of

two e3port garment manufacturing firms named American 1nternationalCorporation and De %oleil Apparel "anufacturing Corporation. $roperties of#oth companies were se6uestered and placed under the custodia legis of$C. 4n '0*, the officer in charge of said corporations withdrew $hp,. fro the "etropolitan Bank for the salaries of the emploees. Aftersome time, a case was instituted # the compan’s ong Jong investorsagainst the Bank, $C and Commissioner Bautista who authori7ed "s. %aludo(the 41C! to revoke authori7ations that were previousl issued to the ongJong investors.

&espondent +udge issued e3:parte the 6uestioned temporar restraining orderenjoining the #ank, from releasing an funds of the companies without the%ignature of 8im %hing, one of the ong Jong investors;

/he Commission filed this petition for dismissal of aforesaid decision since thetrial court has no jurisdiction over the case at #ar.

1ssue5 = the &/C has jurisdiction over the petitioner $C and propertiesse6uestered and placed in its cusotdia legis in the e3ercise of its powers under24 ', ), and '.

= courts can set aside order of the Commission.

Decision5 /he courts have no jurisdiction over the $C as vested in thecommission and holds that jurisdiction over all se6uestration cases fall within

*ena *. *erga ,




the e3clusive and original jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan, su#ject to reviewe3clusivel # the %upreme Court.

/he commission e3ercise 6uasi judicial functions. 1n the e3ercise of 6uasi judicial functions, the commission is a co:e6ual #od with &/C and ?co:e6ual#odies have no power to control the other.@

/he creation of the $C is mandated # the people. $roclamation =um#er Fspecificall gives priorit to the recover of ill:gotten wealth of the "arcosesand their cronies and to protect the interest of the people through orders ofse6uestration or free7ing of assets or accounts. /he corporations, #eingsu#ject of said se6uestration proceedings comes within the jurisdiction of the$C.

(h! +urisdiction to Annul +udgments

PC33 *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN3.. N$. 14,:4; ,4 +%9'A ,000

acts5 orld 9niversal /rading and 1nvestment Co (9/1C! was registered in$anama #ut was not licensed to do #usiness in the $hilippines. /he trial courtrendered judgment in favor of 9/1C enforcing a foreign judgment andordering another compan, the Construction Development Corporation (CDC!,which is a compan dul organi7ed in the $hilippines and under these6uestration # the $C, to pa the former K)".

CDC filed with the trial court an appeal from the decision of the said decision.CA affirmed the decision.

$C contends that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainand enforce a foreign judgment considering the case involved a se6uestered

corporation. $C then filed with %andigan#aan a petition to annul the &/C’sdecision. %andigan#aan dismissed the petition saing that it has no jurisdiction to annul the judgment of the &/C since the case #efore the trialcourt was for enforcement of a foreign judgment and not for recover of ill:gotten wealth.

1ssue5 = the decision of %andigan#aan was correct.

Decision5 $ursuant to 24 ', the %andigan#aan has e3clusive jurisdiction overall $C cases involving ill:gotten wealth whether civil or criminal, and allincidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases.

/he %andigan#aan has jurisdiction to annul the judgments of the &/C in ase6uestration related case, such as a judgment of the &/C for the enforcementof a foreign judgment involving propert that has #een lawfull se6uestered.

$etition was granted. /he decision of the &/C was set aside.

(i! +urisdiction over "il itar and $=$

&epu#lic Act. =o. *GG (An act %trengthening civilian supremac over themilitar # returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over certainoffenses involving mem#ers of the A$ and other persons su#ject tomilitar law and $=$!.

(1) 4ffenses defined under &$C, special laws, localgovernment ordinance regardless of whether a civilian isco:accused, victim or offended parties shall #e tried inproper civil court e$cept if offense is serviceconnected which shall %e tried %y court martial

()! /he president of the $hilippine ma order or direct at antime #efore arraignment that the proper civil court trsuch a crime.

' *S. SAN&!3AN9AANF') %C&A ** August '

acts5 $etitioner eorge 9 was the deput comptroller of the $hilippine =avdesignated to act on #ehalf of Captain ernande7, the latter’s supervisor, onmatters relating the activities of the iscal Control Branch. %i3 informations for2stafa through falsification of official documents and one information forviolation of %ection F of &A F' (anti:graft and corrupt practices act! werefiled with the %andigan#aan against the petitioner and ' other accused foralleged. /he petitioner was said to have signed a $.4. stating that the unit

received ', pieces of seal rings when in fact, onl ' were ordered. /he%andigan#aan recommended that the infomations #e withdrawn against someof the accused after a comprehensive investigation.

$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash contending that it is the Court "artial andnot the %andigan#aan, which has jurisdiction over the offense charged or theperson of the accused. $etitioner further contends that &A '0G, whichprovides for the jurisdiction of court martial should govern in this case.

1ssue5 = Court "artial has jurisdiction over the case

*ena *. *erga ,5




Decision5 /he law (&A *GG! does not include violations of &A F' (Anti:raftLaw! even if the act is service connected. >iolations of &A F' falls under the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan or the &/C depending on the nature of theposition of the offender and not the court martial.

<. +urisdiction of "ilitar Court

!N T7% "ATT% $+ T7% P%T!T!$N +$ 7A9%AS C$P'S $+ $#AN&$N. A9A&!##A.&. =o. *'*F +une '00

acts5 A#adilla was said to #e one of the leaders of the unsuccessful mutin #officers and enlisted men who sei7ed and control of the radio:television#roadcasting facilities of the "A:* and ort Bonifacio for the purpose oftoppling the e3isting government. /he Board of 4fficers investigating thematter recommended that the case of Colonel A#adilla #e endorsed for pre:trialand that charges #e filed for violation of the Articles of ar and the &$C.Colonel A#adilla was at large when #oth investigations were conducted. Chiefof staff &amos issued general 4rders =o, F) dropping herein petitioner formthe rolls of regular officers of the A$.

"eanwhile a case for slight $hsical injuries was filed against A#adilla with the"etropolitan /rial Court. hen he was arrested, his wife and children filed fora petition for ha#eas corpus.

/he counsel of A#adilla now contends that in as much as A#adilla was arrestedafter he had #ecome a civilian, the charge sheets prepared against him # themilitar authorities are null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person ofthe Colonel.

1ssue5 = the militar courts have jurisdiction over A#adilla after he wasdropper from the rolls.

Decision5 /he fact that Colonel A#adilla was dropped from the rolls should notlead to the conclusion that he is now #eond the jurisdiction of the militarauthorities. 1f such a conclusion were to prevail, his ver own refusal to clearhis name and protect his honor #efore his superior officers in the mannerprescri#ed for and e3pected from a ranking militar officer would #e his shieldagainst prosecution. is refusal to report for dut or to surrender whenordered arrested, which led to his name #eing dropped from the roll of regularofficers of the militar cannot there# render him #eond the jurisdiction of themilitar courts for the offenses he committed while still in the militar service.

/he militar authorities had jurisdiction over the person of A#adilla at the timeof the alleged offenses. /his jurisdiction having #een vested in the militar

authorities, it is retained up to the end of the proceeding against ColonelA#adilla. 1t is a (ell settled rule that !urisdiction once ac#uired is not lost uponthe instance of the parties but continues until the case is ter'inated"

(a! =o jurisdiction over civilians

$#A3'% *S. "!#!TA C$""!SS!$N150 SCA 1

acts5 $etitioners, all civilians, were all arrested # militar authorities andinitiall detained at Camp Crame and later on, Camp Bagong Diwa. /he werecharged with su#version upon the recommendation of the respondent +udgeAdvocate eneral and the approval of the "inister of =ational defense. 4n+une 'F '0, the chief of staff created the "ilitar commission no F to trthe criminal cases filed against the petitioners. An amended charge was filedagainst petitioners stating that the tried to assassinate $resident "arcs,2nrile, attempted murder and proposal to commit re#ellion among others.$etitioners now seek to enjoin the militar tri#unal from taking cogni7ance oftheir case contending that said commissions have no jurisdiction to tr civiliansfor offenses alleged to have #een committed during the period of martial law.

1ssue5 = the militar commission has jurisdiction over the petitioners forcrimes allegedl committed during martial law.

Decision5 the trial contemplated in the constitution is a trial # judicialprocess. "ilitar tri#unals are not courts within the $hilippine judicial sstem.2ven during martial law, a militar commission or tri#unal cannot tr ande3ercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses allegedl committed # thepetitioners, as long as civil courts are open and functioning.

"ilitar tri#unals pertain to the 23ecutive Department and are merelinstrumentalities of the e3ecutive power. /his is provided # the legislature tothe $resident to aid him in properl commanding the arm, nav and enforcing

discipline therein. /he power and dut of interpreting laws reside within the+udiciar and not with the e3ecutive #ranch.

A9A&!##A *S. A"$S3.. No. :<1:4 01 &ecem=er 1<;:

acts5 A#adilla was said to #e one of the leaders of the unsuccessful mutin #officers and enlisted men who sei7ed and control of the radio:television#roadcasting facilities of the "A:* and ort Bonifacio for the purpose oftoppling the e3isting government. /he Board of 4fficers investigating thematter recommended that the case of Colonel A#adilla #e endorsed for pre:trialand that charges #e filed for violation of the Articles of ar and the &$C.

*ena *. *erga ,




9. 9nder %ection )-, &ule '' of the ) &ules on Criminal $rocedure,#ail is not a #ar to o#jections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregularpreliminar investigation

>. 1n applications for #ail however, the Accused must #e in custod of thelaw to #e entitled to #ail (%ico vs" 3o'bong!

. Custod how ac6uired5

1. B virtue of a warrant or warrantless arrest, or2. when he voluntaril su#mitted himself to the jurisdiction of thecourt # surrendering to the proper authorities (4inapol vs"Baldado!

H. /he mere filing of an application for #ail is not sufficient (antiago vs"as#ue6 !. /he application for admission to #ail of a person againstwhom a criminal action has #een filed, #ut who is still at large ispremature (Guiller'o vs" Reyes"

8. 23ceptions when mere filing of motion sufficient (%aderanga vs" 3A!1. ouse arrests2. ospital Arrests3. Being confined to 6uarters or restricted in militar camps

. +urisdiction over the person of the accused # Arrest or >oluntar surrender

is not a condition for court to rant Affirmative &elief (dismissal of the case!( Allado vs" 4io)no!

'#% 110Prosecution o $enses

!. P$*!S!$NS AN& N$T%S

SECTI"# &: Institution of criminal actionsCriminal actions shall %e instituted as follows:

'a( For offenses where a preliminary investigation isre)uired pursuant to section & and *ule+ %y filing the

complaint with the proper officer for the purpose ofconducting the re)uisite preliminary investigation,

'%( For all other offenses %y filing a complaint orinformation directly with the municipal trial courts andmunicipal circuit trial courts+ or the complaint with

office of the prosecutor, In -anila and other charteredcities+ the complaint shall %e filed with the office of the

prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters,The institution of criminal action shall interrupt the running of the

period of prescription of the offenses charged unless otherwise provided in special laws,

Source

/he present rule covers all offenses e3cept those that ma #e provided in thecharter of cities and other special laws.

"odes o instituting criminal action.'. "a #e commenced # an person presenting to a court a

complaint. here complaint has #een alread presented, no otherfurther pleading on the part of prosecutor is necessar

). Commence # prosecutor # filing with the court an information(such information is the process which institutes the action andprosecution proceeds upon it as $eople’s pleading!

F. hen preliminar investigation is re6uired (%ection ', &ule '')!,criminal action must #e instituted # first filing the correspondingcomplaint with the proper officer for purposes of preliminarinvestigation.

=ote5 $reliminar investigation is re6uired. 23cept where the accused is underarrest (penalt for the offense must at least #e for our ears, two months andone da, without regard to the fine!.

. here offense falls under the jurisdiction of the "/C, "C/C

(penalt is less than ears, ) months and ' da!, action ma #einstituted through a complaint or information filed directl withsaid courts or with the office of pu#lic prosecutor.

=ote5 23ception5 1n manila and other chartered cities where action is ALA8%commenced # a complaint filed in the officer of the prosecutor, unless thecharter provided otherwise.

"eaning o GProer $icerH&efers to officers authori7ed to conduct the re6uired to conduct the re6uisitepreliminar investigation5

'. provincial or cit prosecutors and their assistants

). judges of the municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts

F. national and regional state prosecutors

. other officers authori7ed # the courts.=ote5 /heir authorit to conduct $1 shall include all crimes cogni7a#le #the proper curt in their respective jurisdiction

1nterruption of prescriptive period

'. B filing the criminal action either # complaint or information forpreliminar investigation or trial on the merit unless provided #special laws.

). /his true even if the court where the complaint or information isfiled cannot tr the case on merits.

*ena *. *erga ,;




F. &eason5 /he mistake of the prosecutor in filing a compliant shouldnot operate to prejudice the interest of the state to prosecutecriminal offenses.

=ote5 /his rule does not appl to violations of municipal ordinances andspecial laws.1nstitution vs. Commencement

!nstitution CommencementB filing of complaint withthe appropriate officer forpreliminar investigation

9pon filing of criminalaction in court

S%CT!$N ,D T?e comlaint or inormationThe complaint or information shall %e in writing+ in the name of the

People of the Philippines against all persons who appear to %eresponsi%le for the offense involved,

A. =ecessit of formal accusation/his re6uirement cannot #e waived #ecause no criminal proceeding can #e#rought or instituted until a formal charge is openl made against the accused# complaint or information.B. orm

'. Accusation must #e in writingox e'issa volat litera scripta 'anet (the spoken word flies; written letterremains!.

). Accusation must #e in the name of the people.1rrespective of the mode # which the criminal proceeding is to #e commenced,the action must #e under the name of the $eople, whose peace in legal theorhas #een #reached.

(a) &ationale5 /o prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions #private individuals (3hua8Burce vs" 3A!.

(b) owever, a criminal action instituted in the name of theoffended part or of a particular cit, although erroneous, ma

not #e 6uashed for the defect is merel in form (3ity of &anilavs" Ri6al ! which ma #e cured at an stage of the trial ( -goao /it vs" heriff of &anila!

=ote5 1f there is a mistake in jurisdiction, the private complainant, who hasinterest in the civil aspect of the case! ma 6uestion jurisdiction. 1n doing so,the action should not #e in the name of the $eople #ut in his name ( Bernandovs" 3A!.

F. Accusation must #e against all persons responsi#le for the offense/his is demanded # the sound pu#lic polic, which would deprive prosecutingofficers to use their discretion in order to shield relatives and friends.owever, the matter of determining whether the evidence is sufficient to

justif a reasona#le #elief that a person has committed an offense still lies inthe prosecuting officer.=ote5 1f for an reason the fiscal failed to include the name of one or morecriminals in the information, such persons are not relieved of penal lia#ilit norescape penal lia#ilit just #ecause it develops in the course of the trial thatthere were other guilt participants in the crime (%eople vs" 3atli !.

Corollar rule5 /he e3ercise of judgment and discretion of prosecuting officerma not #e controlled # mandamus (on7ales vs. %errano! for where the lawdemands that all persons who appear responsi#le for an offense shall #echarged in the information, it also implies that those against whom nosufficient evidence e3ist are not to #e included in the charge; and thedetermination of whether or not there is, as against an person, sufficientevidence of guilt to warrant his prosecution necessaril involves the e3ercise ofdiscretion # the prosecuting officer.

. 23ceptions to the rule that fiscals cannot #e compelled #mandamus (su#ject to judicial review in proper cases!

here from the evidence su#mitted and gathered # the prosecutingofficer a person appearing responsi#le for the commission of an offense isnot included in the information (de 3astro vs" 3astaneda!

SECTI"# .: Complaint defined Complaint is sworn written statement charging a person with an offensesu#scri#ed # the offended part, an peace officer or other pu#lic officercharged with the enforcement of the law violated.

A. $erson authori7ed to file a complaint (e3haustive list!'. T?e oended art

(a! Definition5 person against whom or against whose propertthe crime was committed.

(#! &ationale5('! in principle, the declaration of the criminal lia#ilit carries

with it the declaration of the resulting civil o#ligation.()! /here are crimes which cannot #e prosecuted other than

at the formal instance of the person injured.(c! /he right however, to file a criminal complaint is personal. 1t is

a#ated upon complainants death and intransmissi#le to hisheirs.

). a eace oicer$ersons who are competent to file a criminal complaint (law enforcement,agents of =B1 etc.!F. a u=lic oicer c?arged it? t?e enorcement o t?e la

violated.

*ena *. *erga ,<




23. 1nternal revenue agents, customs agents etc.

B. Complaint ma #e filed with the court or the office of the fiscal.9nlike an information, a complaint need not necessaril #e filed with the courtand ma therefore #e laid #efore the Cit iscal for investigation.

C. Lack of oath is not a fatal defect

D. iling of complaint does not re6uire mediation of prosecutor.

/hus, lack of mediation of prosecuting attorne is not a ground for dismissal ofcomplaint (/rinidad vs" Jarabe!2. hen complaint is not re6uired.

'. hen the offense is one which cannot #e prosecuted de oficio(must #e #rought at the instance of and upon complain e3presslfiled # the offended part I those enumerated in /itle H1, Book 11of &$C I adulter, concu#inage, seduction, a#duction or acts oflasciviousness, including defamation!.

). when offense is private in natureF. where it pertains those cases which need to #e endorsed #

specific pu#lic officers (e3. those concerning immigration that isunder the e3clusive jurisdiction of the Commission on1mmigration!.

=ote5 the right to commence criminal prosecution is confined torepresentatives of the government and persons injured; otherwise, it shall #edismissed.

F. General rule5 Criminal $rosecutions cannot #e enjoined$u#lic interest calls that writs of injunction or prohi#ition to restrain a criminalprosecution are generall not availa#le23ceptions5 when the writ is necessar5

(a! or orderl administration of justice and to avoid multiplicitof suits

(#! hen there is a prejudicial 6uestion(c! /o afford ade6uate protection to constitutional rights of the

accused(d! here the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or

regulation(e! hen dou#le jeopard(f! here court has no jurisdiction over the offense(g! here it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution(h! here the charges are manifestl false and motivated # the

lust for vengeance(i! hen there is clearl no prima facie case against the accused

and a motion to 6uash on the ground has #een denied.

(j! hen acts of officer are without or in e3cess of authorit(k! /o prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.

!!. +uridical person cannot #e impleaded in the accusation1n cases of corporation, the officer through whim the corporation acts, answerscriminall for his acts.

SECTI"# /: Information defined An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,su#scri#ed # the prosecutor and filed with the court.

B. Complaint vs. 1nformationBoth are written accusation of the commission of a criminal offense.Difference5

Comlainant !normation%igned # the offended part, anpeace officer or other pu#lic officercharged with the enforcement of thelaw violated.

%igned # the fiscal or an authori7edprosecuting officer.

%worn to # the person signing it =eed not e under oath since theprosecuting officer filling it ischarged with the special dut inregard thereto and is acting underthe special responsi#ilit of his oathof office.

"a #e filed either with the fiscal’soffice or the court

Alwas filed with the court.

=ote5 where the accused underwent preliminar investigation pursuant to%ection '(d! of $D '', the certification must #e under oath.An information not properl signed cannot #e cured # silence or even e3pressconsent.C. $ersons authori7ed to filed information

'. cit or provincial prosecutor and their assistants). dul appointed special prosecutorsF. a lawer appointed # the secretar of +ustice (pursuant to

%ection '-- of the &evised Administrative Code!.

SECTI"# 0: 1ho must prosecute criminal actions All criminal actions either commenced %y complaint or %y information shall %e prosecuted under the direction and control of a pu%lic prosecutor, In case of heavy wor2 schedule of the pu%lic prosecutor+or in the event of lac2 of pu%lic prosecutors+ the private prosecutormay %e authori3ed in writing %y the Chief of the prosecutor office orthe *egional state Prosecutor to prosecute the case su%4ect to the

*ena *. *erga 40




approval of the court, "nce so authori3ed to prosecute the criminalaction+ the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case upto the end of the trial even in the a%sence of a pu%lic prosecutor+unless the authority is revo2ed or otherwise withdrawn,

The crimes of adultery and concu%inage shall not %e prosecuted e$cept

upon a complaint filed %y the offended spouse, The offended partycannot institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties+ if %oth are alive not+ in any case+ if the offended party hasconsented to the offense or pardoned the offenders,

The offenses of seduction+ a%duction and acts of lasciviousness shall

not %e prosecuted e$cept upon a complaint filed %y the offended partyor her parents+ grandparents or guardian+ not+ in any case+ if the

offender has %een e$pressly pardoned %y any of them, If the offended party denies or %ecomes incapacitated %efore she can file thecomplaint+ and she has no 2nown parents+ grandparents+ or guardian+the state shall initiate the criminal action in her %ehalf,

The offended party+ even if a minor+ has the right to initiate the

prosecution of the offenses of seduction+ a%duction and acts oflasciviousness independently of her parents+ grandparents+ or

guardians+ unless she is incompetent or incapa%le of doing so, 1herethe offended party+ who is a minor+ fails to file the complaint+ her

parents+ grandparents+ or guardian may file the same, The right to filethe action granted to parents+ grandparents+ or guardians shall %ee$clusive of all other persons and shall %e e$ercised successively inthe order herein provided+ e$cept as stated in the preceding

paragraph,

=o criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of an of theoffenses mentioned a#ove shall #e #rought e3cept at the instance of and uponcomplaint filed # the offended part.

The prosecution for violation of special laws %e governed %y the provisions thereof,

A. eneral rule5 all criminal actions either commenced # complaint or #information shall #e prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal./he right of the offended part to institute the criminal prosecution or thecommission of a pu#lic offense ceases upon the filing of the complaint in court,the fiscal taking charge of the prosecution of the suit in the name of the $eopleuntil the termination of the case.B. "otion to dismiss case in court should #e addressed to the discretion of

the trial court

&ule5 here the information has alread #een filed in court, the court steps inand takes control of the case until the same is finall disposed of, so that thefiscal has no more control over it.=ote5 1f court refuses to dismiss the case at the instance of the fiscal, theleast the fiscal can do is continue appearing for the prosecution and then turnover the presentation of evidence to another fiscal or a private prosecutor

su#ject to his supervision and control.C. hen prosecution ma #e controlled # a person other than the pu#licprosecutor

$rivate prosecutor, in case of heav load, with authori7ation in writing # theChief of the $rosecution 4ffice of the &egional %tate $rosecutor to prosecutethe case su#ject to the approval of the prosecutor (ma #e withdrawn!.

=ote5 /here is no need for pu#lic prosecutor to give his authori7ation unlessthe written authorit re6uires it. /he written authorit must #e clear especiallwhen it covers plea #argaining, amendment of the information or the dismissalof the case.

owever, the private prosecutor5

1. 1s not entitled to #e served with copies of the pleadings as a

matter of right since a notice of the court to the fiscal is a noticeto the prosecutor (ese vs" &ontesa!. =ote however that failureto serve pleadings and orders upon government counsel rendersthe court orders issued upon such such petitions or motions of anaccused as void.

). Cannot make a stand inconsistent with the state.F. Cannot appeal from an order dismissing the case on motion of the

fiscal.. "a not continue to take part in the proceeding after the death of

the offended part since the latter is the principal and the privateprosecutor, merel an agent.

D. 23clusive right of the %olicitor eneral to handle criminal cases in the

Court of Appeals and the %upreme Court.1t is onl the %olicitor general that is authori7ed to #ring and defend action in#ehalf of the $eople of &epu#lic of the $hilippines once the case is #rought#efore the %upreme Court or CA in cases concerning5

'. writs of error). petition for reviewF. automatic appeal. special civil actions where the $eople of the $hilippines

23ception5 cases elevated in the %upreme Court # wa of petition for reviewagainst decisions or final orders of the %andigan#aan, it is the 4ffice of the

*ena *. *erga 41




4m#udsman through its %pecial $rosecutor, which shall represent the $eople ofthe $hilippines.

E. Control of $rosecution and Control of Court

Control =y rosecution Control o Court once case is iled

hat case to file

hom to prosecute "anner of prosecution &ight of prosecution to withdraw

information #efore arraignmenteven without notice and hearing

%uspension of Arraignment

&einvestigation $rosecution # iscal Downgrading 4ffense or dropping

of accused even #efore pea Dismissal

F. Limitations on Control of Court'. $rosecution entitled to notice and hearing). Court must alwas result of petition for reviewF. $rosecution’Os stand to maintain prosecution should #e respected

# the court. 9ltimate test of court’s independence is where fiscal files a motion

to dismiss or withdraw informationG. Court has authorit to review %ecretar’s recommendation and

reject it if there is grave a#use of discretion.-. /o reject or grant motion to dismiss court must make own

independent assessment of evidence*. +udgment is void if there is no independent assessment and

finding of grave a#use of discretion.G. 1ntervention of the aggrieved part (a matter of right!&ule5 Aggrieved part ma intervene #ecause5

'. the declaration of the criminal l ia#ilit carries with it thedeclaration of resulting civil o#ligation and

). there are crimes which cannot #e prosecuted other than at theformal instance of the person injured.

23ception5

'. /he accused pleaded guilt #efore the commencement of the trial). 4ffended part waives the right to the civil action or e3pressl

reserves his right to institute it after the terminal of the criminalaction.

F. 4ffense is one of those, which do not necessaril produce civillia#ilit.

Corollar &ule5 /he aggrieved part is prevented from dictating to the fiscal asto the conduct of the case since government prosecution must alwas #e underthe control of the fiscal (he ma not appeal an order of dismissal # the courtentered upon motion of the fiscal since to permit him would #e tantamount togiving said part a right to control the criminal proceeding :: Gon6ales vs" 3:1 !.

H. $rosecution of a private crime (enumerated in /itle H1, Book 11 of &$Cand defamation! comple3ed with a pu#lic offense

here one of the component is a private crime and the other a pu#lic offense,the fiscal ma initiate the proceeding de oficio.

&ationale5 %ince one of the component offenses is a pu#lic crime, the latter

should prevail, pu#lic interest #eing alwas paramount to private interest.

*ules:'. =o crime of adulter and concu#inage shall #e prosecuted e3cept

upon a complaint filed # the offended part. 4ffended spousecannot instituted criminal prosecution without including #oth theguilt parties and if heshe consented or pardoned the offenders.

=ote5 #igam is an offense against civil status, which ma #e prosecuted atthe instance of the state.

). Crime of seduction, a#duction and acts of lasciviousness shall not#e prosecuted e3cept upon a complaint filed # the offendedpart, or her parents, grandparents or guardians (mandatorre6uirement!.

3. 1f the offended part dies or #ecomes incapacitated #efore she

was a#le to file the complaint and she has no known parents,grandparents or guardians, the state shall initiate the action in her#ehalf, pursuant to the doctrine of %ARE- %A/R1AE .

. =o criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputationof a private crime can #e #rought e3cept at the instance of andupon complaint # the offended part.

5. Defamation which consists in the imputation of a pu#lic crime (e3.$rostitution! can #e prosecuted de oficio"

SECTI"# 5: Sufficiency of complaint or informationA complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, thedesignation of the offense given # the statute; the acts or omissionscomplained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended part; that

appro3imate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where theoffense was committed.

1hen an offense is committed %y more than one person+ all of them shall %e included in the complaint or information,

!. $urpose of the rule

'. to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst him

). to notif the defendant of the criminal acts imputed to him so thathe can dul prepare his defense

B. /est of sufficienc

*ena *. *erga 4,




/he complaint or information must set out5'. the names of the accused

). the designation of the crime charged

F. the acts complained of as constituting the crime in ordinar andconcise language

. the offense committed within the jurisdiction of the court

G. the name of the offended part

/wo criteria in measuring sufficienc5'. whether the indictment contains the elements of the offense

intended to #e charged and sufficientl apprises the defendant ofwhat he must #e prepared to meet.

). whether the records show with accurac to what e3tent he maplead a former ac6uittal or conviction (in case an proceedings aretaken against him for a similar offense!

F. 1t is the num#er of acts charged and not counts that is controlling.G. Defects in the complainteneral &ule5 an defect in the accusation other than lack of jurisdiction ma#e cured # good and sufficient evidence.

23ception5 %u#stantial defects cannot #e cured # evidence for such would jeopardi7e the accused’s right to #e informed of the true nature of the offensehe is #eing charged with.

S%CT!$N :D Name o t?e accusedThe complaint or information must state the name and surname of theaccused or any appellation or nic2name %y which he has %een or is2nown, If his name cannot %e ascertained+ he must %e descri%edunder a fictitious name with a statement that his true name isun2nown,

If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed %y him or

appears in some other manner to the court+ such true name shall %e

inserted in the complaint or information and record,

A. &ationale/o make a specific identification of the person to whom the commission of anoffense is #eing imputed and to preclude the possi#ilit of having a wrongperson apprehended and #rought to trial while in the meantime the real culpritgoes scot free.

B. 2rror in name is not reversi#le as long as his identit is sufficientlesta#lished (%eople vs" Ra'os!. /his defect is cura#le at an stage of theproceeding.

SECTI"# 6 7esignation of offenses/he complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given #the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specif its6ualifing and aggravating circumstance. 1f there is no designation of theoffense, defense shall #e made to the section or su#section of the statute

punishing it.

A, *ationaleThe accused has a right to %e informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation to give him opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly' Peole vs. Purisima).

8, The designation of the offense is not mandatory

The accusation is good so long as the facts are alleged and set out in such a manner as to ena%le a person of common understanding to2now what is intended+ and the court to pronounce 4udgmentaccording to right,

A complaint is sufficient if it descri%es the offense in the language of

the statue+ if the statute contains all of the essential elementsconstituting the particular offense,

There is no law which re)uires that in order that an accused may %econvicted+ the specific provision which penali3es the act charged %ementioned in the information,

General Rule: -ere deficiency in form 'erroneous classification of an

act+ mista2e in caption of indictment etc( is not fatal and may %e curedat any stage %ecause it is the facts alleged therein that determines the

nature of the crime,

%2C/14= 5 Cause of accusation

/he acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the6ualifing and aggravating circumstances must #e stated in ordinar andconcise language and not necessaril in the language used in the statute #ut interms sufficient to ena#le a person of common understanding to know whatoffense is #eing charged as well as its 6ualifing and aggravatingcircumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

A, *ationaleThe constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions+ theaccused shall %e informed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst him,

*ena *. *erga 44




8, Clarity of allegations re)uired 'no need to follow the language ofthe statute(

'. to ena%le a person of common understanding to 2now whatoffense is intended to %e charged

). to ena%le the court to pronounce proper 4udgment,

C, A complaint or information is not defective simply %ecause itcontains irrelevant or evidentiary matters,

7, Every element must %e alleged,'. -atters of evidence as distinguished from the facts

essential to the description of the offense need not %e

averred, All that is re)uired is that the offense charged %e set forth with particularity as will ena%le a person to prepare his defense,

). Elements of the offense must %e in the %ody of theinformation

7, Allegations in comple$ crimes Allegations contained therein do not necessarily have to charge acomple$ crime as defined %y law, It is sufficient that the information

contains allegations+ which state that one offense was a necessarymeans to commit the other ' Peole vs. Alagao ( otherwise+ thecomplaint or information charges two crimes or offenses independentfrom one another ' Parulan vs. odas (,E, 7efect in complaint or information

An accused person cannot %e convicted of any offense+ unless it is

charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried+ ornecessarily included therein, 1here the information does not state all

the essential facts and ingredients of the crime+ the accusation cannot stand ' Sugay vs. Pamaran (,F, #egative allegations and E$ceptions*ule: If a statute e$empts certain persons+ or classes of persons fromlia%ility+ the complaint should show that the person charged does not

%elong to the class ' '.S. vs. Pomeya (,G. 7efendant cannot %e convicted of an offense graver than that

alleged or an offense of which he has not %een informed no matter

how conclusive the evidence of guilt may %e ' Peole vs. Austria (,H. Allegations of aggravating and )ualifying circumstances must %e

alleged in the complaint or information otherwise+ they cannot %e properly appreciated ' Peole vs. 3ano (,

#ote: 1hile circumstances which were not specifically alleged in theinformation may not aggravate the crime+ insofar as the civil aspect ofthe case is concerned they may %e considered to determine e$emplarydamages in accordance with Article 99. of the Civil Code,

%2C/14= '5 $lace of commission of the offense/he complaint or information is sufficient if it can #e understood from itsallegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredientsoccurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particularplace where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offensecharged or is necessar for its identification.

A, *ationaleThis provision serves dou%le purpose:

'. Sufficiency of allegation informs the defendant of the

nature and cause of the accusation and

). Fi$es the 4urisdiction and venue,

8, Allegation of specific place It is not re)uired+ save in certain instances+ that the complaint orinformation state with particularity the place where the crime wascommitted, *e)uirement is satisfied when it was alleged that theoffense occurred at some place within the 4urisdiction of the court,

E$ceptions:The place need %e averred:

'. when the place of the commission of the offenseconstitutes an essential element of the offense 'e$, ro%%eryin an inha%ited house+ pu%lic worship etc,(

). where the offense charged is the doing of an unlicensed act

and the e$act location is essential to individuate theoffense 'e$, violation of a 3oning ordinance(

%2C/14= ''5 Date of commission of the offense1t is not necessar to state in the complaint or information the precise date theoffense was committed e3cept when it is a material ingredient of the offense./he offense ma #e alleged to have #een committed on a date as near aspossi#le to the actual date of its commission.

A, !eneral *ule1hen time is not an element of the offense+ the precise time atwhich the offense is charged to have %een committed is notmaterial, ;owever+ this rule does not authori3e the total omissionof a date or such an indefinite allegation,

#ote: It is important that the act should %e alleged as having %eencommitted at some time %efore the filing of the complaint or

information,8, E$ception

1hen time is a material ingredient of the offense charged+ it %ecomesmandatory to allege the same with precision or particularity 'e$,offense is infanticide < 2illing of a child less than three days old(,

*ena *. *erga 4




%2C/14= ')5 =ame of the offended part/he complaint or information must state the name and surname of the personagainst whom or against whose propert the offense was committed, or anappellation or nickname # which such person has #een or is known. 1f thereis no #etter wa of identifing him, he must #e descri#ed under a fictitiousname.(a! 1n offense against propert, if the name of the offended part is

unknown, the propert must #e descri#ed with such particularit as toproperl identif the offense charged.

(#! 1f the true name of the person against whom or against whosepropert the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed orascertained, the court must cause such true name to #e inserted inthe complaint or information and the record.

(c! 1f the offended part is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state itsname, or an name or designation # which it is known or # which itma #e identified., without need of averring that it is a juridical personor that it is organi7ed in accordance with law.

General Rule

#ame of the party should %e alleged in the complaint especially incrimes against property where ownership must %e alleged a matteressential to the description of the offense, This is also true in thecase of defamation cases,

%2C/14= 'F5 Duplicit of offensesA complaint or information must charge onl one offense, e3cept when the lawprescri#es a single punishment for various offenses.

A, 7efinition

7uplicity is the 4oinder of two or more distinct and separate offense inthe same count of an indictment or information, A complaint orinformation is duplicitous if it charges two or more different offenses,

8, !eneral rule: Complaint or information must charge only oneoffense,C, Test of duplicity Test should not %e depended upon the evidence presented at the trial%ut upon the facts alleged in the information,E$ceptions:

the right under this provision may %e waived when accused failsto o%4ect to the multiplicity of crimes,

Comple$ crimes 'a single act constitutes two or more grave orless grave felonies(

Special comple$ crimes

Continuous crimes or delito continuado 'a single crimeconsisting of a series of acts arising from a singleintent,

Crimes suscepti%le of %eing committed in various modesCrimes of which another offense is an ingredient,

%2C/14= '5 Amendment or su#stitutionA complaint or information ma #e amended, in form or in su#stance, withoutleave of court, at an time #efore the accused enters his plea. After the pleaand during the trial, a formal amendment ma onl #e made with leave ofcourt and when it can #e done without causing prejudice to the rights of theaccused.

owever, an amendment #efore plea, which downgrades the nature of theoffense charged in or e3cludes an accused from one complaint or information,can #e made onl upon motion # the prosecutor, with notice to the offendedpart and with leave of court. /he court shall state its reasons in resolving themotion and copies of its order shall #e furnished all parties, especiall theoffended part.

1f it appears at an time #efore judgment that a mistake has #een made incharging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complainant orinformation upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense inaccordance with section ', &ule '', provided the accused shall not #e placedin dou#le jeopard. /he court ma re6uire the witnesses to give #ail for theirappearance at the trial

CAS%S

##%N%S *S. &!C&!CAN.&. =o. ')))*G F' +ul '-

&octrineD T?e rule t?at iling o comlaint it? iscalIs oice interrutst?e rescrition o t?e oense c?arged also alies to cases iled it?t?e $m=udsman or reliminary !nvestigation.

acts5 4n 4cto#er 'F, 'F, >ivian inete, then 41C of the $hsical 2ducationand %chool %ports Division of the regional 4ffice of region >11 in Ce#u (D2C%!filed a complaint for grave an doral defamation with the deput 4m#udsmandfor the >isaas against %usan Llenes, an 2ducation %upervisor 11 of the sameoffice.

*ena *. *erga 45




/he information was filed with the "/C on )0 "arch ' uponrecommendation and approval of the investigation officer and the citprosecutor respectivel.

$etitioner filed a motion to 6uash the information on the ground that theoffense of grave oral defamation prescri#ed in - months and that since theinformation was filed - months and das after the alleged commission, thecrime alread prescri#ed.

$rivate respondent contends that &ule '' of the &ules of court provides thatfor offenses not su#ject to ther ile on summar procedure, the filing of thecomplaint in "/C or "/C/ interrupt the period of prescription of the offensecharged.

/he motion to 6uash was denied # the "/C and said decision was affirmed #the &/C, hence this petition.

1ssue5 = the filing of a criminal complaint with the 4m#udsman interruptsthe prescription period.

Decision5 8es. 1n the case of $eople vs. 4larte, it was said that the filing of thecomplaint with the "/C even for purposes of preliminar investigation onlsuspends the running of the prescriptive period. /his decision was further#roadened # the case of rancisco vs. CA where the court reiterated that thefiling of the complaint in the fiscal’s office for preliminar investigation alsosuspends the running of the prescriptive period.

/he constitution vests upon the om#udsman powers to initiate or conductpreliminar investigations in criminal cases filed against pu#lic officers oremploees. /he 4m#udsman:>isaas then has authorit to conduct preliminarinvestigation of the private respondent’s complaint against Llenes. /herationale of the 4larte and rancisco cases must then #e applied to the presentcase. %ince the complaint was filed on ') 4cto#er 'F, or #arel ) das

from the commission of the crime charged, the filing of the information wasver well within the si3 moth prescriptive period.

/he petition was dismissed.

!N3C$ *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN.&. =o. '))G0 )F "a '*

&octrineD T?e rule t?at iling o comlaint it? iscalIs oice interrutst?e rescrition o t?e oense c?arged also alies to cases iled it?t?e $m=udsman or reliminary !nvestigation.

acts5 $=B >ice $resident Domingo 1ngco was charged on "a )-, '0* alongwith top officials of Cresta "onte %hipping Corporation # the $=B #efore the$residential Blue &i##on Committee for violation of &A F' (Anti:raft andCorrupt $ractices Act!. /he matter was referred at once to the 4m#udsman.

1n '** and '*0, 1ngco allegedl conspired with officials of Cresta for theimmediate grant of loans amounting to K'F." for the purchase of cargovessels under grossl disadvantageous terms and conditions prejudicial to the$=B (e.i, loan approval without project feasi#ilit, notwithstanding the adversecomments of the credit department on this particular loan!.

An information was filed with the %andigan#aan on )' +ul 'F. $etitionersmoved to 6uash the information on the ground of prescription #ut the samewas denied # the %andigan#aan, hence this petition.

1ssue5 = the offense alread prescri#ed

Decision5 /he prescription period for the offense allegedl committed # 1ngcois ten ears. Although more than ten ears have elapsed from the time of thealleged commission of the offense on %eptem#er '** and "arch '*0 to the

date of the filing of the information on )' +ul 'F, the prescriptive periodhas #een effectivel suspended # the filing of the complaint on )- "a '0*with the 4m#udsman.

Appling the case of 4larte and rancisco, the complaint filed on )- "a '0*#efore the 4m#udsman is deemed to have tolled the running of theprescriptive period. /hus, the filing of the information on )' +ul 'F iswithin the ten:ear prescriptive period.

P%$P#% *S. %%S.&. =o. *))-:)* )* +ul '0

&octrineD Civil #a rules on rescrition is alica=le to criminal cases

acts5 %pouses +ulio &i7are and $atricia $ampo owned a parcel of land in LipaCit. /he were survived # their children, the accused "i7pah &ees and thecomplaints Cristina "asikat, +ulieta >ergara and Aurora >da de 2#ue7a.

4n +une '0F, complainant discovered from the records of the &egister ofDeeds of Lipa Cit that the said propert was alread transferred to "i7pah&ees and that the signature of their parents in the sale was falsified. /he =B1found that the said signatures were forged. Conse6uentl, two informationsfor falsification of pu#lic document and for making an untruthful statement offact in the deed of sale were filed on '0 4cto#er '0. /he crime offalsification prescri#es in ' ears and commences to run ?from the da on

*ena *. *erga 4




which the crime was discovered # the offended part, the authorities or theiragents (Article ', &$C!.

Before the arraignment, the accused filed a motion to 6uash on the ground ofprescription and non:compliance with the pre:conciliation re6uirement. /hetrial court granted the same which was later on affirmed # the CA, hence thisappeal.

1ssue5 = the offense alread prescri#ed

Decision5 here a notarial document recorded with the &egistr of Deeds wassought to #e annulled, the court, interpreting the phrase ?from the time ofdiscover@ found in the provisions of the civil code, ruled that in legalcontemplation, discover must #e reckoned to have taken place fro the timethe document was registered in the &egister of Deeds, for the rules is that&21%/&A/14= 1% A =4/1C2 /4 /2 4L2 4&LD.

/he court will not hesitant to appl the rules of construction in civil cases in theinterpretation of criminal statues of the factual and legal circumstances sowarrant especiall if it is favora#le to the accused.

1n the case at #at, the deed of sale was registered on )- "a '-'. /hecriminal actions having #een filed onl on 4cto#er '0, '0, or more than tenears from "a )-, '-', the crime for which the accused was charged hasprescri#ed.

/here was no error in the decision of the CA.

N3$ A$ T!T AN& C7!A %N3 C7%N3 *S. S7%!++ $+ "AN!#A.&. =o. -' and -) )0 "arch ''

&octrineD A mere deect or error cura=le at any stage o t?e actiondoes not derive t?e court o t?e oer to ronounce a valid Judgment

and imose a valid sentence.acts5 Before the court is an application for the writ of ha#eas corpus.$etitioners were charged of visiting a house (A Chinese Clu#! where opium wassmoked in violation of %ection F of 4rdinance =o. 'G). /he accused allegedthat there was no crime committed since there was no evidence that the livedin that place since the were emploed # the clu# as clerk, cashier, collectorand cook. /he also contend that the case should have #een in the name ofthe 9nited %tates and not in the cit of "anila. /he action having #eenwrongl entitled, the court ac6uired no jurisdiction of the person or the su#jectmatter of the action, makings its decision void.

1ssue5 = the court has jurisdiction to tr the case.

Decision5 1t is not a jurisdictional defect and one which deprives the trial courtof its authorit to tr, convict, and pass sentence, that a criminal action is#rought in the name of the cit of "anila instead of the 9nited %tates. /hatfact constitutes a mere defect or error cura#le at an stage of the action doesnot deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and imposea valid sentence. 4ffenses committed in the $hilippines are crimes against thepeople of the $hilippines.

&%# $SA!$ *S. *&A &% "%CA&$.&. =o L:)G*' )0 August '-

&octrineD A ido may =e considered an oended arty it?in t?emeaning o t?e alica=le rule o court entitled to ile a comlaint ort?e murder o ?er ?us=and.

acts5 A6uilino del &osario, +r and A6uilino %r.. were confined on the municipal jail in La 9nion as of +ul '', '-G until the filing of a petition for ha#eascorpus. /he former was detained #ased on a criminal complaint for murder

filed # the widow. Del &osario contends that the complaint is null since thewidow was not authori7ed to file the same, she #eing merel the heir of theoffended part and not the offended part herself. Conse6uentl, his warrantof arrest is also void, hence his confinement should #e declared as ar#itrarand unlawful./he lower court sustained the writ, hence this petition.

1ssue5 = a widow ma #e considered as an offended part

Decision5 A widow ma #e considered an offended art within the meaning ofthe applica#le rule of court entitled to file a complaint for the murder of herhus#and. /he injur to the widow I loss of right and consortium and material

support I should #e sufficient to consider her an offended part within themeaning of the &ules of Court provision. A contrar holding is likel to #eattended with deplora#le conse6uences.

P%$P#% *S. AC!##A.&. =o. ''-)F* 'G "a '-

&octrineD T?e a=sence o a rosecutor cannot =e raised =y an accusedto invalidate t?e testimony o a state itness i ?e cannot roveersonal reJudice.

*ena *. *erga 4:




acts5 /he accused e Arcilla Corejo and victim Antonio Arcillal weremarried. Antonio developed an illicit affair with Lilia Lipio. During thisamorous union, Antonio and Lilia had two children. hen e learned of thisinfidelit, he went to Al#a and looked for Antonio. A fight #etween themensued which resulted in e sta##ing Antonio with a fan knife which led to hisdeath. /he accused contends that she was merel protecting herself when shesta##ed Antonio. e was charged with parricide #efore the &/C of Daraga,Al#a which found her guilt. /he court did not give credence to the testimonof the accused.

1ssue5 = the trial court erred in admitting the testimon of Lilia Lipiodespite the a#sence of a pu#lic prosecutor in the taking thereof

Decision5 /he presence of a pu#lic prosecutor in th trial of crimnal cases isnecessar to protect vital state interests at stae in the prosuction of crimes,foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of law. As therepresentative of the state, the pu#lic prosecutor has a right and dut to takeall steps to protect the rights of the people in the trial of the accused. 1t oughtto #e self:evident that the right #elongs to the pu#lic prosecutor and not to theaccused. /he a#sence of a prosecutor cannot therefore #e raised # an

accused to invalidate the testimon of a state witness if she cannot provepersonal prejudice as in the case at #ar.

Decision of the trial court was affirmed.

SANC7%6 *S. &%"%T!$'))* %C&A -)* =ovem#er 'F

acts5 %ee previous notes

Decision5 As a general rule, the prosecutor cannot #e compelled to include inthe information a person against whom he #elieves no sufficient evidence ofguilt e3ists. hile the prosecuting officer is re6uired # law to charge all those

who, in his opinion, appear to #e guilt, he nevertheless cannot #e compelledto include in the information a person against whom he #elieves no sufficientevidence e3ists.

/he possi#le e3ception to this rule is where there is unmistaka#le showing if agrave a#use of discretion that will justif judicial intrusion into the precints ofthe e3ecutive. But in such a case, the proper remed to call for such e3ceptionis a petition for mandamus, not certiorari or prohi#ition. "oreover, #eforeresorting to this relief, the part seeking the inclusion of another person as aco:accused in the same case must first avail itself of other ade6uate remediessuch as the filing of a motion for such inclusion.

D1"A/9LAC >%. >1LL4=)* %C&A -* ('0!

acts5 %$4F Dimatulac was said to have spoken against "aor 8a#ut thus, on=ovem#er F, 'G, the accused, led # the maor went to "asantol,$ampanga for the purpose of killing the victim. &iding a truck, the first wentto the "unicipal all and then to the house of "asantol’s maor. inall, thecruised to Dimatulac’s place. hen the got there, some of the accusedpositioned themselves around the house while the leader of the pack, themaor, staed in the truck protected # the love of his #odguard. %ome of theaccused went inside the house to ask Dimatulac to go down to apologi7e to themaor. 2nticed # the invitation, Dimatulac went down. But as he descended,he was shot # a certain Dann. is son $eter $aul was unsure who of theaccused shot his father #ut he was sure it was someone from the part whowent to their house. Before Dimatulac e3pired, he was a#le to point at thepart of 8a#ut as the ones responsi#le.

+udge David issued warrants of arrest for the accused after finding pro#a#lecause that a crime of murder has #een committed. owever, even #efore theaccused was #rought into the custod of the law, $ampanga Assistant

$rosecutor Alfonso:lores conducted a reinvestigation" 1n a resolution dated+anuar '-, lores found that the 8a#uts and assailant Dann, e3cluding allthe other accused, were in conspirac for the offense of ?omicide, and notmurder as concluded # +udge David. /his finding was #ased on lores’conclusion that although there was treacher, the assailant did not consciousladopt the position of the victim at the time he fired the shot. e alsorecommended a #ail of $hp ), for all the accused. An information forhomicide was filed # lores against the accused.

Before the filing of the said information, Dimatulacs appealed the lores’resolution to the D4+ %ecretar. lores was given a cop of this appeal and ethe still filed the information. /he 8a#uts, contended that the pendenc of theappeal to the D4+ %ecretar was not a ground to defer arraignment, and that

the Dimatulacs should have filed the motion to defer with the office of the$rovincial $rosecutor or sought from the D4+ %ecretar an order directing the$rovincial $rosecutor to defer the filing of the information in court. /heprosecution also filed a petition with the CA to enjoin +udge &oura of the &/Cfrom proceeding with the arraignment. =evertheless, &oura voluntarilinhi#ited himself and was replaced # +udge >illon.

Despite the fact that an appeal in the D4+ was on:going, +ustice >illonproceeded with the arraignment where the accused pleaded not guilt saingthat the 8a#uts has a right to a speed trial and that the petitioners did noto#tain conformit of the prosecutor #efore the filed the motion to defer theproceedings considering that the case should #ut under the control of the

*ena *. *erga 4;




prosecution. +ustice %ecretar uingona resolved the appeal in favor of thepetitioners saing that the crime must #e murder and not just homicide e#asicall said that the crime must #e murder and not just homicide. ith thisdevelopment, the Dimatulacs through an e3:parte manifestation called theattention of the &/C to the D4+ ruling. /he 8a#ut’s opposed this, saing thatthe would #e placed in dou#le jeopard. Later, the D4+ %ecretar set aside hisorder to amend the information from homicide to murder as this was alreadrendered moot # the arraignment. &/C +udge >illon denied the motion to setaside arraignment. ence, this petition for Certiorari$rohi#ition and"andamus.

1ssue5 = the prosecutor was wrong in ('! opening a reinvestigationconsidering that even if the warrants of arrest were issued, the accused stillwere not #rought under the custod and ()! filing the information for homicidedespite knowledge of the appeal to the %ecretar of +ustice.

= +udge >illon acted in e3cess of jurisdiction for dening themotions to set aside the arraignment considering that the pendenc of theappeal in the D4+.

Decision5

82%. /he reinvestigation was uncalled for since the accused were never#rought into the custod of the law, notwithstanding the warrants of arrestgiven # the "C/C. Although under the &ules of court ('')! a prosecutor madisagree with the findings of the judge, this difference in opinion must #e#ased on the evidence on record transmitted # the judge. 1t is also apparentthat lores is #iased, favoring the 8a#uts since he allowed them to su#mitcounter affidavits without first demanding their surrender. /he $hp ),#ond is clearl inappropriate considering that the crime charged was murder.

"oreover, despite knowledge of the appeal, lores did not inform the &/C of

the pending appeal in the D4+ thus, arraignment was not suspended. /hepu#lic prosecutor was also wrong in saing that he will no longer allow thepresence of the private prosecutors (lawers of the offended part!. %ince theoffended parties never waived the civil action nor e3pressl reserved their rightto institute it separatel from the criminal action, then the have the right tointervene in the criminal case pursuant to %ection '- &ule '' of the rules ofCourt.

82%. Although +udge >illon was not #ound to wait for the D4+ resolution, heshould have noticed that the offense committed was murder and not homicide./he fact that he rushed the arraignment negates prudence on his part thus,he gravel a#used his discretion.

D4+ order ))F recogni7ed the right of #oth the offended parties and tenaccused to appeal from resolutions in preliminar investigations andreinvestigations.

P%$P#% *S. P!N%&A

) %C&A *0

acts5 /eofilo and >aleriana were asleep when guns were fired in rapidsuccessions from outside their house. /eofilo died instantl. After which, theaccused went inside the house of the couple killing three of their minor childrenand wounding >aleriana. /he accused =ar#asa, Borres and Alindo were thenindicted #efore the C1 of Lanao del =orte as principals in five cases (four formurder and one for frustrated murder!. =ar#asa and Alindo moved for theconsolidation of the case into one since the said that the cast arose from thesame incident, which was motivated # one single impulse. %uch motion wasgranted # the judge stating that since the crime stemmed from series ofcontinuing acts the should #e treated as one crime. /his decision was6uestioned # the cit fiscal saing that since more than one gun was used andmore than one shot was fired, killing more than one person.

1ssue5 = there should #e onl one information, either for the comple3crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the comple3 crime of ro##erwith multiple homicide and frustrated homicide

= the decision of the judge should prevail considering that itclashed with that of the fiscal.

Decision5 /he prosecuting attorne, #eing the one charged with theprosecution of offenses, should determine the information to #e filed andcannot #e controlled # the offended part. Although there was an affidavitfrom the witnesses that the real intention of the accused was to commitro##er and that the acts consisting of murder were committed in pursuance to

the original intent which would #ring the crime within the purview of comple3crimes as provided in %ection 0, it is within the power of the fiscal todisregard such an affidavit.

hen various victims e3pire from separate shots, such acts constitute separateand distinct crimes. /his however, is not to discount the possi#ilit of a#useson the part of the prosecutor.

/he 6uestion of instituting a criminal charge is one addressed to the sounddiscretion of the investigating fiscal. /he info he lodges in court must have to#e supported # facts #rought a#out # an in6uir made # him. A clash ofviews #et the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did or #etween

*ena *. *erga 4<




the fiscal and the offended part or the defendant, those of the fiscal’s shouldnormall prevail. /his doctrine however, is su#ject to several e3ceptions, towit5

'. or orderl administration of justice;). $revent the use of strong arm of the law in an oppressive and

vindictive manner;F. /o avoid multiplicit of actions; and. /o afford ade6uate protection to constitutional rights

P%$P#% *S. &%*AAS,,; SCA ;, (1<<4)&igest =yD Tim &avid

AC/%5 A pedica# driver and his passenger were attacked without provocation# two men who hacked them to death and later threw their #odies over the#ridge with the help of another. /he were su#se6uentl accused of murderalleging that the committed the offense in conspirac and with treacher anda#use of superior strength.

/he principal witness, &aul Animos, claimed that at a#out *5 in the evening,the appellants were drinking tu#a with him and thereafter joined him in hisdut as #anta:#aan. hile making the rounds at Daguitan #ridge, the sawa 7ig7agging pedica# approach. hen it was halfwa the #ridge, Blademir whowas then carring a #olo suddenl attacked the driver. At the same time,&onilo attacked the passenger with his #olo. $a#lo did not participate in theslaing #ut later helped in throwing the #odies over the #ridge. &aul himselfwas ordered to help and, although initiall hesitated, had to compl #ecause hewas threatened with death. /he a#andoned pedica# was reported, curiouslenough, to the F accused who went to see the #aranga captain. 9pon noticingthe #lood on the #ack of &aul’s shirt, #rg. chairman notified the police.Blademir and &onilo were sentenced reclusion perpetua while $a#lo wasconvicted as an accessor.

-ote. 4id not identify the assign'ent of errors" /hose in + are 'ost probablythe errors raised

C49&/5'. +/he offense should be ho'icide only (ithout the attendance of treachery2vidence clearl shows Bladimer and &onilo suddenl attacked their unarmedvictims with #olos, there# insuring commission without risks to themselves

). +Raul Ani'os should li)e(ise have been chargedT?e determination o t?e erson to =e rosecuted on t?e =asis oevidence rests rimarily it? t?e rosecutor. As an eBcetion8 t?e

rosecutor can =e comelled =y mandamus i ?e a=uses ?is discretionand reuse include co-accused against ?om t?ere aears to =e atleast rima acie evidence. T?is8 ?oever8 is availa=le only i etitioners?os t?at all remedies ?ave =een eB?austed8 suc? as motion iledit? t?e trial court or t?e indictment o erson(s) eBcluded =y t?erosecutor. !t does not aear t?at suc? a motion as iled =yaellants

/he Court agree that there was no conspirac as there is no evidence thatBlademir and &onilo had earlier come to an agreement to kill the victims.

?rom #anta:#aan, the turned into #anta:salaka in an incomprehensi#lerampage that needlessl wasted ) innocent lives. as it the li6uor in their#rain that urged them to kill, or was it simple, ine3plica#le wickednessQ /heanswer lies in the dark recesses of their minds, and of their prison cells@

Decision of /rial Court affirmed.

P%$P#% *. NA6A%N$8,0 SCA ,5 (1<<)

+actsD &omulo Bune 11 hailed ?stainless@ triccle to drive him to "olina %t..9nknown to him, two men who were waiting outside his house and hailedanother triccle to follow him. Bune then alighted at the corner of /. "olinaand "endiola %treets in Ala#ang, "untinlupa and crossed the street. %hortlafter, the other triccle arrived and stopped in front of ?stainless@ tricclecarring Bune. 4ne of the men jumped out the triccle and shot Bune at the#ack of the head. hen Bune fell face down, two more shots were fired, onefrom the assailant and another from the other accused, all directed at Bune’shead.

/he incident was witnessed # the two triccle drivers who e3ecuted a swornaffidavit and another passenger.

/he accused &amil &egala, =arciso =a7areno, 4rlando ?Bo@ ular, and "anuelLaureaga were all arrested. /he first two were identified # the triccle driversin the police line:up.

&egala e3ecuted affidavits admitting participation in the slaing of Bunehowever, claimed that a certain ular paid him $hp F, to kill thevictimthat the had #een hired # ular to kill the victim.owever, &egala andular who #oth claims #eing tortured recanted their earlier admission of thecrime.

*ena *. *erga 0




ular and Larureaga were ac6uitted for lack of evidence against them.=a7areno and &egala however, were found guilt.

1ssue5 = the arrest without warrant was illegal.

= the non:inclusion of the supplier of the guns would nullif the proceeding.

Decision5 =4. =a7areno and &egala waived o#jections #ased on the allegedirregularit of their arrest, considering that the pleaded not guilt andparticipated in the trial. An defect in their arrest must #e deemed cured whenthe voluntar su#mitted to the jurisdiction of the court. or the legalit of anarrest affects onl the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused .Conse6uentl, if o#jections #ased on this ground are waived, the fact that thearrest was illegal is not a sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment.

=4. /he manner # which prosecutions of a case is handled is within thesound discretion of the prosecutor and the non:inclusion of other guilt partiesis irrelevant to the case against the accused.

+udgment of &/C which found =a7areno and &egala uilt was affirmed

&$N!$-T%*%S vs. *A"%NTA 2.144 SCA 1 (1<;)

acts5 $etitioner "ilagros Donio /eves 6uestions the criminal proceedinginitiated against her # her hus#and for the crime of Adulter. /he complaintwas filed # +ulian /eves, the petitioner’s hus#and stating that on the monthsof " '0 to Decem#er, his wife has #een having se3ual intercourse with acertain "anuel "oreno. "ilagros filed a motion to 6uash on the contentionthat the court has no jurisdiction over her case since there was an a#sence of avalid complaint.

1ssue5 = there was an invalid complaint.

Decision5 =4. adulter, #eing a private offense, cannot #e prosecuted e3ceptupon a complaint filed # the offenses spouse who cannot institute the criminalprosecution without including #oth the guilt spouses, if the are #oth alive,not in an case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. /he lawleaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for theaffront committed # the erring spouse. /he complaint filed # the offendedspouse was the one necessar to start the re6uired preliminar investigation# the fiscal’s office.

/he complaint was also sufficient for it stated the name of the defendants; thedesignation of the offense # the statute; the acts or omissions complained ofas constituting the offense; the name of the offended part; the appro3imatetime of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense wascommitted which is in a#solute compliance with %ection G, &ule ''.


P%$P#% *S. 9'#A$N33.. No. 4:4;8 10 SCA 4 (2uly 418 1<;1)

4ne afternoon, Delena %egapo, ', and her sister, =ena, 0 (#oth Bilaans!, lefttheir house at Barrio Landan, $olomolok, %outh Cota#ato, to perform an errandfor their father. After walking, the #oarded a passenger jeepne and arrivedin the pu#lic market of eneral %antos Cit at -pm. /he were going to collectan account from /amigo. But, Claudio Bulaong, a FG:ear:old married manwith five children, pointed his gun at the two sisters and forci#l took them tothe =ew Ba >iew otel in the cit where Bulaong raped Delena 0 times at thesight of her sister and with death threats. /he sisters knew him since he

administered his famil lands in Barrio Landan where man Bilaans resided

/he following da, the went to his parentsR #ungalow in Barrio Landan whichwas then unoccupied. /he were locked in a room guarded # onso Laurecio,a house#o armed with a gun. Bulaong raped Delena in that place. "eanwhile,=ena was a#le to escape through the ceiling. %he told her parents whathappened who was accompanied # &ud Ante, a #arrio councilor, toaccompan him to BulaongRs house. /he were a#le to retrieve Delena whowas found to #e raped # an e3amination of the cit health officer.

A complaint for forci#le a#duction with rape, signed # Delena and Dalama,was filed in the cit court against Bulaong. /he judge interrogated the sisters.Bulaong and Laurecio surrendered voluntaril and waived the preliminarinvestigation. /he cit fiscal filed in the Court of irst 1nstance an informationfor forci#le a#duction with rape against Bulaong and Laurecio where the twopleaded not guilt.

Claudio Bulaong was convicted of eight comple3 crimes of forci#le a#ductionwith rape. Alfonso Laurecio was convicted as an accomplice. Both weresentenced to pa indemnities to Delena %egapo. Bulaong alleged in his appealthat the lower court did not ac6uire jurisdiction over the case #ecause theinformation was fatall defective for the information should have #een signed# the girl and not # her father.

1ssue5 = Bulaong committed 0 counts of forci#le a#duction with rape.

*ena *. *erga 1




= the information was defective

Decision5 Bulaong who a#ducted the victim and had se3ual intercourse with herfor several das is not guilt of separate offenses #ut of a continuing offense ofa#duction with rape.

1n this case, the complaint for a#duction with rape against Bulaong was filed inthe cit court # the offended girl and her father. /hat complaint was sworn to#efore the cit judge which was the #asis of the preliminar e3amination. /he judge e3amined the witnesses under oath. /he e3amination was reduced towriting in the form of searching 6uestions and answers. 4n the #asis of thate3amination, a warrant of arrest was issued.

/he accused waived in writing the second stage of the preliminarinvestigation. 1n such a case, the fiscal is not called upon to conduct anotherpreliminar investigation. e could file an information on the #asis of thepreliminar investigation conducted # the inferior court #ecause theprosecution of the offense is under his direction and control. e could not havecertified that he held a preliminar investigation #ecause the preliminar

e3amination was actuall conducted # the cit court and the second stage ofthe preliminar investigation was waived # the accused.

1n cases involving crimes against chastit, the prosecution ma #e conducted# the fiscal on the #asis of the complaint filed in the inferior court. /here isno need to file an information. /hus, the &ules of Court does not re6uire thatthe offended girl in a crime against chastit should sign the information filed #the fiscal.

P%$P#% *S. TAFA&A1 SCA 41 (1<;;)Digest #5 Don Dieta

+actsDAn information was filed charging one &omulo $ostrero of rape in the C1 ofCe#u. A sworn letter:complaint for rape filed # >ictoria Capillan was attachedto the said information. Capillan alleged that &omulo $ostrero induced her toconsume a #ottle of seven:up that caused her to feel drows and weak andthat $otrero then #rought her to <ueen otel where $ostrero raped her.owever, accused’s motion to dismiss the information was granted # the judge on the ground that the court did not ac6uired jurisdiction over theoffense charged since the information filed # the judge is not a complaintsigned # the offended part as re6uired # Article F of &$C and %ec. , &ule'' of the rules of Court.

!ssueD = the letter:complaint filed # the offended part is a validcomplaint as re6uired # Article F of &$C and %ec. , &ule '' of the rules ofCourt.

7eldD 1t was a valid complaint. /he %upreme Court held that the rule of ?complaint:filed:in:court@ enunciated in the case of $eople vs. %antos wasalread modified # >aldepeSas vs. $eople which held that the provisions ofArt. F of &$C do not determine or confer the jurisdiction of the courts overoffenses enumerated therein since the same is alread governed # the+udiciar Act of '0. /he re6uired complaint is onl a condition precedent tothe e3ercise # the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guiltparties. /he letter:complaint filed # the offended part contained all theelements of a valid complaint re6uired # %ec. G, &ule '' of the &ules ofCourt. /hus the said letter:complaint is a valid complained as re6uired #Article F of &$C and %ec. , &ule '' of the rules of Court.

P%$P#% vs. &!"AP!#!S400 SCA ,;, (1<<;)

acts5 %haron Degala, '' ears old alleged in her complaint affidavit thatsometime in %eptem#er, ', e#ruar '- and "a '-, the e3act datesalread unknown to her, she was forced # the common law spouse of hermother, using a knife, to undress. /hereafter, she was raped # the said manon five different occasions while her mother was gam#ling. %he told hermother a#out the incidents #ut here mother merel dismissed them as ?lam#ing@. %he then went to her grandmother who took her to the =B1 formedico:legal e3amination. 1t was found that indeed, she was raped on severaltimes.

1t was the contention of the petitioner that informations filed against him weredefective for failing to allege the specific dates of commission of the threecunts of rape.

1ssue5 = the informations were defective.

Decision5 %ection '' of &ule '' provides that it is not necessar to state inthe complaint or information the precise time at which the offense wascommitted e3cept when the time is material ingredient of the offense. 1n thecase at #ar, the time of commission is not a material ingredient of the offense./he dates provided in the information alread suffice if the acts complained ofarea led to have taken place ?as near to the actual date at which the offensesare committed as the information will permit.@

*ena *. *erga ,




/he decision was affirmed with modifications since the fact the accused is thecommon law spouse of the mother, which should have 6ualified the offensewas not alleged in the complaint.

P%$P#% *S. NA*A%S5< P?il. :4; (1<4)

acts5 $etitioner and victim had a heated altercation when the later told theformer that he should #e ashamed of himself for still threshing pala despitethe fact that all others were alread plowing the land. /he accused said thathe was em#arrassed # said statement of the victim. A fight ensued with thepetitioner sta##ing the victim with a penknife. 1t was the contention of thepetitioner that the information and the trial proceeded against him was void forhe was $edro =aravaes, and not $rimo =arvaes as stated in the complaint.

1ssue5 = the mistake in name is fatal.

Decision5 1n the at #ar, the mistake in the name was not fatal since the onldifference relates to the name of the father ($edro’s name was Lucio while$rimo’s father was Leoncio!. /his, according to the court has no conse6uence

to the case at #ar. urthermore, when the appellant was arraigned under thename of $edro =arvaes, which is the name appearing in the information, heentered the plea of not guilt under such name. /hus, it is alread too late to6uestion the discrepanc in the name.


'S *S. PAN#!#!$No. <;:8 ,; P?il 0; (&ec ;8 1<1)

4n or a#out ) e# ''F, all of the cara#aos of Adriano $anlilio were ordered6uarantined in a corral in "asamat, "e3ico, $ampanga # a dul authori7edagent of the Dept of Agriculture after having #een e3posed to rinderpest, adangerous and contagious disease. 4n said date, $anlilio, who #eing authori7edand the 6uarantine still in effect, ordered said cara#aos taken from the corraland drove them from one place to another for the purpose of working them inthe hacienda. An information was filed charging $anlilio of violation of sec - Act=o '*-. it was amended #ut it failed to specif the particular law violated. /heaccused alleged that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute aviolation of said law.

1%%92%5 4= $anlilio committed a violation of Act '*-.4= $anliklio counld #e convicted of violation of Art G0'()! &$C even if it wasnot alleged in the information.

2LD5 the acts committed # $anlilio is not violative of the Act '*- or anprovisions thereof. /here was neither importation nor transfer of the saidcara#aos. /he law nowhere makes it a penal offense to refuse to compl withits sections, nor is it phrased as a Openal statute. =owhere in the law statesthat it is prohi#ited or unlawful to violate the orders of the Bureau of Agri nor isthere an punishment provided for violation of such orders.

/he acts of $anlilio is a violation of Atr G0' par ) of the &$C. /he fact that theinformation charged a violation of Act '*- does not prevent the court fromfinding the accused guilt of the &$C. 1t is not a violation of his right to #einformed of the charges against him #ecause the allegations re6uired under Act'*- include those re6uired under Art G0'. /he accused could have defendedhimself in no different manner if he had #een e3pressl charged with aviolation of Art G0'.

P%$P#% *S. A"9A3 1,:1::8 404 SCA <: (+e= ,58 1<<<)

"elanie ernande7, an '' ear old, is the daughter of >inia ernande7, the

common law spouse of the accused &omeo Am#ra. /he, including "elanie’shalf #rother &o#in and F other children, rented a single room with one #ed withthe children sleeping on the floor. er mother leaves the house #efore dawneverda and goes to the $asig market. 4ne da at around )am, she woke upwhen the accused carried her to the #ed. %he tried to shout #ut her mouth was6uickl covered. /he accused then se3uall a#used her. %he fell asleep stillfeeling the pain. hen she woke up, she left to pick up the laundr from hergrandmother’s place. 9na#le to locate her mother to reveal her ordeal, shewent to her Aunt >ilma $ere7 who accompanied her to the police, /he went totheir house where "elanie pointed to Am#ra as her rapist. /he medico:legale3amination revealed that she had lacerations in her vagina #ut with no traceof sperm cells. Am#ra denied the allegations alleging that he could not haveraped her #ecause the slightest movement could awaken his other children andthat it was just false charges #ecause >ilma wanted to end their common lawrelationship #ecause he is a gam#ler. 4thers also testified that "elanie tells herordeal to others while laughing, /he /C found Am#ra guilt of rape with apenalt of death.

1%%92%5 4= the testimon of the complainant is credi#le and the defense notcredi#le4= the statutor rape was proved #eond reasona#le dou#t.

2LD5 /he testimon of the victim was a truthful account of what transpiredduring the incident. 1t is impossi#le for her to concoct such a stor since sheallowed her private parts to #e e3amined and pu#licl e3pose her se3ual

*ena *. *erga 4




a#use. /he denial of the accused is unsu#stantiated and cannot #e givengreater evidentiar weight than the testimon of "elanie. &ape is no respecterof time and place. 1t is not impossi#le for the mem#ers of the famil to #e indeep slum#er when the assault was #eing committed.

owever, the penalt should have #een reclusion perpetua. /he special6ualifing circumstance that the accused is the common law spouse of thevictim’s mother was not alleged in the information. %uch failure is fatal and#ars conviction of its 6ualified form which is punisha#le with death. 6ualifingcircumstances must #e pleaded.

P%$P#% *S. 2A*!% 3 1,0<8 411 SCA 1,, (2uly ,8 1<<<)

+ulia &atunil, a minor of '- ears of age, was held and pulled # his father,Amado %andrias +avier, # means of force, into the conjugal room while hermother was out doing laundr work. %he was #o3ed and hit in the stomachwhich resulted in her #eing unconscious after she refused and shouted for help./he accused then raped her. hen she woke up, she had no panties and shefelt pain in her private parts. /he incident took place at around 'pm at Eone G

Baikingan, CD4. 1t maws again repeated twice in =ov and Dec '. hen shecan no longer #ear the pain, she confessed to her grandmother and withmother, the reported the matter to the police and filed F separate complaintsof rape against the accused. /he e3amination of the =B1 revealed that she wasraped and pregnant. "eanwhile, he was charged with illegal possession offirearms and was sentenced accordingl. /he accused pleaded not guilt andalleged that he was working as a mason during those times and that thedamages were engineered # his mother:in:law who despises him for #eing adrunkard and that +ulia was an errant daughter who at age ', startedattending dances and ac6uired sweethearts. /he &/C found him guilt of rapeand 6ualified seduction and sentenced him to death and an indeterminatesentence of prision correcional minimum to prision maor ma3imum. Accusedappealed.

1%%92%5 4= the ali#is of the accused can hold.4= he was found guilt and sentenced accordingl.

2LD5 /he ali#is of the accused cannot hold. 1t is highl inconceiva#le thatcomplainant would impute a crime so serious as rapeee against her own father.%he cannot #e faulted for her dela in reporting the rape and it does notundermine the charges where it is grounded on the death threats of theaccused. urther, the place where he supposedl was is merel ) metersfrom his house, a distance which could #e covered # a Gmin walk. or ali#is toserve as a #asis for ac6uittal, it must #e esta#lished with clear and convincingevidence. /he re6uisites of time and place must #e strictl met. 1n rape

committed # a father against her daughter, the former’s moral ascendancand influence over the latter ma su#stitute for actual phsical violence andintimidation. /he accused charged with rape cannot #e convicted of 6ualifiedseduction under the same information. &ape and 6ualified seduction are notidentical offenses. Lastl, the victim is '- ears old which 6ualifies rape.owever, the prosecution failed to present her #irth certificate. 1n this case,age is vital and essential and should #e proved. ence, the accused is lia#leonl of simple rape with a penalt of reclusion perpetua.

A39AAN! *S. SA$No. #-:;;08 ;< SCA << (Ar 408 1<:<)

Conrado "ahinan was the manager of the Cagaan #ranch of the %1% inCauaan, 1sa#ela. ilson Ag#aani, Carmel Bautista, $a#lo $Ascula and &enatoDuga were his su#ordinates. /he affidavits of $ascual and Bautista weresigned at Cauaan, the latter’s letter asking for "ahinan’s dismissal.Ag#aani’s unusual incident report was su#scri#ed and sworn to #efore a"anila notar with evidence to support malversation and falsification against"ahinan. /he documents depicted "ahinan as an incorrigi#le managerial misfit,

despoiler of pu#lic office, spendthrift of%1% funds, invetereate gam#ler,chronic falsifier and an unreformed e3:convict. "ahinan then field a complaintfor written defamation against his su#ordinates with the fiscal at Baom#ong,=ueva >i7caa. /wo das later, he was terminated # the Board of /rustees of%1% #ut was reinstated on appeal to the C%C. /he provincial fiscal filed aninformation for li#el against the four in the C1 of =ueva >i7caa. /he accused filed a motion to 6uash on the ground that the said court has no jurisdiction over the case #ecause "Ahinan was a pu#lic officer holding office atCauaan when the alleged li#el was committed and that the fiscal of =. >. hadno authorit to conduct preliminar investigation and to file the information./he court denied it on the ground that he was not a pu#lic officer since theinsurance #usiness of %1% is not an inherentl governmental function. ence,his residence in Baam#ang, =. >. would #e the criterion for determining thevenue.

1%%92%5 4= "ahinan is a pu#lic officer.4= the C1 of =. >. has jurisdiction over the case.

2LD5 "ahinan is a pu#lic officer. As %1% #ranch manager, he isun6uestiona#l a pu#lic officer.

/he proper venue of "ahinan’s criminal action for written defamation is the C1of 1sa#ela since as a %1% #ranch manager, he was a $4 stationed at Cauaanand the alleged li#el was committed when he was in the pu#lic service. /hepreliminar investigation should have #een conducted # the provincial fiscal of

*ena *. *erga




1sa#ela or municipal judge of 1lagan, the provincial capital, or # the C1 of thesame province. 1t could have also #een filed in the C1 of the province or in thecit court where the li#el was printed and first pu#lished.

/he information is defective or deficient #ecause it does not show that the C1of =. >. where it was filed has jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action forwritten defamation and that the provincial fiscal of that province had theauthorit to conduct the preliminar investigation.

SANT!A3$ *S. 3AC7!T$%NA3.. No. 10<,8 ,,; SCA ,1 (&ec. ,8 1<<4)

$etitioner was charged in the %andigan#aan with violation of %ection F(e!of the Anti:raft and Corrupt $ractices Act, when she allegedl favoredTun6ualifiedT aliens with the #enefits of the Alien Legali7ation $rogram.

$etitioner filed with the Court a petition for certiorari and prohi#ition, toenjoin the %andigan#aan from proceeding with the Criminal Case on theground that said case was intended solel to harass her as she was then apresidential candidate. %he filed a motion for inhi#ition of $residing +ustice

architorena which the %C granted and directed to reset the arraignmentpending resolution of the inhi#ition of architorena and the #ill of particulars./he %B denied the motion for dis6ualification. /he %B admitted the F)informations and the arraignment was set. ence, the filing of the instantpetition.

1%%925 4= petitioner’s case is a continuous crime warranting the filing of asingle information and not F) separate informations.

2LD5 e find that, technicall, there was onl one crime that was committedin petitionerRs case, and hence, there should onl #e one information to #e fileagainst her. /he F) Amended 1nformations charge what is known as delitocontinuado or Tcontinuous crime.T

or delito continuado to e3ist there should #e a pluralit of acts performedduring a period of time; unit of penal provision violated; and unit of criminalintent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penalprovisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to theperpetration

1n the case at #ench, the original information charged petitioner withperforming a single criminal act U that of her approving the application forlegali7ation of aliens not 6ualified under the law to enjo such privilege.

/he F) Amended 1nformations aver that the offenses were committed onthe same period of time, i .e., on or a#out 4cto#er '*, '00. /he strongpro#a#ilit even e3ists that the approval of the application or the legali7ation ofthe sta of the F) aliens was done # a single stroke of the pen, as when theapproval was em#odied in the same document. ence, the said informationsshould #e consolidated.

C%SP$ *S. "$3'#No #-544:48 151 SCA , (2une 408 1<;:)

Asst iscal $roceso de ala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal, filed aninformation for estafa against "ario Crespo in the circuit criminal court ofLucena Cit. /he accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the groundthat there was a pending petition for review with the %ec of +ustice. /he judgedenied it #ut deferred the arraignment. 9pon petition, the CA restrained the judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the D4+ has resolved thepetition for review. /he +ustice 9ndersecretar directed the fiscal to move forthe dismissal of the information for insufficienc of evidence #ut the judgedenied it. /he CA issued a /&4 #ut later lifted it. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 4= the /C ma refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceedwith the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed # the fiscal uponorder of the %ec of +ustice.

2LD5 4nce an information is filed in court, the court’s prior permission must#e secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. hether the accusedhad #een arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation # thefiscal or a review # the +ustice %ecretar where# a motion to dismiss wassu#mitted to the court, the court in the e3ercise of its discretion ma grant themotion or den it and re6uire that the trial on the merits proceed for theproper determination of the case. 1n this regard, the fiscal should continue toappear in the case although he ma turn over the presentation of evidence tothe private prosecutor #ut still under his discretion and control.

P%$P#% *S. PAN#!#!$3 11451<-,0 ,55 SCA 504 ("ar ,<8 1<<)

At a#out ''5am, Leah "arie +ordan, a ' ear old student, was waiting forher ounger sister outside of %t. +ude %chool in "alinta, >alen7uela. /hen,Danilo $anlilio approached her and in6uired of a certain Aling &osa. %he repliedthat she did not know her. Danilo then suddenl poked a knife, concealedinside a hat, at the right side of the neck and handed her a cigarette pack witha note and ordered her to give it to Aling &osa. /hen, the walked, with theknife still at her neck. /he #oarded a jeepne where he forci#l took herearrings. /he were the onl passengers on #oard. 9pon reaching =avotas,

*ena *. *erga 5




the alighted and he dragged her to a vacant lot where he let her chose#etween rape and death. %he then struggled and ran. %he saw policemen andshouted for help. Danilo ran #ut the police caught up with him and #oth were#rought to the =avotas police station. er parents arrived and #rought her tothe >alen7uela police station where the filed a complaint against the accused./he accused alleged that the &/C of >alen7uela where the case was #eingheard has no jurisdiction over the case since the ro##er was not perpetratedin =avotas.

1%%925 4= the >alen7uela &/C has jurisdiction.

2LD5 here an offense is committed on a railroad train, aircraft or in another pu#lic or private vehicle while in the course of its trip, the criminal actionma #e instituted and tried in the court an municipalit where such train,aircraft or other vehicle passed during such trip, including the place ofdeparture and arrival. 1n the case at #ar, it would seem that the prosecutionfailed to esta#lish the precise place where the highwa ro##er was supposedlcommitted other than =avotas. ence, the >alen7uela &/C had no jurisdictionover the offense.

Leah "arie did not know the places where their vehicle passed, the e3actplace where the #oarded the jeep and the e3act place where $anlilio took herearrings. $anlilio was however correctl found guilt of kidnapping.

P%$P#% *S. A9'T: SCA ,Digest #5 Bong "ali#iran

J284&D%5 8a#ut /ransit Line; reewa /ires %uppl; "alolos BulacanCaloocanB&125 &espondent issued a check in "alolos, Bulacan, drawn against "erchantsBanking Corporation in Caloocan Cit where it was dishonored for lack offunds. Continuing offense.

AC/%5 (CA&AC/2&%5 Cecilia <ue 8a#ut, /reasurer of 8a#ut /ransit Line;eminiano 8a#ut,+r., $resident of 8a#ut /ransit Line &espondent; Alician $.Andan, owner and operator of reewa /ires %uppl and reewa Calte3%tation Complainant; '*s, Decision $romulgated April ), '**!

• %ometime e#ruar '*G, Cecilia 8a#ut and hus#and eminiano8a#ut, +r., treasurer and president of 8a#ut /ransit Line respectivel,issued checks in favor of reewa /ires %uppl, drawn against"erchants Banking Corporation.

o /he amounts of the checks were $-,G-0. and $F*,)-. as

paments for ?articles and merchandise delivered to andreceived # accussed@ () informations!

• Both 8a#ut /ransit Line and reewa /ires %uppl were doing #usinessin Bulacan, while the #ank was located in Caloocan cit.

• /he checks #ounced #ecause of insufficient funds, hence, the accusedwere charged with estafa. (B.$. Blg. )) Bouncing Checks Law tookeffect onl on April '0,'*!

• &espondents filed a motion ?to 6uash the information on two grounds5

('! the facts recited do not constitute an offense #ecause the checkswere issued in pament of pre:e3isting o#ligation; and ()! the venue(as i'properly laid @ #ecause the information was filed in Bulacan, #utthe damage was done in Caloocan Cit.

&2L2>A=/ 1%%925 = the information was filed at the proper venue (Bulacan!QC49&/ &9L1=5 8es.

&A/145 ($4=2=/25 "A&/1=, +.! ?2stafa # postdating or issuing a #ad check under Art. F'GV)(d! of

the &$C 'ay be a transitory or continuing offense . 1ts #asic element of deceitand damage ma independentl arise in separate places. 1n the even of suchoccurrence, the institution of the cri'inal action in either place is legally

allo(ed" %ection '(a!, &ule '' of the &evised &ules of Court' provides5 W1n all

criminal prosecutions the action shall #e instituted and tried in the Court of themunicipalit or province wherein the offence was committed or any one of theessential ingredients thereof too) place.’ 3 3 3 /he estafa charged in the twoinformations involved in the case #efore 9s appears to #e transitor andcontinuing in nature. Deceit has taken place in "alolos, Bulacan, while thedamage in Caloocan Cit, where the checks were dishonored # the drawee#anks there. +urisdiction can, therefore, #e entertained # either the "aloloscourt or the Caloocan court.

%2C4=DA&8 1%%925 ? Ad interim, e hold that the facts charged in the information against

private respondents, contrar to their claim, constitute estafa 3 3 3. 1nconsidering a motion to 6uash #ased on the ground Wthat the facts charged do

not constitute an offense,’ the point of resolution is whether the facts alleged,if hpotheticall admitted, would meet the essential elements of the offense asdefined in the law. /he facts alleged in the criminal charge should #e taken asthe are.@

P%%6 *S. 7A3$N$ 'A# 9AN@8 !NC.3 1,,108 4,: SCA 5;; ("ar <8 ,000)

1 No Section 15(a) o ule 110.*ena *. *erga




agono &ural Bank, 1nc. owns agono "one %hop emploing Cristina $ere7as 41C, Cashier and /eller, Al#erto a#ian as #ookkeeper, Cristina "edina and"ilagros "artin as solicitorsfield managers. /he Laa, "ana#at, %algado andCompan, an independent management, consultanc and accounting firm,conducted an audit of the financial affairs of the mone shop. 1t foundanomalies in more or less )0 saving accounts consisting of withdrawalsamounting to $hp 0*,*)*.0, which were recorded in the su#sidiar ledgers

#ut not in the pass#ooks. /he signatures in the slips were forged. &espondentthen filed an affidavit Icomplaint for estafa against the said emploees and )outsiders, %usan +ordan and Brigida "angahas. inding prima facie evidence,the Acting provincial prosecutor filed the corresponding information with the"alolos &/C. /he charges against +ordan and "angahas were dismissed. 9ponappeal to the D4+, the %ec of +ustice ordered the prosecutor to cause thedismissal of the information against $ere7 for insufficienc of evidence. /he judge granted the motion to dismiss on the #asis of the secretar’srecommendation and that private respondent had no legal personalit to6uestion the said dismissal.

1%%92%5 4= the judge correctl dismissed the charges against $ere7.4= private respondent has personalit to 6uestion the said dismissal.

2LD5 the judge acted with grave a#use of discretion when he granted themotion to dismiss the criminal charges against $ere7 on the #asis solel of therecommendation of the +ustice %ecretar. /he judge did not make anindependent evaluation assessment of the merits of the case. is reliance onthe recommendation of the %ecretar was an a#dication of the court’s dut and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.

$rivate respondent, as private complainant, has legal personalit to assail thedismissal of the criminal case against $ere7. &espondent retains the right to#ring a special civil action in his own name in criminal proceedings #efore thecourts of law. 1t follows that it could move for a reconsideration of the order ofthe trial court dismissing the charges against $ere7.

'#% 111CAS%S

%P'9#!C *S. CA04 SCA 04 (,004)

acts5 $rivate &espondent =avotas 1ndustrial Corporation (=1C! was awardedone of the dredging contract # D$ worth $hp 'G" to #e completed withina ear. =1C filed a complaint against the &epu#lic through the D$maintaining that the accomplished GN of the work and et D$ has paid

them onl *N of the total amount due to them. 1n its answer, D$contends that =1C is not entitled to the amount claimed since according to thefact:finding committee of the former, the contract #etween them and the latterwas void. 1t was said that =1C started the work even #efore the contract wasawarded to them. 1t was clear therefore that the contract was awardedwithout pu#lic #idding and through connivance with some D$ officials.

D$ later on filed a case at the 4ffice of the /anod Baan (2stafa throughfalsification of pu#lic documents!and a case in the "ala#on &/C to recover thesum alread paid to the =1C. 1n addition, petitioner &epu#lic then filed, also#efore the "ala#on trial court a motion to consolidate the civil case (filed #=1C! and the case in the %andigan#aan arguing that the civil case forcollection and the criminal cases arose from the same incidents and involve thesame facts. /he CA ruled that the %andigan#aan does not have an jurisdiction over collection of sum of mone since the latter not involvingrecover of civil lia#ilit arising from the offense charged. ence this appeal.

1ssue5 = the CA erred in not ordering the consolidation of the Civil casefiled with the &/C and the criminal case that was filed with the %andigan#aan.

Decision5 =o. Consolidation is a matter of discretion of the court. 1t #ecomesa matter of right onl when the cases sought to #e consolidated involve similar6uestion of fact and law provided certain re6uirements are met. /he purposeof consolidation is to avoid multiplicit of suits, prevent dela, clear congesteddockets, etc. %uch consolidation cannot #e ordered in this case since5 '! the%andigan#aan has no jurisdiction over the collection case and )! the &ules ofcourt do not allow the filing of a counterclaim or a F rd part complaint in acriminal case.

An essential re6uisite of consolidation is that the court must have jurisdictionover all the cases consolidated #efore it. %ince %andigan#aan has no jurisdiction over collection case, the same cannot #e consolidated with thecriminal cases even if these cases involve similar 6uestion of fact and law.

A counter claim in a criminal case must #e litigated separatel to avoidcomplication and confusion in the resolution of the criminal cases. /his is therationale of %ection ' &ule '''. /his same rationale applies to =1C’s collectioncase against the petitioner and D$. =1C’s case must #e litigated separatelto avoid confusion in resolving the criminal cases with the %andigan#aan.

+ANC$ *S. !AC3 :114:8 1:; SCA 441 ($ct 58 1<;<)

acts5 At around *Fpm, "acario 8uro, driver of ranco #us, swerved to theleft to avoid a truck with a trailer parked along the cemented pavement of

*ena *. *erga :




"acarthur ighwa in Capas, /arlac, and collided with an incoming 1su7u "iniBus driven # "agdaleno Lugue. /he mini #us was a total wreck while theranco #us was also damaged #ut not as severe. /he two drivers died instantlalong with two other passengers of the mini #us, &omeo Bue and ernandoChua. /he registered owner of the mini #us, wife of victim Chua and wife ofdriver Lugue filed an action for damages through reckless imprudence #eforethe C1 of Angeles Cit against "r and "rs ederico ranco, the owners and

operators of the ranco /ransportation Compan. /he defendants alleged thatthe e3ercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of all of theiremploees which however was rejected # the trial court when it held that theact of the ranco #us driver is a case of criminal negligence resulting in a civilo#ligation. 4n appeal, the 1AC found 8uro guilt of reckless or criminalimprudence resulting in the su#sidiar lia#ilit of the owners. /he 1ACincreased the award of damages.

1%%92%5 = ranco, as 2mploer, is lia#le for the acts dome # his driver.

= the 1AC ma increase the damages in favor of respondentChua and Lugue who did not appeal the said decision.

2LD5 9nder Art 'F &$C, #efore the emploer’s lia#ilit ma #e proceededagainst, it is imperative that there should #e a criminal action where# theemploee’s criminal negligence on delict and the corresponding lia#ilittherefore are proved. 1n the case at #ar, no criminal action was instituted#ecause the driver who is primaril lia#le died. $etitioner’s su#sidiar lia#ilitcannot stand since it is merel secondar to the emploee’s primar lia#ilit.owever, under Art )'*- and )'0, =CC, petitioner’s lia#ilit is #ased on culpaa6uiliana which holds emploer primaril lia#le for tortuous acts of itsemploees su#ject to the defense of the e3ercise of a good father of a famil inthe selection and supervision of its emploees. 1n the case at #ar, appellantswere not a#le to esta#lish the said defense. ence, petitioners are lia#le for thesaid damages pursuant to their primar lia#ilit under the =CC. /he 1AC erredin increasing the amount of damages in favor of Chua and Lugue, neither ofwhom appealed.

$NA7A *S. CA3 11,48 ,55 SCA 4<: ("ar ,<8 1<<)

acts5 At a#out ''5Gam in Lapu:Lapu Cit, the accused 2lmer 4uano isdriving a /oota /amaraw registered in the name of &aul Ca#ahug and owned# 2J %2A $roducts when he unlawfull maneuvered his vehicle in a recklessmanner, #umping ector CaSete which resulted to the victim’s re6ath due tomultiple severe traumatic. /he accused pleaded guilt and was sentencedaccordingl. /hereafter, a writ of e3ecution was issued for the satisfaction ofthe monetar award #ut the accused was una#le to pa for it. &espondents

then filed a motion for su#sidiar e3ecution with neither notice of hearing nornotice to the petitioner. /he trial court issued the writ and the sheriff went topetitioner’s residence to enforce it #ut petitioner filed a motion to recall thewrit for lack of prior notice and the emploer’s lia#ilit had et to #eesta#lished.

1%%925 = the su#sidiar lia#ilit could #e enforced against the petitioner.

2LD5 1t is a measure of due process to the emploer that a hearing #e set toprove the su#sidiar lia#ilit of the petitioner. /he emploer must #e given hisfull da in court.

/he emploer must #e afforded due process # holding a hearing to determinehis lia#ilit on the #asis of the conditions re6uired # law, namel5 (a! thee3istence of an emploer:emploee relationship; (#! that the emploer isengaged in some kind of agenc; (c! that the emploee is adjudged guilt ofthe wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge ofhis duties (not necessaril an offense he ma committee; and (d! that saidemploee is insolvent. All of these were not afforded to the petitioner.

/he orders of the CA should #e set aside and the case remanded for furthertrial.

NA3'!AT *S. !AC3.. No. :4;48 1 SCA 505 (August 1;8 1<;;)

acts5 /imog %ilangan Development Corporation is engaged in the #usiness ofdeveloping and selling su#division lots in /imog $ark in Angeles Cit, with"anuel $. La7atin as its $resident. $etitioner Antolin /. =aguiat purchased, oninstallment #asis, lots from /%DC, Lots =os. 'F, ', 'G and '-, of Block )-of /imog $ark, each with F s6uare meters with a price of $-. per s6uaremeter. $etitioner made a down pament of $*,). which is 'N of the totalprice of $*),..

/he Contract to %ell #etween them stipulated a two:ear period within which topa. =aguiat full paid the price of Lot '-, after which, the title was issued. eagain paid the #alance of the F other lots. /hen, petitioner demanded that thetitles thereof #e issued #ut /%DC refused on the ground that the #alance wasnot et full paid and non:compliance with the stipulations in the contract thatconstructions on the lots #e finished within - months and that petitioner failedto make constructions as to other lots. $etitioner was not entitled to the 'Nre#ate (since he was not a#le to finish #uilding within - months!, hence, theprevious paments did not amount to full pament.

*ena *. *erga ;




$etitioner then filed a complaint for specific performance with damages, withthe &/C of Angeles Cit, praing for the deliver of the /C/s and damages. ealso filed with the Cit iscal of Angeles Cit a criminal complaint againstrespondent La7atin, for violation of $D =o. G*, %ection )G, which states thatthe owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot upon full pament./hereafter, information was filed against La7atin. $etitioner filed a motion toconsolidate the Civil Case and Criminal Case, which the court granted.

owever, the CA reversed the decision on the consolidation issue,

1%%925 = the cases ma #e consolidated.

2LD5 Civil Actions that ma #e consolidated under %ection F(a! of &ule ''' isone for civil lia#ilit arising from the criminal offense or of e3:delicto and note3 contracto or one that is #ase on a contract to sell. 1n the case at #ar, thecivil action filed # the petitioner was for specific performance with damages./he main relief sought in the latter case, i.e., the deliver of the certificates oftitle to the lots which petitioner had allegedl full paid for, was grounded onthe Contract to %ell #etween the petitioner and the private respondent. encethe civil action filed # the petitioner was for the enforcement of an o#ligation

arising from a contract, or e3 contractu and not one for the recover of civillia#ilit arising from an offense; hence, the law invoked # the petitioner isinapplica#le.

But, as held in Canos v. $eralta, the consolidation of a criminal action with acivil action arising not e3 delicto, ma still #e done, #ased upon the e3pressauthorit of %ection ', &ule F' of the &ules of Court (actions involving acommon 6uestion of law or fact I court ma order a joint hearing!. 1n the caseat #ar, the nature of the issues involved, at least, the factual issues in the civiland criminal actions are almost identical. /he evidence would virtuall #e thesame.

ence, petitionerRs counsel ma act as counsel for the plaintiff in the civil caseand private prosecutor in the criminal case which will #e conducive to the earltermination of the two ()! cases, and will redound to the #enefit andconvenience of the parties; as well as to the speed administration of justice.

Case ma #e consolidated not virtue of the provision of %ection F, &ule '''#ut virtue of %ection ', &ule F'.

9'NA3 *S. CA3.. No. 101:<8 ,11 SCA 0 (2uly 108 1<<,)

acts5 4ne afternoon Conrado Bunag, +r. #rought Eenaida Cirilo, his )- earsold sweetheart, to a motel where he deflowered her as his companion held her

feet. Later Bunag jr #rought her to his grandmother’s house in $amplona, Las$iSas, "etro "anila, where the lived together as hus#and and wife for )'das. Bunag, +r. and Eenaida filed their respective applications for a marriagelicense #ut the former withdrew the same. Bunag jr left her and neverreturned. e also promised to marr her #ut did not fulfill it. A complaint fordamages for alleged #reach of promise to marr was filed # Eenaida Ciriloagainst petitioner Conrado Bunag, +r. and his father, Conrado Bunag, %r.

praing for damages. Bunag, %r. was a#solved from an and all lia#ilit.&espondent appealed decision a#solving Bunag, %r. from civil lia#ilit in thecase. Bunag, +r. field this appeal alleging that court failed to take intoconsideration the alleged fact that he and private respondent had agreed tomarr.

1%%925 = the dismissal of the criminal case carries with it e3tinction of thecivil case.

2LD5 A person criminall lia#le for a felon is also civill lia#le. 1n otherwords, criminal lia#ilit will give rise to civil lia#ilit e3 delicto onl if the samefelonious act results in damage or injur to another, and is the direct andpro3imate cause thereof. ence, e3tinction of the penal action does not carr

with it e3tinction of civil lia#ilit, unless the e3tinction proceeds from adeclaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise didnot e3ist.

1n the case at #ar, the dismissal of the complaint for forci#le a#duction withrape was # mere resolution of the fiscal at the preliminar investigation stage./here is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civilcase might arise did not e3ist. Conse6uentl, the dismissal did not in an waaffect the right of herein private respondent to institute a civil action arisingfrom the offense #ecause such preliminar dismissal of the penal action did notcarr with it the e3tinction of the civil action.

*!##%3AS *S. CA3.. No. ;,5,8 ,:1 SCA 1; (Aril 118 1<<:)

acts5 Assem#lman Antonio >. &a6ui7a filed a li#el suit against "anila "aorAntonio +. >illegas, who pu#licl imputed to him acts in violation of the Anti:raft and Corrupt $ractices Act in a pu#lic statement, a radio:/> interview anda pu#lic statement prior to his appearance #efore the %enate Committee on$u#lic orks. /he Committee o#served that the allegations in the complaintwere #ased on the uncorro#orated testimon of a certain $edro 9. ernande7,whose credi#ilit turned out to #e highl 6uestiona#le.

*ena *. *erga <




After the investigation, &a6ui7a was cleared of all charges # the Committee./hen, an information for li#el was filed # the 4ffice of the Cit iscal of "anilawith the then C1 of "anila against >illegas who denied the charge. After losingin the '*' elections, >illegas left for the 9% where he staed until his death.=evertheless, trial proceeded on absentia" /he court dismissed the criminalaspect of the case and ordered that &a6ui7a #e paid damages # the heirs of>illegas. /he CA affirmed the lower court. ence, this appeal # >illegas’ heirs.

1%%925 = the death of >illegas #efore final judgment e3tinguished his civillia#ilit.

2LD5 /he survival of the civil lia#ilit depends on whether the same can #epredicated on sources of o#ligations other than delict. /he death of the accusedpending appeal of his conviction e3tinguishes his criminal lia#ilit as well as thecivil lia#ilit directly arising from and #ased solel on the offense committed.Corollaril, his clai' for civil liability survives not(ithstanding the death of+the accused, if the sa'e 'ay also be predicated on a source of obligationother than delict . ;here the civil liability survives, an action for recoverytherefor 'ay be pursued but only by (ay of filing a separate civil actionagainst the executor or ad'inistrator of the estate of the accused, dependingon the source of obligation"

1n the case, the source of >illegasR civil lia#ilit is the felonious act of li#el heallegedl committed. 8et, this act could also #e deemed a 6uasi:delict withinthe purview of Article FF in relation to Article ''G* of the Civil Code thus, civillia#ilit ma still #e enforced (Baotas Doctrine!. /he Baotas doctrine makesenforcement of a deceased accused’s civil lia#ilit dependent on two factors5that it #e pursued # filing a separate civil action and that it #e made su#jectto section ' of rule '''.

1n the case at #ar, the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal./here was no waiver of the civil action and no reservation of the right to

institute the same, nor was it instituted prior to the criminal action. ence, thecourt should have dismissed #oth actions against >illegas which dismissal willnot, however, #ar &a6ui7a as the private offended part from pursuing hisclaim for damages against the e3ecutor or administrator of the formerRs estate,notwithstanding the fact that he did not reserve the right to institute a civilseparate civil action #ased on Article FF of the Civil Code.

PA%&%S *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN,5, SCA 1 (1<<)

acts5 /eofilo elacio, then vice maor of %an rancisco Agusan del %ur filed acomplaint against $aredes, then provincial governor and "ansueto onrada foralleged conspirac in making it appear # falsifing pu#lic documents thatarraignment has #een held in a case involving $aredes when in fact, noarraignment was done. An information was filed # the %andigan#aan againstthe $aredes and his accomplice. An administrative case for falsification wasalso filed with the trial court # elacio against "ansueto, the clerk of court

who made the certifications. /he second case was dismissed for insufficiencof the evidence. But the raft 1nvestigation found pro#a#le cause to proceedagainst the defendants. $aredes now contends that the case in the%andigan#aan should also #e dismissed invoking the ruling in the case of"aceda vs. >as6ue7 that onl the regular courts has the power to overseecourt personnel’s compliance with laws and take the appropriate administrativeaction against them for their failure to do so.

1ssue5 = the case in the %andigan#aan should also #e dismissed since theadministrative case was also dismissed.

Decision5 1t has #een held that one thing is administrative, 6uite another is thecriminal lia#ilit. /he determination of the administrative lia#ilit for

falsification of pu#lic documents is in no wa conclusive of his lack of criminallia#ilit. /he dismissal of the administrative case does not necessaril #ar thefiling of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts, which were thesu#ject of the administrative complaint.

'#% 11,CAS%S

'#% 11, CAS%S

PAN3AN&A"AN *S. CASA No. #-:1:;,8 15< SCA 5<< (Ar 18 1<;;)

acts5 4n )* +ul '0G, a shooting incident occurred in $antao, "asiu, Lanaodel %ur, leaving at least five persons dead and two wounded. /he ne3t da,Att. "angurun Batuampar, representing the widow of one of the victims, fileda letter:complaint with the $rovincial iscal at "arawi Cit, asking for a Tfull#last preliminar investigationT of the incident and the filing of the affidavits./he $rovincial iscal indorsed it to the respondent +udge. owever, no casewas presented until ' August '0G, when a criminal complaint for multiplemurder was filed # $.C. %gt. +ose L. Laruan. /he judge e3amined personallall F witnesses reducing to writing the 6uestions witnesses and answers./hereafter, the +udge approved the complaint and issued the corresponding

*ena *. *erga 50




warrant of arrest against the ' petitioners and G +ohn Does. Att. Batuamparfiled an e3:parte "& to recall the warrant and to conduct a thorough $1 on theground that the judge’s initial investigation was hast and with no searching6uestions, which the judge denied. $etitioners alleged that the judge could nothave determined pro#a#le cause against the - accused since the "/C is openonl from 0am to 'pm. /he further alleged that the judge disregarded thefiscal who had taken cogni7ance of the case and a#out to conduct its own $1

and that the warrant violates the constitution re6uiring that such warrantsshould particularl descri#e the persons or things to #e sei7ed. ence thepresent petition.

1ssue5 = the judge had the power to issue warrant of arrest withoutcompleting the $1.

Decision5 1n $1, a judge of an inferior court must o#serve the proceedingprescri#ed in %ec F, &ule ''), '0G &ules of Court. $i consists of two phases./he first phase consists of an ex8parte in6uir into the sufficienc of thecomplaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof.And it ends with the determination # the +udge either5 ('! that there is noground to continue with the in6uir, in which case he dismisses the complaint

and transmits the order of dismissal, together with the records of the case, tothe provincial fiscal; or ()! that the complaint and the supporting documentsshow sufficient cause to continue with the in6uir and this ushers in the secondphase.

/his second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint,access to the complainantRs evidence and an opportunit to su#mit counter:affidavits and supporting documents. At this stage also, the +udge ma conducta hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses 6uestions onmatters that, in his view, need to #e clarified. /he second phase concludes withthe +udge rendering his resolution, either for dismissal of the complaint orholding the respondent for trial, which shall #e transmitted, together with therecord, to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action.

%uch procedure must #e followed #efore the filing of the complaint in the &/C.4therwise, there is a denial of due process. 1n the case, no information has et#een filed with the &/C. /here is no pretense that the $1 has #een completedand the judge does not intend to undertake the ) nd phase. 1n this situation, itcannot #e said that he has failed to o#serve the procedure. Completion of theentire procedure of the $1 is not re6uired #efore a warrant of arrest ma #eissued. /he rule authori7es the "/C to order such arrest even #efore thecompletion of the $1 if said court is satisfied that a pro#a#le cause e3ists.ence, the warrants were validl issued.

E%99 *S. &% #%$N3 1,148 ,: SCA 5, (Aug ,48 1<<5)

acts5 4n ' +une ', the =B1 filed a letter:complaint with the D4+ chargingpetitioners u#ert e##, "ichael atchalian, Antonio Lejano and si3 others ofthe crime of rape with homicide. /he D4+ formed a panel of prosecutorsheaded # Asst. Chief $rosecutor +ovencio Euno to conduct the preliminar

investigation on the killing on F +une '' of Carmela >i7conde, her mother2strellita and her sister Anne "arie +ennifer in B omes, $araSa6ue.

1n the $1, the =B1 su#mitted sworn statements of +essica Alfaro, ) formerhousemaids of the e## famil, ) of the >i7conde maids, a securit guard, anda car engineer. An autops report was also su#mitted confirming the presenceof spermato7oa on Carmela. Before su#mitting his counter:affidavit, u#ertfiled a motion for production of evidences and documents with the D4+ whichwas granted and the =B1 reproduced it. owever, the original statement ofAlfaro was lost #ut the were a#le to get a cop from Att "ercader, +r. u#ertfailed to get a cop of the B1 report. u#ert claimed that he was in the 9% atthe time of the crime which was corro#orated # evidences and testimonies./he same was done # other accused.

/he D4+ found pro#a#le cause and recommended the filing of an informationfor rape with homicide against the petitioners with the $araSa6ue &/C whichwas eventuall presided # +udge Amelita /olentino who issued the arrestwarrants. /he accused voluntaril surrendered, #ut in their present petition,the contend that the judge a#used their discretion when the failed toconduct a $1 #efore issuing the warrant.

1%%925 = the judge should conduct its own $1 #efore issuing a warrant ofarrest.

= there is pro#a#le cause for the crime of rape with homicide.= the warrant has #een properl issued.

2LD5 /he investigating fiscal finds pro#a#le cause to hold respondent for trial.e shall prepare the resolution and the information. 1n determining pro#a#lecause, facts and circumstances are weighed without resorting to technical rulesof evidences, #ut rather #ased on common sense. $ro#a#le cause are the factsand circumstances which would lead a reasona#l discreet and prudent man to#elieve that an offense has #een committed and was committed # thesuspects. 1t need not #e #ased on clear and convincing evidences of guilt. 1nthe case, the D4+ panel did not a#use its discretion when it found pro#a#lecause against the petitioners. 1t correctl adjudged that enough evidences had#een adduced to esta#lish cause and clarificator hearing was unnecessarsince $1 is not part of trial.

*ena *. *erga 51

C i i l d d C ( il S l d ) / 0 00




Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merel determine personall thepro#a#ilit, not the certaint of guilt of an accused. /he D4+Ws report satisfied#oth judges that there is pro#a#le cause to issue such warrants. /he do notconduct a hearing to determine the e3istence of pro#a#le cause. /he justpersonall review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding pro#a#lecause to see if it is supported # su#stantial evidences. /he fiscal need not callthe wirnesses for clarificator 6uestioning if the evidence on hand alread

ields pro#a#le cause. /he fact that it took respondent judges a few hours toreview and affirm the pro#a#le cause determination of the D4+ panel does notmean that the made no personal evaluation of the evidences of the case.

&!#$N *S. CA AN& &. A3'!#A3 115;,58 ,5; SCA ,;0 (2uly 58 1<<)

acts5 odofredo ASonuevo was shot in the #ack # "anolo &amos and wasthen #rought to a hospital for treatment of head injuries. Later, he was againshot and treated after #eing confronted # "arcia &ees regarding hisrevelation of her inde#tedness secret. After which, he was taken to a poultrfarm in Conception where was shot and su#se6uentl #rought to the Batangas&egional ospital where Dr. Aguila (which was said to #e an accomplice!

refused to treat him. ASonuevo gave F statements to narrate the whole crime.is counsel then re6uested petitioner D4+ %ecretar Drilon to order thetransfer of the $1 from Batangas to the office of the %tate $rosecutor at theD4+ which was granted. %tate $rosecutor &enaldo Lugtu conducted a $1 andfound a prima facie case for Jidnapping with frustrated murder against &amos,Agapito &ees, "arca &ees, 2ga $ere7, Ariel u#illa, Dr Aguilar andAdoracion "oraleja. An information was then filed with the Batangas Cit &/C.%u#se6ue#tl, a petition for review and reinvestigation was denied # D4+9%2C and D4+ %ecretar. /he case was reassigned and re:raffled to the "anila&/C.

Dr. Aguila sought prohi#ition with /&4 and preliminar injunction to set asidethe resolution of Lugtu with the CA which was granted. 9naware that the rafflehad alread #een conducted, the accused filed a motion to hold in a#eancethe issuance of a warrant of arrest and to defer the raffle with the "anila &/C.=ot knowing of the said motion, the "anila &/C issued the order of arrest. /heCA enjoined the &/C from proceeding with the case. CA likewise e3cluded DrAguilar from the information having found no pro#a#le cause against him.

1%%925 = the criminal prosecution can #e restrained upon the claim ofaccused Dr. Aguila that there is no prima facie case against him.

2LD5 the purpose of the $1 is to esta#lish $C, which implies pro#a#ilit of guiltand re6uires more that #are suspicion #ut less than evidence which would justif conviction. $C should #e determined in a summar #ut scrupulous

manner to prevent material damage to the constitutional rights of the accusedand guarantees of freedom and fair pla. Courts should give credence, in thea#sence of clear showing of ar#itrariness, to the finding and determination of$C # the prosecutors in the $1, who are vested with 6uasi:judicial discretion inthe discharge of said function. ence, the state prosecutor did not a#use itsdiscretion in finding $C against Dr Aguilar. /he court directed his inclusion inthe information and the continuance of the case.

3$ *S. CA3 101;4:8 ,0 SCA 14; (+e=. 118 1<<,)

acts5 &olito o’s car nearl collided with the car of 2ldon "aguan when thelatter entered a one:wa street in %an +uan, "". o went to "aguan and shothim, and then he left. A securit guard saw the plate num#er of o’s car whichthe police verified that it was registered to 2lsa And o. /he police alsoretrieved an empt shell and a round of live ammunition for a mm pistol. /hepolice also o#tained a facsimile of o’s credit card which it used in a #akeshop#efore the incident and a positive verification # the securit guard. /he policeconducted a manhunt. o surrendered and was positivel identified # thewitnesses. A complaint for frustrated homicide was then filed with the office of

the $rovincial $rosecutor of &i7al. o e3ecuted a waiver of Art ')G of the &$Cto avail of a $1 #e $rosecutor Dennis >illa 1gnacio. "aguan died #efore theinformation could #e filed. /he prosecutor filed instead an information formurder with the &/C, wherein the prosecutor certified that there was no $1since o did not waive Art ')G. Counsel for petitioner then filed an omni#usmotion for immediate release and proper $1 alleging that no $1 was conductedand the warrantless arrest was unlawful. o’s petition for #ail was approvedand his release was ordered. /he prosecutor filed a motion for leave to conduct$1 and to suspend proceedings in the court which was granted. owever, the judge recalled the #ail, $1, and immediate release and set aside the case forarraignment. $etitioner was admitted at the &i7al $rovincial +ail. $etitioner wasarraigned and hearings were conducted. o then filed a petition for ha#eascorpus in the CA which was issued. /he CA also denied the deferment of thearraignment and his other motions. ence, this petition for review.

1%%925 = the warrantless arrest was lawful.= petitioner effectivel waived his right to $1.

D2C1%14=5 o’s arrest took place - das after the shooting. /he arrestingofficers had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating that petitioner wasthe gunman. /he information upon which the police acted had #een derivedfrom statements of eewitnesses. 1t is clear that there was no lawfulwarrantless arrest of petitioner. %ince he had not #een arrested, he was alsonot entitled to #e released forthwith su#ject onl to his appearing at the $1./he prosecutor should have conducted the $1 upon the filing of the complaint

*ena *. *erga 5,

C i i l P d N t d C (Att T il S l d ) / 101005




for frustrated homicide # the police since he should have #een accorded withsuch right without an conditions.

/he court held that petitioner did not waive his right to $1. %uch right is asu#stantive right. /o den him of such right would deprive him of his right todue process. $1 is waived when the accused fails to invoke it #efore or at thetime of entering a plea at arraignment. 1n the case, o insisted on his right to

$1 #efore his arraignment. e even asked for #ail in one motion. ence, wecannot reasona#l impl waiver of $1.

C%SP$ *S. "$3'#No #-544:48 151 SCA , (2une 408 1<;:)

acts5 Asst iscal $roceso de ala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal,filed an information for estafa against "ario Crespo in the circuit criminal courtof Lucena Cit. /he accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the groundthat there was a pending petition for review with the %ec of +ustice. /he judgedenied it #ut deferred the arraignment. 9pon petition, the CA restrained the judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the D4+ has resolved the

petition for review. /he +ustice 9ndersecretar directed the fiscal to move forthe dismissal of the information for insufficienc of evidence #ut the judgedenied it. /he CA issued a /&4 #ut later lifted it. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 = the /C ma refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceedwith the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed # the fiscal uponorder of the %ec of +ustice.

2LD5 4nce an information is filed in court, the court’s prior permission must#e secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. hether the accusedhad #een arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation # thefiscal or a review # the +ustice %ecretar where# a motion to dismiss wassu#mitted to the court, the court in the e3ercise of its discretion ma grant themotion or den it and re6uire that the trial on the merits proceed for theproper determination of the case. 1n this regard, the fiscal should continue toappear in the case although he ma turn over the presentation of evidence tothe private prosecutor #ut still under his discretion and control.

C'68 2. *S. P%$P#%3 11048 ,44 SCA 4< (2une ,:8 1<<)

acts5 %1% filed ) separate complaints against &oman Cru7, +r., then$resident and eneral:"anager of %1% and $resident of the "anila otel, forviolation of %ec F(e! of &A F'. /he first was filed with the 4ffice of the

%pecial $rosecutor for violation of &A F' while the second was filed with the$C which was later endorsed to the 4m#udsman. $C filed an informationwith the %andigan#aan after conducting a preliminar investigation. /he 4%$likewise filed information for estafa through falsification of pu#lic documentswith the %andigan#aan. /he 4%$ earlier denied the motion to dismiss #petitioner. %andigan#aan consolidated the two cases #ut remanded the sameto the 4m#udsman for reinvestigation. During the preliminar investigation,

petitioner su#mitted counter:affidavits and documents. /he prosecutorrecommended the withdrawal of the information #ut the 4m#udsman orderedthe prosecution to proceed. $etitioner filed an omni#us motion to 6uash theinformation and for the 4m#udsman to conduct further proceedings #ut thesame was denied. ence, this petition.

1ssue5 = the 4m#udsman should dismiss the information on therecommendation of the prosecutor. = the records of the preliminar investigation should #e reproduced.

eld5 1t is discretionar upon the 4m#udsman if he will rel mainl on thefindings of fact of the investigating prosecutor in making a review of thelatter’s report and recommendation as the 4m#udsman can ver well make his

own findings of fact. /he 4m#udsman does not conduct another investigation#ut merel determines the propriet and correctness of the recommendation ofthe investigating prosecutor that is, whether or not pro#a#le cause e3ist.ence, the courts should not interfere in the e3ercise of the 4m#udsman’sdiscretionar power. /he fact that the information filed # the om#udsmanconsists onl of two paragraphs is not sufficient to impute ar#itrariness on hispart, a#sent a clear showing that he a#used his discretion.

/he court is not tasked to review in detail the evidence su#mitted duing thepreliminar investigation. /he lim case wherein it was held that if a judgerelies entirel on the certification of the prosecutor , he or se has notpersonall determined pro#a#le cause, is not applica#le in the case at #ar. 1tis sufficient that the judge evaluates the report and supporting documentssu#mitted # the prosecutin in determining pro#a#le cause.

/here is no reason to den the reproduction of the records of the preliminarinvestigation since there was good cause on the part of the accused for thereason that he ma prepare for his defense.

&$#A#AS vs. $++!C% $+ T7% $"9'&S"AN3.. No. 11;;0;8 ,5 SCA ;1< (&ecem=er ,8 1<<)

acts5 +udge Ana "aria 1. Dolalas, 2veln J. 4#ido and il#erto B. Carriedo U$residing +udge, Clerk of Court and Clerk 11, respectivel of "C/C ofJa#asalan, Eam#oanga del %ur, were administrativel charged # respondent

*ena *. *erga 54

Criminal Procedure Notes and Cases (Atty Tranquil Salvador) /vvverga 101005




Benjamin >illarante, +r. for Tmiscarriage of justice, dishonest, gross neglect ofdut, unnecessar dela in the administration of justice and for failure toprosecute Criminal Case no. G00' for an unreasona#le length of time in the4m#udsman:"indanao.

/he letter:complaint was due to a criminal case of alarms and scandals filedagainst respondent # a police officer. &espondent alleged that after

su#mitting his counter:affidavit with the court, there has #een no pre:conference, arraignment or pre:trial held or conducted # the judge. e furtheralleged that it was maliciousl filed # $%gt. %alutillo in connivance withpetitioner judge in order to discourage the former from instituting a criminalcomplaint against said police officerRs men for a#use of authorit and police#rutalit with phsical injur. /he case was delaed due to the failure toprosecute within a reasona#le time. /he raft 1nvestigation 4fficer 1 of the4m#udsman directed petitioners to comment and denied the latter’s motion forreconsideration. ence the petition #efore this Court.

1ssue5 = the 4m#udsman has jurisdiction over petitioners for purposes ofinvestigation and prosecution.

Decision5 /his Court agrees with petitioner:judge. /he complaint againstpetitioner:judge #efore the 4ffice of the 4m#udsman is #asicall administrativein nature. 1n essence, petitioner:judge is #eing charged with having violated&ule '.), Canon ' and &ule F.G, Canon F of the Code of +udicial Conduct.

1t must #e #orne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge ofundul delaing the disposition of the said criminal case involves thedetermination of whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case,petitioner:judge acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the &ulesof Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the idealsem#odied in the Code of +udicial Conduct. %uch is clearl an administrativematter. 9n6uestiona#l, this Court is mandated of the '0* Constitution toassume under section -, Article >111 of the '0* Constitution to assumeadministrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. ence,

the om#udsman has no jurisdiction over the case at #ar.

AC$P *S. $++!C% $+ T7% $"9'&S"AN3 1,0,,8 ,; SCA 5 (Se ,:8 1<<5)

acts5 4n '0 "a 'G, '' suspected mem#ers of the Juratong Baleleng werekilled in a shootout # the =C& Command, /raffic "anagement Command,$ACC, C$DC and Criminal 1nvestigation Command. Later, %$4) 2duardo de los&ees of the Central 1ntelligence Command e3posed that there was noshootout. /hen, the relatives of the slain suspects accused the policemen of

murder and asked the C& to conduct an investigation. /he 4m#udsmandirected petitioner Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs Casaclang tomonitor the investigations # the C&, %enate and $=$. Casaclang re6uesteddocuments relative to the shootout from these #odies and agencies. %$4)Cora7on de la Cru7 testified and corro#orated the statements of de los &ees.e then created a panel of investigators which recommended the conduct of apreliminar investigation after #eing furnished with documents and transcripts

of the %enate’s proceedings and the ?After 4perations &eport@ from $=$. eordered petitioners to su#mit counter:affidavits and evidences #ut the latterneither complied nor moved for reconsideration. 1nstead, the 6uestioned thepreliminar investigation without the re6uired preliminar evaluation in theirrespective petitions with the %C, which ordered #oth parties to comment.owever, Acting 4m#udsman >illa ordered petitioner to file their counter:affidavits, which caused petitioner to cite him in contempt. >illa likewise tookthe petition from Casaclang who suspended the same pending resolution of thepetition # the %C. ence, this petition.

1ssue5 = the 4m#udsman of the 4%$ has jurisdiction over the complaint.= the Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs ma conduct $1.

Decision5 $etitioners, who are $=$ officers, are civilian personnel of thegovernment. /he Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs is not prohi#ited fromperforming other functions or duties affecting non:militar personnel. /he4m#udsman ma refer cases involving non:militar personnel for investigation# the Deput 4m#udsman for "ilitar Affairs. ence, there is no irregularitattending the referral # the Acting 4m#udsman of the case to Casaclang whoin turn created a panel of investigators.

Casaclang did not set the case for $1 without the preliminar evaluationre6uired. 1n the case, Casaclang issued the 6uestioned order after the panel ofinvestigators su#mitted its evaluation report. /he conduct of such evaluationinvolves the e3ercise of discretion which has not #een a#used in the case.

/hrough &A -**, the 4%$ was made an organic component of the 4ffice of

the 4m#udsman. /he om#udsman was granted with the power to investigatepu#lic officers and emploees over cases cogni7a#le # the %andigan#aan./he 4%$ is also authori7ed to conduct $1 over criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the %andigan#aan under the supervision and control and uponthe authorit of the 4m#udsman.

$CA"P$8 !* vs. $"9'&S"AN3.. Nos. 104-:8 ,,5 SCA :,5 (August 408 1<<4)

*ena *. *erga 5





acts5 overnor "ariano 4campo 111 and his son, petitioner "ariano 4campo1>, were charged with violation of %ec. F (h! of &epu#lic Act. =o. F' in two()! separate informations filed #efore the %andigan#aan. "ariano 4campo 111,then /arlac overnor and $resident:Chairman of the Board of /rustees of theLingkod /arlac oundation, 1nc. (L/1!, connived with 4campo 1> in loaning$G,*-,F'. and $*,,. out of the =ational Aid for Localovernment unds (=AL! of /arlac to the 1"C4&, now the =ew /erritor

"anufacturing, 1nc., a private corporation where 4campo 1> is an incorporatorand stockholder, under terms and conditions grossl disadvantageous to thegovernment the same #eing interest:free, without collateral, and without, adefinite date of repament.

4campo 1> filed with the %andigan#aan a motion for reinvestigation whichwas granted. After the reinvestigation, %pecial $rosecutors &oger C. Ber#ano,%r. and &odolfo . &enoso of the 4%$ found that 4campo 1> did not connivewith his father, ov. 4campo 111. /he special prosecutors then recommendedthat the informations against them #e dismissed and withdrawn. owever, the4m#udsman disapproved the recommendation. ence, this petition.

1ssue5 4= the 4m#udsman a#used its discretion in proceeding with the case

despite the recommendation of dismissal # the special prosecutor.

Decision5 Criminal prosecutions ma not #e restrained, either through apreliminar or final injunction or, a writ of prohi#ition, e3cept in someinstances. Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or the4m#udsman to determine the specificit and ade6uac of the averments of theoffense charged. e ma dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it to #einsufficient in form or su#stance or if he otherwise finds no ground to continuewith the in6uir; or he ma proceed with the investigation of the complaint is,in his view, in due and proper form.

/he petition failed to show a grave a#use of discretion on the part of the4m#udsman, whose act of disapproving the recommendation of the specialprosecutors to dismiss the informations filed is not whimsical or capricious.

=either is it tainted with vindictiveness or ar#itrariness. e disapproved therecommendation of the special prosecutors #ecause he sincerel #elieved thatthere is sufficient evidence to indict #oth accused.

1t should however #e reiterated that, while it is the 4m#udsman who has thefull discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should #e filed in the%andigan#aan, once the case has #een filed with said court, it is the%andigan#aan, and no longer the 4m#udsman, which has full control of thecase so much so that the informations ma not #e dismissed without theapproval of the said court.

$&!3'%6 *S. SAN&!3AN9AAN3 14558 1,0 SCA 5< (+e= 1;8 1<;4)

acts5 4n ) +an '-, "a3imo &odrigue7 was the provincial fiscal of "isamis4riental when he was designated as 23:officio &egister of Deeds of "isamis

4riental and CD4 Cit upon the register of the former &egister of Deeds. Later,respondent Digno &oa filed an affidavit complaint #efore the fiscal of CD4charging &odrigue7 of estafa, falsification and usurpation of pu#lic functions. Asu#poena was issued to petitioner who su#mitted his counter:affidavit. %tate$rosecutor Lilia Lope7, who assisted the fiscal conducted a $1. /wo monthslater, he resigned from the service. /hen, Lope7 found pro#a#le cause againstpetitioner with 1sidro 9dang and +osefa 2#ora $acardo. Before her resolutioncould #e approved # the D4+, the office of the /anod#aan was created towhich the entire records of the case were transferred. /he /anod#aanprosecutor rancisco &a#anes set the case for $1 #ut later dismissed the casefor lack of $C # just considering the records and counter:affidavit su#mitted# petitioner. /he /anod#aan legal officer however recommended the settingaside of the resolution and the filing of an information for violation of &A F'.

A team of special prosecutors conducted the $1 upon the recommendation ofthe /anod#aan prosecution and investigation office. /he su#poena was servedupon petitioner’s wife since the former was in Catarman =orthern %amarhospital attending to his sick mother and proceeding directl to "anila for anappearance #efore the CA. /he $1 was conducted in the presence of petitioner’slaw partner and son, &ufus &odrigue7, #ut petitioner denied them as hisrepresentative since he was unaware of such $1. Conse6uentl, an informationfor violation of &A F' was filed #efore the %B. $etitioner’s motion to 6uashwas denied. ence, this petition.

1ssue5 = $D '-- creating the /anod#aan is an e3:post facto law.= the $1 was properl conducted.

Decision5 /he %andigan#aan is a national court stationed in "anila the fact

that an accused is placed to defraing greater e3penses #ecause the %B holdscourts in "anila onl does not work $D '-- which created it an e3 post factolaw. 1t is not disputed that a su#poena was sent to petitioner as received # hiswife and that he was represented # his law partner and son who activelparticipated in the proceedings. 2ven if he denied their representation, itappears that petitioner had su#mitted a memorandum to the /anod#aan andhad ventilated his arguments at a hearing #efore the latter. /hus, petitionerhad ample opportunit to #e heard and was in fact heard. urther, $D ''authori7es the holding of an e3 parte $1. 1f respondent does not appear, the $1ma proceed without him. ence, the $1 was properl conducted.

*ena *. *erga 55





'#% 114A%ST

Section &, 7efinition of arrest, < Arrest is the ta2ing of a person intocustody in order that he may %e %ound to answer for the commissionof an offense,

E?at is arrestKArrest is the taking of a person into custod in order that he ma #e #ound toanswer for the commission of an offense

Sec, 9, Arrest= how made, < An arrest is made %y an actual restraint ofa person to %e arrested+ or %y his su%mission to the custody of the

person ma2ing the arrest,

NoteD No violence or unnecessary orce s?all =e used in maing anarrest. T?e erson arrested s?all not =e su=Ject to a greater restraint

t?an is necessary or ?is detention.

7o is an arrest madeKArrest is made # an actual restraint of the person to #e arrested or # hissu#mission to the custod of the person making the arrest

Sec, ., 7uty of arresting officer, < It shall %e the duty of the officere$ecuting the warrant to arrest the accused and deliver him to thenearest police station or 4ail without unnecessary delay,

hat does it mean when jurisprudence sas that the officer, in making thearrest, must ?stand his ground@Q1t means that the officer ma use such force as is reasona#l necessar toeffect the arrest

E?at is t?e duty o t?e arresting oicer ?o arrests a ersonKe must deliver the person immediatel to the nearest jail or police station

Sec, /, E$ecution of warrant, < The head of the office to whom thewarrant of arrest was delivered for e$ecution shall cause the warrantto %e e$ecuted within ten '&( days from its receipt, 1ithin ten '&(days after the e$piration of the period+ the officer to whom it wasassigned for e$ecution shall ma2e a report to the 4udge who issued thewarrant, In case of his failure to e$ecute the warrant+ he shall statethe reason therefore,

Eit?in ?at eriod must a arrant o arrest =e servedK/here is no time period. A warrant of arrest is valid until the arrest is effectedor until it is lifted. /he head of the officer to whom the warrant was deliveredmust cause it to #e e3ecuted within ' das from its receipt and the officer towhom it is assigned for e3ecution must make a report to the judge who issuedit within ' das from the e3piration of the period. 1f he fails to e3ecute it, heshould state the reasons therefore

Sec, 0, Arrest without warrant= when lawful, < A peace officer or a private person may+ without a warrant+ arrest a person:'a( 1hen+ in his presence+ the person to %e arrested has committed+ isactually committing+ or is attempting to commit an offense=

'%( 1hen an offense has 4ust %een committed and he has pro%a%lecause to %elieve %ased on personal 2nowledge of facts or

circumstances that the person to %e arrested has committed it= and'c( 1hen the person to %e arrested is a prisoner who has escapedfrom a penal esta%lishment or place where he is serving final

4udgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending+ or hasescaped while %eing transferred from one confinement to another,

In cases falling under paragraphs 'a( and '%( a%ove+ the person

arrested without a warrant shall %e forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or 4ail and shall %e proceeded against in accordance with section > of *ule &&9,

E?en is an arrest it?out arrant laulKA peace officer or private person ma arrest without warrant5

'. when in his presence, the person to #e arrested has committed, isactuall committing, or is a#out to commit an offense

). when an offense has just #een committed, and he has pro#a#le cause#ased on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that theperson to #e arrested has committed it

F. when the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from apenal esta#lishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is

temporaril confined while his case is pending or has escaped while#eing transferred from one confinement to another

NoteD t?e ?rase GJust =een committedH is used to hinder the a#use oflaw enforcers

$ersonal Jnowledge5

'. facts #ased on information

). facts #ased on &easona#le rounds of %uspicion &uleF. of the death of victim and facts indicating that accused was the

assailant

*ena *. *erga 5





N$T%5'. %ec G(a! I in flagrante delicto

• Jnowledge must #e at the time of, not after, arrest

• $ersonal knowledge is re6uired). %ec G(#! I hot pursuit arrest

• 2lements).' 4ffense have #een committed).) 4ffense has just #een committed).F $ro#a#le cause #ased on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances

that persons to #e arrested committed it).F.' $ersonal knowledge of facts #ased on information allowed).F.) $ersonal knowledge of facts #ased on reasona#le grounds of

suspicion rule is not the rule

Bu Bust operation

• 1t is a form of entrapment which has #een repeatedl accepted to #e avalid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. /heviolator is court in flagrante delicto and the police officers conductingthe operation are not onl authori7ed #ut dut #ound to apprehend theviolator and to search him for anthing that ma have #een part of or

used in the commission of the crime• ?o#jective test@ demands that the detail so the purported

transaction must clearl and ade6uatel shown5 the initial contact#etween the poser:#uer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, thepromise of pament of the consideration until the consummation of thesale # the deliver of the illegal drug su#ject of the sale

• #u:#ust must #e continuousi. #u #ust operation and search rejected for =4/ #eing

continuous

Sec, 5, Time of ma2ing arrest, < An arrest may %e made on any dayand at any time of the day or night,

Sec, >, -ethod of arrest %y officer %y virtue of warrant,< 1hen ma2ing an arrest %y virtue of a warrant+ the officer shallinform the person to %e arrested of the cause of the arrest and the factthat a warrant has %een issued for his arrest+ e$cept when he flees or

forci%ly resists %efore the officer has opportunity to so inform him+ orwhen the giving of such information will imperil the arrest, The officer

need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest%ut after the arrest+ if the person arrested so re)uires+ the warrant

shall %e shown to him as soon as practica%le,

Sec, 6, -ethod of arrest %y officer without warrant, < 1hen ma2ing anarrest without a warrant+ the officer shall inform the person to %earrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest+ unless the latteris either engaged in the commission of an offense+ is pursuedimmediately after its commission+ has escaped+ flees+ or forci%lyresists %efore the officer has opportunity to so inform him+ or whenthe giving of such information will imperil the arrest,

&uty o t?e arresting oicer to inorm t?e accused oD

• t?e reason or t?e arrest and ?e must =e s?on t?e arrant oarrest8 i any

• ?is constitutional rig?ts to remain silent and to counsel8 andany statement ?e mig?t mae could =e used against ?im

• rig?t to communicate it? ?is layer8 a relative or anyone ?ec?ooses =y t?e most eBedient means

• arresting oicer must see to it t?at t?is is accomlis?ed.

• No custodial investigation s?all =e conducted unless it =e in t?eresence o counsel engaged =y t?e erson arrested or =y any

erson on ?is =e?al or aointed =y t?e court uon etitioneit?er o t?e detainee ?imsel or =y anyone in ?is =e?al

• ig?t o counsel may =e aived =ut t?e aiver s?all N$T =evalid unless made it? t?e assistance o counsel

• A :4; addso T?e accused must =e inormed in a language ?e

understands

Peole vs. "a?inay L udating t?e "iranda case'. %tating rights must #e made in a language known and understood #

accused). &ight to #e assisted # a lawerF. 1f indigent, a lawer will #e provided. &ight to remain silentG. 1nformed that no custodial investigation in an manner ma #e

conducted without presence of accused’s counsel-. At an time, he has the right to communicate or confer # the most

e3pedient means with his lawer, an immediate famil mem#er,medical doctor, priest or minister chosen # him or # an one fromhis immediate famil or # his counsel

*. &ight to waive rights; in writing, voluntar, knowingl and intelligentl

*ena *. *erga 5:





0. ith the presence of counsel (this right was made effective on April)-, '0F!

. "a indicate in an manner at an time or stage of the process that hedoes not wish to #e 6uestioned I interrogation must cease

'. aiver of right does not #ar accused from invoking it at an time''. =ame if the arresting officer'). Charge and reason for arrest

'F. 1nadmissi#le evidence• 1t is onl the solicited confession that would #e inadmissi#le.

arrrantless searcharrest are valid and admissi#le

Sec, ?, -ethod of arrest %y private person, < 1hen ma2ing an arrest+ a private person shall inform the person to %e arrested of the intentionto arrest him and the case of the arrest+ unless the latter is eitherengaged in the commission of an offense+ is pursued immediately afterits commission+ or has escaped+ flees+ or forci%ly resists %efore the

person ma2ing the arrest has opportunity to so inform him+ or whenthe giving of such information will imperil the arrest,

Sec, &, "fficer may summon assistance, < An officer ma2ing a lawfularrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to

assist him in effecting the arrest, Every person so summoned %y anofficer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render suchassistance without detriment to himself,

Sec, &&, *ight of officer to %rea2 into %uilding or enclosure, < Anofficer+ in order to ma2e an arrest either %y virtue of a warrant+ orwithout a warrant as provided in section 0+ may %rea2 into any%uilding or enclosure where the person to %e arrested is or isreasona%ly %elieved to %e+ if he is refused admittance thereto+ after

announcing his authority and purpose,

Sec, &9, *ight to %rea2 out from %uilding or enclosure, < 1henever anofficer has entered the %uilding or enclosure in accordance with the

preceding section+ he may %rea2 out therefrom when necessary toli%erate himself,

Sec, &., Arrest after escape or rescue, < If a person lawfully arrestedescapes or is rescued+ any person may immediately pursue or reta2ehim without a warrant at any time and in any place within thePhilippines,

Sec, &/, *ight of attorney or relative to visit person arrested, < Anymem%er of the Philippine 8ar shall+ at the re)uest of the personarrested or of another acting in his %ehalf+ have the right to visit andconfer privately with such person in the 4ail or any other place ofcustody at any hour of the day or night, Su%4ect to reasona%leregulations+ a relative of the person arrested can also e$ercise the

same right,

<92%/14=

A police officer was chasing a person who had just committed an offense. /heperson went inside a house, so the police officer followed. 1nside the house,the police officer saw drugs ling around. Can he confiscate the drugsQ Can heuse them as evidenceQ8es. /he plain view doctrine is applica#le in this case #ecause there was a priorvalid intrusion, the police officer inadvertentl discovered the evidence, he hada right to #e there, and the evidence was immediatel apparent

hat if the officer merel peaks through the window of the house and sees the

drugs I can he confiscate thenX can he use them as evidenceQe can confiscate them without prejudice to his lia#ilit for violation ofdomicile. e cannot use them as evidence #ecause the sei7ure cannot #e justified under the plain view doctrine, there #eing no previous valid intrusion

E?en s?ould an arrest =e madeK1t can #e made on an da at an time of the da and night

Can an officer arrest a person against whom a warrant has #een issued even ifhe does not have the warrant with himQ8es, #ut after the arrest, if the person arrested re6uires, it must #e shown tohim as soon as practica#le.

'#% 1,S%AC7 AN& S%!6'%

Section &, Search warrant defined, < A search warrant is an order inwriting issued in the name of the People of the Philippines+ signed %y a

4udge and directed to a peace officer+ commanding him to search for personal property descri%ed therein and %ring it %efore the court,

S%AC7 EAANT *S. EAANT $+ A%STS%AC7 EAANT EAANT $+ A%ST

*ena *. *erga 5;





/he applicant must show5'. that the items sought are in factsi7ea#le # virtue of #eingconnected with criminal activit;and). that the items will #e found in theplace to #e searched.

/he applicant must show5'. pro#a#le cause that an offense has#een committed; and). that the person to #e arrestedcommitted it

/he judge must conduct a personal,searchinge3amination of the applicant and hiswitnesses

/he judge need not conduct a personale3amination of the applicant and hiswitnesses. e ma rel on the affidavitsof the witnesses and therecommendation of the prosecutor.

E?at is a searc? arrantK1t is an order in writing issued in the name of the $eople of the $hilippines,signed # a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to searchfor personal propert descri#ed therein and #ring it #efore the court.

E?y are t?e requirements or t?e issuance o a searc? arrant more

stringent t?an t?erequirements or t?e issuance o a arrant o arrestK/he violation of the right to privac produces a humiliating effect which cannot#e rectified anmore. /his is wh there is no other justification for a search,e3cept a warrant. 4n the other hand, in a warrant of arrest, the person to #earrested can alwas post #ail to prevent the deprivation of li#ert.

NoteD A searc? arrant requires strict comliance it? t?eConstitution

Sec, 9, Court where application for search warrant shall %e filed, < Anapplication for search warrant shall %e filed with the following:

'a( Any court within whose territorial 4urisdiction a crime wascommitted,

'%( For compelling reasons stated in the application+ any courtwithin the 4udicial region where the crime was committed if the

place of the commission of the crime is 2nown+ or any courtwithin the 4udicial region where the warrant shall %e enforced,

;owever+ if the criminal action has already %een filed+ theapplication shall only %e made in the court where the criminalaction is pending,

E?ere s?ould t?e alication or searc? arrant =e iledKAs a general rule, it should #e filed with the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed. But for compelling reasons, it can #efiled with the court within whose judicial region the offense was committed orwhere the warrant is to #e served.But, if the criminal action has alread #een filed, the application for a searchwarrant can onl #e made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

Sec. 4. Personal property to %e sei3ed . L A searc? arrant may =eissued or t?e searc? and seiMure o ersonal roertyD(a) Su=Ject o t?e oense(=) Stolen or em=eMMled and ot?er roceeds8 or ruits o t?e oense or(c) 'sed or intended to =e used as t?e means o committing an oense.

Su=Ject $ A Searc? EarrantD Personal Proerty8 E?ic? !s5'. su#ject of the offense,). stolen or em#e77led and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, orF. used or intended to #e used as the means of committing an offense.

Sec, /, *e)uisites for issuing search warrant, < A search warrant shallnot issue e$cept upon pro%a%le cause in connection with one specificoffense to %e determined personally %y the 4udge after e$aminationunder oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may

produce+ and particularly descri%ing the place to %e searched and thethings to %e sei3ed which may %e anywhere in the Philippines,

Sec, 0, E$amination of complainant= record, < The 4udge must+ %efore

issuing the warrant+ personally e$amine in the form of searching)uestions and answers+ in writing and under oath+ the complainant andthe witnesses he may produce on facts personally 2nown to them andattach to the record their sworn statements+ together with theaffidavits su%mitted,

equisites or issuing a searc? arrant'. /here must #e pro#a#le cause). hich must #e determined personall # the judgeF. upon personal e3amination in writing and under oath of the complainant andhis witnesses in the form of pro#ing and searching 6uestions and answers onfacts personall known to them. the pro#a#le cause must #e in connection with one specific offense

*ena *. *erga 5<




( y q ) / g

G. particularl descri#ing the place to #e searched and the items to #e sei7ed-. the sworn statements together with the affidavits of the witnesses must #eattached to the record.

E?en is t?e aidavit or testimony o t?e itness said to =e =ased on

ersonal noledgeK/he test is whether perjur could #e charged against the witness.

!s it necessary t?at t?e erson named in t?e searc? arrant =e t?eoner o t?e t?ings to =e seiMedK=o. 4wnership is of no conse6uence. hat is relevant is that the propert isconnected to an offense.

E?at are t?e requisites o t?e ersonal eBamination t?at t?e Judgemust conduct =eore issuing t?e searc? arrantK/he judge must5'. e3amine the witnesses personall;). under oath;F. and reduced to writing in the form of pro#ing and searching 6uestions andanswers.

E?at is t?e meaning o ro=a=le causeK$ro#a#le cause for a search is such facts and circumstances which could lead areasona#l discreet and prudent man to #elieve that an offense has #eencommitted and that the o#jects sought in connection with the offense are inthe place sought to #e searched.

E?at is t?e meaning o ersonal noledgeK$ro#a#le cause must #e shown to #e within the personal knowledge of thecomplainant or witnesses he ma produce and not #ased on mere heresa.

1hat is the meaning of pro%ing and searching )uestions and answers@

/he exa'ination 'ust be probing and exhaustive, not 'erely routinary or profor'a, not 'erely ans(erable by yes or no"

Can you issue t?e arrant =y claiming t?at t?e riest sa itK=o. #ecause personal knowledge refers to personal knowledge of the applicantfor search warrant, andor his witnesses, not of the facts merel reported # aperson whom one considers to #e relia#le.

• the abode is sacred 1. once transgressed, cannot restore the transgressed right

2. violating rule on searches and sei6ures is actionable under the

3ivil 3ode because a 'an0s house is his castle

• personal )no(ledge is re#uired so he can be liable for per!ury

• there 'ust be a hearing to deter'ine probable cause1. not 'erely es or -o ans(ers2. cannot be base d 'erely on reliable infor'ation

• search (arrant is severable, and those ite's not particularly described'ay be cut off (ithout destroying the (hole (arrant

E?at is a Gscatter s?ot arrantHK1t is a warrant of arrest that is issued for more than one offense. 1t is void,since the law re6uires that a warrantof arrest should onl #e issued in connection with one specific offense.

A arrant as issued or t?e seiMure o drugs connected it?Gviolation o t?e &angerous &rugs #a.H !s t?e arrant validK/he warrant is valid. Although there are man was of violating theDangerous Drugs Law, it is not a scatter shot warrant since it is inconnection with onl one penal law.

Sec, 5, Issuance and form of search warrant, < If the 4udge is satisfiedof the e$istence of facts upon which the application is %ased or thatthere is pro%a%le cause to %elieve that they e$ist+ he shall issue thewarrant+ which must %e su%stantially in the form prescri%ed %y these*ules,

Sec, >, *ight to %rea2 door or window to effect search, < The officer+ ifrefused admittance to the place of directed search after giving noticeof his purpose and authority+ may %rea2 open any outer or inner dooror window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to

e$ecute the warrant to li%erate himself or any person lawfully aidinghim when unlawfully detained therein,

Sec, 6, Search of house+ room+ or premises to %e made in presence oftwo witnesses, < #o search of a house+ room+ or any other premises

shall %e made e$cept in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof orany mem%er of his family or in the a%sence of the latter+ two witnessesof sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality,

#ote: the 9 witnesses rule applies if there is no other occupant of thehome

*ena *. *erga 0




( y q ) / g

Sec, ?, Time of ma2ing search, < The warrant must direct that it %e served in the day time+ unless the affidavit asserts that the property ison the person or in the place ordered to %e searched+ in which case adirection may %e inserted that it %e served at any time of the day ornight,

3eneral ule5 time of making the search is at the da time%Bcetions51. if there are emergencies2. propert is on the person or place to #e searched

Sec, &, alidity of search warrant, < A search warrant shall %e validfor ten '&( days from its date, Thereafter+ it shall %e void,

NoteD unlie a arrant o arrest8 ?ic? is valid until served =ut t?eoicer must mae a reort ater 10 days

Sec, &&, *eceipt for the property sei3ed, < The officer sei3ing the

property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same tothe lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and

sei3ure were made+ or in the a%sence of such occupant+ must+ in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretionresiding in the same locality+ leave a receipt in the place in which he

found the sei3ed property,

1. inventory must =e signed =y , itnesses2. a eace oicer cannot as t?e accused to sign i t?ere areno , itnesses =ecause t?at ould violate t?e rig?t againstsel-incrimination

Sec, &9, 7elivery of property and inventory thereof to court= return and

proceedings thereon, < 'a( The officer must forthwith deliver the property sei3ed to the 4udge who issued the warrant+ together with atrue inventory thereof duly verified under oath,

'%( Ten '&( days after issuance of the search warrant+ the issuing 4udge shall ascertain if the return has %een made+ and if none+ shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and re)uire himto e$plain why no return was made, If the return has %een made+ the

4udge shall ascertain whether section && of this *ule has %een

complied with and shall re)uire that the property sei3ed %e delivered to

him, The 4udge shall see to it that su%section 'a( hereof has %eencomplied with,

'c( The return on the search warrant shall %e filed and 2ept %y thecustodian of the log %oo2 on search warrants who shall enter thereinthe date of the return+ the result+ and other actions of the 4udge,

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court,

1. propert will #e in custodia legis2. items in the search warrant will #e the onl items to #e sei7ed

• e3cept5 if malum prohi#itum3. particular description of5 to avoid a#uses

• place to #e searched

• things to #e sei7ed4. if there’s an error in the warrant, the should go to the courtto have it corrected5. Anthing not included in the warrant cannot #e sei7ed 2HC2$/if it is mala prohi#ita, in which case, the sei7ure can #e justified under

the plain view doctrine. 2ven if the o#ject was related to the crime,#ut it is not mentioned in the warrant nor is it mala prohi#ita, it stillcannot #e sei7ed.6. erson need not =e named may =e named 2o?n &oe aslong as descri=ed it? articularity or it? descritio ersonae

'%ST!$NS

E?at s?ould t?e olice oicer or court do to t?ings seiMed illegallyKAnthing sei7ed illegall must #e returned to the owner unless it is malaprohi#ita. 1n this case, it should #e kept in custodia legis.

E?en s?ould t?e searc? arrant =e eBecutedK1f possi#le, it should #e e3ecuted during the datime. But in certain cases, suchas when the things to #e sei7ed are mo#ile or are in the person of the accused,it can #e served during nighttime.

+or ?o long is t?e searc? arrant validK1t is valid for ' das, after which the peace officer should make a return tothe judge who issued it. 1f the peace officer does not make a return, the judgeshould summon him and re6uire him to e3plain wh no return was made. 1f thereturn was made, the judge should determine if the peace officer issued areceipt to the occupant of the premises from which the things were taken.sei7ed.

*ena *. *erga 1




! t?e arrant as eBecuted even =eore t?e eBiration o t?e ten-dayeriod8 can t?e eace oicer use t?e arrant again =eore it eBiresK=o. 1f the purpose for which it was issued has alread #een carried out, thewarrant cannot #e used anmore./he e3ception is if the search was not finished within one da, the warrant canstill #e used the ne3t da, provided that it is still within the ':da period.

Sec, &., Search incident to lawful arrest, < A person lawfullyarrested may %e searched for dangerous weapons or anything

which may have %een used or constitute proof in thecommission of an offense without a search warrant,

;arrantless earches and ei6ures.<" incidental to la(ful arrest

• search 'ust be conte'poraneous and (ithin i''ediate

vicinity=control of the person arrested >" consented search

• conditions.

a" right existsb" person 'a)ing the consent )no(s that he has the right c" in spite of )no(ledge of the right, he voluntarily andintelligently gives consent

?" search of 'oving vehicles

• search 'ust be cursory i"e", don0t 'a)e a thorough search

!ust to have a loo) not to open trun)s@" custo's5" chec)points" RA re#uiring inspections or body chec)s in airports7" stop8and8fris) " e'ergency 9" enforce'ent of health and sanitary la(s or ordinances

%lain ie( 4octrine

1. valid intrusion

2. ite' 'ust be visible C seen (ithout any further search e"g" in

a transparent bag

3. inadvertent discovery

e"g" police chasing a person, sees a box, ta)es a pea) and sees drugs

• can #e sei7ed #ecause malum prohi#itum #ut cannot

#e introduced as evidence #ecause not in plain view

• if detected through smell, not case of plain view #ut

pro#a#le cause (decided case!

• if detected # canines : as if police themselves have

smelled it

•

if police chases a person, accidentall hits a jar,where drugs pour out I not plain view

• if mall I private place, ou waive our right against

unreasona#le searches and sei7ures

Sec, &/, -otion to )uash a search warrant or to suppress evidence=where to file, < A motion to )uash a search warrant andBor to suppressevidence o%tained there%y may %e filed in and acted upon only %y thecourt where the action has %een instituted, If no criminal action has%een instituted+ the motion may %e filed in and resolved %y the courtthat issued search warrant, ;owever+ if such court failed to resolve themotion and a criminal case is su%se)uently filed in another court+ themotion shall %e resolved %y the latter court,

!. S'""A'. /he Constitution does not prohi#it all kinds of searches and sei7ures. 1t

onl prohi#its unreasona#le searches and sei7ures.). A search and sei7ure is unreasona#le if it is made without a warrant,

or the warrant was invalidl issued.F. A search and sei7ure without a warrant is still reasona#le if conducted

under the following circumstances5a. 1ncident to a lawful arrest

i. 1t must #e made A/2& the arrest. /he o#jective is tomake sure that the life of the peace officer will not #eendangered.

ii. 1t must #e contemporaneous with the arrest in #oth

time and place.#. %earch of moving vehiclesc. Consent searches

i. 4nl the person whose right ma #e violated can givethe consent; it is a personal right.

ii. /he re6uisites are5'. /he person has knowledge of his right against

the search;). e freel gives his consent in spite of such

knowledge.d. 4#jects in plain view

*ena *. *erga ,




i. &e6uisites5'. /here must have #een a prior valid intrusion,

and the officer must have had a right to #e atthe place searched at the time of the search;

). /he evidence was inadvertentl discovered;F. /he evidence must #e immediatel apparent;. /here was no need for further search.

e. Customs searchesf. %top and risk 23igent circumstancesg. 2mergenc

CAS%SD

P%$P#% *S. $AN!S AN& 3A#ANTA: P?il. ,5 ,, 2uly 1<4

acts5 Captain "onsod, Consta#ular $rovincial 1nspector at Ca#anatuan

received from "aor uido a telegram stating that a certain Anselmo Balagtas,an escaped convict, was living with a ertain 1rene in Ca#antauan. "onsodimmediatel ordered the arrest of Balagtas, dead or alive, should he offerresistance or aggression. /he accused Chief of $olice 4anis and theconsta#ular soldier alanta were sent out to arrest Balagtas. /he accusedarrived at the house of 1rene who was supposedl the paramour of Balagtas.hen the were there, the saw a certain person who resem#led Balagtas inall his #odil appearance sleeping on a #am#oo #ed #ut facing the otherdirection. /he accused, without going around the house, started firing at theman. /he found out later on that the man was not reall Balagtas. /hetried to invoke the justifing circumstance of having acted in fulfillment of adut.

1n support of their theor of non:lia#ilit # reason of honest mistake of fact,the two relied on the case of 9.%. vs. Ah Chong were a cook accidentallwounded a friend who was plaing a trick on the latter.

1ssue5 = the two accused should #e held lia#le.

Decision5 8es. Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified inusing such force as is reasona#le necessar to secure and detain the offender,overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, andprotect himself from #odil harm, et he is never justified in using unnecessarforce or in treating him with wanton violence or in resorting to dangerousmeans when the arrest could #e affected otherwise. =o unnecessar or

unreasona#le force shall #e used in making an arrest, and the person arrestedshall not #e su#ject to an greater restraint than is necessar for his detention.A peace officer cannot claim e3emption from criminal lia#ilit if he usesunnecessar force or violence in making an arrest. Although it is true thatAnselmo is a notorious criminal, #ut such does not constitute an justificationfor killing the man when in effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance or infact asleep.

3A#AN3 vs. CA4, SCA 14< (,000)

acts5 /he victim, Carlos 4ro, coming from his #irthda cele#ration, wenthome drunk. At around 05 in the evening, he figured in an altercation withone +ojo "arcelo. /he altercation reached the appellant who together with apoliceman proceeded to the place. 9pon seeing Carlos, appellant drew his gunand pointed it at the victim. /he victim said that he will not fight #ack./hereafter, appellant gra# the right arm of Carlos and forced him to kneel onthe ground with his right hand #ehind his #ack still #eing held # the appellant.

1t was in that position that appellant pumped ) #ullets into Carlos’ whichcaused his death.

Appellant claims self defense.

1ssue5 = the appellant should #e held guilt as charged.

Decision5 enerall, the #urden lies upon the prosecution to Orove the guilt ofthe accused. owever, if the accused admits killing the victim and pleads self:defense, the #urden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such claim. alangwas unsuccessful in proving his claim #ecause the phsical evidence supportsotherwise.

ranting form the sale of argument that unlawful aggression was attendant at

the initial stage, the same ceased when Carlos dropped his gun. /he threat toappellant’s life is no longer attendant.

9nlawful aggression is a condition sine8#ua non for the justifing circumstanceof self:defense. /here can #e no self:defense complete or incomplete unlessthe victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defendinghimself.

$olicemen are #ound # their dut to protect life, li#ert and propert. As theirposition gives them great deal of advantage. A police officer is not justified inusing unnecessar force in enforcing arrest or in treating with wanton violence

*ena *. *erga 4




the arrested person or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could#e affect otherwise.

'N!T%& STAT%S *S. "$2!CA) %C&A *0 ('))!

acts5 Artemio "ojica is a policeman in the cit of "anila. 4n the evening of

Decem#er 'F '), a consta#ular soldier and a woman were arrested insidethe alled Cit # the police, which caused considera#le irritation amongconsta#ular troops stationed at %anta Lucia Barracks. /he consta#ularsoldiers, Armed with rifles and #aonet, convinced that "ojica was with themen who arrested their fellow soldier, threatened the appellant with death if hewill not produce the arrested soldier and woman. /he arrival of the patrolwagon saved "ojica. /he following da, the consta#ular men returned."ojica, after calling for reinforcement, ran into a restaurant to avoid altercationwith the soldiers. hen the reinforcement arrived. e re:appeared. owever,the victim and his two other companions resisted arrest. /he deceased"acasinag struck the appellant with his clu#. hen he was a#out to sta#"ojica, the latter drew a shot inflicting a wound from which "acasinag died afew das later.

/he appellant contends that it was self defense.

1ssue5 = the appellant should #e held lia#le for the death of "acasinag.

Decision5 =o. /he appellant killed the victim in self:defense. /he revisedpenal code provides that anone who acts in self:defense of his person shall #ee3empt from criminal lia#ilit. $rovided that the following circumstancesconcur5

'. 9nlawful aggression). &easona#le necessit for the means emploed to prevent or repel it.F. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending

himself./here was unlawful aggression on "acasinag’s part. A police officer, in the

performance of his dut, must %/A=D 1% &49=D and cannot, like privateindividual, take refuge in flight; his dut re6uires him to overcome hisopponent. 1t was the deceased who attacked the appellant. e had the #estreason to #elieve that his life was in imminent danger.

1t ma #e argued that the appellant should have used his clu# instead #ut apoliceman’s clu# is not ver effective weapon against a drawn knife and apolice officer is not re6uired to afford a person attacking him the opportunitfor a fair an e6ual struggle.

'"!# vs. A"$S.&. =o. 0'G-* +ul '

acts5 /hese are eight (0! petitions for ha#eas corpus filed #efore the Court.1n 9mil v. &amos, the CA$C4" received information a#out a mem#er of the=$A %parrow 9nit #eing treated for gunshot would at the %t. Agnes ospital.9pon verification, it was found out that the wounded person is &olando Dural,

a mem#er of the =$A l i6uidation %6uad, responsi#le for the killing of ) capcomsoldiers the da #efore. As such Dural was transferred to the &egional "edical%ervices of the CA$C4", where he was positivel identified # eewitnesses asthe gunman who killed the ) Capcom soldiers. /he arrest without warrant wasassailed in that Dural was not arrested while in the act of shooting, nor justafter the commission of the offense. Dural was arrested for #eing a mem#er ofthe =$A, an outlawed su#versive organi7ation. %u#version #eing a continuingoffense, the arrest of Dural without warrant is justified as it can #e said that hewas committing an offense when arrested.

1n &o6ue v. De villa, &ogelio &amos 1#anes, a mem#er of the =$A who hadsurrendered, confessed that the house occupied # &enato Constantino was#eing used as a safehouse of =ational 9nited ront Commission of the C$$:

=$A, as such the house was put on militar surveillance and a su#se6uentsearch warrant was issued. irearms, ammunition, radio and othercommunication e6uipment were sei7ed. Constantino then admitted that hewas a staff mem#er of the e3ecutive committed of the =9C. 4n the eveningof the same da, ilfredo Buenao#ra arrived at the house of Constantino.hen accosted, he admitted that he is a regular mem#er of the C$$:=$A andwas to deliver letters to the other mem#ers of the group. ound inBuenao#ra’s possession was a piece of paper containing a jum#led phonenum#er of lorida &o6ue, %ister of Amelia &o6ue alias Ja =elia, at -eronimo %t, Caloocan. Acting on the leads provided as to the wherea#outs ofAmelia &o6ue, militar agents went to the place the ne3t da. After seekingpermission to search the place, which was granted, the conducted a search inthe presence of the occupants of the house and the #rg. Capt. 4f the place./he found ledgers, journals, vouchers, su#versive documents, as well as live

ammunitions. Amelia admitted ownership of the articles. /heir arrests withoutwarrants were justified in that as mem#ers of the =9C:C$$, the committedsu#version, which #eing a continuing offense, the were arrested whilecommitting an offense.

1n Anonuevo >. &amos, Domingo Anonuevo and &amon Casiple arrived of thehouse of &enato Constantino, which was still under surveillance # the militar./he militar agents noticed #ulging o#jects on their waist lines. hen frisked,the agent found them to #e loaded guns, for which the two did not possesslicense to carr. /he were later identified as Ja /ed and Ja /oto of the C$$,# their comrades who had alread surrendered to the militar. /heir arrest

*ena *. *erga




without warrant is also justified #ecause the were carring unlicensedfirearms and ammunitions in their person wh the were apprehended.

1n 4caa >, Aguirre, police officers, armed with a search warrant weresearching a house #elieved to #e occupied # Benito /iamson, head of the C$$:=$A. 1n the course of the search, >ick 4caa arrived in a car driven # Dann&ivera. %u#versive documents and several rounds of ammunition were found

in the car of 4caa and so the were #rought to the police head6uarters. >ick4caa was arrested in flagrante delicto so that her arrest without warrant is justified, since she had with her unlicensed ammunition when arrested.

1n 2spiritu v. Lim, $etitioner, who is the eneral %ecretar of the$inagkaisahang %amahan ng /super at 4perators nationwide, claims that ata#out G am of )F =ov. '0, while he was sleeping in his home, he wasawakened # his sister who told him that a group of persons wanted to hire his jeepne. hen he went down, he was immediatel put under arrest. hen heasked for the warrant, none was presented. /he respondents claim that thepetitioner was lawfull arrested without a warrant since when arrested he hadin fact just committed a crime in that in the afternoon of )) =ov, '0, duringa press conference at the =ational $ress clu# he urged drivers and operators to

go on a nationwide strike, which is tantamount to inciting to sedition.$olicemen waited for petitioner outside the =ational $ress Clu# in order toinvestigate him, #ut he gave them the slip. $olice finall caught up with himon )F =ovem#er and thus, he was invited after which an information was filedagainst him.

1n =a7areno v. %tation Commander, in the morning of Decem#er ,'00, &omulo Bune 11 was killed # a group of men near "endiola. 4ne ofthe suspects was &amil &egala who was arrested # the police on )0 Decem#er'00. 9pon 6uestioning, &2gala pointed to =a7areno as one of his companion.As such, police officers, without warrant, picked up =a7areno and #rought himto the police head6uarters. As held in $eople v. Ancheta, the o#ligation of anagent of authorit to make an arrest # reason of a crime, does notpresuppose as a necessar re6uisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indu#ita#lee3istence of a crime. or the detention to #e perfectl legal, it is sufficient that

the agent making the arrest has reasona#l sufficient grounds to #elieve thee3istence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that the samegrounds e3ist to #elieve that the person sought to #e detained participatedtherein.

1ssue5 = the arrest without warrant is legal.

Decision5 8es. 1n all these petitions, the record shows that the persons inwhose #ehalf these petitions for ha#eas corpus have #een filed, had freshlcommitted or were actuall committing an offense when apprehended so thattheir arrest without a warrant were clearl justified.

'"!# vs. A"$S"4/14= 4& &2C4=%1D2&A/14= F 4cto#er ''

+actsD T?e etitioners see a reconsideration o t?e courtIs decisionu?olding t?e validity o t?e arrantless arrest o t?e susected NPA

mem=ers.

Decision5 /he court stressed that mere suspicion that one is a =$A mem#er isnot a valid ground for the arrest without warrant. owever, the court found nomerit to the motion for reconsideration. 1t was stressed that the writ of ha#eascorpus #eing applied for # the petitioners e3ists as a speed and effectiveremed to relieve the persons from unlawful restraint. owever, there is nounlawful arrest in this case. Again, as a general rule, no peace officer has thepower or authorit to arrest anone without a warrant of arrest e3cept in thosecases e3pressl authori7e # law specificall # %ection G &ule ''F of the &ulesof court which provide that5A peace officer or a private person ma without a warrant, arrest a person5

(a! hen, in his presence, the person to #e arrested has committed, is actuallcommitting, or is attempting to commit an offense;(#! hen an offense has in fact just #een committed, and he has personalknowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested has committed it.

1n the case of &olando Dural, Dural was committing an offense when arrested#ecause he was arrested for #eing a mem#er of a new people’s arm, anoutlawed organi7ation, where mem#ership is penali7ed and for su#version,which like re#ellion is a continuing offense. Dural did not cease to #e asu#versive simpl #ecause he was at the time of the arrest confined in %t.Agnes. =or can it #e said that Dural’s arrest was grounded on mere suspicion# the arresting officers of his mem#ership in the C$$:=$A. is arrest was#ased on a pro#a#le cause as supported # actual facts. Dural’s arrest fallsunder paragraph B of &ule which re6uires ) conditions for valid arrest without

warrant5 '! that the person to #e arrested has just committed an offense and)! that the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge offacts indicating that the person to #e arrested is the one who committed theoffense. /he grounds of suspicion are reasona#le when, in the a#sence ofactual #elief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to #earrested is pro#a#l guilt of committing the offense, is #ased on actual factssuch as in this case5 '! the da #efore, or on F' +anuar '00, two ()!CA$C4" soldiers were actuall killed # five (G! TsparrowsT including Dural, )!a wounded person listed in the hospital records as T&onnie +avellonT wasactuall then #eing treated in %t. Agnes ospital for a gunshot wound and F!T&onnie +avellonT and his address entered in the hospital records were fictitious

*ena *. *erga 5




and the wounded man was in realit &olando Dural.. /hese re6uisites werecomplied with in the 9"1L case.

As to the condition that Tpro#a#le causeT must also #e coupled with acts donein good faith # the officers who make the arrest, the Court notes that thepeace officers who arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same ingood faith, considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularl perform

their official duties. Dural was also promptl placed under the judicial custod.

1n the case of Amelia &o6ue and ilfredo Buenao#ra, Domingo Anonuevo and&amon Casiple and >ick 4caa their arrests, without warrant, are also justified. /he were searched pursuant to search warrants issued # a court oflaw and were found with unlicensed firearms, e3plosives andor ammunition intheir persons. /he were, therefore, caught inflagrante delicto which justifiedtheir outright arrests without warrant, under %ec. G(a!, &ule ''F, &ules ofCourt.

1t is to #e noted in the a#ove cases (&o6ue, Buenao#ra, Anonuevo, Casiple and4caa! that the reason which compelled the militar agents to make thearrests without warrant was the information given to the militar authorities

that two ()! safehouses (one occupied # &enato Constantino and the other #Benito /iarn7on! were #eing used # the C$$=$A for their operations, withinformation as to their e3act location mid the names of &enato Constantino andBenito /iam7on as residents. Also, there were several circumstances whichconfirmed the #elief of the militar agents5 first5 search warrant was dulissued to effect the search of the Constantino safehouse; second5 found in thesafehouse was a person named &enato Constantino, who admitted that he wasa ranking mem#er of the C$$, and found in his possession were unlicensedfirearms and communications e6uipment; third5 at the time of their arrests, intheir possession were unlicensed firearms, ammunitions andor su#versivedocuments, and the admitted ownership thereof as well as their mem#ershipin the C$$=$A. And then, shortl after their arrests, the were positivelidentified # their former comrades in the organi7ation as C$$=$A mem#ers.

An arrest is therefore in the nature of an administrative measure. /he power toarrest without warrant is without limitation as long as the re6uirements of%ection G, &ule ''F are met. /his rule is founded on an overwhelming pu#licinterest in peace and order in our communities.

As in the case of =a7areno, the court held that the arrests of 2spiritu and=a7areno were #ased on pro#a#le cause and supported # factualcircumstances.

$etition was denied.

"A#ACAT vs. CA.&. =o ')FGG ') Decem#er '*

&$CT!N%D /here can #e no valid flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrestpreceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part ofthe police officer that a crime had just #een committed, was #eing committedor was going to #e committed.

/he search was neither within the allowa#le scope of a stop of frisk for such islimited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons. hile in a stop andfrisk, pro#a#le cause is not re6uired, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicionor hunch will not validate a stop and frisk. A genuine reason must e3ist in lightof the police officer’s e3perience and surrounding conditions.

acts5 $etitioner %amm "alacat $andar was charged with violating %ectionF of $D =o. '0-- which codified laws on illegalunlawful ac6uisition anddisposition of ammunition and e3plosives. During the trial on the merits, theprosecution presented police officers as witnesses. &odolfo 8u, the arrestingofficer and +osefino %erapio, the investigating officer testified that on )*

August ' at a#out -5F $", in response to #om# threats reported sevendas earlier, he was on foot patrol wit three other police officers, all in uniform,along <ue7on Boulevard, in <uiapo near the "ercur Drug store in $la7a"iranda. /he chanced upon two groups of "uslim looking men posted atopposite sides of the corner of <ue7on Boulevard. 1t was said that the menwere acting suspiciousl with their ees moving ver fast. 8u positionedthemselves and o#served #oth groups for a#out thirt minutes. hen thepolice approached one group, the all ran in different directions. As policemengave chase, 8u caught and apprehended the petitioner. 8u foundfragmentation grenade tucked inside petitioner’s ?front waist line@. 8u’scompanion apprehended one A#dul Casan from whom a cali#er revolver wasrecovered. 8u added that he conducted the foot patrol due to a report that agroup of "uslims was going to e3plode a grenade somewhere in $la7a "iranda.8u also recogni7ed the petitioner as the previous %aturda, )G August ',

likewise in $la7a "iranda, he sa petitioner and two others detonate a grenade./he attempt was a#orted when 8u and other policemen chased petition and hiscompanions. e also admitted that petitioner and Casan were merel standingon the corner of <ue7on Blvd. hen he saw them on )* August.1t was the contention of them petitioner that he merel went to $la7a "irandato catch a #reath of fresh air when policemen arrived and ordered all males tostand aside. /he police searched petitioner and two other men #ut foundnothing in their possession./rial court ruled that the warrantless search was akin to a stop and frisk wherea warrant and sei7ure can #e made without necessaril #eing preceded # an

*ena *. *erga




arrest and whose purpose is either to maintain status 6uo while police seeks too#tain more information.

1ssue5 = there was a valid search.

Decision5 =4. /here are serious dou#ts surrounding the stor of the policeofficer. or one, the grenade that was supposedl found in "alacat’s

possession was not identified in court. %econd, if indeed the petitioner had agrenade with him and that two das earlier he was in a group a#out todetonate an e3plosive at $la7a "iranda, and 8u and fellow officers chased #utfailed to arrest them, then considering that 8u and his companions were inuniform, and therefore easil cogni7a#le as police officers, it was unnaturalthat petitioner simpl stood there in pro3imit to the police officers.

/he search was invalid. %ection G, &ule ''F of the &ules of Court provides thatarrest without warrant is lawful if a police officer or private person, arrest aperson5

(a! when in his presence, the person to #e arrested has committed, isactuall committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (inflagrante delicto!

(#! when an offense has in fact just #een committed, and he has personalknowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested hascommitted it (hot pursuit arrest!

(c! when the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped.

>alid warrantless searches are limited to5 '! customs searches; )! search ofmoving vehicles; F! sei7ure of evidence in plain view5 ! consent searches; G!a search incidental to a lawful arrest and -! stop and frisk. /he trial courtvalidated the warrantless search as a stop and frisk. 1t was noted that the trialcourt confused the concept of stop and frisk and of a search incidental to alawful arrest. 1n the latter, a precedent arrest determines the validit of theincidental search. 1n this instance, the law re6uires that there must first #e alawful arrest #efore search can #e made.

1n the present case, there can #e no valid flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrestpreceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of8u that a crime had just #een committed, was #eing committed or was goingto #e committed.

/he search was neither within the allowa#le scope of a stop of frisk for such islimited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons. hile in a stop andfrisk, pro#a#le cause is not re6uired, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicionor hunch will not validate a stop and frisk. A genuine reason must e3ist in lightof the police officer’s e3perience and surrounding conditions.

1n the case at #ar, stop and frisk was invalid for5 '! there are dou#ts as to 8u’sclaim that the petitioner was mem#er of the group which attempted to #om#pla7a "iranda, )! there was nothing in petitioner’s #ehavior or conduct whichcould have reasona#le elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eeswere moving fast which is hardl recogni7a#le considering that it was alread-5F$", and F! there were no #ulges to even indicate the hidden weaponinside the front waistline.

/he challenged decision was set aside.

P%$P#% vs. "%N3$T%3.. No. ;:05< ,, 2une 1<<,

acts5 &ogelio "engote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on thestrength mainl of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of hiswarrantless search. 4n August 0, '0*, the western police district received acall from an informer that there were two suspicious looking persons at thecorner of +uan Luna and =orth Ba Boulevard in /ondo. A surveillance team ofplainclothesmen was then dispatched. /he officers o#served two men lookingfrom side to side, one of whom was holding his a#domen. /he policeapproached them and identified themselves, the two men tried to run awa #utto no avail. /he were then searched and on "engote a .F0 cali#er %mith andesson revolver with - live #ullets was found. /he were turned over to thepolice head6uarters. 1t was found that the gun was owned # a certain&igo#erto Danganan who identified the gun as among the articles stolen fromhim during the ro##er of his house in "ala#on. Accused assails theadmissi#ilit of the revolver in evidence #ecause of its warrantless sei7ure.%olicitor eneral contends that "engote’s acts created a reasona#le suspicionon the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the #elief that anoffense had #een committed.

1ssue5 = the search and sei7ure as well as the arrest was lawful.

Decision5 /he re6uirements for a warrantless arrest were not satisfied in this

instance. At the time of the arrest, "engote was merel looking from side toside and holding his a#domen. /here was apparentl no offense that had just#een committed or was #eing actuall committed or at least #eing attempted# "engote in their presence for what offense could have #een committed #such unsinister acts. "engote was arrested at ''5F A" and in a crowdedstreet shortl after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. ewas not skulking in the shadows nor was an clandestine a#out his #eing onthe street at that #us hour. "oreover,

1n the recent case of $eople vs. "almstedt, the Court sustained the warrantlessarrest of the accused #ecause there was a #ulge in his waist that e3cited the

*ena *. *erga :




suspicion of the arresting officer and, upon inspection, turned out to #e apouch containing hashish. /his case is different #ecause there was nothing tosupport the arresting officersR suspicions other than "engoteRs darting eesand his hand on his a#domen. B no stretch of the imagination could it have#een inferred from these acts that an offense had just #een committed, or wasactuall #eing committed, or was at least #eing attempted in their presence.

$ar. G(#! is no less applica#le #ecause its no less stringent re6uirements havealso not #een satisfied. /he prosecution has not shown that at the time of"engoteRs arrest an offense had in fact just #een committed and that thearresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that "engote hadcommitted it. All the had was hearsa information from the telephone caller,and a#out a crime that had et to #e committed. /he arresting officers had nopersonal knowledge of facts indicating that "engote had committed an offense.All the had was hearsa information from the phone caller. As the arrest wasillegal, the search incidental to it is likewise illegal and the item sei7ed is notadmissi#le in evidence.

As for the illegal possession of the firearm found on "engoteRs person, thepolicemen discovered this onl after he had #een searched and theinvestigation conducted later revealed that he was not its owners nor was helicensed to possess it. As in the case of Burgos, it was reiterated that theofficer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the groundtherefore. %uch personal knowledge is lacing in the case at #ar.

/he arrest and the search #eing unlawful, the pistol cannot #e admitted asevidence.

Decision was reversed.

P%$P#% vs. 9'3$S' %C&A ' ('0-!

&$CT!N%D Arrest it?out arrant is laul ?en ersons ?o ?ave

committed8 are actually committing8 or attemting to commit anoense in resence o arresting oicer. !n suc? cases8 t?ere can =e noillegal detention. ule alloing arrest it?out arrant is strictlyconstrued. $n t?e ot?er ?and8 t?e usual cause o ar=itrary detention isarrest it?out arrant.

acts5 &u#en Burgos appeals to the court to reverse the ruling of the Lowercourt finding him guilt of illegal possession of firearms. 2vidence shows that# virtue of intelligent information o#tained # the consta#ular stationed inDigos Davao, Burgos was arrested and his house searched without warrant for#eing an =$A mem#er and committing su#versive acts.

1ssue5 = the arrest and the search were valid.

Decision5 =o. /he trial court justified the warrantless arrest saing that at thetime of the arrest, the accused is committing a crime and therefore, the searchwas also valid as #eing incidental to a lawful arrest. owever, the %upremeCourt held that the police had no personal knowledge of the fact that indeed

Burgos was committing a crime when he was arrested. hatever knowledgethe possessed was merel furnished # the informant. At the time of theappellant’s arrest, he was plowing his field and was not even in possession ofan forearm or su#versive document. /here is also no compelling reason forthe police not to appl for a warrant of arrest or a search warrant. 9nder%ection -(a of &ule ''), the officer arresting a person who ahs justcommitted, is committing or is a#out to commit an offense must have personalknowledge of that fact. /he offense must also #e committed in his presence orwithin his view. Considering that the firearm and the su#versive documentswere found in violation of the right of Burgos, the cannot #e admitted incourt. Conviction of the lower court was reversed.

P%$P#% vs. A"!NN'&!N14 SCA 0, (1<;;)

acts5 Accused appellant claims that his #usiness was selling watches. e wasarrested on +une )G, '0 shortl after disem#arking from "> ilcon .Based on the testimon of the police, the received a relia#le tip two das#efore of a drug operation allegedl headed # the accused. e was alreadidentified # name and the police knew e3actl the date of his arrival. henAminnudin descended from the plank, he was immediatel arrested after aninformer had pointed to him. is #ag was found to contain three kilos ofmarijuana leaves.

1ssue5 = the arrest was valid.

Decision5 =o. /here was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued # a

judge after personal determination # him of the e3istence of pro#a#le cause.Contrar to the contention of the government, the appellant was not caught inflagrante delicto nor was a crime a#out o #e committed or had just #eencommitted to justif the warrantless search under &ule ''F of the &ules ofCourt. /here was e3pedience to support the authorities’ contention. /he hadat least ) das to procure the warrant. /he authorities knew e3actl the nameof the accused and the date of his arrival thus it would have #een eas forthem to persuade the judge that pro#a#le cause e3isted. 8et the did nothing.

/he present case cannot #e categori7ed as a #u #ust operation either sincethe culprit was not caught red handed. /he accused was not committing an

*ena *. *erga ;




crime when he was arrested. 1t was the authorities that determined pro#a#lecause in this case and not the judge. "ere information or tip is not enough.

Accused was ac6uitted.

P%$P#% vs. '"AN3

,,, SCA 11< (1<<4)

acts5 4n e#ruar )G, ', an informer reported to Jalookan $olice thataccused appellant il#erto 8umang was selling marijuana along Buklod ng=aon st. in Jalookan. /he immediatel planned a #u #ust operation. henthe team headed to the place, arcia, approached 8uman and asked to #umarijuana cigarettes. 8uman handed him three sticks and unfolded theme3posing the marijuana leaves inside. arcia immediatel arrested 8umang./he three sticks were marked # arcia with his initials and su#mitted fore3amination.

1ssue5 = there was a valid search.

Decision5 A #u #ust operation is a form of entrapment emploed # peaceofficers to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. /he idea to commit thecrime originates from the accused and no#od induces him to commit theoffense. /he #u #ust operation was formed to test the veracit of the tip.aving caught the culprit red:handed, the peace officers are authori7ed toapprehend the accused. 1t ahs not #een shown that the officers had ulteriormotive that prompted them to verif the false claim. /he decision finding theappellant guilt was affirmed.

7A*% vs. &%+%NS$-SANT!A3$.&. L:0)G )0 +une '00

acts5 Andrew arve and +ohn %herman are #oth American nationals whileAdriaan >an Den 2lshout is a Dutch citi7en. /he were residing in $agsanjan,

Laguna where the were apprehended # agents of the Commission on1mmigration and Deportation. 4n "arch * '00, arrants of Arrest wereissued # respondent against petitioners for violation of the 1mmigration Actand the &evised Administrative Code. %ei7ed during their arrests were rolls ofphoto negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in salaciousposes as well as #os and girls engaged in the se3ual act. Deportationproceedings were then instituted against them and warrants of arrest weresu#se6uentl issued. $etitioners contend that the arrests, searches andsei7ures were unlawful as the C1D agents did not have valid warrants.

1ssue5 = the arrest, search and sei7ure were invalid.

Decision5 =o. /he arrests of petitioners was #ased on pro#a#le causedetermined after close surveillance for F months during which their activitieswere monitored. /he e3istence of pro#a#le cause justified the arrest and thesei7ure of articles, which were then sei7ed as incident to a lawful arrest, andthus, admissi#le in evidence.

&ecords show that formal deportation charges have #een filed against them, asundesira#le aliens, on "arch '00. arrants of arrest were issued againstthem on * "arch '00. A hearing was conducted # a Board of %pecial1n6uir. /he restraint against their persons, therefore, has #ecome legal.

/hat petitioners were not caught in the act does not make their arrest illegal.$etitioners were found with #os in their respective rooms, the ones with +ohn%herman naked. 9nder those circumstances, the agents had reasona#leground to #elieve that petitioners had committed pedophilia defined as pscho:se3ual pervasion involving children. urther, the issuance of warrants ofarrests # the C1D commissioner, did not order petitioners to appear and showcause wh the should #e deported. /he were issued for violation of theimmigration act and #efore that deportation proceedings had alread #eencommenced against them.

Arrest is a step preliminar to the deportation of the aliens who had violatedthe condition of their sta in this countr. deportation proceedings do notconstitute a criminal action. /he order of deportation is not a punishment, it#eing merel the return to his countr of an alien who has #roken theconditions upon which he could continue to reside within our #orders

/he re6uirement of pro#a#le cause, to #e determined # a judge, does note3tend to this case for pro#a#le cause had alread #een shown to e3ist #eforethe warrants of arrest were issued. $etition was dismissed.

'#% 11

9A!#

I. Provisions and Notes

Section &, 8ail defined, < 8ail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law+ furnished %y him or a %ondsman+ to guarantee his appearance %efore any court as re)uired under theconditions hereinafter specified, 8ail may %e given in the form of

corporate surety+ property %ond+ cash deposit+ or recogni3ance,

*ena *. *erga <




A. Definition of Bail

Bail is the securit given for the release of a person in custod of the law,furnished # him or a #ondsman, to guarantee his appearance #efore ancourt as re6uired.

9. orms of Bail'. corporate suret). propert #ondF. cash deposit. recogni7ance

C. &ecogni7ance is an o#ligation of record, entered into #efore a court ormagistrate dul authori7ed to take it, with the condition to do someparticular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases #eing theappearance of the accused for trial.

Section 9, Conditions of the %ail= re)uirements, < All 2inds of %ail are

su%4ect to the following conditions:

'a( The underta2ing shall %e effective upon approval+ and unlesscancelled+ shall remain in force at all stages of the case until

promulgation of the 4udgment of the *egional Trial Court+ irrespective

of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it= '%( The accused shall appear %efore the proper court whenever

re)uired %y the court of these *ules= 'c( The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without

4ustification and despite due notice shall %e deemed a waiver of hisright to %e present thereat, In such case+ the trial may proceed ina%sentia= and 'd( The %ondsman shall surrender the accused to the court fore$ecution of the final 4udgment,

The original papers shall state the full name and address of theaccused+ the amount of the underta2ing and the conditions re)uired %ythis section, Photographs 'passport si3e( ta2en withi n the last six +'onths sho(ing the face, left and right profiles of the accused 'ust beattached to the bail"

Section ., #o release or transfer e$cept on court order or %ail, < #o person under detention %y legal process shall %e released or

transferred e$cept upon order of the court or when he is admitted to%ail,

Section /, 8ail+ a matter of right= e$ception, < All persons in custody shall %e admitted to %ail as a matter of right+ with sufficient sureties+or released on recogni3ance as prescri%ed %y law or this *ule 'a(%efore or after conviction %y the -etropolitan Trial Court+ -unicipal

Trial Court+ -unicipal Trial Court in Cities+ or -unicipal Circuit TrialCourt+ and '%( %efore conviction %y the *egional Trial court of an

offense not punisha%le %y death+ reclusion perpetua+ or lifeimprisonment,

A. Bail as a matter of right

• "/C5 #ail is a matter of right #efore or after conviction, regardless of theoffense.

• &/C5 #ail is a matter of right #efore conviction, e3cept for offensespunisha#le # death, reclusion perpetua, or life sentence and the evidenceof guilt is strong, in which case it is discretionar. After conviction, #ail is

a matter of discretion regardless of the offense. /he application for #ailma #e filed and acted upon # the trial court as long as the originalrecord of the case has not #een transmitted to the appellate court.owever, if the decision of the trial court changed the nature of theoffense from non:#aila#le to #aila#le, the application should #e addressedand resolved # the appellate court.

Section 0, 8ail+ when discretionary, < Upon conviction %y the *egionalTrial Court of an offense not punisha%le %y death+ reclusion perpetua+or life imprisonment+ admission to %ail is discretionary, The applicationfor %ail may %e filed and acted upon %y the trial court despite the filing

of a notice of appeal+ provided it has not transmitted the originalrecord to the appellate court, ;owever+ if the decision of the trial court

conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from non%aila%le to %aila%le+ the application for %ail can only %e filed with andresolved %y the appellate court,

Should the court grant the application+ the accused may %e allowed tocontinue on provisional li%erty during the pendency of the appealunder the same %ail su%4ect to the consent of the %ondsman,

If the penalty imposed %y the trial court is imprisonment e$ceeding si$'5( years+ the accused shall %e denied %ail+ or his %ail shall %e

*ena *. *erga :0




cancelled upon a showing %y the prosecution+ with notice to theaccuse+ of the following or other similar circumstances:

'a( That he is a recidivist+ )uasirecidivist+ or ha%itual delin)uent+ orhas committed the crime aggravated %y the circumstance ofreiteration= '%( That he has previously escaped from legal confinement+ evaded

sentence+ or violated the conditions of his %ail without valid 4ustification=

'c( That he committed the offense while under pro%ation+ parole+ orconditional pardon=

'd( That the circumstances of his case indicate the pro%a%ility of flightif released on %ail= or 'e( That there is undue ris2 that he may commit another crime duringthe pendency of the appeal,

T?e aellate court may8 motu proprio or on motion o any arty8revie t?e resolution o t?e egional Trial Court ater notice to theadverse part in either case.1f the penalt imposed # the trial court is imprisonment greater than - ears,

the prosecution ma move for denial or cancellation of the #ail of the accused,with notice to the accused, upon showing of the following circumstances5

'. e is a recidivist, 6uasi:recidivist, or ha#itual delin6uent, or hascommitted the crime aggravated # the circumstance of reiteracion.

Art. '(! &$C A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,shall have #een previousl convicted # final judgment of another crimeem#raced in the same title of this Code.) A person, after having convicted # final judgment, shall commit a new felon#efore #eginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the sameF /he offender has #een previousl punished # an offense to which the lawattaches an e6ual or greater penalt or for two or more crimes to which itattaches a lighter penalt /he offender has alread served out sentence for prior offenses.

). /he he has previousl escaped from legal confinement, evadedsentence, or violated the conditions of his #ail without valid justification.

F. /hat he committed the offense while on pro#ation, parole orconditional pardon

. /hat the circumstances of his case indicate the pro#a#ilit of flight ifreleased on #ail; or

G. /hat there is undue risk that he ma commit another crime during thependenc of the appeal.

Section 5, Capital offense defined, < A capital offense is an offensewhich+ under the law e$isting at the time of its commission and of theapplication for admission to %ail+ may %e punished with death,

Section >, Capital offense or an offense punisha%le %y reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment+ not %aila%le, < #o person charged witha capital offense+ or an offense punisha%le %y reclusion perpetua or lifeimprisonment+ shall %e admitted to %ail when evidence of guilt is

strong+ regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution,

Section 6, 8urden of proof in %ail application, < At the hearing of anapplication for %ail filed %y a person who is in custody for thecommission of an offense punisha%le %y death+ reclusion perpetua+ orlife imprisonment+ the prosecution has the %urden of showing thatevidence of guilt is strong, The evidence presented during the %ailhearing shall %e considered automatically reproduced at the trial %ut+

upon motion of either party+ the court may recall any witness foradditional e$amination unless the latter is dead+ outside the

Philippines+ or otherwise una%le to testify,

A. hen is #ail hearing re6uired

Bail hearing is mandator when #ail is a matter of discretion. 1t is incum#entupon the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt is strong. 2ven if theprosecution is a#sent or refuses to present evidence, the court cannot grant#ail without conducting a hearing. /he court must first #e convinced that theevidence does not warrant the denial of #ail.

Section ?, Amount of %ail= guidelines, < The 4udge who issued the

warrant or granted the application shall fi$ a reasona%le amount of%ail considering primarily+ %ut not limited to+ the following factors:

'a( Financial lia%ility of the accused to give %ail='%( #ature and circumstance of the offense=

'c( Penalty for the offense charged='d( Character and reputation of the accused=

'e( Age and health of the accused='f( 1eight of the evidence against the accused='g( Pro%a%ility of the accused appearing at the trial='h( Forfeiture of other %ail=

*ena *. *erga :1




'i( The fact that the accused was a fugitive from 4ustice whenarrested= and '4( Pendency of other cases where the accused is on %ail,E$cessive %ail shall not %e re)uired,

Section &, Corporate surety, < Any domestic or foreign corporation+licensed as a surety in accordance with law and currently authori3ed

to act as such+ may provide %ail %y a %ond su%scri%ed 4ointly %y theaccused and an officer of the corporation duly authori3ed %y its %oard

of directors,

Section &&, Property %ond+ how posted, < A property %ond is anunderta2ing constituted as lien on the real property given as securityfor the amount of the %ail, 1ithin ten '&( days after the approval ofthe %ond+ the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on thecertificate of title on file with the *egistry of 7eeds if the land isregistered+ or if unregistered+ in the *egistration 8oo2 on the space

provided therefore+ in the *egistry of 7eeds for the province or citywhere the land lies+ and on the corresponding ta$ declaration in theoffice of the provincial+ city and municipal assessor concerned,

1ithin the same period+ the accused shall su%mit to the court hiscompliance and his failure to do so shall %e sufficient cause for thecancellation of the property %ond and his rearrest and detention,

Section &9, Dualifications of sureties in property %ond, < The)ualifications of sureties in a property %ond shall %e as follows:

'a( Each must %e a resident owner of real estate within the

Philippines=

'%( 1here there is only one surety+ his real estate must %e worth at

least the amount of underta2ing=

'c( If there are two or more sureties+ each may 4ustify in an amountless than that e$pressed in the underta2ing %ut the aggregate of the

4ustified sums must %e e)uivalent to the whole amount of the %ail

demanded,

In all cases+ every surety must %e worth the amount specified in hisown undert a)ing over and above all !ust debts, obligations and propertiesexe'pt fro' execution"

Section &., ustification of sureties, < Every surety shall 4ustify %yaffidavit ta2en %efore the 4udge that he possesses the )ualification

prescri%ed in the preceding section, ;e shall descri%e the property given as security+ stating the nature of his title+ its encum%rances+ thenum%er and amount of other %ails entered into %y him and stillundischarged+ and his other lia%ilities, The court may e$amine the

sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it

may deem proper, #o %ail shall %e approved unless the surety is)ualified,

Section &/, 7eposit of cash as %ail, < The accused or any person acting

in his %ehalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internalrevenue or provincial+ city+ or municipal treasurer the amount of %ailfi$ed %y the court+ or recommended %y the prosecutor whoinvestigated or filed the case, Upon su%mission of a proper certificateof deposit and a written underta2ing showing compliance with there)uirements of section 9 of this *ule+ the accused shall %e dischargedfrom custody, The money deposited shall %e considered as %ail andapplied to the payment of fine and costs while the e$cess+ if any+ shall%e returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit,

Section &0, *ecogni3ance, < 1henever allowed %y law or these *ules+

the court may release a person in custody on his own recogni3ance orthat of a responsi%le person,

Section &5, 8ail+ when not re)uired= reduced %ail or recogni3ance, < #o%ail shall %e re)uired when the law or these *ules so provide,

1hen a person has %een in custody for a period e)ual to or more thanthe possi%le ma$imum imprisonment prescri%ed for the offensecharged+ he shall %e released immediately+ without pre4udice to thecontinuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal, If the ma$imum

penalty to which the accused may %e sentenced is destierro+ he shall%e released after thirty '.( days of preventive imprisonment,

A person in custody for a period e)ual to or more than the minimumof the principal penalty prescri%ed for the offense charged+ withoutapplication of the Indeterminate Sentence aw or any modifyingcircumstance+ shall %e released on a reduced %ail or on his ownrecogni3ance+ at the discretion of the court,

Section, &>, 8ail+ where filed, < 'a( 8ail in the amount fi$ed may %e

*ena *. *erga :,




filed with the court where the case is pending+ or in the a%sence orunavaila%ility of the 4udge thereof+ with any regional trial 4udge+metropolitan trial 4udge+ municipal trial 4udge+ or municipal circuit trial

4udge in the province+ city or municipality, If the accused is arrested ina province+ city+ or municipality other than where the case is pending+%ail may also %e filed with any regional trial court of said place+ of if no

4udge thereof is availa%le+ with any metropolitan trial 4udge+ municipal

trial 4udge+ or municipal circuit trial 4udge therein,

'%( 1here the grant of %ail is a matter of discretion+ or the accused see2s to %e released on recogni3ance+ the application may only %e filed

in the court where the case is pending+ whether on preliminaryinvestigation+ trial+ or appeal,

Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for%ail with any court in the province+ city+ or municipality where he isheld,

Section &6, #otice of application to prosecutor, < In the application for

%ail under section 6 of this *ule+ the court must give reasona%le noticeof the hearing to the prosecutor or re)uire him to su%mit his

recommendation,

Section &?, *elease on %ail, < The accused must %e discharged uponapproval of the %ail %y the 4udge with whom it was filed in accordancewith section &> of this *ule,

1hen %ail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending+the 4udge who accepted the %ail shall forward it+ together with theorder of release and other supporting papers+ to the court where thecase is pending+ which may+ for good reason+ re)uire a different one to%e filed,

Section, 9, Increase or reduction of %ail, < After the accused isadmitted to %ail+ the court may+ upon good cause+ either increase orreduce its amount, 1hen increased+ the accused may %e committed tocustody if he does not give %ail in the increased amount within areasona%le period, An accused held to answer a criminal charge+ whois released without %ail upon filing of the complaint or information+may+ at any su%se)uent stage of the proceedings and whenever a

strong showing of guilt appears to the court+ %e re)uired to give %ail inthe amount fi$ed+ or in lieu thereof+ committed to custody,

Section 9&, Forfeiture of %ail, < 1hen the presence of the accused isre)uired %y the court or these *ules+ his %ondsmen shall %e notified to

produce him %efore the court on a given date and time, If the accusedfails to appear in person as re)uired+ his %ail shall %e declaredforfeited and the %ondsmen given thirty '.( days within which to

produce their principal and to show why no 4udgment should %erendered against them for the amount of their %ail, 1ithin the said

period+ the %ondsmen must:

'a( produce the %ody of their principal or give the reason for his non production= and

'%( e$plain why the accused did not appear %efore the court when firstre)uired to do so,Failing in these two re)uisites+ a 4udgment shall %e rendered againstthe %ondsmen+ 4ointly and severally+ for the amount of the %ail, Thecourt shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the lia%ility of the%ondsmen+ unless the accused has %een surrendered or is ac)uitted,

Section 99, Cancellation of %ail, < Upon application of the %ondsmen+with due notice to the prosecutor+ the %ail may %e cancelled upon

surrender of the accused or proof of his death,

The %ail shall %e deemed automatically cancelled upon ac)uittal of theaccused+ dismissal of the case+ or e$ecution of the 4udgment ofconviction,

In all instances+ the cancellation shall %e without pre4udice to anylia%ility on the %ail,

Section 9., Arrest of accused out on %ail, < For the purpose of surrendering the accused+ the %ondsmen may arrest him or+ uponwritten authority endorsed on a certified copy of the underta2ing+

cause him to %e arrested %y a police officer or any other person of suita%le age and discretion,

An accused released on %ail may %e rearrested without the necessityof a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without

permission of the court where the case is pending,

Section 9/, #o %ail after final 4udgment= e$ception, < #o %ail shall %eallowed after a 4udgment of conviction has %ecome final, If %efore

such finality+ the accused applies for pro%ation+ he may %e allowedtemporary li%erty under his %ail, 1hen no %ail was filed or the accused

*ena *. *erga :4




is incapa%le of filing one+ the court may allow his release onrecogni3ance to the custody of a responsi%le mem%er of thecommunity, In no case shall %ail %e allowed after the accused hascommenced to serve sentence,

Section 90, Court supervision of detainees, < The court shall e$ercise supervision over all persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating

unnecessary detention, The e$ecutive 4udges of the *egional TrialCourts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial+ city+

and municipal 4ails and the prisoners within their respective 4urisdictions, They shall ascertain the num%er of detainees+ in)uire on

their proper accommodation and health and e$amine the condition ofthe 4ail facilities, They shall order the segregation of se$es and ofminors from adults+ ensure the o%servance of the right of detainees toconfer privately with counsel+ and strive to eliminate conditionsinimical to the detainees,

In cities and municipalities to %e specified %y the Supreme Court+ themunicipal trial 4udges or municipal circuit trial 4udges shall conductmonthly personal inspections of the municipal 4ails in their respective

municipalities and su%mit a report to the e$ecutive 4udge of the*egional Trial Court having 4urisdiction therein,

A monthly report of such visitation shall %e su%mitted %y the e$ecutive 4udges to the Court Administrator which shall state the total num%er ofdetainees+ the names of those held for more than thirty '.( days+ theduration of detention+ the crime charged+ the status of the case+ thecause for detention+ and other pertinent information,

Section 95, 8ail not a %ar to o%4ections on illegal arrest+ lac2 of orirregular preliminary investigation, < An application for or admissionto %ail shall not %ar the accused from challenging the validity of hisarrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore+ or from assailing

the regularity or )uestioning the a%sence of a preliminaryinvestigation of the charge against him+ provided that he raises them

%efore entering his plea, The court shall resolve the matter as early as practica%le %ut not later than the start of the trial of the case,

<92%/14=%5hat is re6uired of the judge who denies an application for #ailQ

/he order should contain a summar of the evidence presented and the reasonfor the denial, otherwise it shall #e void. /his is in order to safeguard theconstitutional right to presumption of innocence and also #ecause there is aneed for clear grounds #efore a person can #e denied of his li#ert.

&emed of the court when there is possi#ilit that a person will jump #ail5'. 1ncrease the amount of #ail

). &e6uire periodic reports of the accused to courtF. arn him that the trial ma proceed in a#sentia

Duties of the trial judge in case an application for #ail is filed5

'. =otif the prosecutor of the hearing or re6uire him to su#mit hisrecommendation

). Conduct a hearingF. Decide whether the evidence of guilt is strong #ased on the summar

of evidence of the prosecution. 1f the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon

the approval of the #ail#ond. 1f evidence of guilt is strong, the petitionshould #e denied.

uidelines in setting the amount of #ail5

'. inancial a#ilit of the accused). =ature and circumstances of the offenseF. $enalt for the offense. Character and reputation of the accusedG. Age and health of the accused-. eight of evidence against the accused*. $ro#a#ilit of the accused appearing at the trial0. orfeiture of other #ail. /he fact that he was a fugitive from the law when arrested'. $endenc of other cases where the accused is on #ail

here should #ail #e filed5

1t ma #e filed with the court where the case is pending. 1n the a#sence of the judge thereof, #ail ma #e filed with an &/C or "/C judge in the province,cit, or municipalit. 1f the accused is arrested in a province, cit, ormunicipalit other than where the case is pending, #ail ma also #e filed withand &/C of said place, or if no judge is availa#le, with an "/C judge therein.

But where #ail is a matter of discretion or where the accused seeks to #ereleased on recogni7ance, #ail ma onl #e filed in the court where the case ispending.

*ena *. *erga :




An person in custod who is not et charged ma appl for #ail with an courtin the province, cit or municipalit where he is held.

&emed of the accused if he is denied #ail5

e should file a special civil action in the CA, not the %C within - das.

11. Connection to Constitutional Law $rovisions and Cases

E3/1D- <?. A$$ %ERD-, E33E%/ /*DE 3*ARGE4 ;1/* D::E-E

%F-1*AB$E B RE3$F1D- %ER%E/FA ;*E- E14E-3E D: GF1$/ 1/RD-G *A$$ BE:DRE 3D-13/1D- BE BA1$AB$E B F::131E-/ FRE/1E

DR RE$EAE4 D- RE3DG-1A-3E A &A BE %RD14E4 B $A;" /*E R1G*//D BA1$ *A$$ -D/ BE 1&%A1RE4 ;;- ;*E- /*E %R11$EGE D: /*E ;R1/D: *ABEA 3DR%F 1 F%E-4E4" E3E1E BA1$ *A$$ -D/ BEREHF1RE4"

A. &1/ /4 BA1L

LA>1D2% vs. CA

Bail should #e given #efore arraignment. Arraignment should not #e made acondition to #ail.

$24$L2 vs. AJ4 +&.+udge did not hold hearing, merel #ased his decision to grant #ail from amedical certificate months old.

Bail is a matter of right with respect to persons charged with penalt ofreclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, when evidence is strong.

Before a #ail is granted, a hearing must #e conducted in order to determinewhether or not the evidence of guilt is strong or not.

8A$ vs. CA1mposing #ail in e3cessive amount could render meaningless the right to #ail.%etting the #ail in the amount of the civil lia#ilit is e3cessive.

AC/4&% /4 C4=%1D2&2D 1= %2//1= /2 A"49=/ 4 BA1L ("A%9CA=vs. BAL4%!

'. inancial a#ilit of the accused

). =ature and circumstance of the offenseF. $enalt for the offense. Character and reputation of the accusedG. Age and health of the accused-. eight of evidence against him*. $ro#a#ilit of his appearance in trail0. orfeiture of their #onds # him

. 1f the accused is a fugitive from justice when arrested'. $endenc of other cases where he is also under #ail.

%9L2 vs. B1/2=

1n hearings for #ail, what should #e considered is the prima facie evidence andnot the penalt. 1n capital offenses, #ail would #e granted onl if the evidenceof guilt were not strong.

$AD2&A=A vs. CA

4ne who is under the custod of the law either when he has #een arrested orhas surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court has a constitutional right to #ail

C1= vs. 9%/1L4

2ven if #ail is a matter of right, there is still a need to give notice to the fiscalfor him to attend the hearing for #ail.

B. A1>2& 4 /2 &1/

$24$L2 vs. +9D2 D4=A/4Accused charged with re#ellion.

Compromise agreement is a valid waiver to the right to #ail

$24$L2 vs. "A$ALA4

An accused who escapes from confinement or jumps #ail or flees to a foreigncountr, loses his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or su#mitshimself to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waives an rightto seek relief from the Court.

C. 2HC2%%1>2 BA1L

D2 LA CA"A&A vs. 2=A2

*ena *. *erga :5




here the right to #ail e3ists, it should not #e rendered nugator # re6uiringa sum that is e3cessive. A #ail of one million is clearl e3cessive.

C9 vs. D4LAL4%

Circular =o. 0 which provides that #ail should #e set at $hp ' for everear taking into consideration the ma3imum penalt for the offense is

instructive not onl to fiscals and their assistants #ut to the mem#ers of the#ench as well.

D. $2&%4=% =4/ 2=/1/L2D /4 BA1L

C4"2=DAD4& vs. de >1LLA

A soldier under court martial does not enjo the right to #ail #ecause of thedifferent disciplinar structure of the militar as well as their capa#ilit ofcausing havoc and chaos.

$24$L2 vs. =1/CA

1f an accused who is charged with a crime punisha#le # reclusion perpetua isconvicted # the trial courts and sentenced to suffer such a penalt, #ail isneither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor a matter of discretionon the part of the court. Bail must not #e granted to accused during thependenc of his appeal #ecause his conviction clearl imports that the evidenceof his guilt of the offense charged is strong.

4>2&="2=/ 4 9% vs. $9&A=A=

&ight to #ail is not applica#le in e3tradition proceedings. Constitutional #ail isavaila#le onl in criminal proceedings. 23tradition, #eing sui generis and not acriminal proceeding, the accused therefore has no inherent right to #ail. /hefollowing are e3ceptions to this rule5

('! applicant is not flight risk

()! there e3ists a special humanitarian reason.

111. Case

S%AP!$ *S. SAN&!3AN9AANF- %C&A F

acts5 $etitioner 2dward %erapio was a mem#er of the Board of /rustees anthe legal counsel of the 2rap "uslim 8outh oundation. %ometime ),petitioner received on its #ehalf a donation in the amount of $hp )" throughChavit %ingson. $etitioner received he donation worth the oundation’s

account. 1n ), Chavit %ingson pu#licl accused $resident 2strada and hisfamil mem#ers and friends of engaging in several illegal activities whichtriggered the filing with the 4ffice of the 4m#udsman several criminalcomplaints against the petitioner, +oseph 2strada and his son.

4n April , )', 4m#udsman filed with the %andigan#aan 1nformationsagainst the former president, one of which, for plunder. =o #ail was

recommended for the provisional release of all the accused including thepetitioner. /he case was raffled to a special division which was su#se6uentlcreated # the %upreme Court. 4n )G April )', %andigan#aan issued aresolution finding pro#a#le cause to justif the issuance of warrants of arrestfor the accused. Arraignment was set on )* +anuar )'. 1n the meantime,petitioner filed with %andigan#aan an 9rgent $etition for #ail, which was setfor hearing on "a , )'. $etitioner’s co:accused +inggo 2strada filed amotion alleging that he was entitle to #ail as a matter of right.

During the hearing on "a , )' on petitioner’s 9rgent $etition for Bail, theprosecution moved for the resetting of the arraignment of the accused earlierthan the +une )* schedule. owever, %andigan#aan denied the motion of theprosecution and issued an order declaring that the petition for #ail can andshould #e heard B24&2 petitioner’s arraignment on )* +une. 4n +une ',%andigan#aan issued a resolution re6uiring the attendance of petitioner aswell as all the other accused during the hearing on the petitioner for #ailconsidering that under %ection 0, &ule ''G of the &evised &ules of Court,whatever evidence adduced during the hearing shall #e consideredautomaticall reproduced at the trial.

/he people insist that arraignment is necessar #efore #ail hearings ma #ecommenced #ecause it is onl upon arraignment that the issues are joined./he people further stress the it is onl when an accused pleads not guilt mahe filed a petition for #ail and if he pleads guilt, then there would #e no needfor him to file said petition. 1t is also the contention of the people that it isonl during arraignment that the accused is informed of the precise chargeagainst him. e must then #e arraign first prior to #ail hearings to prevent

him from late on assailing the validit of the #ail hearings on the ground thathe was not properl informed of the charge considering that under section 0 of&ule '', evidence presented during #ail hearings are reproduce in the trial.Arraignment #efore #ail hearings also diminished the possi#ilit of accused’sflight since trial in a#sentia ma #e had onl if an accused escapes after he has#een arraigned.

owever, the #ail hearing again did not proceed #ecause the petitioner filedwith the information a motion to 6uash the amended information on the

*ena *. *erga :




grounds that as against him, the amended information does not allege acom#ination of series of over or criminal acts constitutive of plunder.According to the prosecution, the motion to 6uash the amended informationwas antithetical to his petition for #ail.

$etitioner also pras for the issuance of ha#eas corpus.

1ssues5(a! = petitioner should first #e arraigned #efore hearings of his

petition for #ail ma #e conducted.(#! = petitioner ma file a motion to 6uash the amended

1nformation during the pendenc of his petition for #ail.(c! = a joint hearing of petition for #ail for all the accused is

mandator(d! = petitioner should instead #e released through a writ of

ha#eas corpus.Decision5

(a! Although the petitioner was alread arraigned, no plea has et #eenentered there# rendering the issue of whether an arraignment is necessar#efore the conduct of #ail hearings in the petitioner’s case moot. =onetheless,the court held that arraignment of an accused is not a pre:re6uisite to theconduct of hearings on his petition for #ail. A person is allowed to petition for#ail as soon as he is deprived of his of his li#ert # virtue of his arrest orvoluntar surrender.

1n Lavides vs. CA, the court ruled that in cases where it is authori7ed, #ailshould #e granted #efore arraignment otherwise the accused ma #e precludedfrom filing a motion to 6uash. owever, this pronouncement should not #etaken to mean that the hearing on a petition for #ail should at all timesprecede arraignment, #ecause the rule is that a person deprived of his li#ert# virtue of his arrest or voluntar surrender ma appl for #ail as soon as heis deprived of li#ert even #efore a complaint or information is filed againsthim. /he case of Lavides must #e understood in light of the fact that the

accused in said case filed a petition for #ail as well as a motion to 6uash.ence, in that case, the court held that to condition the grant of #ail to anaccused on his arraignment would #e to place him in a position where he hadto choose #etween filing a motion to 6uash and thus dela his petition for #ailand forgoing the filing of the motion to 6uash so that he can #e arraign at oncead therefore #e released on #ail. %uch would undermine the constitutionalright of the accused.

hen a #ail is matter of right, an accused ma appl for and #e granted #aileven prior to arraignment. /he Lavides case also implies that an applicationfor #ail in a case involving an offense punisha#le # reclusion perpetua to

death ma also #e heard even #efore an accused is arraigned. %andigan#aantherefore committed grave a#use of discretion amounting to e3cess of jurisdiction in ordering the arraignment of petitioner #efore proceeding with thehearing of his petition for #ail.

(#! Court dins no inconsistenc e3ists #etween an application of an accused for#ail and his filing of a motion to 6uash. Bail, is the securit given for the

release of the person in custod of the law. A motion to 6uash on the otherhand is a mode # which an accused assails the validit of a criminal complainfiled against him for insufficienc on its fact in posit of law. /hese tow reliedhave o#jectives which are not necessaril antithetical to each other. owever,it is true that if a motion to 6uash a criminal complaint or information on theground that the same does not charge an offense is granted and the case isdismissed and the accused is ordered released, the petition for #ail of anaccused ma #ecome moot and academic.

(c! $etitioner argues that a joint #ail hearing would negate his right to have hispetition for #ail resolved in a summar proceeding since said hearing might #econverted into a full #lown trial. $rosecution on the other hand claims that joint hearings will save the court form having to hear the same witnesses andthe parties from presenting the same evidences. /here is no provision in the&ules of Court governing the hearings of two or more petitioner for #ail filed #different accused or that a petition for #ail of an accused #e heardsimultaneousl with the trial of the case against the other accused. /he mattershould #e addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. 1n the e3erciseof its discretion, the %andigan#aan must take into account not onl theconvenience of the sate, including the prosecution #ut also that of thepetitioner and the witnesses.

1n the case of 4campo vs. Berna#e, the court ruled that in a petition or #ailhearing, the court is to conduct onl a summar hearing, meaning such #riefand speed method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as ispractica#le and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is earl todetermine the weight of evidence for purposes of #ail. /he court does not tr

the merits or enter into the in6uir as to the weight that ought to #e given tothe evidence against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of thetrial or on what further such evidence as has reference to su#stantial matters.1n the case at #ar, the case against former $resident 2strada is an entireldifferent matter. or, with the participation of the former president in thehearing of petitioner’s petition for #ail, the proceeding assumes completeldifferent dimension. /he proceeding will no longer #e summar since theproceedings will #e full #lown which is antithetical to the nature of a #ailhearing. /he joinder of the petitioner’s #ail will #e prejudicial to the petitioneras it will undul dela the determination of the issue of the right of petitionerto o#tain provisional li#ert and seek relief from his court. /he %andigan#an

*ena *. *erga ::




again committed a grave a#use of discretion in ordering a simultaneoushearing of petitioner’s petition for #ail with the trial of the case against formerpresident.

(d! 1n the case at #ar, #ail is not matter of rights since the accused is chargedwith a capital offense, #ut discretionar upon the court. 9nder %ection 0 ofrule '', there must #e a showing that the evidence of guilt against a person

charged with a capital offense is not strong for the court to grant him #ail.,thus, upon an application for #ail, # the person charged with a capitaloffense, a hearing must #e conducted where the prosecution has the #urden ofshowing that the evidence of guilt against an accused is strong. hen theevidence of guilt is strong, #ail #ecomes a matter of right, which is not so inthe case at #ar.

1n e3ceptional cases, ha#eas corpus ma #e granted n the courts even whenthe person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntarsurrender. /he writ ma #e issued where the deprivation of li#ert whileinitiall valid under the lad had not later #ecome invalid. owever, there is no#asis fir the issuance of the writ in the case at #ar. /he general rule is that thewrit does not lie where the person alleged to #e restrained of his li#ert is inthe custod of an officer under process issued # a court which had jurisdictionto issued the same applied, #ecause petitioner is under detention pursuant tothe order of arrest. $etitioner in fact voluntaril surrendered himself to theauthorities.

'#% 115!37TS $+ ACC'S%&

. Codal Provision and Notes

Section &, *ights of accused at trial, < In all criminal prosecutions+ theaccused shall %e entitled to the following rights:

'a( To %e presumed innocent until the contrary is proved %eyondreasona%le dou%t,

A. Definition of right of presumption of innocence5

/he right means that the presumption must #e overcome # evidence of guilt#eond reasona#le dou#t. uilt #eond reasona#le dou#t means that there ismoral certaint as to the guilt of the accused. Conviction should #e #ased onthe strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. /hesignificance of this is that accusation is not snonmous with guilt.

B. 23ceptions to the constitutional presumption of innocence5

• $resumptions I 1f there is a reasona#le connection #etween thefact presumed and the fact ultimatel proven from such fact

a. hen an accounta#le pu#lic officer fails to account for fundsor propert that should #e in his custod, he is presumed to #e guilt

of malversation;#. $ersons in possession of recentl stolen goods are presumedguilt of the offense in connection with the goods.

• %elf:Defense I 4ne who invokes self:defense is presumed guilt./he #urden of proving the elements of self:defense (unlawful aggression,reasona#le necessit of the means used to prevent or repel it; lack ofsufficient provocation on the part of the one defending himself! #elongs tothe accused.

C. Definition of reverse trial

9suall, the prosecution first presents its evidence to esta#lish the guilt of theaccused. But a reverse trial happens if the accused admits the killing #utclaims self:defense. e must first esta#lish the elements of self:defense inorder to overturn the presumption that he was guilt of the offense.

'%( To %e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against

him,

'c( To %e present and defend in person and %y counsel at every stageof the proceedings+ from arraignment to promulgation of the

4udgment, The accused may+ however+ waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his %ail+ unless his presence is specifically ordered %y the court for purposes of identification, Thea%sence of the accused without 4ustifia%le cause at the trial of which

he had notice shall %e considered a waiver of his right to %e presentthereat, 1hen an accused under custody escapes+ he shall %e deemedto have waived his right to %e present on all su%se)uent trial datesuntil custody over him is regained, Upon motion+ the accused may %eallowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the

court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance ofcounsel,

A. &e6uisites of a valid trial in a#sentia

*ena *. *erga :;




'. /he accused has alread #een arraigned;). e has #een dul notified of the trialF. is failure to appear at the trial is unjustifia#le.

• &ight to #e present at the trial #e waived e3cept in the followingsituations, where the presence of the accused at the trial is re6uired5

'. Arraignment;). During promulgation of judgment, e3cept if it is for a light offense;F. hen the presence of the accused at the trial is necessar for

purposes of identification, unless he admits #eforehand that he is thesame person charged.

'd( To testify as a witness in his own %ehalf %ut su%4ect to crosse$amination on matters covered %y direct e$amination, ;is silence

shall not in any manner pre4udice him,

=ote5 A testimon of a witness who testifies on his own #ehalf #ut refuses to#e su#jected to cross:e3amination will not #e given weight. 1t will not have

pro#ative value #ecause the prosecution was not given a chance to test thecredi#ilit of the testimon through cross:e3amination.

(e) To =e eBemt rom =eing comelled to =e a itness against?imsel.

%cope of the right against self:incrimination

/he right against self:incrimination covers testimonial compulsion onl and thecompulsion to produce incriminating documents, papers, and chattels. 1t doesnot cover the compulsion to produce real or phsical evidence using the #odof the accused.

23ception to the right against self:incrimination

/he right cannot #e invoked when the %tate has the right to inspect documentsunder its police power, such as documents of corporations.

&ationale for protecting the right against self:incrimination

or humanitarian reasons5 /o prevent the %tate, with all its coercivepowers, from e3tracting testimon that ma convict the accused.

or practical reasons5 /he accused is likel to commit perjur if he werecompelled to testif against himself.

$ersons who ma invoke the right against self:incrimination, and time whenthe an invoke the right.

'. An ordinar witness ma invoke the right, #ut he ma onl do so as

each incriminating 6uestion is asked.

). /he accused himself ma invoke the right, and unlike the ordinarwitness, he ma altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuseto answer an and all 6uestions.

But, once the accused waives his right and chooses to testif in hisown #ehalf, he ma #e cross:e3amined on matters covered in hisdirect e3amination. e cannot refuse to answer 6uestions duringcross:e3amination # claiming that the answer that he will give couldincriminate him for the crime with which he was charged.

owever, if the 6uestion during cross:e3amination relates to a crimedifferent from that with which he was charged, he can still invoke theright and refuse to answer.

=ote5 1t would depend whether or not an accused or witness can invoke theright against self:incrimination if he is asked a#out past criminalit. 1f he canstill #e prosecuted for it, 6uestions a#out past criminal lia#ilit are still covered# the protection of the right against self:incrimination. But if he cannot #eprosecuted for it anmore, he cannot invoke the right.

ig?ts o t?e accused in t?e matter o testiying or roducing evidenceBefore the case is filed in Court #ut after he has #een taken into custod or

otherwise deprived of his li#ert

the right to #e informed of

his right to remain silent and to counselthe right not to #e su#jected to force, violence, threat,

intimidation, or an other means which vitiate free willthe right to have evidence o#tained in violation of these rights

rejected

After the case is filed in court

to refuse to #e a witnessnot to have an prejudice whatsoever result to him # such refusal

*ena *. *erga :<




to testif in his own #ehalf su#ject to cross:e3amination # theprosecution

while testifing, to refuse to answer a specific 6uestion whichtends to incriminate his for some crime other than that forwhich he is #eing prosecuted.

!mmunity statutes

/he immunit statutes are classified into two5'. 9se immunit statutes :: prohi#itsthe use of a witness’ compelled testimon and its fruits in anmanner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.(/herefore, the witness can still #e prosecuted, #ut the compelledtestimon cannot #e used against him.!). /ransactional immunit statutes ::grants immunit to the witness from prosecution for an offense towhich his compelled testimon relates. (/he witness cannot #eprosecuted at all.! 23amples are state witnesses and those whofurnish information a#out violations of the 1nternal &evenue Code,even if the themselves offered #ri#es to the pu#lic official.

2ffect of the refusal of the accused to refuse to testif in his #ehalf

As a general rule, the silence of the accused should not prejudice him.

owever, in the following cases, an unfavora#le inference is drawn from thefailure of the accused to testif5

'. 1f the prosecution has alread esta#lished a prima facie case, theaccused must present proof to overturn the evidence of theprosecution.

). 1f the defense of the accused is ali#i and he does not testif, theinference is that the ali#i is not #elieva#le.

=ote5 D=A testing is not covered # the right against self:incrimination

() To conront and cross-eBamine t?e itnesses against ?im at t?etrial. %it?er arty may utiliMe as art o its evidence t?e testimony o aitness ?o is deceased8 out o or can not it? due diligence =e oundin t?e P?iliines8 unavaila=le8 or ot?erise una=le to testiy8 given inanot?er case or roceeding8 Judicial or administrative8 involving t?esame arties and su=Ject matter8 t?e adverse arty ?aving t?eoortunity to cross-eBamine ?im.

Definition of right of confrontation

1t means that the accused can onl #e tried using those witnesses that meethim face to face at the trial who give testimon in his presence, with theopportunit to cross:e3amine them.

&easons for the right

'. /o allow the court to o#serve the demeanor of the witness whiletestifing.

). /o give the accused the opportunit to cross:e3amine the witness inorder to test their recollection and credi#ilit.

=ote5 the right of confrontation can #e waived either e3pressl or impliedl. 1tis waived impliedl when an accused waives his right to #e present at the trial./he right of confrontation ma also #e waived # conduct amounting to arenunciation of the right to cross:e3amine. hen the part was given anopportunit to confront and cross:e3amine an opposing witness #ut failed totake advantage of it for reasons attri#uta#le to himself alone, he is deemed tohave waived the right.

C. 2ffect when testimon of a witness who dies or #ecomes unavaila#le

1f the other part had the opportunit to cross:e3amine the witness #efore hedied or #ecame unavaila#le, the testimon ma #e used as evidence.owever, if the other part did not even have the opportunit to cross:e3amine #efore the su#se6uent death or unavaila#ilit of the witness, thetestimon will have no pro#ative value. (An opportunit to cross:e3amine is allthat is necessar in order to allow the use of the testimon of the witness./here need not #e an actual cross:e3amination, as long as there was anopportunit to do so.!

'g( To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of

witnesses and production of other evidence in his %ehalf,

A. Definition of right to compulsor process1t is the right of the accused to have a su#poena andor a subpoena duces

tecu' issued in his #ehalf in order to compel the attendance of witnesses andthe production of other evidence.

=ote5 if a witness refuses to testif and his testimon is re6uired, the courtshould order the witness to give #ail or even order his arrest, if necessar.ailure to o#e a su#poena amounts to contempt of court.

*ena *. *erga ;0




B. Availa#le onl if 5

('! witness is reall material()! he is guilt o f no neglect in p reviousl o#tained the

attendance of said witness(F! /he witness will #e availa#le at the time desired(! =o similar evidence could #e o#tained

=ote5 /rial in a#sentia is onl allowed after arraignment, accused dul notifiedof the trial and a#sence is unjustified

'h( To have speedy+ impartial and pu%lic trial,

A. Definition of the right to speed trial

/he right means that the trial should #e conducted according to the law ofcriminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from ve3ations,capricious, and oppressive delas.

C. %peed /rial Act and Circular F0:0

According to the %peed /rial Act and Circular F0:0, arraignment and pre:trialif the accused pleads not guilt should #e held within F das from the datethe court ac6uires jurisdiction of the person of the accused. 1n no case shallthe entire period e3ceed '0 das from the first da of trial, e3cept asotherwise authori7ed # the Court Administrator.

D. &emed of an accused whose right to speed trial is violated

1. ile a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of his right tospeed trial. (:or purposes of double !eopardy, this has the sa'e

effect as an ac#uittal" /his must #e done prior to trial, or else, it isdeemed a waiver of the right to dismiss.). ile for mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information.F. 1f he is restrained of his li#ert, file for ha#eas corpus.. Ask for the trial of the case.

=ote5

• /he limitation is that the %tate should not #e deprived of its da incourt. /he right of the %tatethe prosecution to due process should #erespected.

• /he right to speed trial is violated when there are unjustifiedpostponements of the trial, and a long period of time is allowed toelapse without the case #eing tried for no justifia#le reason.

• right to a pu#lic trial means that anone interested in o#serving themanner that a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom mado so. /he trial should #e pu#lic in order to prevent a#uses that ma

#e committed # the court to the prejudice of the defendant."oreover, the accused is entitled to the moral support of his friendsand relatives.

• /he court ma #ar the pu#lic in certain cases, such as when theevidence to #e presented ma #e offensive to decenc or pu#licmorals, or in rape cases, where the purpose of some persons inattending is merel to ogle at the parties.

• /here is no violation of the right to a pu#lic trial if trial is held in thecham#ers of the judge since the pu#lic is not e3cluded from attendingthe trial.

•

/o warrant a finding of prejudicial pu#licit, there must #e allegationsand proof that the judges have #een undul influenced, not simpl thatthe might #e, # the #arrage of pu#licit.

'i( To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescri%ed %y

law,

NoteD• /he right to appeal is a statutor right and not a fundamental one,

e3cept in the case of the minimum appellate jurisdiction of the%upreme Court granted # the Constitution. Anone who seeks toe3ercise the right to appeal must compl with the re6uirements ofthe rules.

• it can #e waived e3pressl or impliedl.• hen the accused flees after the case has #een su#mitted to the

court for decision, he will #e deemed to have waived his right toappeal from the judgment rendered against him.

II. Constitutional #a Notes

&ights of the accused in criminal prosecutions

'. /o #e presumed innocent until the contrar is proved #eondreasona#le dou#t;

*ena *. *erga ;1




). /o #e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;F. /o #e present and defend in person and # counsel at ever stage of

the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment;. /o testif as a witness in his own #ehalf #ut su#ject to cross:

e3amination on matters covered # direct e3amination;G. /o #e e3empt from #eing compelled to #e a witness against himself;-. /o confront and cross:e3amine the witnesses against him at the trial;

*. /o have compulsor process issued to secure the attendance ofwitnesses and production of other evidence in his #ehalf;0. /o have a speed, impartial, and pu#lic trial;. /o appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescri#ed # law.

/wo aspects of due process5

'. %u#stantive due process I this refers to the intrinsic validit of the law). $rocedural due process I one that hears #efore it condemns, proceeds

upon in6uir, and renders judgment onl after trial and #ased on theevidence presented therein.

• /here is no need for trial:tpe proceedings in order to satisf dueprocess. hat is important is that there was an opportunit to #eheard. =otice and hearing are the minimum re6uirements of dueprocess.

&e6uirements of procedural due process (in general!5

'. /here must #e an impartial and competent court with judicial power tohear and determine the matter #efore it;

). +urisdiction must #e lawfull ac6uired over the person of the defendantor over the propert su#ject of the proceeding;

F. /he defendant must #e given an opportunit to #e heard;. +udgment must #e rendered upon lawful hearing.

&e6uirements of procedural due process (in criminal cases!

'. /he accused must have #een heard # a court of competent jurisdiction;

). e must have #een proceeded against under orderl processes of thelaw;

F. e ma #e punished onl after in6uir and investigation;. /here must #e notice to the accused;G. /he accused must #e given an opportunit to #e heard;-. +udgment must #e rendered within the authorit of a constitutional

law.

&ight to counsel during custodial investigation and the right to counsel duringthe trial

&ight to counsel during custodialinvestigation

&ight to counsel during the trial

/he right to counsel can onl #e

waived in writing A=D with theassistance of counsel.

/he right to counsel means the right

to effective counsel.

/he counsel re6uired in custodialinvestigation is competent andindependent counsel, prefera#l of hisown (the suspect’s! choice.

/he re6uirement is stricter duringcustodial investigation #ecause ofdanger that confessions will #ee3tracted against the will of thedefendant

/rial is in pu#lic thus, the dangerdoes not e3ist. During trial thepurpose of counsel is not so much toprotect him from #eing forced toconfess #ut to defend the accused

•

&ight to counsel afforded during trial #ecause it is em#raced in theright to #e heard.

• /he right to counsel ma #e invoked at an stage of theproceedings, even on appeal. owever, it can also #e waived. /heaccused is deemed to have waived his right to counsel when he voluntarilsu#mits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and proceeds with hisdefense.

But in 9% v. 2scalante and $eople v. =ang Ja, the Court held that thedefendant cannot raise the 6uestion of his right to have an attorne for thefirst time on appeal. 1f the 6uestion is not raised in the trial court, theprosecution ma go to trial. /he 6uestion will not #e considered in theappellate court for the first time when the accused fails to raise it in the

lower court.

• /he dut to appoint counsel:do:oficio is mandator onl up to arraignment.

• As a rule, the mistake of counsel #inds the client. /herefore, the clientcannot 6uestion a decision on the ground that counsel was an idiot.owever, an e3ception to this is if counsel misrepresents himself as alawer, and he turns out to #e a fake lawer. 1n this case, the accused isentitled to a new trial #ecause his right to #e represented # a mem#er ofthe #ar was violated. e was thus denied of his right to counsel and todue process.

*ena *. *erga ;,



the felon that Appellant arcia had intended to commit. owever, in spite ofthe evidence showing that appellant arcia would #e held lia#le as principal inthe crime of homicide. /here are two o#stacles #arring his conviction, even asan accessor.

/he information accused appellant arcia of attacking, assaulting and sta##ingrepeatedl with appointed weapon on the different parts of the #od of

"asangka. /he prosecution’s evidence shows that arcia has nothing to dowith the sta##ing which was solel perpetuated # 4rtega, an accused cannot#e convicted of an offense, unless it is clearl charged in the complaint orinformation. Constitutionall, he has a right to #e informed of the nature andcause of the accusation against him. /o convict him of an offense other thancharged in the complaint or information would #e a violation of thisconstitutional right.

1n all criminal proceedings, the accused shall #e presumed innocent untilproven guilt. e shall have the right to #e informed and cause of theaccusation again him, to have a speed trial, impartial, to meet witness face toface.

Also, arcia can enjo the e3emption provided for in Article ' and ) of the

civil code #eing the #rother in law of the principal 4rtega. /hus, he must #eac6uitted.

9$2A *S "%N&$6A:: SCA ,, (1<::)

acts5 "anuel Borja was accused of slight phsical injuries. /he cit court ofCe#u proceeded the trial in a#sentia due to his failure to appear in the hearingand Borja without #eing arraigned. /he court found him guilt. /he C1affirmed it without an notice to petitioner and without re6uiring him to su#mithis memorandum. $etitioner contended that the failure to arraign him violateshis right to #e informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him and

his right to #e heard and counsel. /he %olicitor:eneral agreed that theprocedural defect would render void the cit court decision.

1ssue5 = petitioner was denied due process.

Decision5 Arraignment is an indispensa#le means for #ringing the accused intocourt and informing him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him./he accused should also #e given the right to #e heard # himself and counsel.After arraignment, trial ma proceed notwithstanding the a#sence of theaccused provided that he has #een dul notified and his failure to appear isunjustified. urther, the a#sence of arraignment can #e invoked at antime in

view of the re6uirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. 1nthe case, petitioner was denied due process. e was not informed of theaccusation against him via an arraignment. /he case is remanded for trial withthe o#servance of due process starting with an arraignment.

"AC$S *S. '!6,14 SCA 1:: (1<<,)

acts5 After the preliminar investigation, the Acting Asst Cit iscal Lopenafiled two informations with the Bohol &/C against Bienvenido "arcos forviolating B$ )) when he delivered to ulgencio 4culam two checks in theamount of $F, each in pament for assorted pieces of jewelr taken #petitioner’s wife Anacleta "arcos knowing that he did not have sufficient funds.$etitioner posted a suret #ond for his temporar li#ert. /he arraignment wasreset due to the withdrawal of petitioner’s lawer. owever, petitioner settledhis o#ligation with the offended part who e3ecuted an Affidavit of Desistance.iscal Lopena filed a "otion to Dismiss in lieu of the desistance.

/wo cases were filed. 1n one of the cases, neither petitioner nor his counselappeared in the hearing, #ut the court received a telegram from petitioner’swife that petitioner was indisposed. /he arraignment was then rescheduled

without an o#jections. 1n the arraignment, petitioner together with his counselpleaded not guilt the were notified in open court of the trial of the case. But,#oth did not appear during the trial. /he court then forfeited the #ond ofpetitioner, accepted the evidence of the prosecution and su#mitted the case fordecision.

/hereafter, the court received a motion from petitioner via registered mail forthe resetting of the case. /he counsel alleged that the #elieved that thehearing would not proceed due to the desistance of the offended part and the"otion to Dismiss filed # the iscal Lopena. Both motion as well as the "otionfor &econsideration were denied. Both motions did not contain a notice ofhearing to the $rosecuting iscal. A notice of promulgation of sentence wasthen sent to the parties in the two cases. ence, this petition.

1ssue5= petitioner was denied the right to confront the witnesses of theprosecution and to #e heard.

= the judge erred in forfeiting the #ond.

Decision5 /he judge a#used his discretion when he ordered the forfeiture of the#ond despite the a#sence of the accused. Due notice should #e given to the#ondsman to produce the accused #efore the court #ut there is no showingthat such was complied with.

*ena *. *erga ;




/he accused is re6uired to personall enter his plea. 1n the case, this did nothappen. ence, there was no valid arraignment in one of the criminal cases.

/he motion for resetting was a mere scrap of paper #ecause it did not containa notice of hearing to the $rosecution which is a violation of %ection G, rule ''Gof the &ules of Court. ithout such notice, it is not even a motion for it does

not compl with the rules and should not have #een received # the clerk.

/he judge a#used his discretion when he considered one of the criminal case#ecause there was no valid arraignment. e thus disregarded %ec )c of &ule'' and %ec 'c of &ule ''G, which merel consider the accused’s non:appearance during the trial :: in this case, April 0:: as a waiver if his right to#e present for trial and not for the succeeding trial dates. /he a#sence of the accused without notice shall #e considered a waiver of hisright to #e present on that trial. hen an accused under custod had #eennotified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall #e deemed to havewaived his right to #e present on said date and on all su#se6uent trial datesuntil custod is regained.

3!"%N%6 vs. NA6A%N$10 SCA 1 (1<;;)

acts5 $rivate respondent /eodoro de la >ega and G others were charged withthe crime of murder. 4n August )), '*F, all the accused were arraigned andeach of them pleaded not guilt. ollowing the arraignment. /he respondent=a7areno set the hearing of the case the following month. But #efore thescheduled date of hearing, de la >ega escaped detention and failed to appearin court. /he fiscals filed a motion to continue hearing the case and de la >ega#e tried in a#sentia.

/he lower court proceeded with the trial of the case #ut gave the respondentthe opportunit to take the witness stand the moment he shows up in court.

/he lower court rendered a decision dismissing the case against the fiveaccused while holding in a#eance the proceedings against the privaterespondent.

$etitioners filed a "otion for reconsideration 6uestioning the a#ove:mentioneddecision, hence this petitioner. 1t was the contention of the respondent courtthat jurisdiction over private respondent de la >ega was lost when he escapedand that his right to cross:e3amine and present evidence must not #e deniedhim once jurisdiction over is person is reac6uired.

1ssue5 = the court lost its jurisdiction when the prisoner escaped fromdetention.

Decision5 /he lowered ac6uired jurisdiction over the person of the accused:private respondent when he appeared during the arraignment and pleaded notguilt to the crime charged. 1n criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person ofthe accused is ac6uired either # his arrest for voluntar appearance in court.

%uch voluntar appearance is accomplished # appearing for arraignment aswhat accused respondent did in this case. +urisdiction, once ac6uired is no lostupon the instance of parties #ut continues until the case is terminated.

here the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilt to thecrime charged, jurisdiction is ac6uired # the court over his person and thiscontinues until termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape from thecustod of law.

A valid trial in a#sentia has the following re6uisite5 ('! that there has #een anarraignment; ()! that the accused has #een notified; and (F! that he fails toappear and hi failure to do so is unjustified./he respondent was validl arraigned and he escaped. /he lower courttherefore correctl proceeded with the reception of the evidence of the

prosecution and the other accused in the a#sence of the private respondent.But it erred when it suspended the proceedings as to private respondent andrendered a decision as to the other accused onl.

9pon termination of the trial in a#sentia, the court has the dut to rule uponthe evidence presented in court. /he court need not wait for the one whoescaped to finall decide to appear. /he contention of the judge that the rightof the accused to #e presumed innocent will #e violated if a judgment isrendered as to him 1 untena#le. e is still presumed innocent. A judgment ofconviction must still #e #ased upon the evidence presented in court./herefore, no violation of due process since the accused was given theopportunit to #e heard.B the failure of the accused to appear, he waived his rights to cross e3amine

and to present evidence on his #ehalf. %uch rights are personal right #ut ma#e waived.

/here was valid trial in a#sentia in this case. /he judge should have proceededwith the decision.

SAS$N vs. P%$P#%1 SCA ;0 (1<;;)

acts5 $etitioner was charged with the crime of 2stafa through alsification ofa Commercial Document. %ason, who was known as ?iscal $ere7@ was

*ena *. *erga ;5



shop when it was onl on F August when he opened his shop. /he trial courtadmitted the statement of the accused although it was taken without theassistance of counsel #ecause it was of the opinion that since an informationhad alread #een filed in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to awarrant of arrest issued # the court, the statement was not therefore, takenduring custodial investigation.

1ssue5 = the statement of "a6ueda should #e admitted

Decision5 the e3ercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to #einformed under %ection ') ('! Article 111 of the Constitution are not confined tothat prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information #ut are availa#leat the stage when a person is ?under investigation for the commission of anoffense@.

/he court did recogni7e that once a criminal complaint or information has #eenfiled in court and the accused is thereafter arrested # virtue of warrant ofarrest, he must #e delivered to the nearest police station or jail and thearresting officer must make a return of the warrant to the issuing judge(%ection F and &ule ''F! and since the court has alread ac6uired jurisdiction over his person, it would #e improper for an pu#lic officer or law

enforcement agenc to investigate him in connection with the commission ofthe offense for which he was charged. 1f nevertheless, he is su#jected to suchinvestigation, then %ection ')('! Article 111 of the Constitution and the jurisprudence thereon must #e faithfull complied with.

"'T'C *S CA1<0 SCA 4 (1<<0)

AC/%5 /he th division of the CA promulgated a resolution fi3ing the amount ofthe #ond for the provisional release of ortunato "edina pending his appeal#efore the said court. /he appellee filed a "&. /he %olicitor:eneral filed anopposition in "anila which was actuall received in Baguio Cit when the th

division was holding session there. /he "& was denied. But, #efore the CA

could act on his "&, a news article attri#uted to Att Amelito "utuc, counsel ofrecord of appellee, appeared in the "anila /imes wherein "utuc hit the AppealsCourt ruling in dening "edina’s release without posting #ail since he is apauper and that his detention is illegal as found # the lower court. 1n the saidnews item, "utuc advised "edina to escape from confinement. /he %olicitor:eneral in6uired if "utuc did reall made such advice and the latter affirmedand further said that he is willing to #e imprisoned and dis#arred. /he th

division re6uired "utuc several times to show cause wh he should not #edealt with for contempt #ut to no avail. "utuc sought the inhi#ition of themem#ers of the division #ut was denied. ence, this petition.

1%%925 = petitioner was deprived of due process.

D2C1%14=5 Due process does not alwas and in all situations re6uire a trial:tpe proceeding. /he essence of due process is to #e found in the reasona#leopportunit to #e heard and su#mit an evidence one ma have in support ofhis defense. ?/o #e heard@ does not onl mean ver#al agreements in court.4ne ma also #e heard through pleadings. here opportunit to #e heard,

either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial ofprocedural due process. ence, petitioner cannot allege lack of due processsince he was given ample time to e3plain wh he should not #e held incontempt of court and suspended from the practice of law in all the four6uestioned resolutions.

'#% 11AA!3N"%NT AN& P#%A

!. Provisions and Notes

Section &, Arraignment and plea= how made, 'a( The accused must %earraigned %efore the court where the complaint or information wasfiled or assigned for trial, The arraignment shall %e made in open court%y the 4udge or cler2 %y furnishing the accused with a copy of thecomplaint or information+ reading the same in the language or dialect2nown to him+ and as2ing him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty,The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those namedin the complaint or information,

'%( The accused must %e present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea, 8oth arraignment and plea shall %e made of

record+ %ut failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the proceedings,

'c( 1hen the accused refuses to plead or ma2es a conditional plea+a plea of not guilty shall %e entered for him,

'd( 1hen the accused pleads guilty %ut presents e$culpatoryevidence+ his plea shall %e deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty

shall %e entered for him,

*ena *. *erga ;:




'e( 1hen the accused is under preventive detention+ his case shall%e raffled and its records transmitted to the 4udge to whom the casewas raffled within three '.( days from the filing of the information orcomplaint, The accused shall %e arraigned within ten '&( days fromthe date of the raffle, The pretrial conference of his case shall %e heldwithin ten '&( days after arraignment,

'f( The private offended party shall %e re)uired to appear at thearraignment for purposes of plea %argaining+ determination of civil

lia%ility+ and other matters re)uiring his presence, In case of failure ofthe offended party to appear despite due notice+ the court may allow

the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which isnecessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of thetrial prosecutor alone,

'g( Unless a shorter period is provided %y special law or SupremeCourt circular+ the arraignment shall %e held within thirty '.( daysfrom the date the court ac)uires 4urisdiction over the person of theaccused, The time of the pendency of a motion to )uash or for a %ill or

particulars or other causes 4ustifying suspension of the arraignment

shall %e excluded in co'puting the period"

A. ow and when arraignment is made

• /he accused must #e arraigned #efore the court where the complaint wasfiled or assigned for trial.

• 1t is made5

'. in open court). # the judge or clerkF. # furnishing the accused with a cop of the complaint or information. reading it in the language or dialect known to him, andG. asking him whether he pleads guilt or not guilt.

• /he accused must #e present at the arraignment and must personallenter his plea.

• 1f the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of notguilt shall #e entered for him.

• 1f the accused pleads guilt and esta#lishes self:defense, the court shouldwithdraw the plea and enter a plea of not guilt.

• /he general rule is that the accused should #e arraigned within F dasfrom the date the court ac6uires jurisdiction over the person of theaccused. /he time of the pendenc of a motion to 6uash or for a #ill ofparticulars or other causes justifing suspension of the arraignment shall#e e3cluded in computing the period.

owever, in the following cases, the accused should #e arraigned with ashorter period5

'. here the complainant is a#out to depart from the $hilippines with nodefinite date of return, the accused should #e arraigned without delaand his trial should commence within F das from arraignment.

). /he trial of cases under the Child A#use Act re6uires that the trialshould #e commenced within F das from arraignment.

F. hen the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall #eraffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case wasraffled within F das from the filing of the information or complaint./he accused shall #e arraigned within ' das from the date of theraffle.

• /he lawer of the accused cannot enter a plea for him. /he accused mustpersonall enter his plea.

B. 1mportance of arraignment5

Arraignment is the means for #ringing the accused into court and informinghim of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Duringarraignment, he is made full aware of possi#le loss of freedom or life. e isinformed wh the prosecuting arm of the %tate is mo#ili7ed against him. 1t isnecessar in order to fi3 the identit of the accused, to inform him of thecharge, and to give him an opportunit to plead.

C. Duplicitousness of information/he judge has no o#ligation to point out the duplicitousness or an other defectin an information during arraignment. /he o#ligation to move to 6uash adefective information #elongs to the accused, whose failure to do soconstitutes a waiver of the right to o#ject.

D. Defects5 when a person is tried without #eing arraigned first/he failure of the court to arraign a person #efore trial was conducted does notprejudice his rights since he was a#le to present evidence and cross:e3aminethe witnesses of the prosecution during trial. /he error was cured # thesu#se6uent arraignment.

2. $resumption that there was an arraignment

1n view of the presumption of regularit in the performance of official duties, itcan #e presumed that a person accused of a crime was arraigned, in the

*ena *. *erga ;;




a#sence of proof to the contrar. owever, the presumption of regularit isnot applied when the penalt imposed is death. hen the life of a person is atstake, the court cannot presume that there was an arraignment; it has to #esure that there was one.

=ote5 /he accused is not entitled to know in advance the names of all of theprosecution witnesses. /he success of the prosecution might #e endangered if

this right were granted to the accused. /he witnesses might #e su#jected topressure or coercion. /he right time for the accused to know their identities iswhen the take the witness stand. /he prosecution ma call at the trialwitnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.

. hen a person pleads guilthen an accused pleads guilt, it does not necessaril follow that he will #econvicted. Additional evidence independent of the guilt plea ma #econsidered # the judge to ensure that the plea of guilt was intelligentl made./he totalit of evidence should determine whether the accused should #econvicted or ac6uitted.

<uestion5 H was charged with murder and entered a plea of guilt. e waslater allowed to testif in order to prove the mitigating circumstance ofincomplete self:defense. At the trial, he presented evidence to prove that heacted in complete self:defense. /he court ac6uitted him. Later, H was againcharged with phsical injuries. H invoked dou#le jeopard. Can H #eprosecuted again for phsical injuriesQ

H can again #e prosecuted for phsical injuries. /here was no dou#le jeopard.1n order for dou#le jeopard to attach, there must have #een a valid plea tothe first offense. 1n this case, the presentation # H of evidence to provecomplete self:defense had the effect of vacating his plea of guilt. hen theplea of guilt was vacated, the court should have ordered him to plead again, orat least should have directed that a new plea of not guilt #e entered for him.Because the court did not do this, at the time of the ac6uittal, there was

actuall no standing plea for H. %ince there was no valid plea, there can #e nodou#le jeopard.

ection >" %lea of guilty to a lesser offense" C At arraign'ent, the accused,(ith the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, 'ay be allo(ed by thetrial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense (hich is necessarily included in theoffense charged" After arraign'ent but before trial, the accused 'ay still be

allo(ed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after (ithdra(ing his plea of notguilty" -o a'end'ent of the co'plaint or infor'ation is necessary"

A. $lead guilt to a lesser offenseAt arraignment, the accused ma plead guilt to a lesser offense, which isnecessaril included in the offense charged, provided that the offended partand the prosecutor give their consent.

After arraignment B9/ B24&2 /&1AL, the accused ma still #e allowed toplead guilt to a lesser offense, after he withdraws his plea of not guilt. 1n

such a case, the complaint or information need not #e amended.

hen the penalt imposa#le for the offense is at least - ears and ' da or afine e3ceeding $'),, the prosecutor must first su#mit his recommendationto the Cit or $rovincial $rosecutor or to the Chief %tate $rosecutor forapproval. 1f the recommendation is approved, the trial prosecutor ma thenconsent to the plea of guilt to a lesser offense.

ection ?" %lea of guilty to capital offense reception of evidence" C ;hen theaccused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searchingin#uiry into the voluntariness and full co'prehension of the conse#uences ofhis plea and shall re#uire the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise

degree of culpability" /he accused 'ay present evidence in his behalf"

A. Court’s action when the accused pleads guilt to a capital offense

/he court should5

'. conduct a searching in6uir into the voluntariness and fullcomprehension of the conse6uences of the plea.

). re6uire the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and theprecise degree of culpa#ilit of the accused for the purpose ofimposing the proper penalt.

F. ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his #ehalf andallow him to do so if he desires.

=ote5 A plea of guilt results in the admission of all the material facts in thecomplaint or information, including the aggravating circumstances. Because ofthis, the court should onl accept a clear, definite, and unconditional plea ofguilt.

$lea of guilt #e considered a mitigating circumstance if made #efore theprosecution starts to present evidence

*ena *. *erga ;<




B. "eaning of ?%earching in6uir@

1n all cases, the judge must convince himself5 ('! that the accused is enteringthe plea of guilt voluntaril and intelligentl; and ()! that he is trul guiltand that there e3ists a rational #asis for a finding of guilt #ased on histestimon.

1n addition, the judge must inform the accused of the e3act length ofimprisonment and the certaint that he will serve it at the nat ional penitentiaror a penal colon. /he judge must dispel an false notion that the accusedma have that he will get off lightl #ecause of his plea of guilt.

<uestions5A. 1s it mandator for the prosecution to present proof of aggravatingcircumstancesQ8es. 1t is mandator in order to esta#lish the precise degree of culpa#ilit andthe imposa#le penalt. 4therwise, there is an improvident plea of guilt.

B. Can a court validl convict an accused #ased on an imprudent plea ofguiltQ

8es. 1f there is ade6uate evidence of the guilt of the accused independent ofthe improvident plea of guilt, the court ma still convict the accused. /heconviction will #e set aside onl if the plea of guilt is the sole #asis of the judgment.

Section /, Plea of guilty to noncapital offense= reception of evidence+discretionary, < 1hen the accused pleads guilty to a noncapital

offense+ the court may receive evidence from the parties to determinethe penalty to %e imposed,

=ote5

• Court’s action when the accused pleads guilt to a non:capital offense5 /hecourt ma receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalt to #e

imposed. 9nlike in a plea of guilt to a capital offense, the reception ofevidence in this case is not mandator. 1t is merel discretionar on thecourt.

• enerall, a plea of guilt cannot #e attacked if it is made voluntaril andintelligentl. 1t can onl #e attacked if it was induced # threats,misrepresentation, or #ri#es. hen the consensual character of the plea iscalled into 6uestion or when it is shown that the defendant was not fullapprised of its conse6uences, the plea can #e challenged.

ection 5" ;ithdra(al of i'provident plea of guilty"C At any ti'e before the !udg'ent of conviction beco'es final, the court 'ay per'it an i'provident plea of guilty to be (ithdra(n and be substituted by a plea of not guilty"

=ote5

• /he withdrawal of the plea of guilt is not a matter of strict right to theaccused #ut is within the discretion of the court. /he reason for this is that

trial has alread commenced; withdrawal of the plea will change the theorof the case and will put all of the past proceedings to waste. /herefore, itma onl #e withdrawn with permission of the court.

• "oreover, there is a presumption that the plea was made voluntaril. /hecourt must decide whether the consent of the accused was, in fact, vitiatedwhen he entered his plea.

• A 6ualified plea (e3. the accuse sas ?hindi ko sinasada@! is e6uivalent toa plea of not guilt. 1n order to #e valid, the plea of guilt must #eunconditional

ection " 4uty of court to infor' accused of his right to counsel" C Beforearraign'ent, the court shall infor' the accused of his right to counsel and as)hi' if he desires to have one" Fnless the accused is allo(ed to defend hi'self

in person or has e'ployed counsel of his choice, the court 'ust assign acounsel de officio to defend hi'"

A. Action of the court when a defendant appears without an attorne duringarraignment5

/he court has a four:fold dut5

'. 1t must inform the defendant that he has a right to an attorne #efore#eing arraigned;

). After informing him, the court must ask the defendant if he desires tohave the aid of an attorne;

F. 1f he desires and is una#le to emplo an attorne, the court must

assign an attorne de oficio to defend him;. 1f the accused desires to procure an attorne of his own, the court

must grant him a reasona#le time therefor.

B. &eason for this four:fold dut5 /he right to #e heard would #e of little availif it does not include the right to #e heard # counsel.

C. 2ffect of the failure of the court to compl with these duties5 1t is aviolation of due process.

*ena *. *erga <0




Section >, Appointment of counsel de officio, < The court+ consideringthe gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the )uestions that mayarise+ shall appoint as counsel de officio such mem%ers of the %ar in

good standing who+ %y reason of their e$perience and a%ility+ cancompetently defend the accused, 8ut in localities where such mem%ersof the %ar are not availa%le+ the court may appoint any person+resident of the province and of good repute for pro%ity and a%ility+ to

defend the accused,

A. Definition of counsel de oficio

Counsel de oficio is counsel appointed # the court to represent and defend theaccused in case he cannot afford to emplo one himself. /he court,considering the gravit of the offense and the difficult of the 6uestions thatma arise shall appoint as counsel de oficio5

'. such mem#ers of the #ar in good standing). who # reason of their e3perience and a#ilit, can competentl defend

the accused.

But, in localities where such mem#ers of the #ar are not availa#le, the court

ma appoint an person who is5

'. a resident of the province). and of good repute for pro#it and a#ilit to defend the accused.

B. Difference #etween the dut of the court to appoint counsel de oficioduring arraignment and during trial

During arraignment, the court has the affirmative dut to inform the accusedof his right to counsel and to provide him with one in case he cannot afford it./he court must act on its own volition, unless the right is waived # theaccused.

4n the other hand, during trial, it is the accused who must assert his right to

counsel. /he court will not act unless the accused invokes his rights.

=ote5

• A non:lawer cannot represent the accused during arraignment. Duringarraignment, it is the o#ligation of the court to ensure that the accused isrepresented # a lawer #ecause it is the first time when the accused isinformed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. /his is atask which onl a lawer can do.

But during trial, there is no such dut. /he accused must ask for a lawer,or else, the right is deemed waived. e can even defend himselfpersonall.

• An accused #e validl represented # a non:lawer at the trial. 1f theaccused knowingl engaged the services of the non:lawer, he is #ound #the non:lawer’s actions. But if he did not know that he was #eing

represented # a non:lawer, the judgment is void #ecause of themisrepresentation.

C. Duties of the pu#ic attorne if the accused assigned to him is imprisoned

'. e shall promptl undertake to o#tain the presence of the prisoner fortrial, or cause a notice to #e served on the person having custod ofthe prisoner, re6uiring such person to advise the prisoner of his rightto demand trial.

). 9pon receipt of that notice, the person having custod of the prisonershall promptl advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right todemand trial. 1t at antime thereafter, the prisoner informs hiscustodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to

that effect to #e sent promptl to the pu#lic attorne.

F. 9pon receipt of such notice, the pu#lic attorne shall promptl seek too#tain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

. hen the person having custod of the prisoner receives from thepu#lic attorne a properl supported re6uest for the availa#ilit of theprisoner for purposes of the trial, the prisoner shall #e made availa#leaccordingl.

ection " /i'e for counsel de officio to prepare for arraign'ent" C ;henevera counsel de office is appointed by the court to defend the accused at thearraign'ent, he shall be given a reasonable ti'e to consult (ith the accused

as to his plea before proceeding (ith the arraign'ent"

ection 9" Bill of particulars" C /he accused 'ay, before arraign'ent, 'ove fora bill of particulars to enable hi' properly to plead and prepare for trial" /he

'otion shall specify the alleged defects of the co'plaint or infor'ation and thedetails desired"

A. Definition of #ill of particulars

*ena *. *erga <1




• 1t is a more specific allegation. A defendant in a criminal case who#elieves or feels that he is not sufficientl informed of the crime with whichhe is charged and not in a position to defend himself properl andade6uatel could move for a #ill or particulars or specifications.

B. hat it should contain and purpose

•

1ts purpose is to allow the accused to prepare for his defense.• /he accused must move for a #ill of particulars #efore arraignment.

4therwise, the right is deemed waived

• 1t should specif the alleged defects of the complaint or information andthe details desired.

ection <I" %roduction or inspection of 'aterial evidence in possession of prosecution" C Fpon 'otion of the accused sho(ing good cause and (ithnotice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, oralteration, 'ay order the prosecution to produce and per'it the inspection andcopying or photographing of any (ritten state'ent given by the co'plainantand other (itnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating officers, as (ell as any designated

docu'ents, papers, boo)s, accounts, letters, photographs, ob!ect, or tangiblethings not other(ise privileged, (hich constitute or contain evidence 'aterialto any 'atter involved in the case and (hich are in the possession or underthe control of the prosecution, police, or other la( investigating agencies"

A. &ight to modes of discover

• 1t is the right of the accused to move for the production or inspection ormaterial evidence in the possession of the prosecution. 1t authori7es thedefense to inspect, cop, or photograph an evidence of the prosecution inits possession after o#taining permission of the court.

• /he purpose is to prevent surprise to the accused and the suppression oralteration of evidence.

•1t is availa#le during preliminar investigation in order to protect hisconstitutional right to life, li#ert, and propert. (e## v. de Leon!

ection <<" uspension of arraign'ent" C Fpon 'otion by the proper party,the arraign'ent shall be suspended in the follo(ing cases.

+a /he accused appears to be suffering fro' an unsound 'ental condition(hich effectively renders hi' unable to fully understand the charge against

hi' and to plead intelligently thereto" 1n such case, the court shall order his'ental exa'ination and, if necessary, his confine'ent for such purpose

+b /here exists a pre!udicial #uestion and

+c A petition for revie( of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either

the 4epart'ent of Justice, or the Dffice of the %resident provided, that the

period of suspension shall not exceed sixty +I days counted fro' the filing ofthe petition (ith the revie(ing office"

A. rounds for suspending arraignment

'. 1f the accused appears to #e suffering from an unsound mentalcondition, which renders him una#le to full understand the chargeagainst him and to plead intelligentl thereto. /he court should orderhis mental e3amination and his confinement, if necessar.

). 1f there e3ists a prejudicial 6uestion.

F. 1f a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending

either at the D4+ or the 4ffice of the $resident. owever, the periodof suspension shall not e3ceed - das counted from the filing of thepetition for review.

B. /est to determine whether the insanit of the accused should warrant thesuspension of the proceedings

/he test is whether the accused will have a fair trial with the assistance ofcounsel, in spite of his insanit. =ot ever a#erration of the mind or e3hi#itionof mental deficienc is sufficient to justif suspension.

11. Cases

"A3S'CAN3 *S. 9A#3$S4<; SCA 15; (,004)

acts5 $epito Lim, owner of Ace ishing Corporation, filed a complaint for6ualified theft against complainant’s daughter, &osalie "agsucang, formisappropriating $'',) with grave a#use of confidence. /he respondent judge who conducted the $1 issued a warrant of arrest and set the #ail at$F,. &osalie was arrested #ut complainant posted #ail for his daughter.Later, more cases for 6ualified theft were filed # Lim. After $1, warrants of

*ena *. *erga <,




arrest were issued and #ail set at $),. Complainant had no mone to post#ail.

Complainant faults judge for the irregularities in the $1 when the judgeadministered the oath to Lim and having sent &osalie to prison withouthearing, and for re6uiring e3cessive #ail. A letter:complaint was referred to the4ffice of the Court Administrator. /he judge maintained that he followed the

procedure in filing criminal complaints. e further said that he found pro#a#lecause to hold her lia#le for 0 counts of 6ualified theft. /he Court Administratorfound the judge innocent of the charges e3cept as to the e3cessive #ail.

1ssue5 = the judge a#used his discretion in granting e3cessive #ail.

Decision5 /he charges on #ias and partialit were not su#stantiated # thecomplainant. /he were mere allegations, which were not supported #evidence to prove that the judge overstepped the parameters of hisprerogative.

A judge enjos the presumption of regularit in the performance of his functionunless overcome # convincing evidence to the contrar.

/he judge did grant e3cessive #ail. /he judge failed to consider that &osalie isilliterate, the daughter of a poor fisherman and has ver limited financial a#ilitto post #ail. 1n fi3ing #ail at $),, it is clear that he disregarded theguidelines provided in the &ules of Court. /he e3cessive #ail onl means thather provisional li#ert would #e #eond her reach.

P%$P#% vs. $ST!A4<; SCA 14, (,004)

acts5 &o#erto 4stia was convicted of murder for the slaing of a four:ear:old child. According to a witness, he saw &o#ert, with the victim Beverl,

perched on his right shoulder walking towards the direction of the po#lacion.hen the child failed to return home, her parents asked the assistance of theauthorities. /he #od of Beverl was found in a grass area. According to themedico:legal report, the child was raped and that her death was due tohemorrhage.

During the arraignment, &o#erto pleaded not guilt to the charge of rape withhomicide. 9pon talking to his counsel de officio, he agreed to plead guilt tomurder, which was a lesser offense. /he accused was re:arraigned andpleaded guilt to the crime of murder. e was assisted # his counsel and theinformation was read and translated to him in the wara dialect. e was also

informed that as a result of his plea of guilt, he admitted all the facts alleged inthe information which were alread read and translated to him.

/he judge rendered a decision finding &o#erto guilt and sentencing thepenalt of death.

&o#erto appealed the %upreme Court contending that the lower court erred in

convicting him of the crime of murder despite hi improvident plea of guilt, inviolation of %ection F, &ule ''- of the rules of court.

1ssue5 = the court erred in accepting the plea of guilt without conductingsearching in6uiries as provided for in %ection F, &ule ''-.

Decision5 %ection F of rule ''- provides that when the accused enters a pleaof guilt to a capital offense the trial court is mandated to5 ('! conduct asearching in6uir into the voluntaries thereof; ()! re6uire the prosecution topresent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree ofhis culpa#ilit and (F! ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his#ehalf and allow him to do so if he desires. /his procedure is mandator and a judge who fails to o#serve with fealt the said rule commits grave a#use ofdiscretion.

1n the case at #ar, it was proven that the accused did not even know how toread or write. /he trial court failed to e3plain to the accused the nature of thecrime of murder nor even asked his reasons for changing his plea. =osearching 6uestions were asked, thus the judge a#used his discretion.=onetheless, as held in the case of $eople vs. +a#ien. here the trial courtreceives evidence to determine precisel whether or not the accused has erredin admitting his guilt, such plea loses its significance. owever, even withoutconsidering the plea, he ma still #e convicted if there is ade6uate evidence onrecord on which to predicate his conviction. %uch is true in the case at #ar.&o#erto was convicted # the %C #ut modified the penalt.

P%$P#% vs. S$#A"!##$0 SCA ,10 (,004)

acts5 %olamillo and three others were convicted for the crime of ro##er withhomicide for the slaing of Ale3ander uiro, the proprietor of Li#ert Bakerand rocer, with whom the three worked as emploees. /he victim suffered)' hack wounds. 1t was also found that around $hp ),. was stolen #the accused together with the victim’s wallet and watch.

*ena *. *erga <4




After the decision was rendered # the court convicting all the accused, +ulian%olamillo appealed to the court sating that the court erred in disregarding histacit withdrawal of his guilt plea during arraignment. e claims thatpoliceman Baa#os threatened to kill him if he will pleat not guilt.

1ssue5 = the plea should #e disregarded.

Decision5 =o. %ection G of rule ''- of the &evised &ules of Criminal $rocedureprovides that at na time #efore the judgment of conviction #ecomes final;, thecourt ma permit an improvident plea of guilt to #e withdrawn and #esu#stituted # a plea of not guilt.

/here is nothing in the records to show that +ulian filed a motion to withdrawhis plea of guilt or that he, in an manner manifested une6uivocall that hewas withdrawing his plea. is statement during the trial that he wasthreatened # Baa#os, is not a positive and categorical declaration thatappellant +ulian was withdrawing his plea of guilt. ithout an une6uivocalact on his part, the trial court could not assume the he was withdrawing hisoriginal plea.

2ven assuming that +ulian made an improvident plea of guilt and

su#se6uentl withdrew it, such fact does not operate to automaticalle3culpate him from criminal lia#ilit. Convictions #ased on an improvident pleaof guilt are set aside onl if such plea is the sole #asis of the judgment. 1f thetrial court relied on sufficient and credi#le evidence to convict the accused, theconviction must #e sustained #ecause then it is predicated not merel on theguilt plea of the accused #ut on evidence proving his commission of theoffense charged.

hether or not the plea of guilt was improvident. 1s inconse6uential for thesimple reason that his conviction was #ased on other evidence proving hisculpa#ilit for the offense charged.

P%$P#% *S. &

4<5 SCA ,5 (,004)acts5 /he accused Bran D and iovani Bernardino filed separate motionsof reconsideration 6uestioning the decision of the lower court finding themguilt of rape and acts of lasciviousness. Bernardino contends that the werenot accorded their right to a fair, un#iased resolution of the preliminarinvestigation. e also 6uestions the speed manner # which the trial wasconducted and the lack of arraignment stating that the right to #e arraigned isnot among the rights that are suscepti#le to waiver or estoppel. /hus the lackof arraignment cannot #e deemed cured # their participation in the trial.

1ssue5 = there was violation of rights on the part of the appellants.

Decision5 =one5 /he right to #e informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation ma not #e waived. owever, it is a different matter when it wasthe accused themselves who refused to #e informed of the nature and cause ofthe accusation. 1t was esta#lished that the accused refused to #e arraigned,thus, it was not the court’s fault that no arraignment was held.

/he records show that the proceedings were not hastil conducted. hile theproceedings might have #een of short duration than usual, the werenevertheless conducted with due regard to the right of each part to dueprocess. /he trial court should even #e commended for conducting a speedtrial, which should #e the rule, rather than the e3ception.

hat is the prime consideration is not the speed # which the trial wasconducted #ut the matter # which the procedural and su#stantial re6uirementwere complied with. /he records show that these re6uirements wereade6uatel met.

P%$P#% vs. "A"A!$N1, SCA 4; (,004)

acts5 "amarion and several others were convicted of kidnapping with ransomfor the kidnapping of &o#erta Cokin, a wealth #usiness woman in Bacolodcit. &o#erta was kidnapped # the group after she attended a cockfight. Aransom of two:million was asked of her sister. owever, the recoveroperation of the =B1 failed. /he were onl a#le to recover the )" #ut not&o#erta. &o#erta was then found dead in a shallow grave.

4ne of the accused ale #ecame the state witness and was allowed to plea ona lesser offense. /he accused "amarion 6uestions the decision of the court

allowing ale to plead guilt to a lesser offense (slight illegal detention! inconsideration of testifing as a prosecution witness.

1ssue5 = the court erred in allowing ale plead to a lesser offense.

Decision5 =o. ale was validl discharged as a state witness. ale was allowedto change his plea pursuant to the then prevailing %ection ) &ule ''- of the&ules of court. As stated in the said rule, the accused with the consent of theoffended part and the fiscal ma #e allowed # the trail court to plead guilt toa lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessaril included in thecrime charges or is cogni7a#le # a curt of lesser jurisdiction.

*ena *. *erga <




1t is immaterial that said plea was not made during the pre:trial stage or that itwas made onl after the prosecution alread presented several witnesses.

$lea:#argaining in criminal cases is a process where# the accused and theprosecution work out a mutuall satisfactor disposition of the case su#ject tocourt approval. 4rdinaril, plea:#argaining is made during the pre:trail stageof the criminal proceeding. owever, the law still permits the accusedsufficient opportunit to change his plea thereafter.

%uch a situation is addressed entirel to the sound discretion of the court. /hecourt did not err in allowing ale to plead to a lesser offense since histestimon is crucial to the case at #ar.

'#% 11:"$T!$N T$ 'AS7

!. Provisions and Notes

Section &, Time to move to )uash, < At any time %efore entering his plea+ the accused may move to )uash the complaint or information,

Section, 9, Form and contents, < The motion to )uash shall %e inwriting+ signed %y the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly

specify its factual and legal grounds, The court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion+ e$cept lac2 of 4urisdiction over the offense charged,

A. +orm required or a motion to quas?

1. !t must =e in riting.,. !t must =e signed =y t?e accused or ?is counsel.4. !t must seciy its actual and legal grounds.

NoteD A court generally8 cannot dismiss t?e case =ased on groundst?at are not alleged in t?e motion to quas?. T?e court cannot considerany ground ot?er t?an t?ose stated in t?e motion to quas?. T?eeBcetion is lac o Jurisdiction over t?e oense c?arged. ! t?is is t?eground or dismissing t?e case8 it need not =e alleged in t?e motion to

quas? since it goes into t?e very cometence o t?e court to ass uont?e case.

Section ., !rounds, < The accused may move to )uash the complaintor information on any of the following grounds:

'. /hat the facts charged do not constitute an offense

). /hat the court trying the case has no !urisdiction over the offensecharged

F. /hat the court trying the case has no !urisdiction over the person ofthe accused

. /hat the officer (ho filed the infor'ation had no authority to do soG. /hat it does not confor' substantially to the prescribed for'-. /hat 'ore than one offense is charged except (hen a single

punish'ent for various offenses is prescribed by la( +duplicitous*. /hat the cri'inal action or liability has been extinguished0. /hat it contains aver'ents (hich, if true, (ould constitute a legal

excuse or !ustification9. /hat the accused has been previously convicted or ac#uitted of the

offense charged, or the case against hi' (as dis'issed or other(ise

ter'inated (ithout his express consent" +double !eopardy

NoteD• "atters o deense are generally not a ground or a motion to

quas?. T?ey s?ould =e resented at t?e trial.• &enial o due rocess is not one o t?e grounds or a motion to

quas?.• A motion to quas? on t?e ground o lac o Jurisdiction over t?e

erson o t?e accused must =e =ased only on t?is ground. ! ot?ergrounds are included8 t?ere is a aiver8 and t?e accused is deemedto ?ave su=mitted ?imsel to t?e Jurisdiction o t?e court.

A. "eaning o t?e statement t?at Ga motion to quas? ?yot?eticallyadmits allegations o act in t?e inormationH.

1t means that the accused argues that assuming that the facts charged aretrue, the information should still #e dismissed #ased on the ground invoked #the defendant. /herefore, since the defendant assumes that the facts in theinformation are true, onl these facts should #e taken into account when thecourt resolves the motion to 6uash. 4ther facts, such as matters of defense,which are not in the information should not #e considered. 23ceptions to thisrule are when the grounds invoked to 6uash the information are e3tinction ofcriminal lia#ilit, prescription, and former jeopard. 1n these cases, additionalfacts are allowed.

*ena *. *erga <5




9. %ect o an inormation t?at as signed =y an unaut?oriMed erson

1t is a >AL1D information signed # a competent officer which, among otherre6uisites, confers jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the su#jectmatter of the accusation. /hus, an infirmit in the information such as lack ofauthorit of the officer signing it cannot #e cured # silence, ac6uiescence,e3press consent, or even amendment.

C. &eendant enters ?is lea =eore iling a motion to quas?

9y entering ?is lea =eore iling t?e motion to quas?8 t?e deendantaives +$"A# o=Jections to t?e comlaint or inormation. 9ut i t?e ground or t?e motion is any o t?e olloing8 t?ere is noaiver. T?e ground may =e raised at any stage o t?e roceedingD

1. ailure to c?arge an oense,. lac o Jurisdiction over t?e oense4. eBtinction o criminal lia=ility

. dou=le Jeoardy

&. %Btinction o criminal lia=ility

'nder Article ;< o t?e PC8 criminal lia=ility is eBtinguis?ed =yD

1. deat? o t?e convict8 and as to ecuniary enalties8 lia=ilityt?ereor is eBtinguis?ed only ?en t?e deat? o t?e oenderoccurs =eore inal Judgment

,. service o sentence4. amnesty. a=solute ardon5. rescrition o t?e crime. rescrition o t?e enalty:. marriage o t?e oended oman8 as rovided in Article 4 o

t?e PC.

%. Partial eBtinction o criminal lia=ility

1. Conditional ardon,. Commutation o sentence4. +or good conduct8 alloances ?ic? t?e culrit may earn ?ile

?e is serving ?is sentence

<uestion

A. hile the case for adulter was #eing tried, H died. hat happens to thecriminal lia#ilit of H and 8Q

T?e criminal lia=ility o > is eBtinguis?ed. T?e criminal lia=ility o su=sists. T?e deat? o one o several accused ill not =e a cause ordismissal o t?e criminal action as against t?e ot?er accused.

B. hat is the effect of the death of the offended part on the criminal lia#ilitof the accusedQ

E?ere t?e oense c?arged in a criminal comlaint or inormation isone against t?e state8 involving eace and order8 t?e deat? o t?eoended arty =eore inal conviction o t?e deendant ill not a=atet?e rosecution. Neit?er does t?e deat? o t?e oended arty inrivate crimes a=ate t?e rosecution.

+. &istinctions =eteen ardon and amnesty

A"=2%/8 $A&D4=/8$2 4 42=%2 Political oenses !nractions o t?e

eace (commoncrimes)

B2=21C1A&8 Classes o ersons An individualC4=C9&&2=C2 4C4=&2%%

Necessary Not necessary

ACC2$/A=C2 9eneiciary need notaccet

Need or distinct actso accetance on t?eart o t?e ardonee

+9D1C1AL =4/1C2 Courts tae Judicialnotice =ecause it is au=lic act

Courts do not tae Judicial notice =ecauseit is a rivate act ot?e President.T?ereore8 it must =eroved in court.

22C/ A=olis?es t?e oense(loos =acard)

elieves t?e oenderrom t?econsequences o t?eoense (loosorard)

2= 1/ "A8 B2 9eore or ater $nly ater conviction

*ena *. *erga <




&A=/2D rosecution =y inal Judgment

3. %ect o a=solute ardon uon criminal lia=ilityA=solute ardon =lots out t?e crime. !t removes all disa=ilitiesresulting rom t?e conviction8 suc? as t?e olitical rig?ts o t?eaccused.

7. %ect o ardon =y t?e oended arty uon criminal lia=ilityAs a general rule8 ardon =y t?e oended arty does not eBtinguis?criminal lia=ility. $nly civil lia=ility is eBtinguis?ed =y eBress aivero t?e oended arty.

7oever8 ardon granted =eore t?e institution o t?e criminalroceedings in cases o adultery8 concu=inage8 seduction8 a=duction8and acts o lasciviousness s?all eBtinguis? criminal lia=ility.

!. %ect o marriage o t?e oender it? t?e oended arty inrivate crimes

!t s?all eBtinguis? t?e criminal action or remit t?e enalty alreadyimosed. T?is alies even to co-rincials8 accomlices8 andaccessories.

7oever8 ?ere multile rae is committed8 marriage o t?e oendedarty it? one deendant eBtinguis?es t?e latterIs lia=ility and t?at o?is accessories or accomlices or a single crime o rae cannot eBtendto t?e ot?er acts o rae.

NoteD ! t?e oender in rae is t?e legal ?us=and o t?e oended artyt?e su=sequent orgiveness =y t?e ie s?all eBtinguis? t?e criminalaction or t?e enalty. 9ut t?e enalty s?all not =e a=ated i t?emarriage is void a= initio.

+. $rescription a ground for a motion to 6uashT?is is meant to eB?ort t?e rosecution not to delay ot?erise8 t?ey

ill lose t?e rig?t to rosecute. !t is also meant to secure t?e =estevidence t?at can =e o=tained.

J. $rescriptive periods of crimes

42=%2 $&2%C&1$/1>2 $2&14D

Punis?a=le =y deat?8reclusion eretua8 orreclusion temoral

,0 years

Punis?a=le =y ot?er alictiveenalties

10 years

Punis?a=le =y arresto mayor 5 years#i=el or ot?er similar oenses , years$ral deamation and slander=y deed

mont?s

#ig?t oenses , mont?s

NoteD T?e accused can still raise rescrition as a deense even aterconviction. T?e deense cannot =e aived. T?is is =ecause t?ecriminal action is totally eBtinguis?ed =y t?e eBiration o t?erescritive eriod. T?e State t?ere=y loses or aives its rig?t torosecute and unis? it.

T?e roer action or t?e court is to eBercise its Jurisdiction and todecide t?e case uon t?e merits8 ?olding t?e action to ?ave rescri=edand a=solving t?e deendant. T?e court s?ould not in?i=it itsel=ecause it does not lose Jurisdiction over t?e su=Ject matter or t?eerson o t?e accused =y rescrition.

#. %ect o rescrition o t?e oense on t?e civil lia=ility o t?eaccused

T?e eBtinction o t?e enal action does not carry it? it t?e eBtinctiono t?e civil action to enorce civil lia=ility arising rom t?e oensec?arged8 unless t?e eBtinction roceeds rom a declaration in a inal

Judgment t?at t?e act rom ?ic? t?e civil lia=ility mig?t arise did noteBist.

". Courts action i t?e accused moves to quas? t?e comlaint orinormation on grounds t?at can =e cured =y amendment(dulicitous)

T?e court s?ould order t?at t?e amendment =e made.

N. Courts action i t?e accused moves to quas? on t?e ground t?at t?e

acts c?arged do not constitute an oenseT?e court s?ould give t?e rosecution t?e oortunity to correct t?edeect =y amendment. ! t?e rosecution ails to mae t?eamendment8 or i8 ater it maes t?e amendment8 t?e comlaint orinormation still suers rom t?e same deect8 t?e court s?ouldgrant/sustain t?e motion to quas?.

$. %ect i a motion to quas? is sustained

*ena *. *erga <:




T?e court may order t?at anot?er comlaint or inormation =e iledagainst t?e accused or t?e same oense8 eBcet i t?e ground orsustaining t?e motion to quas? is eit?erD

1. eBtinguis?ment o t?e criminal lia=ility o t?e accused8 or,. dou=le Jeoardy.

T?e grant o a motion to quas? on t?ese to grounds is a =ar toanot?er rosecution or t?e same oense.

! t?e order is made8 t?e accused8 i in custody8 s?all not =e disc?argedunless admitted to =ail.

! no order is made8 or i no ne inormation as iled it?in t?e timeseciied =y t?e court8 t?e accused8 i in custody8 s?all =e disc?arged.

P. emedy o t?e accused i t?e court denies ?is motion to quas?

T?e accused cannot aeal an order overruling ?is motion to quas?.T?is is =ecause an order denying a motion to quas? is interlocutory itdoes not disose o t?e case uon its merits. T?e accused s?ould go to

trial and raise it as an error on aeal later.

. To inds o Jeoardy

1. No erson s?all =e tice ut in Jeoardy or t?e same offense.

2. E?en an act is unis?ed =y a la and an ordinance8 convictionor acquittal under eit?er s?all constitute a =ar to anot?errosecution or t?e same act.

• &e6uisites for the accused to raise the defense of dou#le jeopard

To raise t?e deense o dou=le Jeoardy8 t?e olloing requisites must

=e resentD1. a first !eopardy must ?ave attac?ed rior to t?e second2. t?e irst Jeoardy must ?ave =een validly ter'inated3. t?e second !eopardy must =e or t?e sa'e offense or t?e second

oense includes or is necessarily included in t?e oense c?arged int?e irst inormation8 or is an atte'pt or a frustration t?ereo.

• &e6uisites for the first jeopard to attach

1. *alid comlaint or inormation

,. Court o cometent Jurisdiction4. Arraignment. *alid lea5. T?e deendant as acquitted8 convicted8 or t?e case as

dismissed it?out ?is eBress consent.

NoteD +or uroses o dou=le Jeoardy8 a comlaint or inormation isvalid i it can suort a Judgment o conviction. !t t?e comlaint orinormation is not valid8 it ould violate t?e rig?t o t?e accused to =einormed o t?e nature and cause o t?e accusation against ?im. ! ?eis convicted under t?is comlaint or inormation8 t?e conviction is nulland void. ! t?e conviction is null and void8 t?ere can =e no irst

Jeoardy.

<uestions5

A. A crime was committed in Batangas #ut case was filed in "indoro. henthe prosecution reali7ed that the complaint should have #een filed inBatangas, it filed the case in Batangas. Can the accused invoke dou#le jeopardQ

No. T?e court in "indoro ?ad no Jurisdiction t?ereore8 t?e accused

as in no danger o =eing laced in Jeoardy. T?e irst Jeoardy didnot validly attac?.

B. H was charged with theft. 4n the da of the trial, the prosecution couldnot go to trial #ecause important witnesses were una#le to appear.Counsel for the accused moved to dismiss the case. /he court dismissedthe case provisionall. %u#se6uentl, H was charged with theft again. CanH invoke dou#le jeopardQ

No. T?e case as dismissed uon motion o counsel or t?e accused8so it as not dismissed it?out ?is eBress consent. "oreover8 t?edismissal as only rovisional8 ?ic? is not a valid termination o t?e

irst Jeoardy. !n order to validly terminate t?e irst Jeoardy8 t?edismissal must ?ave =een unconditional.

C. H was charged with 6ualified theft. H moved to dismiss on the ground ofinsufficienc of the information. /he case was dismissed. %u#se6uentl,the prosecution filed a corrected information. Can H plead dou#le jeopardQ

No. T?e irst Jeoardy did not attac? =ecause t?e irst inormation asnot valid.

*ena *. *erga <;


D /h f i H di i d # h di i l i d i i l l i i i ? ili ? i



D. /he estafa case against H was dismissed, #ut the dismissal contained areservation of the right to file another action. Can another estafa case #efiled against H without placing him in dou#le jeopardQ

es. To raise t?e deense o dou=le Jeoardy8 t?e irs Jeoardy must?ave =een validly terminated. T?is means t?at t?ere must ?ave =eeneit?er a conviction or an acquittal8 or an unconditional dismissal o t?ecase. A rovisional dismissal8 suc? as t?is one8 does not validlyterminate t?e irst Jeoardy.

Note8 ?oever8 t?at in t?e second ind o Jeoardy (one act unis?ed=y a la and an ordinance)8 t?e irst Jeoardy can only =e terminatedeit?er =y conviction or acquittal8 and not =y dismissal o t?e caseit?out t?e eBress consent o t?e accused.

2. H was charged with theft. During the trial, the prosecution was a#le toprove estafa. H was ac6uitted of theft. Can H #e prosecuted for estafalater without placing him in dou#le jeopardQ

es. +or Jeoardy to attac?8 t?e =asis is t?e crime c?arged in t?ecomlaint or inormation8 and not t?e one roved at t?e trial. !n t?is

case8 t?e crime c?arged in t?e irst inormation as t?et. > ast?ereore laced in Jeoardy o =eing convicted o t?et. Since estaais not an oense ?ic? is included or necessarily includes t?et8 > canstill =e rosecuted or estaa it?out lacing ?im in dou=le Jeoardy.

. H was charged with slight phsical injuries. 4n his motion, the case wasdismissed during the trial. Another case for assault upon a person inauthorit was filed against him. Can H invoke dou#le jeopardQ

No. T?e irst Jeoardy as not terminated t?roug? eit?er conviction8acquittal8 or dismissal it?out t?e eBress consent o >. T?e irst caseas dismissed uon motion o > ?imsel. T?ereore8 ?e cannot invoe

dou=le Jeoardy.. H was charged with theft. During trial, the evidence showed that the

offense committed was actuall estafa. hat should the judge doQ

T?e Judge s?ould order t?e su=stitution o t?e comlaint or t?et it?a ne one c?arging estaa. 'on iling o t?e su=stituted comlaint8t?e Judge s?ould dismiss t?e original comlaint.

! it aears at any time =eore Judgment t?at a mistae ?as =eenmade in c?arging t?e roer oense8 t?e court s?all dismiss t?e

original comlaint or inormation uon t?e iling o a ne one c?argingt?e roer oense.

. H was charged with homicide. 4n the first da of trial, the prosecutionfailed to appear. /he court dismissed the case on the ground of violationof the right of the accused to speed trial. H was later charged withmurder. Can H invoke dou#le jeopardQ

No. T?e irst Jeoardy as not validly terminated. T?e Judge ?odismissed t?e case on t?e ground o violation o t?e rig?t o > toseedy trial committed grave a=use o discretion in dismissing t?ecase ater t?e rosecution ailed to aear once. T?is is not a validdismissal =ecause it derives t?e rosecution o due rocess. E?ent?e Judge gravely a=uses ?is discretion in dismissing a case8 t?edismissal is not valid. T?ereore8 > cannot invoe dou=le Jeoardy.

. equisites or a valid su=stitution o a comlaint or inormation

1. No Judgment ?as =een rendered

,. T?e accused cannot =e convicted o t?e oense c?arged or anyot?er oense necessarily included in t?e oense c?arged

4. T?e accused ill not =e laced in dou=le Jeoardy.

S. &ismissal and acquittal.

Dismissal Ac6uittal

&ismissal does not decide t?e case on t?emerits8 nor does it determine t?at t?eaccused is not guilty

Acquittal is alays =asedon t?e merits.

&ismissals terminate t?e roceedings8eit?er =ecause t?e court is not a court o

cometent Jurisdiction or t?e evidencedoes not s?o t?at t?e oense ascommitted it?in t?e territorial

Jurisdiction o t?e court8 or t?e comlaintor inormation is not valid or suicient inorm and su=stance.

T?e accused is acquitted=ecause t?e evidence

does not s?o ?is guilt=eyond reasona=le dou=t.

T. E?en dismissal equivalent to acquittalA dismissal uon motion o t?e accused or ?is counsel negates t?ealication o dou=le Jeoardy =ecause t?e motion o t?e accusedamounts to eBress consent8 %>C%PTD

*ena *. *erga <<


/h t th fil d i f ti i t H f d C H



1. i t?e ground is insuiciency o evidence o t?e rosecution(demurrer to evidence)8 or

,. denial o t?e rig?t to seedy trial.

!n t?ese to cases8 even uon motion o t?e accused8 t?e dismissalamounts to an acquittal and ould =ar a second Jeoardy.

9ut i t?e accused moves to dismiss on t?e olloing grounds8 ?e canstill =e rosecuted or t?e same oense =ecause ?e is deemed to ?aveaived ?is rig?t against a second JeoardyD

1. #ac o Jurisdiction (9ecause i you move to dismiss on t?eground o lac o Jurisdiction8 it means t?at you could not ?ave=een validly convicted =y t?at court. ou are later estoedrom claiming t?at you ere in danger o conviction).

,. !nsuiciency o comlaint or inormation (Same reason. oucould not ?ave =een validly convicted under t?at deectiveinormation8 so you are estoed rom claiming t?at t?ere asa irst Jeoardy).

'. T?e conditions ?en dismissal or termination ill not lace t?eaccused in dou=le Jeoardy areD

1. T?e dismissal must =e soug?t =y t?e deendant ersonally ort?roug? ?is counsel and

,. Suc? dismissal must not =e on t?e merits and must notnecessarily amount to an acquittal.

*. T?ere as no dou=le Jeoardy in case =eore t?e rosecution couldinis? resenting its evidence8 t?e accused iled a demurrer toevidence and t?e court granted t?e motion and dismissed t?e caseon t?e ground o insuiciency o evidence o t?e rosecution. T?ereason or t?is is t?at t?e court eBceeded its Jurisdiction indismissing t?e case even =eore t?e rosecution could inis?resenting evidence. !t denied t?e rosecution o its rig?t to duerocess. 9ecause o t?is8 t?e dismissal is null and void and cannotconstitute a roer =asis or a claim o dou=le Jeoardy.

&ou=le 2eoardy 7yot?etical uestions

A. /he prosecutor filed an information against H for homicide. Before H could#e arraigned, the prosecutor withdrew the information, without notice to H.

/he prosecutor then filed an information against H for murder. Can Hinvoke dou#le jeopardQ

No. > ?as not yet =een arraigned under t?e irst inormation.T?ereore8 t?e irst Jeoardy did not attac?. A nolle prose)ui ordismissal entered =eore t?e accused is laced on trial and =eore ?eleads is not equivalent to an acquittal and does not =ar a su=sequentrosecution or t?e same oense.

B. 1f the accused fails to o#ject to the motion to dismiss the case filed # theprosecution, is he deemed to have consented to the dismissalQ Can he stillinvoke dou#le jeopardQ

No. Silence does not mean consent to t?e dismissal. ! t?e accusedails to o=Ject or acquiesces to t?e dismissal o t?e case8 ?e can stillinvoe dou=le Jeoardy8 since t?e dismissal as still it?out ?iseBress consent. 7e is deemed to ?ave aived ?is rig?t againstdou=le Jeoardy i ?e eBressly consents to t?e dismissal.

C. H was charged with murder. /he prosecution moved to dismiss the case.Counsel for H wrote the words ?=o o#jection@ at the #ottom of the motion todismiss and signed it. Can H invoke dou#le jeopard later onQ

No. > is deemed to ?ave eBressly consented to t?e dismissal o t?ecase ?en ?is counsel rote GNo o=Jection at t?e =ottom o t?e motionto dismiss. Since t?e case as dismissed it? ?is eBress consent8 >cannot invoe dou=le Jeoardy.

D. H was charged with murder. After the prosecution presented its evidence, Hfiled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution failed to provethat the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court./he court dismissed the case. /he prosecution appealed. Can H invoke dou#le jeopardQNo. > cannot invoe dou=le Jeoardy. T?e dismissal as uon ?is onmotion8 so it as it? ?is eBress consent. Since t?e dismissal asit? ?is eBress consent8 ?e is deemed to ?ave aived ?is rig?tagainst dou=le Jeoardy. T?e only time ?en a dismissal8 even uonmotion o t?e accuse8 ill =ar a second Jeoardy is i it is =ased eit?eron insuiciency o evidence or denial o t?e rig?t o t?e accused toseedy trial. T?ese are not t?e grounds invoed =y >8 so ?e cannotclaim dou=le Jeoardy.

2. H was charged with homicide. H moved to dismiss on the ground that thecourt had no jurisdiction. Believing that it had no jurisdiction, the judgedismissed the case. %ince the court, in fact, had jurisdiction over the case, theprosecution filed another case in the same court. Can H invoke dou#le jeopardQ

*ena *. *erga 100


irearms =rigandage and illegal ossession o irearms consented



No. > is estoed rom claiming t?at ?e as in danger o =eingconvicted during t?e irst case8 since ?e ?ad ?imsel earlier allegedt?at t?e court ?ad no Jurisdiction.

. H was charged with homicide. /he court, #elieving that it had no jurisdiction, motu propio dismissed the case. /he prosecution appealed,claiming that the court, in fact, had jurisdiction. Can H invoke dou#le jeopardQ

es. E?en t?e trial court ?as Jurisdiction =ut mistaenly dismisses t?ecomlaint or inormation on t?e ground o lac o it8 and t?e dismissalas not at t?e request o t?e accused8 t?e dismissal is not aeala=le=ecause it ill lace t?e accused in dou=le Jeoardy.

. H was charged with rape. H moved to dismiss on the ground that thecomplaint was insufficient #ecause it did not allege lewd designs. /he courtdismissed the case. Later, another case for rape was filed against H. Can Hinvoke dou#le jeopardQ

No. #ie t?e revious ro=lem8 > is estoed rom claiming t?at ?e

could ?ave =een convicted under t?e irst comlaint. 7e ?imselmoved to dismiss on t?e ground t?at t?e comlaint as insuicient.7e cannot c?ange ?is osition and no claim t?at ?e as in danger o=eing convicted under t?at comlaint.

. H was charged with murder, along with three other people. H wasdischarged as a state witness. Can H #e prosecuted again for the sameoffenseQ

!t deends. As a general rule8 an order disc?arging an accused as astate itness amounts to an acquittal8 and ?e is =arred rom =eingrosecuted again or t?e same oense. 7oever8 i ?e ails or reusesto testiy against ?is co-accused in accordance it? ?is sornstatement constituting t?e =asis or t?e disc?arge8 ?e can =erosecuted again.

1. Can a person accused of estafa #e charged with violation of B$)) withoutplacing him in dou#le jeopardQ

es. E?ere to dierent las deine to crimes8 rior Jeoardy as toone o t?e is no o=stacle to a rosecution o t?e ot?er alt?oug? =ot?oenses arise rom t?e same acts8 i eac? crime involves someimortant act ?ic? is not an essential element o t?e ot?er. $t?ereBamlesD !llegal recruitment and estaa8 illegal is?ing and illegalossession o eBlosives8 alarm and scandal and illegal disc?arge o

irearms8 =rigandage and illegal ossession o irearms8 consenteda=duction and qualiied seduction.

9ut tae note o t?e olloingD

Possession o a s?otgun and a revolver =y t?e same erson at t?esame time is only one act o ossession8 so t?ere is only one violationo t?e la.

Conviction or smoing oium =ars rosecution or illegal ossession ot?e ie. 7e cannot smoe t?e oium it?out t?e ie.

T?et o 14 cos at t?e same time and in t?e same lace is only oneact o t?et.

Conviction or less serious ?ysical inJuries =ars rosecution orassault uon a erson in aut?ority.

ecless imrudence resulting in damage to roerty and serious orless serious ?ysical inJuries is only one oense. ! it is slig?t ?ysicalinJuries8 it can =e =roen don into to oenses8 since a lig?t oense

cannot =e comleBed.

+. H installed a jumper ca#le which allowed him to reduce his electricit #ill.e was prosecuted for violating a municipal ordinance againstunauthori7ed installation of the device. e was convicted. Can he still #eprosecuted for theftQ

No. 'nder t?e second tye o Jeoardy8 ?en an act is unis?ed =y ala and an ordinance8 conviction or acquittal under once ill =ar arosecution under t?e ot?er. (9ut remem=er8 t?at t?ere ?as to =eeit?er conviction or acquittal. &ismissal it?out t?e eBress consento t?e accused is not suicient).

E. %Bcetions to dou=le JeoardyT?e conviction o t?e accused s?all not =e a =ar to anot?er rosecutionor an oense ?ic? necessarily includes t?e oense c?arged in t?eormer comlaint or inormation under any o t?e olloingcircumstancesD

1. t?e graver oense develoed due to supervening facts arisingrom t?e same act or omission constituting t?e ormer c?arge

*ena *. *erga 101


2 t?e acts constituting t?e graver c?arge beca'e )no(n or (ere =oteD As a general rule t?e dismissal or termination o t?e case ater



2. t?e acts constituting t?e graver c?arge beca'e )no(n or (ere

discovered only after a plea as entered in t?e ormer comlaintor inormation

3. t?e plea of guilty to the lesser offense (as 'ade (ithout the consento t?e rosecutor and t?e oended arty eBcet i t?e oendedarty ails to aear at t?e arraignment.

>. &octrine o suervening act!8 ater t?e irst rosecution8 a ne act suervenes on ?ic? t?edeendant may =e ?eld lia=le8 altering t?e c?aracter o t?e crime andgiving rise to a ne and distinct oense8 t?e accused cannot =e said to=e in second Jeoardy i indicted or t?e ne oense.

&ou=le 2eoardy 7yot?etical questions

A. H was charged with frustrated homicide. /here was nothing to indicatedthat the victim was going to die. H was arraigned. Before trial, the victimdies. Can H #e charged with homicideQ

!t deends. ! t?e deat? o t?e victim can =e traced to t?e acts o >8and t?e victim did not contri=ute to ?is deat? it? ?is negligence8 >can =e c?arged it? ?omicide. T?is is a suervening act. 9ut i t?e

act o > as not t?e roBimate cause o deat?8 ?e cannot =e c?argedit? ?omicide.

B. H was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and wasac6uitted. /he heirs of the victim appealed the civil aspect of the judgment. H claims that the appeal will place him in dou#le jeopard. 1s HcorrectQ

No. T?ere as no second Jeoardy. E?at as elevated on aeal ast?e civil asect o t?e case8 not t?e criminal asect. T?e eBtinction ocriminal lia=ility ?et?er =y rescrition or =y t?e =ar o dou=le

Jeoardy does not carry it? it t?e eBtinction o civil lia=ility arisingrom t?e oense c?arged.

C. H was charged with murder and was ac6uitted. Can the prosecutionappeal the ac6uittalQNo. T?e rosecution cannot aeal t?e acquittal8 since it ould lacet?e accused in dou=le Jeoardy.

%ven i t?e decision o acquittal as erroneous8 t?e rosecution stillcannot aeal t?e decision. !t ould still lace t?e accused in dou=le

Jeoardy.

=oteD As a general rule8 t?e dismissal or termination o t?e case aterarraignment and lea o t?e deendant to a valid inormation s?all =e a=ar to anot?er rosecution or t?e same oense8 an attemt orrustration t?ereo8 or one included or ?ic? includes t?e reviousoense. T?e eBcetions areD

1. i t?e dismissal o t?e irst case as made uon motion or it?t?e eBress consent o t?e deendant8 unless t?e grounds areinsuiciency o evidence or denial o t?e rig?t to seedy trial

,. i t?e dismissal is not an acquittal or =ased uon considerationo t?e evidence or o t?e merits o t?e case and

4. t?e question to =e assed uon =y t?e aellate court is urelylegal so t?at s?ould t?e dismissal =e ound incorrect8 t?e caseould ?ave to =e remanded to t?e court o origin or urt?erroceedings to determine t?e guilt or innocence o t?e accused.

. %ect o t?e aeal =y t?e accused

! t?e accused aeals8 ?e aives ?is rig?t against dou=le Jeoardy.T?e case is t?ron ide oen or revie and a enalty ?ig?er t?ant?at o t?e original conviction could =e imosed uon ?im.

6. Action o t?e accused do i t?e court denies t?e motion to quas? ont?e ground o dou=le Jeoardy

7e s?ould lead not guilty and reiterate ?is deense o ormer Jeoardy. !n case o conviction8 ?e s?ould aeal rom t?e Judgment8on t?e ground o dou=le Jeoardy.

Section /, Amendment of complaint or information, < If the motion to)uash is %ased on an alleged defect of the complaint or informationwhich can %e cured %y amendment+ the court shall order that anamendment %e made,

If it is %ased on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute anoffense+ the prosecution shall %e given %y the court an opportunity tocorrect the defect %y amendment, The motion shall %e granted if the

prosecution fails to ma2e the amendment+ or the complaint orinformation still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment,

Section 0, Effect of sustaining the motion to )uash, < If the motion to)uash is sustained+ the court may order that another complaint orinformation %e filed e$cept as provided in section 5 of this rule, If the

*ena *. *erga 10,


order is made the accused if in custody shall not %e discharged In any of the foregoing cases where the accused satisfies or serves in



order is made+ the accused+ if in custody+ shall not %e dischargedunless admitted to %ail, If no order is made or if having %een made+ nonew information is filed within the time specified in the order or within

such further time as the court may allow for good cause+ the accused+if in custody+ shall %e discharged unless he is also in custody ofanother charge,

Section 5, "rder sustaining the motion to )uash not a %ar to another prosecution= e$ception, < An order sustaining the motion to )uash is

not a %ar to another prosecution for the same offense unless themotion was %ased on the grounds specified in section . 'g( and 'i( of

this *ule,

Section >, Former conviction or ac)uittal= dou%le 4eopardy, < 1hen anaccused has %een convicted or ac)uitted+ or the case against himdismissed or otherwise terminated without his e$press consent %y acourt of competent 4urisdiction+ upon a valid complaint or informationor other formal charge sufficient in form and su%stance to sustain aconviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge+ the

conviction or ac)uittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall%e a %ar to another prosecution for the offense charged+ or for any

attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof+ or for any offensewhich necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense

charged in the former complaint or information,

;owever+ the conviction of the accused shall not %e a %ar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offensecharged in the former complaint or information under any of thefollowing instances:

'a( the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from

the same act or omission constituting the former charge=

'%( the facts constituting the graver charge %ecame 2nown or werediscovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint orinformation= or

'c( the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without theconsent of the prosecutor and of the offended party e$cept as provided

in section &'f( of *ule &&5,

In any of the foregoing cases+ where the accused satisfies or serves inwhole or in part the 4udgment+ he shall %e credited with the same inthe event of conviction for the graver offense,

Section 6, Provisional dismissal, < A case shall not %e provisionallydismissed e$cept with the e$press consent of the accused and withnotice to the offended party,

The provisional dismissal of offenses punisha%le %y imprisonment note$ceeding si$ '5( years or a fine of any amount+ or %oth+ shall %ecome

permanent one '&( year after issuance of the order without the casehaving %een revived, 1ith respect to offenses punisha%le %yimprisonment of more than si$ '5( years+ their provisional dismissal

shall %ecome permanent two '9( years after issuance of the orderwithout the case having %een revived,

=ote5

• A case can only =e dismissed rovisionally i t?e accused eBresslyconsents8 and it? notice to t?e oended arty. Provisional

dismissal does not lace t?e accused in dou=le Jeoardy. 9ut8 t?e accused o=Jects to t?e rovisional dismissal8 a revival o t?ecase ould lace ?im in dou=le Jeoardy.

• T?e rovisional dismissal o oenses unis?a=le =y imrisonmenteBceeding years or a ine o any amount s?all =ecome ermanentater 1 year it?out t?e case ?aving =een revived.

• +or oenses unis?a=le =y imrisonment o more t?an years8 t?erovisional dismissal s?all =ecome ermanent ater , yearsit?out t?e case ?aving =een revived.

Ater t?e rovisional dismissal =ecomes inal8 t?e accused cannot=e rosecuted anymore.

Section ?, Failure to move to )uash or to allege any ground therefore,< The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to )uash%efore he pleads to the complaint or information+ either %ecause he didnot file a motion to )uash or failed to allege the same in said motion+

shall %e deemed a waiver of any o%4ections e$cept those %ased on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 'a(+ '%(+ 'g(+ and 'i( of section . ofthis *ule,

!!. Constitutional #a Notes

*ena *. *erga 104


()! erroneous Judgment t?at ?as attained inality



S%CT!$N ,1 N$ P%S$N S7A## 9% TE!C% P'T !N 2%$PA& $P'N!S7"%NT +$ T7% SA"% $++%NS%. !+ AN ACT !S P'N!S7%& 9#AE AN& AN $&!NANC%8 C$N*!CT!$N $ AC'!TTA# 'N&%%!T7% S7A## C$NST!T'T% A 9A T$ AN$T7% P$S%C'T!$N +$T7% SA"% ACT.

• 2eoardy means danger• equisites or a valid deense o dou=le JeoardyD

'! 1&%/ +24$A&D8 "9%/ A//AC2D $&14& /4 /2 %2C4=D(a! upon a valid information or indictment

('! comlaint()! inormation

NoteD =ot? su=stance and orm must =e validD(1) su=stance L ?en t?e comlain adequately inormed t?e

accused o t?e nature and cause o t?e accusations ?ic?means t?atD

1.1 t?e essential acts are alleged

1., t?e legal descrition o t?e oense is alleged1.4 in ordinary and concise language(,) orm

NoteD i deective8 t?e remedy is to quas? t?e inormation

(b) there must #e a competent court with jurisdiction to hear anddecide the case (geogra?ical L roer lace and

Jurisdictional L ?as Jurisdiction over t?e crime asects)NoteD i iled in imroer court8 remedy is dismissal

(c! After arraignment I without this, the court has no jurisdictionover the #od of the accused

(d! After a valid plea I there must #e no withdrawal of originalplea.

('! t?e accused must no enoug? a=out t?ecause and nature o t?e oense c?argedagainst ?im/?er

()! i t?e guilty lea is entered8 t?e court cannotsummarily convict t?e accused on t?e =asis oevidence to rove mitigating circumstance8 todo so ould derive t?e state o due rocess Lirst Jeoardy does not attac?.

)! 1&%/ +24$A&D8 "9%/ A>2 /2&"1=A/2D(a! upon ac6uittal

('! ailure to rove =eyond reasona=le dou=t

()! erroneous Judgment t?at ?as attained inality(F! dismissed on rescrition(! dismissal as due to violation o t?e

deendantIs rig?t to seedy trialNoteD Acquittal8 t?e case as decided =ased on merits =ut t?erosecution as not a=le to rove guilt =eyond reasona=le dou=t.&ismissal is =ased on t?e allegation o t?e courtIs Jurisdiction8 or anyot?er ground t?at does not decide t?e merits o t?e issue.

(#! inal Conviction('! aeal eriod eBires()! service o sentence ?as =een totally or

artially served(F! eBress aiver in ritting(! alied or ro=ation

(c! dismissal of the case #ased on the merits I lack of evidenceF! %2C4=D +24$A&D8 "9%/ B2 4& /2 %A"2 42=%2

(a! identical(#! when it is an attempt or frustration of the other(c! when it is necessaril included in the first offense or when it

includes the first offense(d! su#ject to the doctrine of supervening factevent

4ne ma #e charged for the same act if it constitutes at least twodifferent offenses under two statutes or two ordinances as provided #the elements of committing the crime. Conviction or ac6uittal in onewill serve as a #ar to prosecution under the other. /his does not applto continuing crimes.

D4C/&1=2 4 %9$2&>2=1= AC/ I where after the first prosecution,a new fact supervenes, for which the defendant is responsi#le, whichtogether with the e3isting facts, changes the character of the offense,such constitutes a new and distinct offense I and the accused cannot#e said to #e in dou#le jeopard if indicted for the new offense.

&A/14=AL25 the rule of identit of offense does not appl when the secondoffense was not in e3istence at the time of the first prosecution Ifor the simplereason that in such case, there is no possi#ilit of convicting the accusedduring the first prosecution for et ine3istent second offense.

A. A//AC"2=/ 4 +24$A&D8

P%$P#% vs. #A3ANArraignment and plea constitute the final step in the commencement of jeopard. 1t is at the arraignment and plea that issues are joined. +eopardattaches (a! upon a good indictment, (#! #efore competent court, (c! afterarraignment, (d! after plea.

*ena *. *erga 10


P%$P#% vs. 9A#!SACAN su#stantial rights of the accused or the right of the $eople to due process of



P%$P#% vs. 9A#!SACAN/he nature of Balicasacan’s evidence amounted to withdrawal of his plea ofguilt, and since no new plea was entered, there was no jeopard, which theac6uittal could terminate.

C!NC$ vs. SAN&!3AN9AAN$etitioners apprehension that the might #e put in +24$A&D8 of #eing chargedwith informations or crimes other than the crime imputed is #aseless. =o

D49BL2 +24$A&D8 as the have not et pleaded to the offense. A preliminarinvestigation is not a trial for which dou#le jeopard attaches. 1t is merelin6uisitorial, and is often the onl means of discovering the persons who ma#e reasona#l charged with a crime, to ena#le the fiscal to prepare hiscomplaint or information.

NA*A##$ vs. SAN&!3AN 9AAN$.D. '-- is e3plicit and clear. /he %andigan#aan has jurisdiction over thecase of petitioner.

hen all elements are present, a second prosecution for (a! same offense,or (#! an attempt to commit the said offense, or (c! a frustration of the saidoffense, or (d! an offense which necessaril includes, or is necessarilincluded in the first offense charged, can rightl #e #arred.

1n the case at #ench, the &/C was devoid of jurisdiction when it conductedan arraignment of the accused, which # then had alread #een conferred onthe %andigan#aan. "oreover, neither did the case there terminate withconviction or ac6uittal nor was it dismissed.

C'NANAN vs. AC%$(murder transer to Sandigan=ayan =eore TC made a decision)T?e dismissal o t?e !normation =y t?e TC as not equivalent to8 anddid not oerate as an acquittal o etitioner o t?at oense. T?eGdismissalH (later deleted =y t?e TC) ?ad simly relected t?e actt?at t?e roceedings =eore t?e TC ere terminated8 t?e TC ?avingascertained t?at it ?ad not Jurisdiction to try t?e case at all. No dou=le

Jeoardy ?en case transerred to Sandigan=ayan ater trial =ut=eore decision as rendered at t?e TC. TC ?ad no Jurisdiction8t?ereore accused as not in Jeoardy.

P%$P#% vs. "$NT%SA4nce a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, an disposition(dismissal or conviction!, rests in the sound discretion of the court. hile theprosecutor retains the discretion and control of the prosecution of the case, hecannot impose his opinion on the court. Accordingl, a motion to dismiss thecase filed # the prosecutor after a reinvestigation should #e addressed to thediscretion of the court. /he action of the court must not, however, impair the

su#stantial rights of the accused or the right of the $eople to due process oflaw.

/he decision of the judge #ased on his #elief that arraignment which wasimmediatel followed # the dismissal of the case would forever #e foreclosed,on the ground of dou#le jeopard, an reopening of the case, is void.

&%#A $SA vs. CADou#le jeopard cannot appl in the instant case. /he re6uisites that mustoccur for legal jeopard to attach are5 (a! a valid complaint or information; (#!a court of competent jurisdiction; (c! the accused has pleaded to the charge;and (d! the accused has #een convicted or ac6uitted or the case dismissed orterminated without the e3press consent of the accused. /he fourth re6uisite islacking. /he dismissal of the case was upon the motion of the petitioner asshown # the records.

P%$P#% vs. CAEA#!N3AAellants ere never arraigned8 t?ey neverleaded =eore t?e 2udge Advocate 3eneralIs $ice8 t?ere as no trial8and no Judgment on t?e merits ?ad =een rendered. T?ereore8 irst

Jeoardy never attac?ed.

C'&!A vs. CA(cure or deective Jurisdiction and iling o ino valid comlaint)

T?ere is no =reac? o t?e constitutional ro?i=ition against dou=le Jeoardy or t?e reason t?at t?e a=sence o t?e aut?ority o t?e cityrosecutor.

P%$P#% vs. "A'!#!N3An aeal or a etition or revie o a Judgment o acquittal is =arred=y t?e rule on dou=le Jeoardy.

B. /2&"1=A/14= 4 +24$A&D8

9'#A#$N3 vs. P%$P#%1t is the conviction, ac6uittal of the accused or dismissal or termination of thecase that #ars further prosecution for the same offense or an attempt tocommit the same or frustration thereof, or for an offense which necessarilincludes or is necessaril included in the offense charged in the formercomplaint or information.

9'STA"ANT% vs. "AC%%N

*ena *. *erga 105


As a general rule, where the defendant has e3ecuted or entered upon the ! a valid plea entered # him



As a general rule, where the defendant has e3ecuted or entered upon thee3ecution of a valid sentence, the court cannot, even during the 'G:da period,set aside and render a new sentence.

A judgment of conviction ma onl #e modified or set aside #efore it has#ecome final or appeal has #een perfected. A judgment #ecomes final when noappeal is filed or the defendant has totall or partiall satisfied the sentence.

$24$L2 vs. 4B%/A=%1A/he application of the sister doctrines of waiver and estoppel re6uires two sine#ua non conditions5 first, the dismissal must #e sought or induced # thedefendant personall or through his counsel; and second, such dismissal mustnot #e on the merits and must not necessaril amount to an ac6uittal.1ndu#ita#l, the case at #ar falls s6uarel within the peripher of the saiddoctrines, which have #een preserved unimpaired in the corpus of our jurisprudence. ence, the accused cannot plead dou#le jeopard.

&1>2&A vs. $24$L2>er#al dismissal is not final until written and signed # the judge

$24$L2 vs. B2LLAL4&

$rotection against dou#le jeopard is not availa#le where the dismissal of thecase was effected at the instance of the accused.

"2&C1AL2% vs. CA/he ac6uittal of the accused # the court a 6uo was done without due regard todue process of law, the same is null and void. 1t is as if there is no ac6uittal atall, and the same cannot constitute a claim for dou#le jeopard.

$4%4 vs. "2+1A&2%Lowering of the penalt to 6ualif the accused for pro#ation, the authori7ationfor temporar li#ert on recogni7ance and finall the grant of pro#ation, theorders of the respondent judge arising from these proceedings do notconstitute res judicata or even dou#le jeopard.

$24$L2 vs. ALB2&/4=o dou#le jeopard has attached when order made # the trial court was notvalid.

C4=&ADA vs. $24$L2eneral rule5 following re6uisites must #e present for dou#le jeopard toattach5

'! a valid indictment)! #efore a court of competent jurisdictionF! the arraignment of the accused

! a valid plea entered # him/he ac6uittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination ofthe case against him without his e3press consent/wo e3ceptions to the foregoing rule5'. insufficienc of charge against the accused). unreasona#le dela in the proceedings (violation of rt. /o speed

disposition of trial!

$24$L2 vs. &4"2&4/here can #e no dou#le jeopard where dismissal was granted on the groundof denial of the right to a speed trial. /he dismissal in this case was with theconsent of the accused.

$24$L2 vs. $ABL4hen dismissal constitutes a#use of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the dismissal is invalid and is therefore no #at to reinstatement ofthe case.

C. &9L2 4= %9$2&>2=1= AC/%

"2L4 vs. $24$L2

/he rule for the identit if offenses do not appl when the second offense wasnot in e3istence at the time of the first prosecution. here after the fistprosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant for which thedefendant is responsi#le, which changes the character of the offense andtogether with the facts e3isting at the time, constitute a new and distinctoffense, the accused cannot #e said to #e in dou#le jeopard of indicted for thenew offense.

$24$L2 vs. B9L1=here the e3act nature of the injur could have #een discovered, #ut was not,#ecause of the incompetence of the phsician, the su#se6uent discover of thereal e3tent of the injur would not #e supervening fact which could warrant the"elo doctrine.

D. %A"2 42=%2%

$24$L2 vs. /14E4=Dou#le jeopard can #e invoked onl if the offenses committed are the sameand identical. 4ffenses committed arising from the same set of facts #utdefined in ) different laws or provisions of the same law, where the elementsof one of the offenses are not essential elements of the other, prior jeopard asto one of them does not #ar the prosecution.

4=EAL2E vs. CA

*ena *. *erga 10


&ape and 6ualified seduction are not identical offenses. hile the two felonies . $A&/12%



&ape and 6ualified seduction are not identical offenses. hile the two felonieshave one common element, i.e. carnal knowledge of a woman, thesignificantl var in all other respects.

$24$L2 vs. "A=9A%A person who violates an of the provisions under Article 'F(#! and Article Fof the La#or Code can #e charged and convicted separatel of illegalrecruitment and estafa O&$C, Art F'G, )(a!P #ecause illegal recruitment is a

'alu' prohibitu' where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessar fora conviction while estafa is a 'alu' in se where criminal intent of the accusedis necessar for a conviction.$24$L2 vs. <91+ADA1n the present case, the are separate offenses, the first punished under the&$C and the second under a special law.hen the offenses charged are penali7ed # different sections of the samestatute or # different statutes, the important in6uir relates to the identity ofoffenses charged" /he elements of illegal possession of firearm in itsaggravated form are different from the elements of homicide or murder; thesecrimes are defined and penali7ed under different laws and the former is malumprohi#itum while the latter are mala in se. =o violation of the constitutional #aragainst dou#le jeopard

$24$L2 vs. BALLABA&2omicidemurder committed through use of unlicensed firearm is punished inthe aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm under $D '0-- #ut$eople v. <uijada states that the person can #e guilt of ) separate offenses(under &$C and $D '0-- sec.' par.)!

$24$L2 vs. %AL28Conviction for various offenses under the La#or Code does not #ar thepunishment of the offender for estafa in &$C.

2. =4 A$$2AL &4" AC<91//AL

%A= >1C2=/2 vs. $24$L2/he grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion ofthe trial court, and its ruling on the matter will #e respected a#sent an gravea#use of discretion. A grant of demurrer is effectivel an ac6uittal and anfurther prosecution of the accused would violate the Constitutional prohi#itionon dou#le jeopard" /his is an e3ception to the rule that the dismissal of acriminal case made with the e3press consent of the accused or upon his ownmotion #ars a plea of dou#le jeopard. /he call this the ?inalit of Ac6uittal&ule@.

. $A&/12%

"2/&4BA=J vs. "2&1D1A=4/hat there is no indication that the trial was a sham, a review and conse6uentsetting aside of /C’s decision amounts to dou#le jeopard

. 4&D1=A=C2 A=D %/A/9/2

$24$L2 vs. &2L4>Ahen the offenses charged are penali7ed either # different section of thesame statue or # different statutes the important in6uir relates to theidentit of the offenses charged. hen the offense is charged under amunicipal ordinance while the other is penali7ed # a statute. /he criticalin6uir is to the identit f the acts which the accused is said to havecommitted. 1f the acts are the same.

'#% 11;P%-T!A#

Section &, Pretrial= mandatory in criminal cases, < In all criminalcases cogni3a%le %y the Sandigan%ayan+ *egional Trial Court+

-etropolitan Trial Court+ -unicipal Trial Court in Cities+ -unicipal TrialCourt and -unicipal Circuit Trial Court+ the court shall+ afterarraignment and within thirty '.( days from the date the courtac)uires 4urisdiction over the person of the accused+ unless a shorter

period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court+order a pretrial conference to consider the following:

'a( plea %argaining= '%( stipulation of facts= 'c( mar2ing for identification of evidence of the parties= 'd( waiver of o%4ections to admissi%ility of evidence=

'e( modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge%ut interposes a lawful defense= and 'f( such matters as will promote a fair and e$peditious trial of thecriminal and civil aspects of the case,

=ote5

• $re:trial is mandator in all criminal cases cogni7a#le # the%andigan#aan, &/C, "/Cs and "unicipal Circuit /rial Courts.

• 1t should #e conducted after arraignment and within F das from the datethe court ac6uires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

*ena *. *erga 10:


• /he following things are considered during a pre:trial5



e o o g t gs a e co s de ed du g a p e t a

1. lea =argaining,. stiulation o acts4. maring or identiication o evidence o t?e arties. aiver o o=Jections to admissi=ility o evidence5. modiication o t?e order o trial i t?e accused admits t?e

c?arge =ut interoses a laul deense. ot?er matters t?at ill romote a air and eBeditious trial o

t?e criminal and civil asects o t?e case

Section 9, Pretrial agreement, < All agreements or admissions madeor entered during the pretrial conference shall %e reduced in writingand signed %y the accused and counsel+ otherwise+ they cannot %eused against the accused, The agreements covering the mattersreferred to in section & of this *ule shall %e approved %y the court,

NoteD Any agreement or admission entered into during t?e re-trialconerence s?ould =eD

'. in riting

). Signed =y t?e accusedF. Signed =y counsel. $t?erise8 it cannot =e used against t?e accused.

Section ., #onappearance at pretrial conference, < If the counsel forthe accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pretrialconference and does not offer an accepta%le e$cuse for his lac2 ofcooperation+ the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties,

Section /, Pretrial order, < After the pretrial conference+ the court shall issue an order reciting the actions ta2en+ the facts stipulated+ and

evidence mar2ed, Such order shall %ind the parties+ limit the trial to

matters not disposed of+ and control the course f the action during thetrial+ unless modified %y the court to prevent manifest in4ustice,

A. &einition o a re-trial order!t is an order issued =y t?e court ater t?e re-trial conerencecontainingD

1. a recital o t?e actions taen8,. t?e acts stiulated8 and4. t?e evidence mared.

T?e re-trial order =inds t?e arties8 limits t?e trial to matters notdisosed o8 and controls t?e course o t?e action during t?e trial8unless modiied =y t?e court to revent maniest inJustice.

&einition o Plea 9argaining

!t is t?e disosition o criminal c?arges =y agreement =eteen t?e

rosecution and t?e accused. !t is encouraged =ecause it leads toromt and inal disosition o most criminal cases. !t s?ortens t?etime =eteen c?arge and disosition and en?ances ?atever may =et?e re?a=ilitative rosects o t?e guilty ?en t?ey are ultimatelyimrisoned.

!t is not alloed under t?e &angerous &rugs Act ?ere t?e imosa=leenalty is reclusion eretua to deat?.

+'#% *S CA1, SCA (1<;;)

AC/%5 /he accused "anolo ule was an agent of the /owers AssuranceCorporation on or #efore )' +anuar '0' drawn in favor of &o =adera inremittance of collection #ut the same was dishonored #ecause the account wasalread closed. At the hearing, petitioner waived the right to present evidenceand in lieu thereof, su#mitted a "emorandum affirming the stipulated facts./he trial court convicted him of violation of the B$)) on the #asis of the factsstipulated # #oth parties in the pre:trial conference. /he CA affirmed thedecision. ence, this petition.

1%%925 = the lack of signature of the accused and his counsel in thestipulation of facts during the pre:trial conference is admissi#le in evidence.

D2C1%14=5 &ule ''0, %ection is mandator #ecause of the use of the word ?shall.@ /he omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel rendersthe %tipulation of facts inadmissi#le in evidence. /he fact that the lawerconfirmed the stipulation of facts in the memorandum did not cure the defect#ecause &ule ''0 re6uires the signature of #oth the accused and his counsel.hat the prosecution should have done was to present evidence to prove thecrime. ithout said evidences, the guilt f the accused cannot #e esta#lished.ence, the CA decision is set aside and the case remanded for further trial.

P%$P#% *S 7%NAN&%6,0 SCA ,5 (1<<)

*ena *. *erga 10;


AC/%5 /he accused Cristina ernande7, the general manager of the $hil:/hai #argaining and stipulation of facts. /he CA dismissed the "& on the ground



, g gAssociation, 1nc. in 2rmita, "anila, recruited ' people to work in /aipehwithout the re6uired license or authorit from the $42A. %he asked forplacement and passport fees which the complainants gave in installments.After receiving the full amount, the were not a#le to leave for /aipeh despitethe assurance of the accused. /he demanded the return of their mone #ut tono avail. /he accused was then charged with the crime of illegal recruitment inlarge scale. %he pleaded not guilt in the arraignment and trial on the merits

endued. /he trial court found her guilt of the said crime. ence, this petition.

1%%925 = the agreement or admission during the trial should #e reducedinto writing and signed # the accused and his counsel, and should #e allowedin the trial.

D2C1%14=5 =o, the admission during the trial need not #e in writing andsigned. A stipulation of facts in criminal cases is now e3pressl sanctioned #law pursuant to &ule ''0. A stipulation of facts # the prosecution and defensecounsel during trial in open court is automaticall reduced into writing in thetranscript of proceedings of the court. /he signature of the accused isunnecessar #ecause his lawer has authorit to make admissions #pleadings, whether oral or written, and such are conclusive unless withdrawn.

or this purpose, the counsel acts as agent of the accused and the acts of theformer #inds the latter. /he stipulation of facts should #e allowed during thetrial to e3pedite the trial # dispensing with the presentation of evidence onmatters that the accused is willing to admit.

1t is evident in the case that the prosecution and the defense counselstipulated that the accused is neither licensed nor authori7ed # the $42A torecruit overseas workers and that this fact ma #e confirmed # therepresentative of the $42A should he take the witness stand.

P%$P#% *S TAC-AN4<; SCA 4:4 (,004)

AC/%5 /he accused "ario Austria was the 41C $rovincial arden of theBatangas $rovincial +ail when he took advantage of his position in falsifing a"emorandum &eceipt for 26uipment %emi:23penda#le and =on:23penda#le$ropert, a pu#lic document of the said office, # stating that a Colt pistol with rounds of ammunitions is a provincial government propert issued to acivilian agent in connection with the performance of his official duties.

4nl three of the ' witnesses were notified of the arraignment and pre:trial#ut none of them appeared. 9pon motion of the accused and o#jection of thepu#lic prosecutor, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground thatwitnesses should #e present during the trial to participate in the plea

g g p gthat the reinstatement of the case will place the accused in dou#le jeopard.ence, this petition.

1%%925 = the a#sence of the witnesses in the pre:trial is a ground fordismissal.

D2C1%14=5 /he a#sence during pre:trial of an witnesses for the prosecution

listed in the information, whether or not said witnesses is the offended part orthe complaining witness, is not a valid ground for the dismissal of a criminalcase. 2ven the presence of the accused is not re6uired unless directed # thetrial court. 1t is enough that the accused is represented # his counsel.

2ven if none of the witnesses appeared, the trial should proceed since thepu#lic prosecutor appeared for the %tate. ence, the trial court acted without jurisdiction when it dismissed the case. owever, the witnesses ma #e cited incontempt of court if their a#sence was unjustified.

'#% 11<CAS%S

P%$P#% *S C7A*%S4<: SCA ,,; (,004)

AC/%5 1nformations for "ultiple "urder for the killing of the Bucag familwere filed against eight accused. 4nl elipe alarion was tried and convicted./wo ears later, an amended information was filed impleading eli7ardo &o3asas a co:accused. e engaged the services of Att "iguel $aderanga. 1n thepreliminar investigation, he implicated the lawer as the mastermind. Anamended information was again filed. 1n the trial, the prosecution presented&o3as as its first witness which $aderanga o#jected to. /he court sustained theo#jection in a hearing for the discharge as a state witness on the ground that itwill violate his right to self:incrimination and that &o3as must first #edischarged as a state witness. urther, onl the sworn statement of &o3as ma#e admitted as evidence. /he 4% filed a petition or certiorari which wasdenied # the CA. ence, this petition for review.

1%%925 = the prosecution ma present the testimon of &o3as as a hostilewitness.

D2C1%14=5 /he accused cannot #e made a hostile witness for the prosecution,for to do so would compel him to #e a witness against himself. owever, hema testif against a co:defendant where he has agreed to do so, with fullknowledge of his right and the conse6uences of his acts. 1t is not necessarthat the court discharges him first as state witness. According to &ule '',

*ena *. *erga 10<


%ection '*, the trial court ma direct the accused to #e discharged with their never faltered in her narration of the essential elements of the su#ject offense,



consent after re6uiring the prosecution to present evidence and the swornstatement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of thedischarge. /here is no distinction as to what evidence the prosecution mapresent. 1n addition to the sworn statement, other evidences ma #e presentedto determine the e3istence of the conditions of the discharge. /here is noindication that the testimon of the accused ma #e e3cluded. owever, it isstill premature for private respondent to raise this 6uestion in the instant

petition. ence, the petition is granted.

SANT$S *S P%$P#%4<5 SCA 50: (,004)

AC/%5 Complainant '0 ear old /ransuelo de +esus was a#out to #u amos6uito coil in the store of "arina A#la7a when she was gra##ed # theaccused >irgilio %antos and pulled her to a vacant lot. e covered her mouth,em#raced, kissed, touched her private parts and poked the victim’s vagina withhis penis while holding a #laded weapon and threatening to kill her. /heaccused left when her mother called her. /he ne3t morning, she told theincident to her mother. /he then filed a complaint with the #arangachairman, "/C and the $rovincial $rosecutor #ut the same was dismissed.

/he appealed to the +ustice %ecretar who ordered the prosecutor to file acriminal complaint against the accused for attempted rape. /he trial courtfound the accused guilt. Later, the accused filed a motion for new trial orreconsideration attaching sworn statements of desistance of /ransuelo andwitness 2meteria de +esus. owever, the court still found him guilt, whichdecision was affirmed # the CA. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 = the affidavit of desistance # a witness after conviction of theaccused ma #e a ground for the dismissal of the case.

D2C1%14=5 An affidavit of desistance made # a witness after conviction of theaccused is not relia#le and deserves onl scant attention. /he affidavits ofdesistance filed # the private complainant and her witnesses were e3ecuted') das after the promulgation of judgment of conviction and are clearl mereafterthoughts. ence, the cannot have the effect of negating a previouscredi#le declaration.

=ot all kinds of discrepancies and inconsistencies in testimonies have the effectof discrediting a witness. 1n the case at #ar, the discrepancies andinconsistencies refer to the time and place when the private complainant metand told her mother:in:law a#out the incident. /hese are mere collateralmatters inconse6uential in the determination of the criminal lia#ilit of theaccused. "ore important is the spontaneous, categorical and straightforwardtestimon of the private complainant on the violation against her person. %he

whether #efore the investigating judge or prosecutor, or the trial judge.

#'C%S *S P%$P#%4<5 SCA 5, (,004)

AC/%5 Dante &eginio, =elson "ag#anua and Clemente dela racia were ontheir wa to the house of Dido 2lican when the accused +oel Luces collared

Dela racia and sta##ed him in the chest which caused his death shortlthereafter. /he place was illuminated # a street light. &eginio and "ag#anuae3ecuted sworn statements identifing the accused as the culprit. 1n the crosse3amination, an affidavit of desistance of &eginio was su#mitted #ut itse3istence was denied # him. "eanwhile, "ag#anua was presented as hostilewitness for the defense and e3ecuted an affidavit of desistance stating that theculprit was not Luces and might #e other persons. /he accused pleaded notguilt in the arraignment. owever, the trial court still found the accused guiltof homicide, which was affirmed # the CA. ence, this petition for review.

1%%925 = the affidavits of desistance should #e considered # the court.

D2C1%14=5 /he affidavits of desistance relied upon # the petitioner as a

means to e3culpate himself from criminal lia#ilit was sufficientl impeached #the testimonial evidence of the ver same persons who allegedl e3ecuted thesame. &eginio declared that the signature found therein was not his, while"ag#anua merel signed it out of pit for petitioner’s wife. As #etween theaffidavits of desistance and the sworn testimonies of the witnesses #efore thecourt, the latter should prevail. An affidavit of desistance o#tained as anafterthought and through intimidation or undue pressure attains no pro#ativevalue in light of the affiant’s testimon to the contrar.

urther, the testimon of the notar pu#lic whose onl participation was toadminister the oath to the persons who signed the affidavits and who did notascertain if the persons who appeared #efore her and represented themselvesas the affiants were indeed the same persons cannot outweigh the testimonof said persons dening the veracit of said affidavit.

SA#A6A *S P%$P#%11 SCA 5<; (,004)

AC/%5 An information for estafa was filed against Anamer %ala7ar and =ena+aucian /imario with the Lega7pi &/C which alleged that the two conspired inthat the latter issued a check in favor of +. 8. Brothers "arketing Corporationand the former endorsed and negotiated it as pament for the F cavans ofrice o#tained from the +. 8 Brothers knowing that the same had no sufficientfunds. /he check was dishonored and the accused refused to pa despite

*ena *. *erga 110


demands to the prejudice of +. 8 Brothers. After the prosecutor rested its case, that the reinstatement of the case will place the accused in dou#le jeopard.



petitioner filed a Demurrer to 2vidence with Leave of Court on the ground thatshe could not #e charged since she is merel an indorser and onl the issuer ispunished # the law; that there was no evidence of conspirac; and that thedishonored check was replaced # a second one, which is a novation of the firsttransaction. "oreover, the dishonor of the second check was a result of Drawnagainst uncollected deposit which means that there are sufficient funds #ut isrestricted since the check was not et cleared. /he trial court ac6uitted

petitioner of the crime #ut ordered her to remit the amount to the complainant.Conspirac was also not proved. $etitioner then filed a "& of the civil aspectwith a plea that he #e allowed to present evidence that she was not civilllia#le.

1%%925 = the Demurrer to 2vidence ma #e granted.

D2C1%14=5 1f demurrer is granted and the accused is ac6uitted # the court,the accused has the right to adduce evidence in the civil aspect of the caseunless the court also declares that the act or omission from which the civillia#ilit ma arise did not e3ist.

1n the case, petitioner was charged with estafa. /he civil action arising from

the delict was impliedl instituted since there was no waiver # the privateoffended part of the civil lia#ilit nor a reservation of the criminal action. /hepetitioner was granted leave of court to file a demurrer on its finding that thelia#ilit of the petitioner was not criminal #ut onl civil. owever, the courtrendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case and ordered the petitioner topa for her purchases from the complainant even #efore the petitioner couldadduce evidence thereon. $atentl, therefore, the petitioner was denied herright to due process.

P%$P#% *S TAC-AN4<; SCA 4:4 (,004)

AC/%5 /he accused "ario Austria was the 41C $rovincial arden of theBatangas $rovincial +ail when he took advantage of his position in falsifing a"emorandum &eceipt for 26uipment %emi:23penda#le and =on:23penda#le$ropert, a pu#lic document of the said office, # stating that a Colt pistol with rounds of ammunitions is a provincial government propert issued to acivilian agent in connection with the performance of his official duties.

4nl three of the ' witnesses were notified of the arraignment and pre:trial#ut none of them appeared. 9pon motion of the accused and o#jection of thepu#lic prosecutor, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground thatwitnesses should #e present during the trial to participate in the plea#argaining and stipulation of facts. /he CA dismissed the "& on the ground

ence, this petition.

1%%925 = the trial of the case should continue.

D2C1%14=5 /he accused is entitled to a speed trial. /he accused cannot usethe a#sence of the witnesses as a ground for violation of his right to a speedtrial. 2ven if none of the witnesses appeared, the trial should proceed since the

pu#lic prosecutor appeared for the %tate and the case ma not #e dismissed onthe ground that no witnesses appeared #efore the court.

P%$P#% *S T%%4<5 SCA 1< (,004)

AC/%5 $rosecution witness Danilo A#rati6ue, a ta3i driver, was hired #appellant "odesto /ee to transport #o3es of #lue seal cigarettes which were infact marijuana to the rented house owned # Al#ert Ballesteros. Ballesterosasked for its removal. A#rati6ue was again hired to transport the contra#and toa room in his grandmother’s house which was managed # his aunt. Bothered# the nature of the goods, A#rati6ue’s aunt, =a7area A#reau, confided thematter to her daughter Alice who disclosed the same to his #rother:in:law who

was an =B1 agent. /he =B1 and $=$ =A&C4" conducted a joint operation. ithpermission of =a7area, the entered the room, searched the premises andfound therein #o3es and 'F sacks of marijuana totaling FF-.F kilograms.Later in the evening, the =B1 special agent and A#rati6ue as witness appliedfor a search warrant from +udge &ees at his residence. hen the Clerk ofCourt arrived, the judge 6uestioned them and then issued a warrant to searchthe house of appellant for marijuana in Baguio. /he agents served the warrantto the appellant himself. /he were a#le to sei7e )- #o3es and a sack of driedmarijuana in the water tank, garage, and store room of the residence with thepresence of appellant, mem#ers of his famil, #aranga officials and themedia. Appellant alleged that the evidences were illegall ac6uired, hence,inadmissi#le. urther, the search warrant was too general and did not followthe constitutional re6uirements for the issuance of a search warrant. /he trialcourt held that the evidence was illegall o#tained hence, inadmissi#le. /he /Cac6uitted him of the charge #ut convicted him illegal possession of marijuana.ence, this automatic review.

1%%925 = the a#sence of the prosecution witness violated appellant’s rightto a speed trial.

D2C1%14=5 /here is no showing that the prosecution capriciousl caused thea#sences of the prosecution witness A#rati6ue which totaled ) hearing dasso as to ve3 or oppress appellant and den him his rights. A#rati6ue repeatedlfailed to show up for the taking of his testimon. /he prosecution even praed

*ena *. *erga 111


for the court’s order for A#rati6ue’s arrest to compel his attendance. /hed h d h # l ll h

P%$P#% *S 9$N( )



prosecution tried to get the =B1 to produce him #ut to no avail. 2ventuall, thetrial court ordered the prosecution to waive its right to present A#rati6ue andrest its case. /he dela of ) hearing das is not an unreasona#le length oftime. urther, "odesto /ee did not o#ject to the ina#ilit of the prosecution toproduce its witnesses. Appellant could have moved to re6uire the witness topost #ail, or to hold him in contempt. 1t is too late for the appellant to invokenow his right to a speed trial. 1n the a#sence of a showing that delas were

unreasona#le and capricious, the %tate should not #e deprived of a reasona#leopportunit of prosecuting an accused. ence, appellant’s right to a speedtrial was not violated.

P%$P#% *S 3A*!N$4<< SCA ,;5 (,004)

AC/%5 enna avino, a nine: ear old minor, was ordered # appellant tosleep #eside him. er #rothers slept in the living room while her mother wasout on a teaching jo#. At a#out midnight, appellant hit her thrice and made herlie on the #ed with her #ack against him. e inserted his fingers into her organ#efore penetrating her. Appellant left her in pain and threatened to kill her ifshe disclosed the same. /he se3ual assaults continued until enna was 'G.

%he was again raped. %he then decided to tell her science teacher thatappellant was #eating her up #ut did not disclosed the se3ual a#uses. %he was#rought to the D%D where she finall disclosed her ordeal. %he e3ecuted astatement to the police and had a medical e3amination. After the filing of therape charges, enna’s mother and two others fetched her and proceeded toAtt Demecillo where she signed a document which was an affidavit ofdesistance. %he was prevented to read its contents. Later, she went to the =B1and e3ecuted an affidavit of retraction deposing that she signed the desistanceunder duress. /he defense presented several witnesses. After trial, the courtfound him guilt of 6ualified rape and sentenced him to death. ence, thisautomatic review.

1%%925 = the affidavit of desistance was valid.

D2C1%14=5 /he prosecution dul esta#lished that enna signed Affidavit ofretraction under duress. er relatives accosted her in school while she wasunder the custod of the D%D and took her to Agusan to sign the saidaffidavit. 1ts content was not e3plained to enna nor was she given a chanceto read it. %he was forced to sign the affidavit as she was threatened that shecould not return to Cagaan de 4ro cit if she refused.

'#% 1,0CAS%S

4< SCA 50 (,004)

AC/%5 "aricris Bonode, then - ears old, is staing at their house along withthe accused =emesio Bon, a #rother of her mother >ioleta. 4ne afternoon,>ioleta saw the accused ling on top of her daughter. /he accused was wearingpants while "aricris was wearing sando and shorts. >ioleta in6uired #ut"aricris cried. %he learned from her oungest daughter that accused se3uall

a#used "aricris # poking her private part. 1nstead of confronting the accused,the transferred to <ue7on $rovince. hen >ioleta learned that the accusedwas in jail for acts of lasciviousness, she revealed to her hus#and that theaccused molested their daughter. /he $=$ "edico:Legal 4fficer e3amined thevictim and found that she is not anmore a virgin #ut there were no e3ternalsigns of violence. An information for rape was then filed against the accused./rial on the merits ensued. /he trial court found the accused guilt of rape andsentenced him to death. ence, this automatic review.

1%%925 = the accused could #e convicted of acts of lasciviousness on aninformation charging rape.

D2C1%14=5 Article )--:A of the &$C, as amended # &A 0FGF, interpreting the

insertion of one’s finger into the genitals of another as rape through se3ualassault does not appl at the case at #ar. /he governing law during thecommission of the crime was Article FFG of the &$C, as amended # &A *-G,where insertion of one’s finger into the genitals of another does not amount torape. =evertheless, the accused is not completel without lia#ilit. Althoughthe information charged the crime of rape, the accused can #e convicted ofacts of lasciviousness #ecause it is included in rape and all the elements for thesaid crime were esta#lished. /he judgment is then modified such that theaccused is found guilt of acts of lasciviousness.

P%$P#% *S 7A"T$N4<5 SCA 15 (,004)

AC/%5 %pouses /eofilo and Leonida arcia were the sole distri#utors of %inger%ewing "achines under the #usiness name armer 1ndustrial "achines. 4nemorning, +un =otarte and &enold 8am#ot, #oth armed entered their office andannounced a hold:up. After empting the drawer of cash, the took /eofilo intoa light gra "itsu#ishi Lancer where Arnold Lope7 and Arthur $angilinan werewaiting. /eofilo was #lindfolded in the #ack seat. is a#ductors took his goldring, #racelet necklace, and cash. hen he was led out of the office, Leonidaarrived and saw her hus#and. e approached the car and asked the a#ductors./he appellant hit her instead on the nose with a gun. /he car sped awa. ewas transferred into a trimo#ile where he was taken into room with nowindows and his left wrist chained into an iron grill. /he appellant Adan "analo

*ena *. *erga 11,


called Leonida asking for ' million pesos as ransom. After several calls andti ti th #d t d t $' ) /h t ld h t

front of the accused who was then standing when the latter shot the former./h t i l t l t d it d i i F' A t ' # t d d th



negotiations, the a#ductors agreed to a $',), ransom. /he told her to#ring the mone at the "agallanes flover #efore pm, open the hood to makeit appear that the pajero has engine trou#le. Appellant would then stop #esideher car and after identifing himself as Adan, she should hand over the ransomto him. owever, she coordinated with the $ACC under Col. "ichael &aA6uino who instructed her to go on with the pa:off and wear a green dress./he pa:off took place. After assuring that the would drop him and give him

$F for his ta3i fare, the noticed a white =issan %entra pursuing them. henthe reached the intersection of uadi3 and ADB Avenues, the a#ductors firedat the $ACC agents. =otarte escaped #ut $angilinan and 8am#ot werecaptured. /eofilo was rescued and the ransom mone and the unlicensedfirearms were recovered. Antonio amton was separatel apprehended#ecause he negotiated with Leonida for the ransom at the same time with thetrue a#ductors. e was a#le to e3tort $G, from her.

An information for kidnapping and ransom was filed against the a#ductors.Later, a second information for illegal possession of firearms was filed. /hepleaded not guilt #ut the court found them guilt of kidnapping for ransomand serious illegal detention and illegal possession of firearms. amton wasfound guilt of ro##er. /he appellants appealed alleging that the prosecution

failed to esta#lished conspirac and that the were in phsical and constructivepossession of the firearms.

1%%925 = the judgment was valid.

D2C1%14=5 /he fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the sameone who had heard the testimonies of all the witnesses is not a compellingreason to jettison the findings of the court a 6uo. /his circumstance does notipso facto render the judgment erroneous, more so when it appears to #e fullsupported # the evidence on record. hile a judge in such a situation has nowa to test the credi#ilit of al l the witnesses, since he did not have the uni6ueopportunit of o#serving their demeanor and #ehavior under oath, the trailcourt’s findings are nonetheless #inding on this court when these are a#lsupported # the evidence on record. 9nless there is a clear showing of grave

a#use of discretion, the validit of a decision is not necessaril impaired # thefact that its ponente onl took over from a colleague who had earlier presidedat the trial.

'N!&A& *S CA4<< SCA ,: (,004)

AC/%5 $etitioner &enaldo Criste 9nidad, the Chief 4perations 4fficer of the$D was charged with homicide in an information filed #efore the court./estimonies and evidences revealed that the victim was kneeling or sitting in

/he trial court promulgated its decision on F' August ', #ut amended thesame on G %eptem#er '. Both contained the same dispositive portion.$etitioner claimed that the amended decision was promulgated on '-%eptem#er ' after he had perfected his appeal. /he CA affirmed the lowercourt’s amended decision. ence, this petition for certiorari.

1%%925 = the amended decision was validl done # the trial court.

D2C1%14=5 A comparison of the decision and amended decision of the trialcourt readil shows that no su#stantial variance e3ists. /he trial court merelmade more clear which side presented which witness, #ut the contents of theirtestimonies remained the same. As stated, the dispositive portions areidentical, and the same is consistent with the rest of #oth the decision and theamended decision. 1t can, therefore, #e concluded that no prejudice resulted toan part from the amendment, and that it referred onl to insu#stantialmatters. /he same is clearl well within the inherent powers of courts toamend and control their processes and orders to make them conforma#le tolaw and justice. urthermore, there is no showing that the records had #eenforwarded to the CA at the time said amendment was effected.

P%$P#% *S $"%$4<< SCA 4; (,004)

AC/%5 After drinking tu#a in his house, &odolfo "oreno and Augusto &u#awent to the house of the #rother of the appellant to drink #eer and gin. Later,the two left and while in the national road, the saw appellant $a6uito &omeroin a s6uatting position #ecause the place was illuminated # a fluorescent lighttwo meters awa. As &u#a passed, appellant stood and struck him with an airpump at the #ack of the head. "oreno ran. e related the incident to &u#a’sfather. hen the returned to the scene and #rought him to the hospital, thevictim’s sister Cora7on +unsa said the name of $a6uito with whom the victimreplied with a clenched fist. /he investigating officer went to the hospital andasked the victim the identit of the appellant. /he victim replied that it was$a6uito &omero. /he 6uestions and answers were reduced into writing and was

thum#marked # the victim and signed # the doctor and the victim’s sister aswitnesses. An information for murder was then filed against the appellant. /heparties agreed that the appellant would enter a plea of guilt to a lesseroffense of homicide. /he court issued an order that the prosecution acceptedthe plea under the conditions that there would #e no modifing circumstances,reim#ursement of e3penses and civil indemnit and recommendation of thepenalt of prision maor. Before the court rendered a decision, the prosecutionmoved for the re:opening of the case on the ground that appellant violated theconditions when he refused to pa the victim’s father. /he court granted it andcommenced with the trial. Appellant however filed a motion to dismiss on the

*ena *. *erga 114


ground of dou#le jeopard which was denied and later convicted the accused ofd thi l

1%%925 = the motion for reinvestigation ma #e granted on the ground ofl di d id



murder. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 = there was alread a judgment when the court issued the ordergranting the lesser plea.

D2C1%14=5 /he trial court was correct in holding that there was no dou#le jeopard in the case considering that it was terminated as a result of

appellant’s ac6uittal, conviction or dismissal. /he order approving the guiltplea to homicide, with conditions, was not a judgment of conviction. /hedispositive portion of the said order which in part reads ?herefore, in view ofthe foregoing, this case is dee'ed sub'itted for decision@ clearl shows thatthe trial court still had to render a decision on the criminal and civil lia#ilities ofthe appellant. /he said order merel approved the agreement #etween theparties on the new plea to a lesser offense # the appellant and the conditionsattached to it. /he trial court neither sentenced the accused nor made anruling on the civil indemnit in favor of the heirs of the victim.

'#% 1,1CAS%S

A"A!##$ *S SAN&!3AN9AAN4< SCA 4 (,004)

AC/%5 $etitioners who are all officials of the D$ Aurora 2ngineering Districttogether with Carolina <uerijero, a private contractor were charged withfalsification of pu#lic documents. /he simulated a contract for the repair of the$ugo and Dos #ridges which were damaged # flashfloods. 1n the preliminarinvestigation, the investigator considered the certifications of the Bgchairperson and kagawad, social welfare officer and the "unicipal agriculturist./he certificates in effect averred that no repair was made and that theflashfloods occurred on Dec. ), 'G. $etitioner <uerijero su#mitted aphotocop of the letter of the re6uest of the maor to utili7e the crane and#oom of 1ndustrial Development Corporation and a letter of the 1DC eneral"anager granting the said re6uest. inding sufficient ground, an informationfor estafa through falsification of official documents was filed with the%andigan#aan. /he information was amended to cure some defects such asthe non:inclusion of the phrase ?committing the offense in relation to office.$etitioners filed a motion for leave of court to file a motion for reinvestigationon the ground of newl discovered evidence consisting of an affidavit of theadministrative officer of 1DC that the maor re6uested 1DC for the utili7ation ofits e6uipments for the repair of the #ridges. /he %andigan#aan denied themotion. ence, this petition.

newl discovered evidence.

D2C1%14=5 /aduo’s affidavit is not newl discovered evidence. 1t could haveeasil #een produced during the investigation of the case. /here was noshowing of /aduo’s non:availa#ilit at the time of the investigation or thea#sence of the correspondence #etween the "aor and 1DC. Also, assumingthat said affidavit could not have #een reasona#l produced during the

investigation still it can not 6ualif as newl discovered evidence #ecause itwas not material to the issue. 1t merel stated the letter re6uest. /here was noallegation that he actuall saw or had personal knowledge of the repairs #petitioners through Caroline Construction. ence, the %andigan#aan correctldismissed the motion for reinvestigation.

P%$P#% *S &AT'4<: SCA <5 (,004)

AC/%5 Appellant &omeo Datu is engaged in selling hardware and constructionmaterials in Aurora, 1sa#ela which is also the line of #usiness of the victimAntonio Chan in Burgos, 1sa#ela. Datu sold an 1su7u dump truck to Chan for$0,, the latter issuing postdated checks as pament. /hree of the

checks were encashed #ut Chan stopped pament for the fourth check toaccommodate Amadeo 8ap for unpaid lum#er which Datu #ought from 8ap.Datu confronted Chan a#out the dishonored check and refused to entertainChan’s e3planation. e hurled threats against Chan’s emploees. e emploedseveral persons including Batuelo and witness "adaag whom he promised topa $',. /he assailants #oarded a white "itsu#ishi L:F van, went toChan’s compound and hid. hen Chan came out, the rushed to him. Chanwas a#le to struck "adaag with a wood in the forehead. Batuelo spraed teargas on Chan until he was finall su#dued. 4ne of the assailants tied a ropearound the victim’s neck and hung him in the #asement of the house. %usan,the victim’s wife, stood up from her sleep, saw the appellants and herhus#and, shouted for help and then collapsed. /he appellants left. After hiswound healed, "adaag returned to Datu to collect the #alance of $, #uthis sister told him that F men were looking for him. e then decided to disclose

the crime to his wife and then to his wife’s second cousin, %gt. lordelito%a#uas who arranged a meeting with his camp’s provost marshal, Col.ernani Acosta. "adaag agreed to e3ecute a statement implicating theappellants in e3change for the forgiveness of %usan. /he appellants raised thedefense of denial and ali#i. An information for murder was then filed. Asdirected # the court, the information was amended to include "adaag as oneof the accused. Later, "adaag was discharged as a state witness. /heappellants were convicted as charged. /he appellants filed a motion for newtrialmistrial on the ground that witness %gt. %a#uas e3ecuted an affidavit ofretraction that %usan and "adaag framed up the appellants which motion was

*ena *. *erga 11


denied. Another motion for new trial was filed in light of an affidavit #&oosevelt %alvador that "adaag was phsicall manhandled to testif for the

upon to render such judgment as the law and justice dictate whether favora#leor unfavora#le to him and whether the are assigned as errors or not %uch an



&oosevelt %alvador that "adaag was phsicall manhandled to testif for theprosecution, which motion was again denied. ence, this automatic review.

1%%925 = the motion for new trial ma #e granted on the ground of newldiscovered evidence.

D2C1%14=5 /he affidavit of %alvador declaring that he and other militar men

including %a#uas a#ducted, manhandled and phsicall a#used "adaag toadmit complicit in the killing of Chan, and as a state witness, to implicateappellant Datu. %alvador further said that "adaag agreed to cooperate after%usan offered him a reasona#le financial package for his testimon. %uchstatement after the trial was finished is evidence which appellants could nothave secured during the trial such that it must #e considered as newldiscovered evidence that ma #e presented in a new trial. As a rule,recantations are regarded with disfavor as it can #e easil secured from a poorand ignorant witness for monetar consideration. owever, since the penaltimposed is death, the testimon of %a#uas is worth of note and ke to thesolution of the case. /here should #e no of shadow of dou#t in the case thatma vitiate the result. 2ver piece of pertinent evidence must #e adduced#efore the trial court. ence, the new trial ma #e granted and the case

remanded for further proceedings.

'#% 1,,CAS%S

P%$P#% *S P!N'%#A4< SCA 51 (,004)

AC/%5 4ne morning, %alvador alve7 was talking to enr ualde in front ofhis store. David alve7 and &odne Al#ito were cleaning their trisikad while>ictor $enasales was a near# water vendor. %uddenl, the accused alightedfrom a trisikad and shot David at the head. e then fired G times at %alvadorhitting him in the a#domen and right thigh. %alvador fired #ack #ut missed.Both were taken to the hospital #ut onl %alvador survived. /wo informationsfor frustrated murder and murder were filed against the accused. /he twocases were jointl tried. /he trial court convicted him of murder and frustratedhomicide. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 = the appellate court ma correct errors in the judgment of thelower court on appeal.

D2C1%14=5 hen an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, hewaives his constitutional safeguard against dou#le jeopard and throws thewhole case open for to the review of the appellate court, which is then called

or unfavora#le to him, and whether the are assigned as errors or not. %uch anappeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction and renders itcompetent to e3amine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,increase the penalt and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

/he identit of the accused was clearl and positivel esta#lished not onl #%alvador alve7, +r., who knew the accused for man ears, #ut also # the

prosecution witness &odne Al#ito, who was not known to have anmisunderstanding or grudge against him. /his finding of the trial court is#inding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts of weight andsu#stance have #een overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.

/he Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of David alve7 wasattended # treacher #ecause it was esta#lished that there was a suddenattack without provocation on alve7 who was s6uatting on one side of theroad with his head #ent down. alve7 was not in a position to defend himself.4n the other hand, the trial court erred in finding that the attack on %alvadorwas not treacherous. /he sudden and une3pected attack without provocationon %alvador, who was just talking to enr ualde in front of his store, showedthat treacher attended the shooting. e could not defend himself from such

assault. /rue, the victim was a#le to fire #ack at his assailant. owever, hewas a#le to do so onl after he was mortall wounded # the treacherousattack made # the accused. is recover due to the timel medicalintervention does not diminish the treacherous character of the attack. ence,the accused is guilt of murder, 6ualified # treacher, for the killing of Davidalve7. e also guilt of frustrated murder for the near fatal shooting of%alvador alve7, considering that the same was attended # treacher.

P%$P#% *S "AN#'CTA$0 SCA 5;0 (,004)

AC/%5 "arcelina "anluctao was then 'F ears old when she was first raped# her father, &omeo "anluctao. /he rape took place when the appellantordered her si#lings to go out and told her to go to her room. 1n her room, the

appellant kissed her, touched her private parts, inserted his penis and did apush and pull movements. %he cried and resisted #ut she could not doanthing #ecause she was threatened # a knife. /his was repeated three moretimes #ut "arcelina did not give an details or particulars on the third incident.Appellant was charged with counts of rape in separate charge sheets. epleaded guilt to all charges with the assistance of a counsel de officio. /hedefense admitted the minorit of the victim, the child of the victim, hispaternit and his identit. 4nl the prosecution presented its evidences. /hetrial court convicted the appellant in all four cases with death as penalt ineach of them. ence, this automatic review.

*ena *. *erga 115


1%%925 = the appellate court ma correct errors in the judgment of thethe 4% had filed the Brief for appellee. owever, the Court had re6uiredappellant to file his repl #rief 1t could therefore #e said that the appellant had



1%%925 = the appellate court ma correct errors in the judgment of thelower court on appeal.

D2C1%14=5 An appeal or automatic appeal in a criminal proceeding throws thewhole case open for review, and it is the dut of the reviewing court to correcterrors as it ma find in the lower court’s judgment, regardless of whether it isassigned as an error or not.

/he Court agrees with the trial court that complainant’s testimon alone issufficient in the conviction of appellant. /he cring of the victim on the witnessstand is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the displa of suchemotions indicates the pain that she feels as she recounts the details of hersordid e3perience.

1n the third incident of rape, the victim did not provide details, #ut theelements of rape on that incident have #een sufficientl esta#lished. owever,#oth the 6ualifing circumstances of age of the victim and her relat ionship withthe accused were not alleged in the information. %uch failure is fatal and #arsconviction of the accused in its 6ualified form which is punisha#le # death.ence, he could onl #e convicted of simple rape with the penalt of reclusion

perpetua, not death.

P%$P#% *S PAA&%6A4<: SCA 151 (,004)

AC/%5 4ne evening, Lailani aas was at their house in Eam#ales with herounger #rother who was watching />. %he was a#out to go out of their housewhen she was gra##ed # &omeo $arade7a #ack into the house. e laid her ina #am#oo #ed, undressed her, took out a knife, fondled her #reasts, and hadcarnal knowledge with her while covering her mouth. After satiating his lust, hewent home. aas, who was )- ears old #ut has the mental a#ilit of a - or *ear old child, told her mother and grandmother a#out the incident. %he wase3amined and was found to #e mentall retarded. e was then charged withrape. e pleaded not guilt with the assistance of a counsel de parte. /he trial

court convicted him of the crime charged. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.Both the appellant and appellee filed their #riefs. owever, the $u#licAttorne’s 4ffice filed a motion to withdraw appeal.

1%%925 = the court ma grant the motion to withdraw the appeal filed #the appellant.

D2C1%14=5 /he withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right #efore the filing ofthe appellee’s #rief. After that, withdrawal ma #e allowed in the discretion ofthe court. /he appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal was made onl after

appellant to file his repl #rief. 1t could therefore #e said that the appellant hadnot et completed the process of filing #riefs when he moved to withdraw hisappeal, a situation which ma call for a more li#eral rule. Appellant is a hardlilliterate functionall and of ver low socio:economic standing as a mere#angus fr catcher. 1n making his appeal, he is actuall wagering his life asagainst his sentence #elow. &egardless of his reasons, it is within his rights toseek such withdrawal. ence, in the interest of justice and in the e3ercise of

sound discretion of the court, the withdrawal of the appeal ma #e granted. ewill thus remain in custod and serve the sentence imposed upon him # thelower court.

NAA *S A9!N34<; SCA 4 (,004)

AC/%5 4rlando =aa, as seller, and A#raham and uillerma A#ing, as #uers,entered into a contract to sell two parcels of land for $-, paa#le inmonthl installments of $','G.* for five ears after paing a downpamentof $),. =aa #ound himself to e3ecute a deed of sale and deliver the titlefree from encum#rances and liens upon full pament of the price. =aa paid$), a month even in e3cess of the amount agreed upon. 9nknown to A#ing,

=aa sold his lots including the disputed lots to illiam $o for $),, =aarepresented that he is the owner of the same. A#ing continued remittingpaments to which =aa issued the corresponding receipts until the spouseshad paid $G,. =aa consented to the construction of a fence and a houseor warehouse # A#ing. /he spouses #ought hollow #locks worth $,.owever, he were evicted from the propert # $o and the hollow #locksremained unused. %u#se6uentl, the spouse learned of the second sale. Aninformation for estafa was then filed against =aa after a preliminarinvestigation. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the court setthe case for continuation for =aa to present its evidence. owever, hiscounsel failed to appear. /he court then issued an order that the accused hadwaived his right to adduce evidences. /he court convicted him of estafa whichwas affirmed # the CA. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 = the appellate court ma correct errors in judgment whetherassigned or not.

D2C1%14=5 An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open forreview and the appellate court is mandated to correct an error in the appealed judgment whether this is assigned as an error or has not assigned as error theissue of whether or not under the information petitioner was charged with andma #e convicted of estafa under Article F'-()! of the &$C.

*ena *. *erga 11


/here was no allegation in the information that petitioner e3presslrepresented in the sale of the su#ject propert to $o that the said propert was

maintained his stor and did not waiver even when he was su#jected torigorous pro#ing during the cross:e3amination



represented in the sale of the su#ject propert to $o that the said propert wasfree from an encum#rance. 1rrefraga#l, petitioner was not charged withestafa under Art F'-()!. ence, the trial court committed error in finding himguilt of estafa and the CA likewise erred in affirming the same.=otwithstanding his ac6uittal, he is nevertheless lia#le to the spouses A#ing toreturn the purchase price and reim#urse the amount of the hollow #locks.

P%$P#% *S S'9%01 SCA 1< (,004)

AC/%5 +ulio %olis and his #rother =icanor were resting inside their housewhich was illuminated # a dou#le rechargea#le lamp. Later, +ulio heard shoutsthat Bo#ot, also +ulio, will #e killed. e saw Lastide %u#e, &olando "en7on,eli7ardo 4ntog, Benedicto Acala and Dino Aala outside carring flashlightsand #laded weapons. e tried to rouse =icanor #ut the latter was ill and couldnot get up. e ran out and hid #ehind some trees G meters awa from thehouse. e saw the five accused enter the house and hit his #rother with hisfather’s airgun. /hen, he saw the five accused came out with =icanor’s hands#ound with a nlon cord. /hereafter, he reported the incident to his father andto the police. /he went to the house of %u#e #ut the were refused. /he

returned to the crime scene #ut found no #od. A few das later, %u#e wasturned over # Col 4#illo to the Antipolo $olice <. %u#e disclosed the incidentand where =icanor was #uried. "en7on was also arrested. An information wasthen filed against %u#e and "en7on and the other accused. /he trial courtconvicted %u#e, "en7on and 4ntog for the murder of =icanor and archivedwith respect to Aala and Acala. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 = the accused 4ntog ma withdraw his appeal and thereafter #e#enefited from the modification of the trial court’s judgment.= the findings of the trial court are #inding on the appellate court.

D2C1%14=5 4ntog indicated his desire to withdraw his appeal. /he re6uest wastreated as a motion to the same effect and granted. ence, 4ntog’s appeal wasdismissed in a &esolution. owever, in light of the fact that we have seen fit to

modif the trial court’s judgment in a manner that is favora#le to the accused:appellants, then such modification should appl to 4ntog as well.

As a general rule, the findings of the trial court on matters of credi#ilit are#inding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts orcircumstances of weight and su#stance have #een overlooked,misapprehended or misinterpreted. 1n the case at #ar, the trial court gavemore credence to the testimon of +ulio over the com#ined testimonies of theappellants. +ulio’s testimon was straightforward and convincing. e gave achilling account of the incident and positivel identified the five accused. e

rigorous pro#ing during the cross:e3amination.

'#% 1,CAS%S

*!TT$ *S CA0 SCA 40: (,004)

AC/%5 redelito >itto, >ic $i7arro and Danilo $ajaron were charged withhomicide under an information filed with the &/C. /he court convicted all theaccused. /he appealed to the CA #ut remained at large for failure to post #ailon appeal. /he CA re6uired them to e3plain wh their appeal should not #ea#andoned in view of their failure to su#mit themselves to the properauthorities. $etitioner, through counsel, e3plained that he was not aware thathe should surrender. is counsel re6uested an additional period to contact theaccused in "indoro, to su#mit him to the jurisdiction of the CA and to file theappellant’s #rief. owever, the accused did not appear and the #rief was notfiled. /he court then dismissed the appeal. $etitioner filed a motion for leave ofcourt to file appellant’s #rief, which motion was denied on the ground that thedismissal of the appeal has alread #ecome final and e3ecutor. ence, this

petition.

1%%925 = the CA ma dismiss the appeal for a#andonment, failure toprosecute and failure to file appellant’s #rief.

D2C1%14=5 $etitioner, through counsel, asked for an e3tension within which tosu#mit himself and to file the appellant’s #rief. owever, petitioner failed tocompl which is fatal to his appeal. /he CA considered his appeal as having#een a#andoned and conse6uentl dismissed the same. /he motion for leaveto file appellant’s #rief filed two months after the finalit of the dismissal of theappeal was correctl denied. is insolent refusal to su#mit himself to the jurisdiction of the court cannot #e countenanced.

e should have informed his lawer of his wherea#outs and in the samemanner, his lawer should have ac6uainted him regarding the proceedings inthe CA.

'#% 1,CAS%S

P%$P#% *S SAAP4<< SCA 504 (,004)

*ena *. *erga 11:


AC/%5 %$4 uarino and $4) =avida, armed with a search warrant, raidedthe house of Conrado &icaforte at &i7al %t $o#lacion Banga Aklan due to the

wrapped in a newspaper and placed in a plastic #ag and a #lack #ullet pouchcontaining - ammunition al of which were found under the #ed of %im#ahon



the house of Conrado &icaforte at &i7al %t, $o#lacion, Banga, Aklan due to thereported sale of marijuana # its occupants. /he occupants were apprehendedfor illegal possession of marijuana and were detained in Banga police station.1n the investigation, the police learned that a certain "ell and &oger were thesuppliers and will #e #ack later. 4ne da, the caretaker of the house told thepolice that two strangers were looking for the occupants of the house. /hepolice arrived and saw "ell %arap and &oger Amar. 9pon seeing them, %arap

threw her #lack canvass #ag which &oger picked up. uarino sei7ed %arap andgra##ed her green plastic #ag which upon inspection, contained ) #locks ofmarijuana. =avida pursued and arrested Amar. An information was filedcharging the appellants with sale of prohi#ited drugs. /he court ac6uitted Amarand convicted %arap of the crime charged. ence, this appeal.

1%%925 = the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.

D2C1%14=5 /he Banga police officers were not armed with a warrant of arrest.%arap cannot #e said to #e committing a crime. =either was she a#out tocommit one nor had she just committed a crime. %he was merel walking inthe alle near the house of &icaforte. uarino would not have apprehended herwere it not for 1gui7’s identification. /he Banga police could have secured a

search warrant when the house occupants disclosed that a certain "ell and&oger would #e #ack. /he persons intended to #e searched were particulari7edand the thing to #e sei7ed specified. /he time was also ascertained although itwas uncertain when the would arrive. /hese particulars would have providedsufficient grounds to secure a search warrant. 1nstead, the police acted onlupon the information of the caretaker. /he cannot dispense with a warrant onthe #asis of urgenc since the have ) hours to do so. /he had priorknowledge of %arap’s alleged activities. ence, the police could not effect awarrantless search and sei7ure since there was no pro#a#le cause and %arapwas not lawfull arrested.

/he instant case does not also fall within the purview of the plain view doctrine#ecause the marijuana contained in the green plastic #ag was not visi#le andnot apparent. /hat the search disclosed marijuana confirming the police’s initial

information and suspicion did not cure its patent illegalit. /hus, %arap isac6uitted.

P%$P#% *S S!"9A7$N01 SCA < (,004)

AC/%5 4ne earl morning, the police, with the #g chairman and the media,served a search warrant upon Danilo %im#ahon, "aricar "orgia and Charito"angula#nan at their residence in %ampaloc, "anila. ith slight resistance, thepolice gained entr. /heir search ielded a #rick of dried flowering tops

containing - ammunition, al of which were found under the #ed of %im#ahonand "angula#nan. /he police found a pencil case containing sha#u andammunition in the room of "orgia. /he also found a red and #lack sntheticcase containing sha#u, sniffing paraphernalias such as improvised #urner,tooter, scissors, aluminum foil, plastic sachets with residue, and empt plasticsachets in the living room. An inventor receipt was issued and signed #%im#ahon. /he three were arrested and #rought to the precinct for

investigation. %eparate informations were filed against against the three forviolation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and illegal possession of firearms. /hecharges against "angula#nan were dismissed upon motion of the prosecution./he court ac6uitted "orgia #ut convicted %im#ahon.

1%%925 = the search conducted prior to the arraignment of the appellantwas valid.

D2C1%14=5 /he case should #e dismissed on the ground of manifest violationsof the constitutional right of the accused against illegal search and sei7ure.hile appellant ma #e deemed to have waived his right to 6uestion thelegalit of the search warrant and the admissi#ilit of the evidence sei7ed forfailure to raise his o#jections at the opportune time, however, the record

shows serious defects in the search warrant itself which rend the same null andvoid. /he caption, as well as the #od of the search warrant, shows that it wasissued for more than one offense, for violation of the DDA and illegalpossession of firearms. urther, the warrant failed to descri#e the place to #esearched with sufficient particularit. /he search warrant issued # the courtmerel referred to appellant’s residence as premises without specifing itsaddress. urthermore, the sei7ed marijuana was not mentioned in the searchwarrant. /he sei7ure # the police conducting the search of articles notdescri#ed therein was #eond the parameters of their authorit under thesearch warrant. ence, the search was illegal and %im#ahon should #eac6uitted of the crime charged.

P%$P#% *S T%%4<5 SCA 1< (,004)

AC/%5 see rule <<9

1%%925 = the search warrant satisfied the constitutional re6uirement.

D2C1%14=5 /he thing si7ed is a propert of a specific character, marijuana, anillicit drug. A further description would #e unnecessar and ordinarilimpossi#le, e3cept as to such character, the place, and circumstances. /hedescription ?illegall n possession of undetermined 6uantit of dried marijuanaleaves and sha#u and sets of paraphernalia@ particulari7es the things to #e

*ena *. *erga 11;


sei7ed. /he search warrant has satisfied the constitutional re6uirements onparticularit of description.

/he =B1 su#mitted a detailed sketch of the premises prepared # A#rati6ueensuring that there would #e no mistake. /he e3ecuting officer, can with



particularit of description.

urther, it was not disputed that +udge &ees personall e3amined =B1 %pecialAgent 1nvestigator 11 Lising, the applicant for the search warrant as well as hiswitness, Danilo A#rati6ue, who personall saw and handled the marijuana. /henon:attachment of the depositions of the two is not fatall defective as long asthere is evidence on record showing what testimon was presented and that

such was never raised # appellant.

ensuring that there would #e no mistake. /he e3ecuting officer, can withreasona#le effort, ascertain and identif the place intended and distinguish itfrom other places in the communit. ence, the description of the place wassufficient.

ence, the search warrant complied with the constitutional re6uirements.

criminal procedure (atty salvador ateneo law)

Documents