Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Songcal, Skylar L. Criminal Procedure (CASUPANAN V LAROYA) P: Carpio J.

Facts: Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya and the other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo and driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan figured an accident. As a result, two cases were filed one by Laroya criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property against Casupanan; and the other civil case for quasi-delict by Casupanan and Capitulo against Laroya. Issue: Can an accused in a pending criminal case validly file simultaneously and independently a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case? Held: Sec.1 of rule 111 requires the accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action and not in the criminal case. Therefore, the MCTC erred in dismissing the civil case on the ground of forum shopping.

(SILANGAN TEXTILE MFG V DEMETRIA) P: Chico-Nario, J. Facts: Luzon Spinning Mills Inc. filed an action for collection of sum of money against Silangan Textile Manufacturing. LSMI delivered 111,161kg of yarn to STMC and in return, STMC issued 34 post dated checks in the total amount of 9.999million. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment of the STMC properties. LSMI was found to have previously instituted a criminal action against the Silangans: Anita, Jimmy, and Benito for violation of Bp.22. STMC moved for the civil case against them to be dismissed and cite the LSMI lawyer in contempt for forum shopping as well as the discharge of the writ. Issue: whether or not forum shopping existed in the filing of the subsequent civil case after the criminal case for bp.22. Held: There exists no forum shopping. The civil case may proceed. The parties in the two cases are different. The civil case was proceeded against the corporation while the criminal case against those natural persons who issued the insufficiently funded checks. Elements for forum shopping: 1. Involves the same transactions and essential facts and circumstance 2. Identical causes of action, subject matter, issues 3. There exists elements of litis pendencia or where a final judgment in one case will about to res judicata.

(RODRIGUEZ V PONTFERRADA)

P: Panganiban, J. Facts: Mary Ann Rodriguez, the accused for the crime of estaffa and violation of Bp.22, contends opposition to the court for allowing the private prosecutor to appear and intervene in the proceedings. Issue: whether or not a private prosecutor may be allowed to participate in the criminal cases for the purpose of prosecuting the attached civil liability arising from the pending bp.22 cases. Held: The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the crime of estaffa except when: 1. From the nature of the crime and the law defining it, no civil liability arises in favour of a private offended party. 2. From the nature of the offense, offended party are entitled to indemnity but: a. Waiver of right to institute civil action b. Reservation to institute civil action c. The suit has already been instituted. The possible single civil liability arising from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estaffa case and the bp 22 violation prosecution. The rules of court allows the private prosecutor to intervene in each of the two penal proceedings. However, recovery for civil liability may only be claimed exclusively from either of the criminal actions.

(CARANDANG V RAGASA) P: Corona, J. Facts: Petitioner Arcadio Carandang and his wife Ma. Luisa Carandang filed a petition for mandamus in the SEC with a prayer to be installed as the director/vicepresident and director respectively. Edgar Ragasa however, opposed the petition insisting that no election took place during the date assailed by Carandang and filed a complaint of perjury, falsification of documents, and use of falsified documents with the prosecutor of Mandaluyong. Issue: dismissal of the criminal case of perjury by the doj on the ground of a prejudicial question. Held: decision of the CA ordering the refilling of the perjury case is affirmed. On the existence of a prejudicial question, the doj erred in the withdrawal of the complaint. What should have been ordered was for the suspension of the perjury case against the petitioner on the ground of a prejudicial question.

Вам также может понравиться