Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

People vs.

Magallanes ISSUE: Whether the offenses were committed in relation to the office of
G.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995 the accused PNP officers

FACTS: In the evening of August 7, 1992, the Spouses Dumancas, under the HELD: The jurisdiction of a court may be determined by the law in force at
direction and cooperation of P/Col. Nicolas Torres who took advantage of the time of the commencement of the action. When the informations in
his position as station commander of the PNP, with Police Inspector Abetos the cases were filed, the law governing the jurisdiction of the
cooperation, induced other police officers, namely: Canuday, Pahayupan, Sandiganbayan was P.D. 1861 , which provides that the Sandiganbayan shall
Lamis, civilian agents: Fernandez, Divinagracia, Delgado and Gargallano, to have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving: 1) violations of the
abduct kidnap and detain, Rufino Gargar and Danilo Lumangyao, with the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; 2) offenses committed by public
use of a motor vehicle and then shot and killed the victims with evident officers in relation to their office, where the penalty prescribed is higher
premeditation, treachery and nocturnity. The other accused secretly buried than prision correccional or imprisonment of six (6) years, or a fine of P
the victims in a makeshift shallow grave to conceal the crime of murder for 6,000.00.
a fee of P500.00 each. If the penalty for the offense charged does not exceed
The cases were consolidated and the accused pleaded not guilty imprisonment of six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00, it shall be tried by the
and filed motions for bail. The prosecution presented Moises Grandeza, the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or the
alleged lone eyewitness and co-conspirator in the offense. After the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
prosecution rested its case, the trial court received evidence for the Jurisdiction is also determined by the allegations in the complaint
accused, but the reception of evidence was suspended because of the or information and not by the result of the evidence after the trial. In the
motions for inhibition of judge Garvilles filed by several accused. Garvilles present case, the Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the
voluntarily inhibited himself and the case was re-raffled. However, the cases. The allegations in the complaint or information of taking advantage
prosecution moved for the transmittal of the recors to the Sandiganbayan of his position is not sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition
because the offenses charged were committed in relation to the office of of offenses committed in relation to public office. It is considered merely
the accused PNP officers. The trial court ruled that the Sandiganbayan does as an aggravating circumstance.
not have jurisdiction because the informations do not state that the Moreover, the Sandiganbayan has partly lost its jurisdiction over
offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP cases involving violations of R.A. 3019, as amended in R.A. 1379 because it
officers and denied the Motion for the Transfer of Records to only retains jurisdiction on cases enumerated in subsection (a) when the
Sandiganbayan. The prosecution moved to reconsider but the same was public officers rank is classified as Grade 27 or higher. In the case at bar,
denied. none of the PNP officers involved occupy a position classified as Grade 27
The reception of evidence was resumed but the judge later or higher. Accused Torres, who is highest in rank among the accused, only
inhibited himself. The cases were then re-raffled to Branch 49 of tne has a rank classified as Grade 18.
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod. The prosecution filed a petition for Lastly, the courts cannot be divested of jurisdiction which was
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary already acquired before the subsequent enactment of R.A. 7975 which
restraining order, challenging the refusal of the judge to transfer the cases limited the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction to officers whose rank is Grade
to the Sandiganbayan. The private respondents were required to comment 27 or higher, be4cause the courts retain its jurisdiction until the end of
on the petition and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the litigation. Hence, cases already under the jurisdiction of the courts at the
respondent judge to desist from proceeding with the trial of the case. time of the enactment of R.A. 7975 are only referred to the proper courts if
trial has not yet begun at that time. Petition is DENIED and the challenged
orders are AFFIRMED.
Thus, because the penalty for damage to property through
imprudence or negligence as provided in Art. 365 of the Revised Penal
Cuyos vs. Garcia Code is, a fine ranging from the amount equal to the value of damages to
G.R. No. L-46934 April 15, 1988 three times such value, the case must be forwarded to the Court of First
Instance. Art. 365 simply means that if there is only damage to property,
FACTS: Petitioner Alfredo Cuyos was charged with homicide with multiple the amount fixed shall be imposed, but if there is also physical injuries,
serious physical injuries and damage to proeperty through reckless there should be an additional penalty for the latter.
imprudence before the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. Cuyos The applicable rule on allocation of jurisdiction on cases involving
entered a plea of not guilty at the arraignment and the judge set the case cases of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries is
for trial, but before it could commence, petitioner filed a Motion to summarized by justice Barrera. Barrera stated that in such cases, Art. 48 of
Remand the Case to the Court of First Instance. Cuyos claimed that there is the Revised Penal Code is applicable, but there may be cases when the
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Municipal Court and contended that imposable penalty is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, while
the damages suffered by the Volkswagen he hit amounted to P18,000.00. the fine is under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Since the
He argued that under Art. 365, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime information cannot be split into two, the jurisdiction of the court is
would carry a fine in an amount ranging from the amount of the damage to determined by the fine imposable for the damage to property resulting
three times the value of the damage alleged (i.e. 3 x from the reckless imprudence. The maximum fine imposable for the crime
P18,000.00=P54,000.00). in this case is P54,000.00 and the maximum imprisonment for homicide is
Under 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, the Municipal Court of six (6) years. Therefore, the criminal charge falls outside the jurisdiction of
Pampanga only has jurisdiction over offenses punishable by a fine not the Municipal Court and within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
exceeding P6,000.00. Cuyos filed an Urgent Motion to Postpone the Trial. The order of the Municipal Court is SET ASIDE as null and void and
The municipal judge denied the motion to transfer and set the case for the Temporary Restraining Order is made PERMANENT.
trial. Cuyos verbal motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the
present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Municipal Court of San Fernando, Buaya vs. Polo
Pampanga has jurisdiction to try the case against Cuyos G.R. No. 75079 January 26, 1989

HELD: The Court agrees with the position of the Solicitor General that the FACTS: Petitioner Solemnidad Buaya was an insurance agent of Country
Municipal Court has no jurisdiction to try the present case. The case at bar Bankers Insurance Corporation (CBIC) and was authorized to collect
involves a complex crime of homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and premiums for and in behalf of CBIC then make a report and accounting of
damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence. Art. 365, par.2 of the transactions and remit the same to the principal office of CBIC in
the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty imposable upon Manila. However, an audit of Buayas account showed that there was a
petitioner, if found guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence, would shortage in the amount of P358,850.7. As a result, she was charged with
be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. At the time estafa before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
the complaint was filed, the Municipal Court had jurisdiction to impose a Buaya filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the Regional Trial
penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six Court of Manila has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu City, but
(6) years or a fine not exceeding P6,000.00 or both. the same was denied by respondent judge Polo. The subsequent motion
for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, the present petition.
Summary Procedure and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Act No. 3326 as the
ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Manila has jurisdiction to provisions that governs the charge against her being a violation of a
try the criminal case against petitioner Buaya municipal ordinance.

HELD: The allegations in the complaint or information determine the Issue:


jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases. 14(a) of Rule 110 provides that
the action in all criminal prosecutions shall be instituted and tried in the Whether or not the said offense is covered by the Rules on Criminal
court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or Procedure or covered by the Rule of Summary Procedure.
where any of its essential elements took place. The subject information
charges Buaya with estafa committed during the period of 1980 to June 15, Ruling:
1982 inclusive in the City of Manila, Philippines. The claim of Buaya that
RTC Manila has no jurisdiction because she is based in Cebu City is without The court ruled that the rule emphasized by the respondent judge only
merit. governs cases that fall under the Rules of Criminal Procedure and is not
Clearly, RTC Manila has jurisdiction since the respondents applicable to all cases as the said section had begun with for all cases no
principal place of business is in Manila and Buayas failure to remit the subject to the rule on summary procedure in special cases.
premiums caused damage and prejudice to respondent in manila. Besides,
estafa is a continuing offense which may be prosecuted at any place where Thus, the respondent judges erred in denying the said motion on the
any of the essential elements of the crime took place. ground that the offense is governed by section 1, rule 110 of the rules of
Petition is DISMISSED. criminal procedure.

Zaldivia V. Reyes, Jr.


GR No. 102342/ July 3, 1992 People vs. Guillen
No. L-1477, January 18, 1950
Facts:
Facts
Petitioner was charged before the Municipal Trial Court on October 2, 1990
for violation of a Municipal Ordinance, allegedly committed on May 11, Guillen was charged with the crime of murder of Simeon Varela (Barrela)
1990. and to multiple frustrated murder of President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose
Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang who were the injured parties, as
Petitioner moved to quash the said charge on the ground that it had the information filed against him provided.
already prescribed, but the Municipal Trial Court denied the motion forcing
the petitioner to raise it to the Regional Trial Court wherein the respondent Guillen pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him, but was later
sustained the decision invoking Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of found after duly admitting his intention to kill the President, the lower
Criminal Procedure, particularly emphasizing the last paragraph of the said court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was sentenced with
rule, stating that it applies in all cases. the highest capital punishment, for the murder of Simeon Varela (Barrela)
and to the multiple frustrated murder of President Roxas and company.
Petitioner however contends the decision and files a petition for review of
certiorari before the high court invoking Sections 1 and 2 of the Rule on Issue:
aborted because Pedro left the town to visit his wife. Hence, the plan was
Whether or not the court erred in finding Guillen guilty of the said crime. set to January 6. Luchavez was unable to go with the group because he had
a fever.
Ruling:
ISSUES:
The court ruled that the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of Whether or not there is conspiracy and;
the crime of multiple frustrated murderer because the act of Guillen was Whether or not the price or reward as an aggravating
not fully realized when the bomb was kicked out of the stage, preventing circumstance will be appreciated.
him from fulfilling his act of assassinating the President. Therefore, Guillen
is not guilty of the crime of multiple frustrated murder but of the crime of HELD:
multiple attempted murder. Salvador Uganap died before he could be arrested. The accused
appellant was convicted while the other accused were acquitted, by RTC.
The review of criminal cases necessitates a re-examination of the
CASE: People vs. Uganap entire evidence on record. The Court is likewise not prohibited from
G.R. No. 130605 June 19,2001 instituting a finding of conspiracy, in reversal of the findings of the lower
court, when its existence is manifest from the evidence at hand. In the
FACTS: instant case, however, nothing less than direct proof of a previous
The victim and some of the accused were close relatives. Accused agreement to kill the victim, plus an eyewitness account of how the
Tirso Arang is the half-brother of the victim, while accused-appellant Felix conspirators effected their plan, was submitted into evidence but
Uganap is also the victims cousin. Accused Faustino Uganap is the brother- disregarded by the trial court.
in-law of the victim, being brother of the latters wife, Leilani Asang. The information alleges that the crime was attended treachery
The lone eye witness, Samuel Arang, cousin of the victim,that at around and evident premeditation. Evidence fall short of treachery, but the evident
8:30 in the evening, he was walking home when he stopped near the house premeditation is present. Court also observes that another aggravating
of Salvador Uganap. He peeped through a hole in the wall of the house and circumstance was proven by evidence. Luchavezs testimony that the taking
saw the (5) five accused, Felix Uganap had a .38 revolver, while Nonoy of Pedro Arangs life carried the price of P3, 000.00 was categorical,
Panday had a pistolized carbine. The room was illuminated by a lamp. credible and unrebutted.
Samuel Arang moved away from the house and hid behind a coconut tree. However, because under the Rules of Criminal Procedure as
The accused went to the house of Pedro Arang, which was 30 meters away revised on Dec.1, 2000, generic aggravating circumstances must be
from where the witness was. Samuel stated that he saw Felix immediately specifically named in the information, the Court will allow for this
shoot Pedro when the latter opened the door. Samuel fled because they amendment to retroact for the benefit of accused appellant. Hence, the
were afraid. aggravating circumstance of price or reward shall not be appreciated.
Nolly Luchavez also testified that all of the accused was a member of Reclusion Perpetua is applicable and award of damages are the same.
vigilante religious group called Ituman. That he was also recruited when he
was 14 years old. Felix Uganap was the groups designated commander as
Commander Matador. Luchavez left the group. CASE: People vs. Nuevo
Luchavez revealed that the plan to kill Pedro Arang was proposed by G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001
Faustino Uganap at a coffee shop. Faustino paid Felix P 3,000.00 for the
purpose. The group intended to effect the killing on December 24, but FACTS:
Roberta Cido recalled that about 9:00 oclock in the evening of mandating the death penalty are in the nature of qualifying circumstances
December 4, 1994, Nuevo passed in their house and invited her husband and the absence of proper averment thereof in the complaint will bar the
for the drinking spree at Anselmo Sr., his father. She was left at home with imposition of that extreme penalty.
her 10 month old daughter and her 9 years old niece. At around 11:00 pm, While the decision of the trial court held that dwelling and the use
appellant returned and entered their room. She was awakened when of a deadly weapon aggravated the crime committed, court find that these
appellant held her neck, pinned down her arms and took off her clothing. were not averted in the information. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
She struggled to extricate herself but to no avail. effective December 1, 2000, provides that every complaint or information
Appellant lay on top of her and proceeded forcibly to have sexual must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances
intercourse with her, Gemma Atis who was present, witnessed what was with specifity. This requirement has retroactive effect.
being done to her. Appellant threatened her and her niece. Roberta The result is that the crime committed by appellant is only simple
testified that she did not see him because it was very dark that night, she rape, which under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code amended by R.A.
identified him through his voice. 7659, the law prevailing at the time of commission thereof, is punished
His husband corroborated part of his wifes story. He saw Sanico only with Reclusion Perpetua.
left his fathers place at around 11:00 pm and returned only at around 1:00
pm. Dr. Esmeralda Nadela testified that there is no fresh injury found on
the victim, that only old lacerations were present.
Sanico Nuevo, declared that he knew Roberta since they were CASE: Casupanan vs. Laroya
schoolmates in grade school and she was a former neighbor. He denied, he G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002
invited Anselmo Jr. He denied raping Roberta. Trial court finds the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt with aggravating circumstances. The
accused was sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of death. FACTS:
Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Laroya and the
ISSUES: other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo and driven by petitioner
Whether or not appellant was sufficiently identified by the Avelino Casupanan, figured in an accident. Two cases were filed, with the
offended party based only on her recognition of the sound of Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Capas , Tarlac. Laroya filed a criminal case
his voice; against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
Whether or not the prosecutions evidence suffices for the property. On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case
conviction of rape and the imposition of the death penalty on against Laroya for quasi-delict.
him. When civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its
preliminary investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a
HELD: motion to dismiss the case on the ground of forum-shopping considering
In People vs. Reyes, once a person gained familiarity with another, the pendency of the criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion and
identification becomes quite an easy talk even from a considerable dismiss the civil case.
distance. In a number of cases, it is ruled that the sound of the voice of a Casupanan and Capitulo, filed a motion for reconsideration. They
person is an acceptable means of identification where the witness and the insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed
accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years. independently of the criminal case. The MCTC denied the motion for
In People vs. Amadore, it is held that the attendance of any of the reconsideration. Casupanan and Capitulo, filed a petition for certiorari
circumstances under the provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No.7659, under Rule 65 before the RTC and still it was denied for lack of merit. They f
iled a Motion for Reconsideration but RTC denied the same. Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas

ISSUES:
FACTS:
Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless
imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and On June 3 1936, Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David of the Court of First
independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against Instance of Tayabas issued a search warrant on the basis of affidavit of
the private complainant in the criminal case; Agent Mariano Almeda in whose oath he declared that he had no personal
Whether or not there is forum-shopping. knowledge but through information from a reliable source. In other words,
the applicant's knowledge of facts is based on a mere hearsay.
HELD: In the affidavit presented to the judge, the description is as follows:
The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the ground "That there are being kept is said premises books documents, receipts,
of forum-shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. lists chits, and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as
MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with money lender, charging a usurious rate of interests, in violation of the law."
prejudice. Thus, the MCTCs dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a At 7 pm on June 4, by virtue of the warrant, several agents of the Anti-
dismissal without prejudice. Usury Board enterd the store and residence of Narciso Alvarez seized some
Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing an action articles such as internal revenue license, ledger, journals. cash bonds, check
without prejudice is not appealable. Clearly, the Capas RTCs order stubs, memorandums, blackboards, contracts, inventories, bill of lading,
dismissing the petition for certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy credit receipts, correspondence, receipt books, promissory notes and
is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous. The essence of forum-shopping is the checks.
filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of On July 8, Alvarez filed a petition alleging that the search was illegal
action, either simultaneously or successively. It is present when in the two based on the lack of personal knowledge, that it was made at night and for
or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and non compliance in the particularity description rule in issuing warrant.
relief sought. There is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the On September 10, the Court of First Instance ruled against the Alvarez
law and the rules expressly allow the filing of separate civil action which and upheld the validity of the search warrant.
can proceed independently.
Under Section 1 of the Rule 111, what is deemed instituted with ISSUES:
the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the
crime or ex-delito. All other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of (1) W/N the search warrant is legal when the affidavit is based on hearsay.
the Civil Code are no longer deemed instituted and may be filed separately (2) W/N a search warrant can be made at night.
and independently even without reservation. (3) W/N the search warrant satisfies the particularity of description as
In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages required by the law.
twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly,
Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the criminal action, not RULING:
the accused.
(1) No. The search warrant is ILLEGAL because the affidavit is based on
mere hearsay.
RATIO: The general rule is that when the affidavit of the applicant or
complainant contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct No. L-64261
knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists probable December 26, 1984
cause.
But when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the Escolin, J.:
affidavit of one or more witnesses having personal knowledge of facts is Facts:
necessary. The Court held that the warrant is illegal because it is based Assailed in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
on the affidavit of an agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts. with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of 2
The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by respondent Judge Ernani
of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that Cruz-Pano, Executive Judge of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal,
perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages under which the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City,
caused. and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business
(2) Yes, the search can be made at night. addresses of the Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers,
RATIO: Section 101 of General Orders number 58 authorizs a search made respectively, were searched, and office and printing machines, equipment,
at night when it is positively asserted that the property is on the person or paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing,
in the place ordered to be searched. However, since the search warrant is publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous
declared illegal (RULING 1), such search could not be legally made at night. papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the
(3) Yes, it satisfied the requirement of particularity of description. possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. Publisher-editor of the
RATIO: Article III of the Constitution and section 97 of General Orders We Forum newspaper, were seized.
Number 58 requires that the affidavit must contain a particular description
of the placed to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. Issue:
But, where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must Whether there was a valid search warrant?
be rather general, it is not required that technical description be given, as
this would mean that no warrant could issue. Ruling:
Based on the description of the affidavit, and taking into consideration the The two search warrants were issued wihout probable cause. To
nature of the articles as described it is clear that no other more adequate satisfy the requirement of probable cause a specific offense must be
and detailed description could have been given, particularly because it is alleged in the application; abstract averments will not suffice. In the case at
difficult to give a particular description of the contents thereof. bar, nothing specifically subversive has been alleged; stated only is the
The description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions claim that certain objects were being used as instruments and means of
because the officer of the law who executed the warrant was thereby committing the offense of subversion punishable under P. D. No. 885, as
placed in a position enabiling him to identify the articles in question, which amended. There is no mention of any specific provision of the decree. In
he did. the words of Chief Justice Concepcion, It would be legal heresy, of the
highest order, to convict anybody of violating the decree without
reference to any determinate provision thereof.

BURGOS, SR. VS. CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney- General
GR. No. 6287, December 1, 1911 20 Phil 523 which the lands sought to be condemned is located, nevertheless, the
defendants who have lands lying in another province, or any one of such
Facts: defendants, may by timely application to the court, require the venue as to
their, if one, his lands to be changed to the province where their lands lie.
The plaintiff, a railroad company, began an action in the Court of In such case, the action as to all of the defendants not objecting would
First Instance of the province of Tarlac for the condemnation of certain real continue in the province where originally begun, but would be severed as
estate in said complaint to be located in the Province of Tarlac. After the to the objecting defendants and ordered continued before the court of the
filling of the complaint, the plaintiff took possession of the lands described appropriate province or provinces. Wherefore, the case was remanded to
therein, building its line, stations and terminals and put the same in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac with discretion to proceed with the
operation. Commissioners were appointed to appraise the value of the action according to law.
lands so taken. They held several sessions, took a considerable amount of Dela Cruz vs. Moya
evidence, and finally made their report. After the said report had been G.R. No. L- 65192, April 27, 1998 160SCRA 838
made and fled with the court, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants
that on a certain date it would make a motion to the court to dismiss Facts:
action, upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject
matter, having been recently ascertained by the plaintiff that the lands On February 23, 1979, Rodolfo Dela Cruz, a member of the Armed
sought to be condemned were situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija Forces of the Philippines was assigned to the Intelligence and Operations
instead of the Province of Tarlac as alleged in the complaint. Section and together with other PC men they received an order mission to
proceed to Barangay Pangi, Maco Sto. Tomas, Davao for the purpose of
verifying and apprehending person who are allegedly engaged in the illegal
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of one province has the cockfighting. In compliance with the said mission, they caught in flagrante
power and authority to take cognizance of an action by a railroad company the operators of said illegal cockfighting but they resisted the arrest. They
for the condemnation of real estate located in another province. left the place but brought with them pieces of evidence such as gaffs and
fighting cocks. The operators of the illegal cockfighting, including the
deceased Eusebio Cabilto followed the soldier on their way to the
Held: Headquarters. Fighting ensued and in the scuffle, Dela Cruz shot Cabilto.
The condemnation of a real estate by a railroad corporation is
governed by the special acts relating thereto, and the provisions of Section As a result, on August 2, 1979, Dela Cruz was charged of homicide
377 of the Code of Civil Procedure which have to do with the venue of an in the Court of First Instance of Davao. However, while the case is pending
action in condemnation proceedings generally are not applicable to the trial, PD. Nos. 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated by the President on
proceedings by a railroad company to condemn lands. Section 377 was January 16, 1981, vesting in court martial jurisdiction over crimes
intended to cover simply actions relating to the condemnation of real committed by the members of the Armed Forces or of the Philippine
estate where the land involved is. It was not intended to meet a situation Constabulary in the performance of their duty.
presented by an action to condemn lands extending contiguously form one
end of the country to the other.
In an action taken by a railroad company to condemn lands, while,
with the consent of defendants, express or implied, the venue may be laid
and the action tried in any province selected by the plaintiff, it being one in Issue: Whether or not civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction
over the case
Held:

In the instant case, the information was filed on August 2, 1979.


On such date, General Order No. 59, dated June 24, 1977 published in the Held:
Official Gazette, states that military tribunals created under General Order
No. 8 can exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by An essential element common to the two acts punishable by
military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while in the Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code is that the property removed or
performance of their duties. Clearly PD. 1822 and PD. 1822-A were repledged should be the same or identical property that was mortgaged or
promulgated after the filling of the complaint however, General Order 59 pledged before such removal of repledging. In the instant case, evidence
was enacted before the commission of the crime. fails to show that the properties mortgaged to the bank are the same ones
encumbered afterwards to Mateo Pinile.
The court held that PD. 1822 and PD 1822-A are inapplicable to
the case however, General Order No. 59 shall apply. Wherefore, the On the evidence presented, there is no showing that properties
petition was GRANTED. listed in the information as exhibit D (properties mortgaged to the bank)
are the same properties listed in exhibit E (properties pledge to Mateo
People vs. Chupeco Pinile). With these findings Jose Chupeco was acquitted. However, Court of
G.R. No. L- 19568, March 31, 1964 10 SCRA 640 First Instance of Manila still has jurisdiction over the case. The court held
that jurisdiction of court once vested is not lost by subsequent amendment
Facts: or stipulation.

On February 2, 1951 Jose Chupeco was charged in the Court of


First Instance of Manila for executing a Chattel Mortgage of the SAWMILL Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney- General
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT in favor of Agricultural and Industrial Bank GR. No. 6287, December 1, 1911 20 Phil 523
located in Bataan whose capital, assets, accounts, contracts and chooses in
action were subsequently transferred to Rehabilitation Finance Corp. Facts:
herein complainant with principal office in Manila.
The plaintiff, a railroad company, began an action in the Court of
Thereafter, without having fully satisfied the mortgage and during First Instance of the province of Tarlac for the condemnation of certain real
the term without the consent of the mortgagee bank and with intent to estate in said complaint to be located in the Province of Tarlac. After the
defraud Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, pledge and encumber the said filling of the complaint, the plaintiff took possession of the lands described
property to one Mateo Pinile. Accused moved to quash the information on therein, building its line, stations and terminals and put the same in
the ground that more than one offense is charged and that the court had operation. Commissioners were appointed to appraise the value of the
no jurisdiction lands so taken. They held several sessions, took a considerable amount of
evidence, and finally made their report. After the said report had been
made and fled with the court, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants G.R. No. L- 65192, April 27, 1998 160SCRA 838
that on a certain date it would make a motion to the court to dismiss
action, upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject Facts:
matter, having been recently ascertained by the plaintiff that the lands
sought to be condemned were situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija On February 23, 1979, Rodolfo Dela Cruz, a member of the Armed
instead of the Province of Tarlac as alleged in the complaint. Forces of the Philippines was assigned to the Intelligence and Operations
Section and together with other PC men they received an order mission to
proceed to Barangay Pangi, Maco Sto. Tomas, Davao for the purpose of
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of one province has the verifying and apprehending person who are allegedly engaged in the illegal
power and authority to take cognizance of an action by a railroad company cockfighting. In compliance with the said mission, they caught in flagrante
for the condemnation of real estate located in another province. the operators of said illegal cockfighting but they resisted the arrest. They
left the place but brought with them pieces of evidence such as gaffs and
fighting cocks. The operators of the illegal cockfighting, including the
Held: deceased Eusebio Cabilto followed the soldier on their way to the
The condemnation of a real estate by a railroad corporation is Headquarters. Fighting ensued and in the scuffle, Dela Cruz shot Cabilto.
governed by the special acts relating thereto, and the provisions of Section
377 of the Code of Civil Procedure which have to do with the venue of an As a result, on August 2, 1979, Dela Cruz was charged of homicide
action in condemnation proceedings generally are not applicable to the in the Court of First Instance of Davao. However, while the case is pending
proceedings by a railroad company to condemn lands. Section 377 was trial, PD. Nos. 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated by the President on
intended to cover simply actions relating to the condemnation of real January 16, 1981, vesting in court martial jurisdiction over crimes
estate where the land involved is. It was not intended to meet a situation committed by the members of the Armed Forces or of the Philippine
presented by an action to condemn lands extending contiguously form one Constabulary in the performance of their duty.
end of the country to the other.
In an action taken by a railroad company to condemn lands, while,
with the consent of defendants, express or implied, the venue may be laid Issue: Whether or not civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
and the action tried in any province selected by the plaintiff, it being one in
which the lands sought to be condemned is located, nevertheless, the Held:
defendants who have lands lying in another province, or any one of such
defendants, may by timely application to the court, require the venue as to In the instant case, the information was filed on August 2, 1979.
their, if one, his lands to be changed to the province where their lands lie. On such date, General Order No. 59, dated June 24, 1977 published in the
In such case, the action as to all of the defendants not objecting would Official Gazette, states that military tribunals created under General Order
continue in the province where originally begun, but would be severed as No. 8 can exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by
to the objecting defendants and ordered continued before the court of the military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while in the
appropriate province or provinces. Wherefore, the case was remanded to performance of their duties. Clearly PD. 1822 and PD. 1822-A were
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac with discretion to proceed with the promulgated after the filling of the complaint however, General Order 59
action according to law. was enacted before the commission of the crime.

Dela Cruz vs. Moya The court held that PD. 1822 and PD 1822-A are inapplicable to
the case however, General Order No. 59 shall apply. Wherefore, the First Instance of Manila still has jurisdiction over the case. The court held
petition was GRANTED. that jurisdiction of court once vested is not lost by subsequent amendment
or stipulation.
People vs. Chupeco
G.R. No. L-
19568, March 31, 1964 10 SCRA 640 CALEON V AGUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Facts: FACTS:
Agus Development Corporation is the owner of a parcel of land
On February 2, 1951 Jose Chupeco was charged in the Court of denominated at Lealtad, Sampaloc, Manila, which it leased to petitioner
First Instance of Manila for executing a Chattel Mortgage of the SAWMILL Rita Caleon for a monthly rental of P180.00. Petitioner constructed on the
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT in favor of Agricultural and Industrial Bank lot leased a 4-door apartment building. Without the consent of the private
located in Bataan whose capital, assets, accounts, contracts and chooses in respondent, the petitioner sub-leased two of the four doors of the
action were subsequently transferred to Rehabilitation Finance Corp. apartment to Rolando Guevarra and Felicisima Estrada for a monthly rental
herein complainant with principal office in Manila. of P350.00 each. Upon learning of the sub-lease, private respondent
through counsel demanded in writing that the petitioner vacate the leased
Thereafter, without having fully satisfied the mortgage and during premises.
the term without the consent of the mortgagee bank and with intent to Agus filed a complaint for ejectment MTC of Manila, against the petitioner
defraud Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, pledge and encumber the said citing as ground therefor the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, Section
property to one Mateo Pinile. Accused moved to quash the information on 5, which is the unauthorized sub-leasing of part of the leased premises to
the ground that more than one offense is charged and that the court had third persons without securing the consent of the lessor within the
no jurisdiction required sixty (60)-day period from the promulgation of the new law (B.P.
25).
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction Petitioner argued that Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 cannot be applied in this
over the case case because there is a perfected contract of lease without any express
prohibition on subleasing which had been in effect between petitioner and
Held: private respondent long before the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
Therefore, the application of said law to the case at bar is unconstitutional
An essential element common to the two acts punishable by as an impairment of the obligation of contracts.
Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code is that the property removed or ISSUE:
repledged should be the same or identical property that was mortgaged or Whether or not the Petitioners contention is correct?
pledged before such removal of repledging. In the instant case, evidence RULING:
fails to show that the properties mortgaged to the bank are the same ones The Supreme Court Ruled that the petitioners contention is untenable. It is
encumbered afterwards to Mateo Pinile. well settled that all presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality;
one who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its
On the evidence presented, there is no showing that properties invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, this Court does not decide
listed in the information as exhibit D (properties mortgaged to the bank) questions of a constitutional nature unless that question is properly raised
are the same properties listed in exhibit E (properties pledge to Mateo and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of
Pinile). With these findings Jose Chupeco was acquitted. However, Court of the case. In any event, it is now beyond question that the constitutional
guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by and warrants stated that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes
subject to the exercise of police power of the state in the interest of public owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken from master
health, safety, morals and general welfare tapes belonging to the petitioner. However, the lower court did not give
WHEREFORE, the Petition is Denied for lack of merit. much credence to his testimony in view of the fact that the master tapes of
the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the court during the
application.
20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION vs. CA Witnesses in the hearing for an application for search warrants must have
personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony as to the
FACTS: alleged commission of the offense. Also, the sear warrant must contain a
In a letter-complaint dated August 26, 1985, petitioner 20th Century Fox specific description of the articles to be seized. General warrants are
Film Corporation through counsel sought the National Bureau of constitutionally objectionable.
Investigation's (NBI) assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures in
connection with the latter's anti-film piracy campaign. Specifically, the People vs. Gano
letter-complaint alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro
Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of Facts
copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant violation of
Presidential Decree No. 49 (otherwise known as the Decree on the On December 31, 1994 at around 7:00 in the morning Sr. Inspector
Protection of Intellectual Property). Ernesto Garcia received a report of a massacre at a residence in San Mateo
Acting on the letter-complaint, the NBI conducted surveillance and Rizal. At the crime scene Garcia saw the body of Pociano Salen and was
investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently thereafter informed the identity of the suspect. The suspect in the name
filed three (3) applications for search warrants. On September 4, 1985, the of Castanito Gano a.k.a. Allan Gano or Jerry Perez or several other known
lower court issued the desired search warrants. The NBI accompanied by aliases was arrested and detained in Butuan City after having tried to
the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized the items escape from the authorities. On their way back to Manila Garcia disclosed
described therein. An inventory of the items seized was made and left with that the accused confessed to him his responsibility for the triple killing and
the private respondents. The lower court later on lifted the 3 search robbery.
warrants and ordered the NBI to return the properties that were seized. Upon arraignment, the accused Castanito Gano made a qualified
Hence this petition. admission by admitting the killing of the three (3) victims but denying the
ISSUE: charge of robbery. Considering that what is charged is a complex crime
with a single penalty, the accused with the assistance of his counsel
Whether or not the judge properly lifted the search warrants he issued entered a plea of not guilty.
earlier upon the application of the National Bureau of Investigation on the
basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Issue
RULING: WON the voluntary confession being conditional could be mitigating?
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
The NBI agents who acted as witnesses did not have personal knowledge of Ruling
the subject matter of their testimony which was the alleged commission of
the offense by the private respondents. Only the petitioner's counsel who NO. The Court ruled that if the voluntary confession is conditional or
was also a witness during the application for the issuance of the search qualified, it is NOT mitigating. The accused was merely confessing to the
crime of homicide but NOT to robbery with homicide, a considerably graver
offence. For voluntary confession to be appreciated as an extenuating
circumstance, the same must not only be made unconditionally but the Facts
accused must admit to the offense charged, i.e. robbery with homicide and
not to either robbery or homicide only. Hence, if the voluntary confession On or about October 29, 1998 in Pasay City Virgilio Bernabe by
is conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating. means of force and intimidation employed upon Maria Esnelia Bernabe, his
daughter, a 17 year old minor, unlawfully have carnal knowledge with said
People vs. Yaoto victim against her will and consent. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded
not guilty.
Facts During trial accused denied having raped his own daughter. He
testified that Maria Esnelia charged him with rape because he resented her
Accused-appellant Eduardo Yaoto was charged with two (2) counts boyfriend who for sometime slept in their house. He also depicted his
of rape and pleaded not guilty to both counts. In her medico-genital daughter as a rebel and neglected her studies. Accused also claimed that
examination, Dr. Armie Umil certified that Angeline Yaoto, 17 years old, his two sisters assisted his daughter in filing the rape case against him
suffered genital and extragenital injuries. It was found that Angeline was because of a land dispute between them.
not only sexually abused but was also physically assaulted. Accused Yaoto
assails the credibility of Angeline and denied having raped her twice. He Issue
also assailed Angelines testimony that he had bolo and an ice pick with
which he threatened her considering that the prosecution failed to produce WON the testimony of witnesses in the lower court be admitted by the SC?
said items in evidence. Ruling
Yes. The Court ruled that when it comes to the issue of credibility the
Issue Supreme Court as any other appellate court, would ordinarily defer to the
assessment and evaluation given by the trial court, for only trial courts are
WON the testimony of witnesses in the lower court be admitted by the SC? in so unique a position as to be able to observe that elusive and
insurmountable evidence of the witness deportment on the witness stand
Ruling while testifying.

Yes. The Court ruled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of Gr no. 123340 August 29, 2002
its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor,
conduct and attitude especially under cross-examination. Ordinarily, the Lutgarda Cruz, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, et. al., respondents
Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of
the witness considering that it is in a better position to observe her candor Facts:
and behavior on the witness stand. The City Prosecutor of Manila charged Cruz with the crime of estafa
though falsification of public documents before the RTC of Manila.
Allegedly, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Self-adjucation of a parcel
of land when she knew that there were other surviving heirs. The
People vs. Bernabe offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil
action. Hence, it was tried together with the criminal case. Facts:
The RTC acquitted Cruz. On the civil aspect, the court ordered the SP03 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in Pampanga. A
return of the parcel of land to the surviving heirs. complaint for murder was filed in the MTC and after preliminary
Cruz filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration. This was investigation, Judge Designate David issued warrants of arrest
denied by the trial court. A petition for certiorari and mandamus against the accused.
was filed with the CA. This was also dismissed by the appellate Only David, Mandap, Magat, and Yambao were arrested and it was
court. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. only Yambao who submitted his counter-affidavit. Judge David
Issues: then issued a resolution finding reasonable ground that the crime
Whether the CA erred in finding that the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction of murder has been committed and that the accused is probably
to render judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case, guilty thereof.
involving a property in Bulacan. Though it was not clear whether Pampanga Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores acted motu proprio, or upon
Decision: motion of the private respondents, she conducted a
reinvestigation and resolved that the Yabuts and Danny were in
Case Remanded. conspiracy, along with the other accused, and committed
homicide.
There are 3 important requisites which must be present before Before the information for homicide was filed, the Petitioner appealed
the court can acquire criminal jurisdiction. The court must have jurisdiction the resolution of Alfonso-Flores to the Secretary of Justice.
before the subject matter, the territory where the offense was committed, However, Provincial Proseutor Maranag ordered for the release of
and over the person of the accused. In this case, the court has jurisdiction David, Mandap, Magat, and Naguit. An information for homicide
over the subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the power to was also filed before the Regional Trial Court.
hear and decide cases involving estafa though falsification of public Judge Raura approved the cash bonds of the Yabuts and recalled the
document. The court also had jurisdiction over the offense charged since warrants of arrest against them.
the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The court also Private Prosecutor Amado Valdez then filed a Motion to issue hold
has acquire jurisdiction over the accused because whe voluntarily departure order and Urgent Motion to defer proceedings. Judge
submitted to the courts authority. Roura deferred the resolution of the first Motion and denied the
second. He also set the arraignment of the accused.
Art. 100 of the RPC provides that every person criminally liable The petitioners filed a Motion to inhibit Judge Roura for hastily setting
for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 104 of the same Code provides that the date for arraignment pending the appeal in the DOJ and for
civil liability xxx includes restitution. In this case, the civil liability is prejudging the matter. They also filed a Petition for prohibition
deemed instituted with the criminal action since the offended party did not with the Court of Appeals.
reserve the civil acton. Though Cruz was acquitted, this did not dissolve the Public Prosecutor Datu filed a Manifestation and Comment with the
civil aspect of the case. trial court and opposed the inhibition of Roura. He also stated that
he will no longer allow the private prosecutor to participate. Judge
GR no. 127107 October 12, 1998 Roura voluntarily inhibited himself and was replaced by Judge
Peter Paul Dimatulac and Veronica Dimatulac, petitioners vs. Hon. Villon.
Sensinando Villon, et. al., respondents. The Petitioners filed with the RTC a Manifestation submitting
documentary evidence to support their contention that the
offense committed was murder. DOJ. The filing of an appeal is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Judge Villon ordered for the resetting of the arraignment. The Yabuts Court. There is nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of an appeal
entered a plea of not guilty. The petitioners then filed a Urgent once an information is filed.
Motion to set aside arraignment.
Secretary Guingona of the DOJ resolved the appeal in favor of the Judge Roura acted with grave abuse of discretion for deferring the
petitioners. He also ruled that treachery was present. resolution to the motion for a hold departure order. Since the accused
The Yabuts opposed the Manifestation because they have already were out on bail, the Motion should have been granted since they could
been arraigned and they would be put under double jeopardy. have easily fled. Though he is not bound to the resolution of the DOJ, he
The Secretary of Justice then set aside his order and the appeal was should have perused the documents submitted.
held not and academic due to the previous arraignment of the
accused for homicide. The DOJ was also in grave abuse of its discretion for setting aside
Judge Villon denied the Motion to set aside arraignment. The motion its order. In doing so, it has relinquished its power of control and
for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this petition for supervision of the Public Prosecutor. The state has been deprived of due
certiorari/prohibition and mandamus. process. Hence, the dismissal of the case is null and void and double
jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused.
Issues:

Whether the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor committed grave G.R. No. 104392 February 20, 1996
abuse of discretion in reinvestigating the case without having the RUBEN MANIAGO, petitioner,
respondents within the custody of the law and for filing the vs.
information pending the appeal of the resolution with the DOJ. THE COURT OF APPEALS (First Division) HON. RUBEN C. AYSON, in his
Whether Hon. Villon acted with grave abuse of discretion in capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Baguio
proceeding with the arraignment and for denying the Motions to City, and ALFREDO BOADO, respondents.
set aside the arraignment.
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion MENDOZA, J.:
in reconsidering his order. Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used
in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments, (Phils.), Inc. from
Decision: Baguio City Loakan, Baguio City.roper to its plant site
one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney
Petition is GRANTED. owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado. As a result of the accident, a
Alfonso-Reyes was guilty of having acted with grave abuse of criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and
discretion for conducting a reinvestigation despite the fact that the Yabuts multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner's driver, Herminio
were still at large. Though Sec. 5, Rule 112 states that the prosecutor is not Andaya, with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. A month later, a civil
bound by the findings of the judge who conducted the investigation, the case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner
resolution should be based on the review of the record and evidence himself. The complaint was assigned to Branch IV of the same court.
transmitted. Hence, she should have sustained the recommendation since Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case
all the accused, except Yambao, failed to file their counter-affidavits. It is against him, citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. But
impossible for Alfonso-Reyes to not have known the appeal filed with the the trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that pursuant to
the Civil Code, the action could proceed independently of the criminal driver on the basis of the crime. In such a case his cause of action against
action, in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the the employer will be limited to the recovery of the latter's subsidiary
criminal case. liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint
Appeals, maintaining that the civil action could not proceed independently against petitioner is DISMISSED.
of the criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it SO ORDERED.
separately had been made in the criminal case.
The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition which it held allowed a civil G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977
action for damages to be filed independently of the criminal action even PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as Ascendants of
though no reservation to file the same has been made. Agapito Elcano, deceased, plaintiffs-appellants,
Issue: vs.
The question is whether despite the absence of such reservation, private REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and Natural Guardian
respondent may nonetheless bring an action for damages against of said minor, defendants-appellees.
petitioner under Art. 2176, 2180, 2177 of the Civil Code:
BARREDO, J.:
Facts:
Held: Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City
The right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be dismissing, upon motion to dismiss of defendants, the complaint of
reserved as required by Rule III, 1, otherwise it should be dismissed. plaintiffs for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill, a minor,
a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the married at the time of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant
recovery of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to have been Marvin Hill, for the killing by Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs, named
instituted with the criminal case. the right of the injured party to sue Agapito Elcano, of which, when criminally prosecuted, the said accused
separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of "lack
(ex delicto) or from quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code must be of intent to kill, coupled with mistake."
reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. It appears that for the killing of the son, Agapito, of plaintiffs-appellants,
Indeed the question on whether the criminal action and the action for defendant- appellee Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally in Criminal
recovery of the civil liability must be tried in a single proceeding has always Case No. 5102 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. After due trial,
been regarded a matter of procedure and, since the rule making power has he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal because of
been conferred by the Constitution on this Court, it is in the keeping of this "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake." And so, when appellants filed
Court. their complaint against appellees Reginald and his father, Atty. Marvin Hill,
In the present case, the criminal action was filed against the employee, bus on account of the death of their son, the appellees filed the motion to
driver. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent, his employer dismiss.
would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. The rule requiring Issues:
reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double 1. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald
recovery for the same act or omission. As held in Barredo v. Garcia, the in the criminal case wherein the action for civil liability, was not reversed?
injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for Held:
damages he will bring. If he fails to reserve the filing of a separate civil The issue presents no more problem than the need for a reiteration and
action he will be deemed to have elected to recover damages from the bus further clarification of the dual character, criminal and civil, of fault or
negligence as a source of obligation. vs.
a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Misamis
prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for Oriental, Br. 20, and ERIBERTA VILLEGAS, respondents.
which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued
for this civil liability arising from his crime.
It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court Facts:
specifically applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is On February 18, 1994, the prosecuting attorney filed with the Regional Trial
thus that although he could have been criminally Court, Misamis Oriental, an information for estafa against Carmen
prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and not only Mandawe for alleged failure to account to respondent Eriberta Villegas the
punished but also made civilly liable because of his amount of P608,532.46. Respondent Villegas entrusted this amount to
criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court awarded Carmen Mandawe, an employee of petitioner DMPI-ECCI, for deposit with
damages in an independent civil action for fault or the teller of petitioner.
negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. respondent Eriberta Villegas filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis
acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable Oriental, a complaint against Carmen Mandawe and petitioner DMPI-ECCI
doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil for a sum of money and damages with preliminary attachment arising out
liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi- of the same transaction. In time, petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil
delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery. case on the grounds that there is a pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37,
Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal arising from the same facts, and that the complaint failed to contain a
act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or certification against forum shopping.
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually the trial court issued an order dismissing the Civil Case. Respondent filed a
charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be motion for reconsideration of the order and the trial court granted
entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming respondent's, thereby recalling the dismissal of the case.
the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of Hence, this petition.
civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively The Issues
to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas whether the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal case for
the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not estafa without having reserved the filing of the civil action.
as a crime is not estinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case Held:
that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed as a general rule, "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
by the accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, liable." This is the law governing the recovery of civil liability arising from
that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be the commission of an offense. Civil liability includes restitution, reparation
punishable by law. for damage caused, and indemnification of consequential damages.
It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case The offended party may prove the civil liability of an accused arising from
has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not the commission of the offense in the criminal case since the civil action is
a bar to the instant action against him. either deemed instituted with the criminal action or is separately
instituted.
only the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted
G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC., (DMPI-ECCI), petitioner, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior
to the criminal action. Then, CA issued its decision dismissing the petition of Go on the grounds
There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent that Go was validly arrested without a warrant and Go already waived his
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the right to preliminary investigation. Hence, this petition for review on
Philippines. "The reservation and waiver referred to refers only to the civil certiorari.
action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged.
This does not include recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and ISSUE 1:
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or Where or not Go was validly arrested without a warrant.
omission which may be prosecuted separately even without a reservation."
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. HELD:
NO. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
GO VS. CA provides, among others, that a peace officer or private person may without
FEBRUARY 11, 1992 warrant, arrest a person when an offense has in fact just been committed,
FELICIANO, J. and the arresting person has personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
FACTS: In the case at bar, Go was arrested 6 days after the incident.
Maguan was driving the opposite direction of a one-way street in Hence, at the time of his arrest, the crime has not just been committed. It
San Juan, Metro Manila. Rolito Gos car and Maguan nearly bumped into would have been different if Go committed a continuing crime. In addition,
each other in an intersection. Because of this, Go shot Maguan and left the the police officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that Go
scene. A security guard of a nearby restaurant saw the incident and took was he gunman. The police arrested Go by relying on the statement of the
down the plate number of Gos car. Police investigators were able to get witness. Finally, the plate number of the car that was taken down by the
Gos picture through the credit card that Go used when he dined in witness did not point to Gos car but to his wife.
restaurant near the crime scene the witness positively identified Go as the
gunman. Hence, a manhunt was launched. Several days thereafter, Go
went to the police station where the witness identified him as the suspect. ISSUE 2:
The police detained Go. A complaint for frustrated homicide was filed by Whether or not Go waived his right to preliminary investigation.
the police to the Provincial prosecutor. Go was informed of his right to HELD:
demand preliminary investigation provided he waives the Article 125 of the NO. While the right to preliminary investigation is statutory and
Revised Penal Code. Go refused to execute such waiver. Meanwhile, not constitutional, it is a component of due process of criminal justice. It is
Maguan died. Hence, prosecutor filed am information of murder without a substantive right. To deprive an accused of this right is to deny due
conducting preliminary investigation. Go posted cash bond and was process. Generally, said right is invoked before entering a plea; failure to
released after approval of the same by the court. The prosecutor filed for invoke the same amounts to waiver.
leave of court to conduct preliminary investigation and to prayed for the In this case, Go insisted that a preliminary investigation be
suspension of court proceedings pending the preliminary investigation. The conducted upon the filing of the information before the court. The fact that
same was granted and arraignment of Go was suspended. The following he posted bail did not amount to waiver of said right as he asked for it
day, the court recalled its approval and cancelled the bail of Go. Hence, Go when he filed for the approval of the cash bond. The court granted his
filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the SC, prayer for preliminary investigation before the approval of the bond. Go
which was remanded to CA. Arraignment took place as scheduled and Go even filed before the CA for such relief. Hence, Go was entitled to a
refused to enter his plea. Hence, a plea of not guilty was entered for him. preliminary investigation. But since the trial had already commenced, the
trial should be suspended and preliminary investigation should be search warrant does not even begin to fulfill the constitutional
conducted. Participation of Go during the trial did not amount to waiver requirements of such, and is therefore defective on its face. Since the
also as he was merely forced to do so to avail his other rights. warrants are null and void, all the seized properties must be returned to
petitioners.

KENNETH ROY SAVAGE/ K ANGELIN EXPORT TRADING VS. TAYPIN La Chemise Lacoste S.A. vs. Fernandez
331 SCRA 697 Bellosillo, J. GR. Nos. L-63796-97 May 21, 1984
FACTS: Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr.
Acting on a complaint lodged by private respondent Eric Ng
Mendoza, president and general manager of Mendco Devt Corp., the NBI Facts:
filed an application for search warrant with the RTC of Cebu City, to search La Chemise Lacoste SA is a foreign corporation, organized and
the premises of petitioner located in Talisay Cebu, and to seize the wrought existing under the laws of France and not doing business in the Philippines.
iropn furniture found therein which had allegedly been the object of unfair It is undeniable from the records that it is the actual owner of the
competition involving design patents, punishable by Art 189 of the RPC, as trademarks LACOSTE, CHEMISE LACOSTE, CROCODILE DEVICE and a
the petitioner manufactured wrought iron furniture similar to that composite mark consisting of the word LACOSTE and a representation of
patented by the Mendco without securing any license or patent for the a crocodile/alligator, used on clothings and other goods specifically
same. Seized in the premises were the said pieces of furniture. Petitioners sporting apparels sold in many parts of the world and which have been
moved to quash the warrant alleging, among others, that (a) respondent marketed in the Philippines since 1964. In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a duly
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and (b) the crime they are licensed domestic firm applied for and was issued Reg. SR-2225 (SR stands
accused of does not exist. The denial of the motion prompted petitioners for Supplemental Register) for the trademark CHEMISE LACOSTE &
to come to this court. CROCODILE DEVICE by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts,
ISSUE: sportswear and other garment products of the company. Two years later, it
W/N the petitioners contention is of merit applied for the registration of the same trademark under the Principal
HELD: Register. The Patent Office eventually issued an order dated 3 March 1977
(a) No. The Court has consistently ruled that that a search warrant is allowing the application and holding the registrant to be presumed the
merely a process issued by the court in the exercise of its ancillary owner of the mark until after the registration is declared cancelled.
jurisdiction and not a criminal action which it may entertain in pursuant to Thereafter, Hemandas & Co. assigned to Gobindram Hemandas all rights,
its original jurisdiction. The authority to issue search warrants is inherent in title, and interest in the trademark CHEMISE LACOSTE & DEVICE. On 21
all courts and may be effected outside their territorial jurisdiction. In the November 1980, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed its application for registration
instant case, the premises searched located in Talisay Cebu are well within of the trademark Crocodile Device (Application Serial 43242) and
the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent court. SC AO 113-95 merely Lacoste (Application Serial 43241). The former was approved for
specified which courts could try and decide cases involving violations of publication while the latter was opposed by Games and Garments in Inter
IPR. The power to issue search warrants in violations of IPR has not been Partes Case 1658. In 1982, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed a Petition for the
exclusively vested in the courts enumerated in SC Administrative Order. Cancellation of Reg. SR-2225 docketed as Inter Partes Case 1689.
(b) Yes. The issue referred to in Art. 189 of RPC had been rendered moot On 21 March 1983, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed with the National
and academic. Said article has already been repealed by the Intellectual Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of
Property Right Code. Further, the acts complained of does not fall under unfair competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their
any of the provisions of the IPR Code. There being no crime to speak of, the assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. The NBI conducted an
investigation and subsequently filed with the trial court (RTC Manila, Determination of probable cause; No general formula or fixed rule
Branch XLIX, National Capital Judicial Region) two applications for the The concept of probable cause was amplified and modified by our
issuance of search warrants which would authorize the search of the ruling in Stonehill v. Diokno, (20 SCRA 383) that probable cause
premises used and occupied by the Lacoste Sports Center and Games and presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against
Garments both owned and operated by Hemandas. The court issued whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific
Search Warrant 83-128 and 83-129 for violation of Article 189 of the omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws. The question of
Revised Penal Code. The NBI agents executed the two search warrants and whether or not probable cause exists is one which must be decided in the
as a result of the search found and seized various goods and articles light of the conditions obtaining in given situations (Central Bank v. Morfe,
described in the warrants. Hemandas filed a motion to quash the search 20 SCRA 507). There is no general formula or fixed rule for the
warrants alleging that the trademark used by him was different from La determination of the existence of probable cause since the existence
Chemise Lacostes trademark and that pending the resolution of IPC 1658 depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge
before the Patent Office, any criminal or civil action on the same subject conducting the examination (Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310),. However, the
matter and between the same parties would be premature. La Chemise findings of the judge should not disregard the facts before him nor run
Lacoste filed its opposition. The State Prosecutor likewise filed his counter to the clear dictates of reason, more so it is plain that our countrys
opposition. The court was, however, convinced that there was no probable ability to abide by international commitments is at stake.
cause to justify the issuance of the search warrants. Thus, in its order dated
22 March 1983, the search warrants were recalled and set aside and the Correction of errors must be based on sound and valid grounds
NBI agents or officers in custody of the seized items were ordered to return Herein, the court complied with the constitutional and statutory
the same to Hemandas requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant when at that point
The Supreme Court granted the petition in GR 63797-97, reversing in time; it was fully convinced that there existed probable cause. But after
and setting the order dated 22 April 1983 of the RTC, and made permanent hearing the motion to quash and the oppositions thereto, the court
the Temporary Restraining Order dated 29 April 1983. The Court, on the executed a complete turnabout and declared that there was no probable
other hand, denied due course to the petition in GR 65659 for lack of cause to justify its earlier issuance of the warrants. Although the lower
merit, and thus lifting and setting aside the Temporary Restraining Order court should be given the opportunity to correct its errors, if there be any,
dated 5 December 1983. but the rectification must be based on sound and valid grounds. The
allegation that vital facts were deliberately suppressed or concealed by La
Ruling: Chemise Lacoste should have been assessed more carefully because the
Determination of probable cause mandatory for the issuance of a object of the quashal was the return of items already seized and easily
valid search warrant; Probable cause defined examined by the court. The items were alleged to be fake and quite
As a mandatory requirement for the issuance of a valid search obviously would be needed as evidence in the criminal prosecution.
warrant, the Constitution requires in no uncertain terms the determination
of probable cause by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation Application for a search warrant is heard ex parte
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce (Constitution, Art IV, An application for a search warrant is heard ex parte. It is neither a
Sec. 3). Probable cause has traditionally meant such facts and trial nor a part of the trial. Action on these applications must be expedited
circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that are in for time is of the essence. Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to
themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act the testimonies under oath of the complainant and the witnesses. Herein,
in pursuance thereof (People v. Sy Juco, 64 Phil. 667). the allegation of Hemandas that the applicant withheld information from
the court was clearly no basis to order the return of the seized items.
Such issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal.

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 113447


October 9, 1997 Mata vs. Judge Bayona et. Al.
GR No. L-50720 March 26, 1985
FACTS: Ponente: De Castro
The Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police was conducting
surveillance in front of the Kalookan City Cemetary due to reports of drug Facts:
addicts frequenting the area. They observed Alain Manalili in the area, An information was filed against Soriano Mata, petitioner, alleging
with reddish eyes and walking in a swaying manner, signs of being high on that he offered, took and arranged bets on Jai Alai game by selling illegal
drugs. They stopped Manalili and asked for the contents of his hands, tickets known as Masiao tickets without any authority from the Philippine
which turned out to be a wallet. Inside the wallet, police officers found Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government authorities
what later on turned out to be crushed marijuana. He was charged with concerned. Thereafter, a search warrant was issued by the respondent
Illegal Possession of Marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Manalili Judge against him for violation under PD 810, as amended by PD 1306.
claimed the charges were trumped up and that the police officers had Petitioner claims that during the hearing of the case, he
blackmailed him. In addition, petitioner asserts that the evidence seized discovered that nowhere from the records of the said case could be found
was inadmissible against him, as fruits of an illegal seizure. On the other the search warrant and other pertinent papers connected to the issuance
hand, the Solicitor General counters that the search and seizure was valid, of the same, so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its whereabouts
but regardless of its validity, its defense had been waived by petitioner and to which inquiry respondent Judge replied, it is with the court. This
since it was not raised in the lower court. led petitioner to file a motion to quash and annul the search warrant and
for the return of the articles seized, citing and invoking, among others,
ISSUES: Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court.
1) Was the search of Manalili and seizure of marijuana valid? The motion was denied by respondent Judge stating that the court
2) May petitioner raise this defense for the first time on appeal? has made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of private
respondents and that the fact that documents relating to search warrant
RULING: were not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no
The General Rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a judicial moment, considering that the rule does not specify when these documents
warrant, otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional. However, are to be attached to the records.
there are exceptions to the rule: 1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, 2)
search of a moving vehicle, 3) seizure in plain view, 4) customs search and Issue:
5) waiver by the accused. The court added another exception, the stop- W/N the search warrant issued by respondent Judge were valid.
and frisk, which is the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him and pat him for weapons. This is for the safety of police Ruling:
officers and the general public. Of course, the stop-and-frisk must be The search warrant is tainted with illegality for being violative of
grounded on probable cause that the accused has committed an offense. the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
As such, the court ruled that the search and seizure was valid and Section 4 of Rule 126 provides that the judge must before issuing
admissible as evidence. In addition, Manalili had effectively waived the the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant or
defense of an invalid search since this issue was not raised during the trial. witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach
them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. Mere by the prosecutor. The lack of preliminary investigation would still not be a
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. ground to quash the information against the accused much less does it
Therefore, the search warrant is tainted with illegality by failure of affect the courts jurisdiction. The remedy of the accused is to call the
the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions attention of the court to the lack of preliminary investigation and demand
in writing and attaching them to the record. However, illegality of search as a matter of right that one be conducted.
warrant does not call for return of things seized which are prohibited.

Orquinaza vs. People No. L-47448 May 17, 1978


The People of the Philippines, petitioner vs. Hon. Emeterio Ocaya, et. al.,
Facts: respondents
On Feb 5, 2003, Edilyn Arida, an employee of Calamba Model Makers
factory, together with her witness, Julio Espinili, executed a sworn
statement regarding the allege act of Orquinaza, the general manager of Facts:
the said factory, of kissing her and touching her breasts while she was
taking a nap. The case was referred as a case of sexual harassment. The Office of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information in the court of
Orquinaza filed a petition to dismiss the complaint arguing that it does not Hon. Ocaya charging Esterlina Marapao, Letitia Marapao, and
contain allegation to constitute the crime of sexual harassment. The Diosdado Marapao of the crime of serious physical injuries.
assistant city prosecutor filed with the MTC an information charging the Records show that neither the arraignment nor the trial was made on
petitioner with acts of lasciviousness. A warrant of arrest was issued merit and no warrats of arrest were issued. Instead, the
against Orquinaza. Orquinaza filed an omnibus motion praying that the respondent judge held that the respondents should be charged of
warrant be recalled, the information be quashed, the arraignment be either slight or less serious physical injuries only. This is so, even if
invalidated and the case be dismissed. He also claims that he was deprived the affidavits show that Lolita Ares, the victim, was incapacitated
of his right to due process since the information for acts of lasciviousness for more than 30 days and a scar was left on her face, deforming
was void as the preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor was it.
for sexual harassment and not for acts of lasciviousness. The motion was Hon. Ocaya, motu proprio, ordered the dismissal of the case since the
denied. He again filed for a motion for reconsideration which was again crime or slight or less physical injuries is not within the jurisdiction
denied. He filed a petition for certiorari. of the court.
The fiscals motion for reconsideration was denied by Hon. Ocaya.
Issue: Accordingly, the respondent judge evaluated the case without
Should the case be dismissed on the ground of lack of preliminary hearing the parties nor the witnesses, nor having received their
investigation? evidence, as well as ruling against the deformity on the basis of
the medical certificate.
Held: The Provincial Fiscal then filed the petition at bar for the nullification
Based on the affidavits submitted by the parties, the assistant city of Hon. Ocayas orders.
prosecutor concluded that the more proper charge should be acts of
lasciviousness. The conduct of another preliminary investigation for the Issue:
offense of acts of lasciviousness would be futile because the complainant
would be presenting the same evidence which have already been studied Whether Hon. Oaya acted with grave abuse of discretion for
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. reclusion perpetua and indemnification. On August 16, counsel for accused
appealed.
Decision:
Issue: Was the trial in absentia valid? Whether or not the accused may
The orders of the respondent judge was held NULL & VOID. appeal?

The jurisdiction of the court in a criminal case is determined by Held:


the allegations in the information or criminal complaint, and not by the Yes, it was perfectly valid in accordance with the constitution. The old case
result of the evidence presented at the trial, nor the trial judges personal of people vs Avancea required the presence of the accused at certain
appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits without hearing the parties and their stages of the trial. This only results in the discontinuance of the trial as long
witnesses. Moreover, once jurisdiction has attached to the person and as the defendant would not reappear or remain at large. This rule would
subject-matter, the subsequent happening of events, though it may have work for the fugitives advantage. This rule is now modified by the bill of
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not divest rights which allows trial in absentia. The prisoner cannot simply escape and
the court of jurisdiction already attached. thwart the continuance of prosecution and conviction against him provided
that he has been arraigned, duly notified, and his failure to appear
unjustified. By the same rule, the accused forfeits his right to appeal. Rule
People vs Agbulos 124, section 8 of the 1985 rules on criminal procedure provide that the
court may, upon motion of the appellee, dismiss the appeal if the
Facts: appellant escapes from prison or confinement, or jumps bail or flees to a
Angelita Bangit filed a complaint against Joselito Agbulos, charging him foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal
with Forcible abduction with rape. Agbulos was arraigned on January 23, is dismissed.
1981 where he pleaded guilty. On April 25, 1984, the prosecution rested its
case. On August 13,1984, a warrant of arrest was issued against Agbulos, People vs Baao
but was later on recalled because it was issued to the wrong bonding
company, thus the hearing was reset on November 5, 1984,. On the said Facts:
date, Agbulos failed to appear before the court. The bonding company was Rowena Frederico is a thirteen year old school drop out, finishing
given 30 days to produce the person of the accused and show the cause only grade 1 and of limited native intelligence. She claims she was raped
why judgement should not be rendered against them. The bonding five times by accused appellant Baao; three times in December 1982, done
company fails to surrender the accused and the court issued an order in the bathroom of accused-appellants house in Dasmarias Cavite, and
stating that upon motion of fiscal, judgement will issue against the full twice in February 1983, the fourth done in the backyard while the fifth was
amount of the bond. Trial was further reset to January 30, 1985 and still done in the living room. On March 4 1983, Rowena decided to tell her
the accused failed to appear. Pursuant to the order of the court on the mother about the offenses. She said that the first three rapes were done at
judgement on the bond, accused was deemed to have waived his right to 8am on dates of December she could not recall, while the fourth was at
present evidence, thus, Defense counsel just manifested that they were about 10 pm on Feb 17, and the fifth at noon of Feb 23. She claimed that
adopting the testimony of prosecution witness Ernesto Tamayo, thereafter; all rapes were done through force and threat of death and that the first
the defense rested its case. On July 11 1985, judgement was rendered rape caused laceration of her hymen and there was full penetration and
against the bonding company, and on June 15 1985, accused was found pain in all instances. The victim was subjected to physical examinations
guilty of forcible abduction with rape, sentenced to suffer the penalty of under Dr. Maximo Reyes, medico-legal officer of the NBI. According to Dr.
Reyes findings, Rowena underwent intercourse for not more than five
times, and that the findings were compatible with the testimony of the Facts:
victim. Lucia Federico, the victims mother, also testified that after she
came to know of the rapes, the accused-appellants wife approached her Florencio Doria @ Jun was a seller of illegal drugs. Upon a tip of an
and offered her 2000 Php so she would withraw the charges. informant, PO3 Manlangit together with the informant posed as a buyer of
marijuana, PO1 Badua tagged along as support in the whole operation.
The Accused-appellant relied mainly on denial and alibi. He claims that he PO3 Manlangit was able to give the marked bills worth P1600 to Florencio,
was just being set up because he once caught the girl sealing soft drinks left and after sometime returned with the 1 brick marijuana at hand. They
from his sari sari store and had scolded her. He also claims that at the times were able to arrest Florencio inflagrante delicto in selling the marijuana to
stated by Rowena on which dates she was supposedly raped, he was with them, when asked where the marked bills where Florencio replied that it
his daughter at her house near Manila International Airport in Baclaran, to was at the place of Neneth. The group went to the house of the so called
do some carpentry work. His daughter testified and said the same thing. He Neneth, when there they saw the person whose name was Violeta Gadao
also argued that the complaint was filed to extort money from him, an carrying water to her house, they questioned her where the marked bills
amount of 15,000 which was later reduced to 8000. The Trial Judge were. At this time also a box with a flap open was seen by the PO3
rejected the charges on the second, third and fifth rapes. This leads the Manlangit, his suspicion peeked because he saw at the open flap the same
defense to invoke falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, claiming that since the wrappings as the 1 brick he got from Florencio at that time. PO3 Manlangit
three charges were rejected, the rest should also be rejected. open the box and found 10 bricks of the same marijuana. Simultaneously
PO1 Badua was able to get the marked bills out of Violeta and arrested her.
Issue: The RTC ruled in favour of the police and imposed upon Florencio and
Whether or not this was merely a tale concocted by Rowena. Violeta the penalty of Death, the 11 bricks of marijuana were destroyed.
Whether or not the two charges of rape should also be rejected The case went to the SC for automatic review.
since the other three were rejected by the court.
Issue:
Held: W/N Florencio is guilty of the sale/possession of illegal drugs
Accused-Appellant was held guilty of the crime charged. His W/N Violeta is guilty of the sale/possession of illegal drugs
contentions were rejected. His alibi of being in Baclaran on December is
not enough to relieve him of the charges because he couldnt show that he Held:
did not have any opportunity to go back to Dasmarinas during that month.
Also, considering the demeanour of the victim, she couldnt have made up Florencio is guilty, he was caught inflagrante delicto, and the law authorizes
such a story on her own. Alibi is an inherently weak defense. such arrest without a warrant in such cases.
On the contention that all charges should be rejected since three were The law authorizes entrapment, that is the police conducts an operation
rejected, it could also conversely be argued that since truth was found on against the accused without inducing him to commit the said crime.
the first and fourth rapes, accused should also be held liable for all five The law authorizes the mix of both subjective and objective test in
rapes and be convicted. The choice really is whether it should be total determining if there is entrapment in a case. The subjective test looks
acquittal or total conviction for all five charges of rape. on the daily practice, background and life of the accused in
determining if the crime is indeed committed out of his volition and
without inducement. The objective test looks into the conduct of the
People vs. Doria police in trying to plan and execute the entrapment against the
accused, if it has no inducement in the whole of its process. flap open and the plastic pack sticking out.
Entrapment there is no inducement and the accused did the crime out of
his volition. Instigation the crime was committed with inducement by Florencio was convicted with Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P500,000
the police and the accused did the crime not of his volition. While Violeta was acquitted
Sec 5 Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on criminal procedure enumerate the
valid Arrests without a warrant:
When, in his prescence, the person to be arrested has committed, PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit the G. R. No. 123872
offense. Jan. 30, 1998
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has Regalado, J.:
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be Facts:
arrested has committed it; and Ruben Montilla, alias Joy was charged for violating Section 4,
When the prisoner to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from Article 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, R. A. No. 6425, as amended
a penal establishment or place he is serving final judgement by R. A. No. 7659 in an information which alleges: That on or about 20th
or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has day of June 1994, at Brgy. Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, xxx the above-
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully,
another. unlawfully and feloniously, administer, transport and deliver 28 kilos of
dried marijuana leaves which are considered prohibited drugs.
No, Violeta cant be guilty of selling illegal drugs because the drugs were Issue:
illegally seized from her house. The marked bills found in her person Whether the warrantless search conducted on appellant
also didnt prove her participation in the sale of drugs by Florencio invalidates the evidence obtained from him?
The 5 instances where a search and seizure without a warrant is valid Ruling:
when: A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting
Search incident to a lawful arrest officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1)
Search of moving motor vehicle dangerous weapons; and (2) those that may be used as proof of the
Search in violation of customs laws commission of an offense. On the defense argument that the warrantless
Seizure of evidence in plain view search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from him,
When the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable still the search on his belongings and the consequent confiscation of the
searches and seizure illegal drugs as a result thereof was justified as a search incidental to a
Option b, c, and e can be immediately disposed of as a reason. lawful arrest under Section 5 (a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Since the arrest of Violeta was without a warrant and doesnt fall among
the exceptions provided in Sec 5 Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on
criminal procedure, the search and seizure cant be the first exception People vs. Nitafan
to a valid warrantless search and seizure. As to (a) it was not in hot
pursuit, and as to (b) theres no probable cause. Facts:
The search and seizure cant also be considered in plainview, because PO3 On January 9, 1992, three criminal informations for violation of Section 4 of
Manlangit himself admitted that the items in the box could have been Central Bank Circular No. 960, as amended, in relation to Section 34 of
other items. That marijuana cant be readily identified with just the Republic Act No. 265 were filed against private respondent Imelda R.
Marcos. After arraignment, Marcos pleaded not guilty. Petitioners filed
motions for the consolidation of the three informations with the 21 other PRUDENTE V DAYRIT
remaining cases pending before the RTC. The Solicitor General alleged in its PADILLA; December 14, 1989
motion that the indictable acts under the three informations form part of
and is related to the transaction complained. RTC granted the NATURE
consolidation and the 3 infornations were re-raffled and re-assigned to Petition for certiorari
Branch 52-Manila presided public respondent Judge Nitafan. Without any
motion from the accused, Judge Nitafan issued an order requiring FACTS
petitioners to show cause why the cases should not be dismissed on the - On 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the
ground that it violates Marcos right against ex post facto law and the two Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District
other informations on the ground that private respondents right against (WPD), filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33,
double jeopardy was violated. On August 7, 1992, respondent judge issued presided over by respondent Judge Abelardo Dayrit, now Associate Justice
an order dismissing the 1st criminal case on the ground of ex post facto law of the CA, an application1 for the issuance of a search warrant, for violation
and also dismissed the two remaining criminal cases on the ground of of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.). Dimagmaliw alleged,
violation of private respondents right against double jeopardy. Prosecution among others that: That he has been informed and has good and sufficient
filed for a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner filed a reasons to believe that Nemesio Prudente who may be found at the
petition for certiorari. Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), Anonas St., Sta., Mesa,
Sampaloc, Manila, has in his control or possession firearms, explosives,
Issue: handgrenades and ammuntion which are illegally possessed or intended to
Whether a judge can motu proprio inititate a motion to quash an be used as the means of committing an offense which the said Nemesio
information? Prudente is keeping and concealing at the premises of the PUP. In support
of the application for issuance of search warrant, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles,
Held: OIC of the Intelligence Section of ISAD, executed a "Deposition of
In the case at bench. Private respondent pleaded to the charges without Witness"2 dated 31 October 1987, subscribed and sworn to before
filing any motion to quash and as such she has deemed to have waived and respondent Judge.
abandon her right to avail any legal ground which she may have properly - On 1 Nov 1987, a Sunday and All Saints Day, the search warrant was
and timely invoked to challenge the complaint or information. If the judge enforced by some 200 WPD operatives led by P/Col. Edgar Dula Torre, and
initiates the motion to quash, then he is not only pre-judging the case but P/Major Romeo Maganto, Precinct 8 Commander. They found in the drawer
also takes the side of the accused. It is clear that the only grounds which of a cabinet inside the wash room of Dr. Prudente's office a bulging brown
the court may consider in resolving a motion to quash an information or envelope with 3 live fragmentation hand grenades separately wrapped
complaint are (1) those ground stated in the motion and (2) the ground of with old newspapers.
lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Pursuant to the Rules, the sole - On 6 Nov 1987, petitioner Prudente moved to quash the search warrant.
exception is lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged which goes into He claimed that (1) the complainant's lone witness, Lt. Florenio C. Angeles,
the competence of the court to hear and pass judgement on the cause. had no personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the
The right to file a motion to quash belongs only to the accused. There is issuance of the search warrant; (2) the examination of the said witness was
nothing in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu proprio not in the form of searching questions and answers; (3) the search warrant
initiate a motion to quash if no such motion was filed by the accused. was a general warrant, for the reason that it did not particularly describe
the place to be searched and that it failed to charge one specific offense;
and (4) the search warrant was issued in violation of Circular No. 19 of the in the application of Dimagmaliw and the declaration of Angeles in his
Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to allege under oath that the deposition were insufficient basis for the issuance of a valid search warrant.
issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent. Respondent As held in the Alvarez case: "The oath required must refer to the truth of
Judge issued denied the petitioner's motion and supplemental motion to the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses,
quash. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not
this present recourse. the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant,
of the existence of probable cause."
ISSUES 2. NO
1. WON the Search Warrant is invalid as it does not show a probable cause Ratio A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with
since it was issued on the basis of facts and circumstances which were not the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witness but based intended.
on hearsay evidence Reasoning
2. WON the Search Warrant is invalid on the ground that it failed to - In the case at bar, the application for search warrant and the search
particularly describe the place to be searched, contending that there were warrant itself described the place to be searched as the premises of the
several rooms at the ground floor and the second floor of the PUP Polytechnic University of the Philippines, located at Anonas St., Sta. Mesa,
3. WON the Search Warrant is invalid on the ground that it was issued in Sampaloc, Manila, more particularly, the offices of the Department of
violation of the rule that a search warrant can be issued only in connection Military Science and Tactics at the ground floor, and the Office of the
with one specific offense President, Dr. Nemesio Prudente, at PUP, Second Floor and other rooms at
the second floor. The designation of the places to be searched sufficiently
HELD complied with the constitutional injunction that a search warrant must
1. YES particularly describe the place to be searched, even if there were several
Ratio The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant must be shown to be rooms at the ground floor and second floor of the PUP.
within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may 3. NO
produce and not based on mere hearsay. Ratio The application for search warrant which was captioned: "For
Reasoning Violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.)." means that
[a] In his application for search warrant, Dimagmaliw stated that "he has it was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and
been informed" that Prudente "has in his control and possession" the explosives.
firearms and explosives described therein, and that he "has verified the Reasoning
report and found it to be a fact." In his supporting deposition, Angeles [a] While the said decree punishes several offenses, the alleged violation in
declared that, as a result of their continuous surveillance for several days, this case was, qualified by the phrase "illegal possession of firearms, etc."
they "gathered informations from verified sources" that the holders of the As explained by respondent Judge, the term "etc." referred to ammunitions
said firearms and explosives are not licensed to possess them. In other and explosives. In other words, the search warrant was issued for the
words, the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Hence, the
facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned failure of the search warrant to mention the particular provision of PD No.
search warrant, but acquired knowledge thereof only through information 1866 that was violated is not of such a gravity as to call for its invalidation
from other sources or persons. [b] What the records show is the deposition on this score.
of witness, Angeles, as the only support to Dimagmaliw's application, and [b] The Constitution as well as the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not
the said deposition is based on hearsay. Evidently, the allegations contained recognize the issuance of one search warrant for illegal possession of
firearms, one warrant for illegal possession of ammunitions, and another liability exists did not exist.
for illegal possession of explosives. Neither is the filing of three different
informations for each of the above offenses sanctioned by the Rules of Issue: Whether or not Sapiera could be held civilly liable when she was
Court. The usual practice adopted by the courts is to file a single acquitted in the criminal charges against her.
information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.
Disposition Petition is GRANTED. The Search Warrant No. 87-14 ANNULLED Held:
and SET ASIDE. Yes. Sec. 2 of rule 111 of the rules of court provides that extinction
of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil, unless
this shows that the fact from which the civil liability is based is proven to
Sapiera vs Court of Appeals not have existed because of such acquittal. Civil liability is not extinguished
where: (a) the acquittal is not based on reasonable doubt. (b) Where the
court expressly declares that the liability is not criminal but only civil, (c)
Facts: where the civil liability is not derived from or based on the criminal act. The
Remedios Nota Sapiera, a sari-sari store owner, on several decision of the case would show that the acquittal was based on failure of
occasions, purchased from Monrico Mart grocery items, mostly cigarettes the prosecution to present sufficient evidence showing conspiracy between
and paid for them with checks issued by one Arturo de Guzman. These her and De Guzman. Since all checks were signed by Sapiera on the back,
checks were signed by Sapiera on the back. When they were presented for sec 17 of Negotiable instruments law says that she would be considered an
payment, the checks were dishonoured because the drawers account was indorser of the bill of exchange and under section 66 thereof would be held
already closed. Respondent Ramon Samua informed Arturo de Guzman liable for breach of warranty and is held liable to pay the holder who may
and petitioner but both failed to pay. Hence, four charges of Estafa were be compelled to pay the instrument.
filed against Sapiera while two counts of BP 22 was filed against Arturo de
Guzman. These cases were consolidated. On December 27 1999, the RTC Stonehill vs. Diokno L-19550 June 19, 1967
Dagupan city acquitted Sapiera of all charges of Estafa but did not rule on
the civil aspect of the case. Arturo de Guzman was held liable for the 2 BP FACTS:
22 cases and was ordered to pay Sua 167,150 Php as civil indemnity and Respondent judges issued a total of 42 search warrants against the
was sentenced for imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day. Respondent Sua corporate offices and private residences of the accused. The warrants
appealed regarding the civil aspect of Sapieras case but the courtdenied it directed police officers to seize and take possession of various items of
saying that the acquittal of petitioner was absolute. Respondent filed a personal property such as books of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals praying that the appeal correspondence, etc. The warrants were based on alleged violations of
be given due course, this was granted. On January 1996, CA rendered a Central Bank Laws, Tariff Laws, and the like. Petitioners assailed the validity
decision ordering Sapiera to pay 335000 php to Sua. Sapiera filed a motion of the warrants as such warrants did not describe with particularity the
for reconsideration. The CA the issued a resolution noting that the things to be seized. In addition, petitioners assert that other items not
admission of both parties that Sua already collected 125000 for the 2 check included in the warrants, such as cash, were also seized. They filed
paid by De Guzman on the BP 22 cases. It appears that the payment should petitions with the court, seeking the quashal of the warrants and the
be deducted on her liability as they involved the same two checks which return of their seized property. On the other hand, public respondents
Sapiera was involved in. the CA deducted the liability to 210,000 Php. claimed the warrants were valid, and any defects were cured by consent of
Hence this petition by Sapiera claiming that the CA erred in rendering such the petitioners. They also claim that such evidence, regardless of the
decision because she was acquitted and the fact from which the civil validity of the warrants, were admissible as evidence in court.
denial. Then, Venus sought the opinion of the Provincial Auditor as to the
ISSUES: requirements of bidding in order that the municipality may validly
1) Are the 42 search warrants valid? participate. The Provincial Auditor opined that it would be impossible to
2) Are the documents and other effects admissible as evidence participate as it would need a resolution from the SB. And that the funds
against respondents? would be pre-audited before its release, which would take at least 2 weeks.
This means that the funds will not be available on the day of bidding. Using
RULING: his personal funds, Venus went to Manila and asked for the postponement
The seized items were taken from two kinds of locations: the offices of the of the bidding but it was denied. Hence, Venus bid and got the property,
petitioners and their residences. With regards to the seized items from the being the highest bidder, using his own money. The lot was used as garage
offices, petitioners have no cause of action since only the corporation, as a for the municipalitys fire truck free of charge. Nearly four years after the
separate juridical personality, may question the validity of the warrants. As sale, SB members Mars Regalado and Harry Abayon filed a complaint
the petitioners filed the objection in their personal capacities, the court before the Provincial Prosecutor charging Venus with violation of paragraph
cannot act on the petition. As to the effects seized from the homes of H, Sec. 3 RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act). It was forwarded to
petitioners, it is clear that the warrants were General Warrants, issued on the Deputy Ombudsman of Cebu and was dismissed. Ombudsman Vasquez
the basis of no specific offense and with no particular definition of the disapproved the dismissal and the case was re-raffled to Deputy
items to be seized. General Warrants are prohibited by the Consititution Ombudsman Tanco who recommended the filing of information against
since there are clearly issued to conduct fishing expeditions, and not on the Venus. Upon review, Special Prosecutor Ines found reasonable ground for
basis of actual probable cause. The Constitution provides that items to be filing of information against Venus. Ombudsman Desierto approved the
seized must be particularly described and probable cause can only be resolution recommending the filing of information against Venus. The
found in connection with one specific offense. Since these items were information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Upon his surrender to the
seized on the basis of an invalid warrant, they are to be deemed fruits of a Sandiganbayan, it was found out that Venus was not given the opportunity
poisonous tree. As such, they may not be used as evidence against the to file a motion for reconsideration of the resolution recommending the
petitioners. filing of information. Sandiganbayan then granted him time to file a motion
for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration was filed before the
Office of Special Prosecutor. Said prosecutor recommended the dismissal of
VENUS VS DESIERTO the case for lack of probable cause. Desierto disapproved the
recommendation. Meanwhile, Sandiganbayan set Venus arraignment.
OCTOBER 21, 1998 Hence, this petition for prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining
J. DAVIDE order and writ of preliminary injunction.

FACTS: ISSUE:
Eriberto Venus (Venus) was the mayor of New Washington, Aklan. Whether or not arraignment may be restrained with injunction or
The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said municipality issued a Resolution writ of prohibition.
authorizing Venus to negotiate with the Board of Liquidators in the
purchase of a lot in the municipality. Hence, Venus went to Manila and HELD:
submitted with the Board of Liquidators the resolution and a letter- YES. Generally, criminal prosecutions may no be restrained
proposal for the purchase of the lot. The proposal was rejected by the through injunction or prohibition as the determination of probable cause
board and set bidding on Sept. 19, 1988. Venus informed the SB of the for the filing of information is within the discretion of ombudsman or
prosecutor. However, in the case of Brocka vs. Enrile, the Supreme Court over it. MTC denied the motion to quash. Vivar filed for a motion for
provided exceptions to the above-mentioned rule. Among those reconsideration which was again denied. He was arraigned and pleaded not
enumerated is when there is clearly no prima facie case against the guilty. Vivar filed a petition for certiorari in the RTC RTC granted the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. motion to quash and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
In the case at bar, the Deputy Ombudsman found no ground to Villaflor. Villaflor filed a petiton for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
believe that Venus violated RA 3019 but the Ombudsman and the other
Deputy Ombudsman disagreed. In the motion for reconsideration, the Issues:
special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case. In human Can the court motu proprio order the dismissal of the case on the
relations, good faith is always presumed. He who charges bad faith has the ground of lack of preliminary investigation?
burden of proving the same. In not finding facts constituting bad faith, it Should the failure of the public prosecutor to conduct preliminary
was an error for the ombudsman to pass on the duty of finding bad faith to investigation be considered a ground to quash the informations?
Sandiganbayan. There was no bad faith in the actuations of Venus. The
resolution issued by the SB was for him to negotiate with the Board of Held:
Liquidators for the sale of the lot. Venus did as he was mandated and
returned with the denial of their offer. The municipality did not intend to The Court ruled that the absence of a preliminary investigation does
participate in the bidding as shown by the absence of a resolution to that not impair the validity of the information. In the case a bar, a
effect and the absence of the funds for the occasion. Venus faithfully preliminary investigation was for slight physical injuries was
performed his duty and this duty ended when he asked for postponement conducted by the assistant city prosecutor. But the Information
even if it was denied. Further, RA 3019 requires that bad faith must be was however amended when petitioners injuries turned out to be
EVIDENT. In finding no bad faith, logically there could be no evident bad more serious. However the change in the information was only a
faith. Hence, there was no prima facie case against Venus. formal amendment and did not violate the right of Vivar against
In finding the manifest innocence of Venus, the Supreme Court hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, since it still involves
ordered Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case. the same facts.
Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides the grounds on which an accused can move to quash the
Villaflor vs. Vivar complaint or information. Nowhere in the rule mention of a lack
of preliminary investigation as a ground for a motion to quash.
Facts: When accused failed to assert any ground for a motion to quash
An information for slight physical injuries was filed agaist Dindo Vivar for before arraignment, he has deemed waived his right.
beating Gian Paulo Vivar outside the Fat Tueasday Bar. On his way out, Gian
met Dindo who told that next time, I will use my gun on you. The injuries
sustained by Gian turned out to be more serious than they had appeared Washington Distillers, Inc. Vs Ca
so an Information for serious physical injuries was filed and the charge for
slight physical injuries was withdrawn. Another Information for grave Facts:
threats was filed against Vivar. Vivar, instead of filing a counter affidavit, he
filed a Motion to Quash the Information for grave threats since it was made On the basis of a search warrant issued by the Judge of the RTC of Manila,
in connection with the charge of serious physical injuries should have been 314, 289 pieces of 350cc round white flint bottles were seized by the NBI
absorbed by the latter, and because the court did not acquire jurisdiction from the premises of petitioners in San Fernando, Pampanga for alleged
violation of RA 623, otherwise known as An act to regulate the use of duly
stamped or marked bottles, boxes, casks, kegs, barrels, and other similar
containers, as amended by RA 5700. Petitioners filed a motion to quash on
the ground that the RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction to issue a warrant to
be executed in Pampanga, which was granted. A motion for
reconsideration was issued my private respondents but was denied.
Thereafter, private respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals and CA set aside the decision of RTC ruling that a search warrant
may be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC of Manila

Issue:

Whether or not the search warrant issued against petitioners is valid.

Held:

No. The search warrant issued against petitioners lost its validity as a result
of the failure of the NBI to commence criminal prosecution and the bottles
seized from them should be returned to petitioners in the absence of any
civil action for their recovery.

What is noticeable about this case is the that possession of the bottles was
transferred to private respondents through the expediency of a search
warrant, so that instead of merely being an ancillary writ issued either as
an incident of criminal proceedings, the proceeding for search warrant
have become, for all intents and purposes, the main proceedings by which
private respondents have been able to obtain possession of what it claims
to be its property. There was neither complaint by which the petitioners
could have been informed of the charge against them nor answer by which
they could have heard in the defense, before property claimed by them
was taken from them and given to private respondents.