CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE
CASE DIGEST
Atty. Judy Anne Yuki Yulo, RN, MD

Alagos, Dianne Kriza

Dela Cruz, Karl

Galla, Mark Lawrence O.

Guevarra, Ivan

Celedio, Marvin
JURISDICTION

Estafa under Hannah Serana Case, 524 SCRA, 22 January 2008

Petitioner was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu, appointed by then President
Joseph Estrada as a student-regent of UP to serve a one-year term. During her term, funds from the
Office of the President were given for the renovation of Vinzons Halls Annex in UP Diliman, one of the
projects of the Student Regent Foundation, but the same failed to materialize. A complaint for
Malversation of Public Funds and Property was filed by a succeeding student-regent with a system wide
alliance of student councils within the state university against petitioner and her brother with the Office
of the Ombudsman. Petitioner claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the
offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP Student Regent, claiming that she is not a
public officer since she merely represented her peers and she did not receive any salary as a student
regent. SC held that Section 4(A) (1) (G) of P.D. 1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned and controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundation, and that Petitioner falls under
this category. The Board of Regents (BOR) performs similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is indeed a public officer as contemplated by P.D.
1606. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by
public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. 1606, as amended, and that (b) the
offense is committed in relation to their public office.

Falsification under the Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan case, 603 SCRA

The Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed before the Sandiganbayan, a
Petition With Verified Urgent Ex Parte Application for the Issuance of the Writ of Preliminary
Attachment against petitioner, his wife, and 3 sons, seeking forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties
under Sec. 2 of R.A. 1379 as amended, since during his incumbency as a soldier and public officer he
acquired huge amounts of money and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such
public officer and his other lawful income, if any. Petitioner argues in the petition filed before the SC
that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction over the civil action for such forfeiture maintaining that
such jurisdiction actually resides in the RTC as provided under Sec. 2.of the law. SC held that the Office
of the Ombudsman, as defined by R.A. 6770, corollary to Sec. 13, Art. XI of the Constitution, include the
authority, among others, to (1.1) Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten
and/or unexplained wealth amassed after 25 February 1986 and the prosecution of parties involved
therein. It is within its authority to conduct investigation of petitioners illegally acquired assets and to
file the petition for forfeiture against him under R.A. 1379.

Escobal vs. Gatchitorena, 422 SCRA

Petitioner is a graduate of PMA, a member of the AFP and the Philippine Constabulary, as well as the
Intelligence Group of the PNP-- somehow got involved in a shooting incident that resulted in the death
of one; thereafter charged with murder. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that
the court martial, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP members and officers.
RTC held that the offense charged was done in the performance of his duties/ functions in relation to his
office; and conformably to R.A. 7975, to thereafter transmit the same to the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan however returned the records to the RTC, contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over
the case. SC held that for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over
crimes committed by the public officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing
the intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties must be
alleged in the information. It is not enough to merely allege in the Information that the crime charged
was committed by the offender in relation to his office because that would be a conclusion of law. The
amended Information filed with the RTC against the petitioner does not contain any allegation showing
the intimate relation between his office and the discharge of his duties. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction
over the offense charged when on Nov 24, 1995, it ordered the re-amendment of the Information to
include therein an allegation that the petitioner committed the crime in relation to office. It bears
stressing that the R.A. No. 7975 amending P.D. 1606 was already in effect.

People vs. Henry T. Go, 25 March 2014

An information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging the DOTC Secretary and herein
Respondent, Chairman and Presdient of the Philippinr International Air Terminals, Co. Inc. (PIATCO) with
violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The prosecution argued that the SB has
exclusive jurisdiction over the respondent’s case, even if he is a private person, because he was alleged
to have conspired with a public officer. Respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information which SB
granted for lack of jurisdiction considering that the lone accused in this case is a private person and his
alleged co-conspirator public official was already deceased long before the case was filed in court. SC
held that the requirement before a private officer may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A.
3019, among other, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public
officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together
with the public officer. If circumstances exist where a public officer may no longer be charged in court,
as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted
alone.

Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA

Petitioner, a Retired Brgig. Gen. and then President of Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits
(AFP-RSBS), a GOCC, together with others, were charged with violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan for
having misappropriated and converted the funds of Armed Forces of the for their personal. Petitioner
averred that the graft court arbitrarily declared the Associations of Generals and Flag Officers, Inc.
(AGFOI) to be the offended party despite the plain language of the accusations and that the crimes
charged are public offenses and, by their very nature, do not give rise to criminal liabilities in favour of
any private party. SC agreed with the contention of the petitioner. Even if the members of AGFOI may
also be members or beneficiaries of the AFP-RSBS, the respondent AGFOI does not have a legal right to
intervene. Neither are such members entitled to intervene therein simply because the funds of AFP-
RSBS are public or government funds. It must be stressed that any interest of the members of the AFP-
RSBS over its funds or property is merely inchoate and incidental. Such funds belong to the AFP-RSBS
which has a jurisdictional capacity separate and independent of its members/beneficiairies. In the crime
charged, the offended party is the government; the controlling consideration is the public character of a
document and the violation of public faith and destruction of truth therein solemnly proclaimed.

People vs. Benipayo, 586 SCRA

Respondent, a COMELEC Chairman, was charged with Libel before the RTC. RTC dismissed the case for
lack of jurisdiction considering that the alleged libel was committed by respondent in relation to his
office when he delivered his speech in his official capacity as COMELEC Chair. It held that it was not
vested with jurisdiction to hear libel case and that the Sandiganbayan has. Supreme Court held that the
jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by law in the force at the time of the
institution of action, unless a latter statute provides for retroactive application thereof. Criminal and civil
actions for damages in cases of written defamations and shall be filed simultaneously or separately with
the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. A subsequent enactment of a law defining jurisdiction of
other courts cannot simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or modification, the specific
provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid jurisdiction over defamations in writing or by similar
means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to (public)
office, similar to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and
original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless whether the offense is committed in
relation to office.

Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA

Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate
involved in bank robberies, were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task
Group (ABRITG). Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors.
Information of murder was filed before the Sandiganbayan. The accused contended that R.A. 7975
limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or more of the “principal accused” are
government officals with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or
higher. Thus, they did not qualify under said requisites. However, pending resolution of their motions,
R.A. 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word
“principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of R.A. 7975. Petitioner questions the
constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall
apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. SC held
that there is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex post facto law, generally, provides retroactive effect
of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not a penal law as it is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in
character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties
for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, as regards
the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by
the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, one which prescribes rules of procedure
by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice.

Sanchez vs. Demetrio, 227 SCRA

Informations for Rape with Homicide were filed with the RTC against all the accused including the
Petitioner. The venue of the case was transferred upon the expressed apprehension of Secretary of
Justice. Petitioner filed a motion to Quash based on, among other grounds, that only the Ombudsman
had the competence to conduct the investigation and that as public officer, he can be tried for the
offense only by the Sandiganbayan. SC held that the crime of Rape with Homicide does not fall under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as it obviously do not fall under par. (1) which deals with graft and
corruption cases. Neither it is covered by par (2) because it is an offense committed in relation to public
office. There is no relation between the commission of a crime of rape with homicide and the
petitioner’s office as municipal mayor because public office is not an essential element of the crime
charged. The offense can stand independently of the office.

RULE 110

Sorongon V Jimenez

Petitioner Sorongon President of a local manning agency filed a case alleging that respondent Jimenez
(business competitor) and others are having to falsely represented their documents to secure a license
to operate as a recruitment agency from the POEA.

Held: Dismissed, petitioner has not legal personality to file criminal action because heis not to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.

People V Valdez

PO2 Valdez Having been Convicted by the RTC of Crime of three counts of Murder, but CA downgraded
the crime to three counts of Homicide due to the failure of the informations to allege the facts and
circumstances constituting treachery.

Held: Decision of CA regarding downgrade to multiple Homicide was affirmed by SC for having failed to
allege and establish treachery in Informations.

People V Soria

Accused having been convicted by the RTC of the Crime of crime of rape by sexual assault raised an
appeal to higher court and while case was pending in said higher court the accused have died;hence
Criminal liability and Civil Liability EX DELICTO were all deemed to be extinguished.

Union Bank V People of the Philippines

Union Bank Filed 2 replevin cases against spouses Tamongdong for some sum of money one in Pasay
RTC and the other in Pasay City MeTC, and in doing so executed a certificate of Non-Forum Shopping on
both complaints whereas such certificate was notarized in Makati City. hence the issue as where Art 183
of RPC should be properly filed

Held: SC ruled that where the execution of the falsity in the Notary Public made has the proper
jurisdiction over the case, not as to where it will be submitted because crime has already been
consummated in the city of Makati where Notary was executed.

RULE 111

Fernando P. Solidum vs. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
A criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed against Dr.
Solidum. The RTC and CA rendered a judgment of conviction against Dr. Solidum with Ospital ng Maynila
jointly and severally liable. The issue is whether or not Dr. Solidum was civilly liable. The SC ruled that
Dr. Solidum must be acquitted because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr.
Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in administering the anesthetic agent to Gerald. Consequently,
to adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable would be to speculate on the cause of the hypoxia. We are not
allowed to do so, for civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence.

Cristina B. Castillo vs. Phillip R. Salvador, GR. No. 191240, July 30, 2014

Castillo filed an action for estafa against Salvador. RTC convicted Salvador but on appeal the same was
reversed by CA. The issue is whether or not the award of damage or the civil aspect of the case can be
retained. No, there being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of question. Here, no such civil liability is
proved even by preponderance of evidence.

Lily Lim vs. Kou Co Ping, GR. No. 175256, August 23, 2012

An information for estafa was filed against Co before the RTC-Pasig. Lim also filed a complaint for
specific performance and damages before RTC-Manila. The issue is whether or not Lim commit forum
shopping. No, a single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two
separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender. Here, the law expressly allows the filing of a separate
civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action.

Avelino Casupanan vs. Mario Laroya, GR. No. 145391, August 26, 2002

A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property filed by respondent against
Casapunan and a civil case arising from a quasi-delict filed by the petitioners against the respondent.
The issue is whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly
file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private
complainant in the criminal case. Yes, the right of the accused to file a separate civil action for quasi-
delict is akin to the right of the offended party to file an independent civil action pursuant to Section 1 of
Rule 111. Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission.

People of the Philippines vs. Martin Romero, GR. No. 112985, April 21, 1999

A criminal case of estafa was filed against the two accused before the RTC-Butuan. The RTC then
rendered its decision convicting the two accused. Pending appeal, Ernesto Rodriguez died. The issue is
whether or not the death of the accused extinguishes the civil liability. Yes, the SC ruled that the death
of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes the civil liability ex delicto. Thus, the
outcome of the appeal now only pertains to the remaining accused, Martin Romero.

Francisco Magestrado vs. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 148072, July 10, 2007

Before the MeTC of Quezon City, a criminal case for perjury was filed against Francisco Magestrado.
Francisco then filed a motion for suspension of proceedings based on a prejudicial question alleging that
the two civil cases for recovery of a sum of money for cancellation of mortgage, delivery of title and
damages both pending before the RTC of Quezon City must be resolved first. His motion was denied by
the MeTC. His petitions for certiorari filed with the RTC and the CA were dismissed. The issue is whether
or not there is prejudicial question. No, the SC stated that it is evident that the civil cases and the
criminal cases can proceed independently of each other. Here, regardless of the outcome of the two
civil cases, it will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case of perjury.

Joselito R. Pimentel vs. Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel, GR. No. 172060, September 13, 2010

Maria Chrysantine Pimentel filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R. Pimentel.
Petitioner received summons to appear before the RTC of Antipolo for the pre-trial and trial of civil case
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The issue is whether or not there is a prejudicial question. No, the
rule is clear that civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. Here, the
requirement of Sec. 7, Rule 111 of 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action
was filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal action.

JM Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc. vs. Cecilia Liclican, GR. No. 208587, July 29, 2015

Petitioners filed a complaint against respondents before the RTC-Baguio seeking the nullification of
meetings, elections, and acts of directors, and other reliefs. Petitioners, as directors of JMD,
subsequently filed a complaint charging the respondents with qualified theft. The issue is whether or
not there is prejudicial question. Yes, the SC ruled that the civil case, an intra-corporate dispute, posed a
prejudicial question to the criminal case. Here, without the resolution of the civil case, petitioner’s
authority to commence and prosecute the criminal case against respondents for qualified theft in JMD’s
behalf remained questionable, warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings.

RULE 112

Fenequito vs. Vergara

Respondent filed a criminal complaint against petitioner for falsification of public document. An
information was filed with the MeTC and was dismissed on the ground of lack of probable cause, was
appeal to RTC and RTC reversed the decision. Petitioner elevated the case to CA, in which it ruled that
the decision of the RTC is interlocutory and thus is not appealable. Whether or not the evidence
submitted by the respondent is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. No. In finding
probable cause id does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged. Here, the fact that an expert witness already found that the questioned signature were not
written by tone and the same person already creates probable cause to indict petitioners for the crime
of falsification of public document.

Burgundy Realty Corporation vs Reyes

Petitioner filed a complaint for the crime of estafa against Reyes for misappropriation of the
money given by the petitioner to her personal use and benefit. Sec. of Justice Gonzales reversed and set
aside the resolution and directed the city prosecution to cause the withdrawal of the information for
estafa.Whether or not the CA erred in disregarding the evidence on record showing the existence of
probable cause against the private respondent for estafa.Yes , the court held that there is an existence
of probable cause. In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines whether
there is probable cause to engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed , and that
respondent is probable guilty thereof and should be held for trial. Here, the failure of Reyes to deliver
the titles or return the entrusted money despite demand and the duty to do so, constituted prima facie
evidence of misappropriation.

Abanado vs. Bayona

The petitioner filed a complaint to the court of administrator alleging therein that the
respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure and gross misconduct. He essentially
asserted that respondent unduly burden himself by obsessing over the production of the records of the
preliminary investigation. Whether or not the respondent was administratively liable for requiring the
petitioner to submit the memorandum to the court despite the reversal thereof. Yes. Since the conduct
of preliminary investigation is primarily an executive function, the Court also considers the rules and
procedure of DOJ in conducting preliminary investigations whether the action of a public prosecution is
put in question. The court found nothing in the DOJ manual requiring the removal of a resolution by a
investigating prosecutor recommending the dismissal of a criminal complaint after it was reversed by
the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor.

Heirs of Nestor Tria vs. Obias

The Prosecutor issued a resolution directing the filing of an information for murder against Aclan
and Ona but dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence as against Obias. Justice Secretary Cuevas
issued a Resolution directing the Prosecutor to include Obias in the information. The DOJ denied
respondent’s motion for reconsideration stating that the proper procedure is the filing of an appeal or
petition for review with the OP and not before the DOJ. Hence, the case was considered closed and
terminated. OP dismissedthe murder charge, CA affirmed OP’s decision. Whether or not the CA gravely
abused its discretion in affirming the OP’s dismissal of the murder charge. No. The findings of the
prosecutor with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause is subject to the power of
review by the DOJ. The determination of probable cause is not lodged with this Court. Its duty in an
appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case
may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with abuse of discretion
amounting to want of jurisdiction.

Uy v Javellana

One of the complaint is that the respondent judge did not apply the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure and, instead, conducted a preliminary examination and preliminary investigation in
accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the. Set the case for arraignment and pre-trial
despite confirming that therein complainant and her witnesses had no personal knowledge of the
material facts alleged in their affidavits, which should have been a ground for dismissal of said case.The
respondent argued that he could not dismiss the case outright since the prosecution has not yet fully
presented its evidence. Whether the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and
procedures. Yes. In the above-mentioned case, the accused were being alleged of malicious complaint
for malicious mischief and the penalty for it is only six (6) moths. Thus, without any justifiable reason,
the respondent judge cannot be allowed to arbitrarily allowed to conduct preliminary investigation,
thereby lengthening or delaying the resolution of the case, and defeating the purpose of said Rule.
People vs. Valencia

Two Information for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide were filed against the accused-
appellant. When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded “Not Guilty”. Trial then proceeded resulting
in accused-appellants conviction. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution was able
to prove the guilt of the defendant-appellant beyond reasonable doubt in spite of the fact that there
was allegedly no preliminary investigation, and that no sufficient evidence exists proving his guilt. No. A
person who is lawfully arrested, without a warrant should be delivered to the nearest police station and
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. Under said section, the prosecuting officer
can file the Information in Court without a preliminary investigation, which was done in the accused-
appellant’s case. Since the records do not show whether the accused-appellant asked for a preliminary
investigation after the case had been filed in court, he waived his right to have a preliminary
investigation, when he did, in fact, pleaded “Not Guilty” upon his arraignment.

PCGG vs. Navarro- Guitierrez

PCGG filed cases against former officers/directors of DBP and Galleon for anomalous behest
loans entered into by the DBP to Galleon. The Ombudsman found no probable cause against private
respondents and, accordingly, dismissed the criminal complaint against them considering that the
documents presented by the PCGG consisted mostly of executive summaries, which are hearsay, self-
serving, and of little probative value. Whether or not the OMB gravely abused its discretion in finding
no probable cause to indict respondents of violating Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019. Yes. Hearsay can
be used to established probable cost as long as it is substantial and credible. Only fact to support a
prima facie case against respondent are required not absolute certainty.

RULE 113

RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner, vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

PO3 Emmanuel L. Alteza testified that he saw the accused driving a motorcycle without a helmet
and so he flagged him down and invited the accused to come inside their sub-station since the
accused violated a municipal ordinance, which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet while
driving said motor vehicle. While the officers were issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal
ordinance, PO3 Alteza noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on reaching something from
his jacket. He was alerted and told the accused to take out the contents of his jacket’s pocket as the
latter may have a weapon inside it. The accused obliged, slowly put out the contents of his jacket’s
pocket, which included two plastic sachets of suspected shabu.

Issue:
Whether or not the arrest, searches and seizure were invalid.

Held:

Yes, there was no valid arrest. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was
not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. There being no valid arrest, the warrantless
search that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

Police officers were conducting a police visibility patrol in Pasay City when they saw two
unidentified men rush out of a house and boarded a jeep. Believing that there was a crime, the
police officers approached the house. When they peeked through the partially opened door, they
saw Antiquera and Cruz engaged in a pot session. The police officers entered the house, introduced
themselves and arrested Antiquera and Cruz.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest was invalid.

Held:

Yes, there was unlawful arrest because the circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest
made in flagrante delicto. Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers
that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under the rule. Considering that
his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

People vs Vasquez

FACTS
There was a confidential informant reported to PO2 Trambulo about the illegal drug activities.
Fajardo organized a buy-bust team and during the operation Vazquez was arrested.
He argues that the police officers did not have a search warrant or a warrant of arrest at the time he
was arrested. Inasmuch as his arrest was illegal, the appellant avers that the evidence obtained as a
result thereof was inadmissible in court.

ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant may assail the validity of arrest.

HELD
At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his arrest. It was
reiterated in People v. Tampis that any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be
made before the accused enter his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of
the information against them before their arraignment, appellants are now estopped from
questioning the legality of their arrest. Any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission
to the trial court’s jurisdiction.

RULE 114- BAIL

Floresta vs. Ubiadas, 429 SCRA 270

Then Provincial Prosecutor, now RTC Judge Floresta administratively charged Respondent Judge with
“gross ignorance of [the] law, grave abuse of authority and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Among other grounds, complainant faults respondent for granting, “without giving notice to the
prosecution,” the petition for bail of Jose Mangohig, Jr. who was arrested by virtue of a warrant for
violation of Section 5(b), Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610 (“Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”). Respondent avers that, upon motion filed close to noon
time of January 3, 2000, the prosecutor was furnished a copy of the petition for bail by Mangohig, who
was then under preliminary investigation. During the hearing set on the following day, or on January 4,
2000 at 8:30 a.m, there was no appearance from the Prosecutor’s Office. Since the offense for which
Mangohig was charged is ordinarily a bailable offense, respondent granted him bail.

Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, and even if no charge has yet been filed in court against a
respondent-suspect-detainee, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor, or
at least his recommendation must be sought.

[A]dmission to bail as a matter of discretion presupposes the exercise thereof in accordance with law
and guided by the applicable legal principles. The prosecution must first be accorded an opportunity to
present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such
evidence that judicial discretion is weighed against in determining whether the guilt of the accused is
strong. In other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines of
procedural due process, that is, after the evaluation of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any
order issued in the absence thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim and caprice
and outright arbitrariness. (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)

Zuno vs. Cabebe, 444 SCRA 382

Respondent judge motu propio granted bail to an accused in a criminal case invoking as a ground the
right of the accused to a speedy trial.SC held that Respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the
law by granting bail without hearing. In Docena-Caspe vs. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, it was held that
jurisprudence is replete with decisions on the procedural necessity of a hearing, whether summary or
otherwise, relative to the grant of bail, especially in cases involving offenses punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, where bail is a matter of discretion. Under the present Rules, a
hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion. It must be stressed
that the grant or denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of discretion hinges on the issue on
whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong and determination of whether or not the
evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the latter
to properly exercise his discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence
of guilt is strong. In fact, even in cases where there is no petition for bail, a hearing should still be held.

Gov’t. of Hongkong Spec. Admin Region vs. Odiada, 521 SCRA

Private respondent Muñoz was charged before Hong Kong Court. Warrants of arrest were issued and by
virtue of a final decree the validity of the Order of Arrest was upheld. The petitioner Hong Kong
Administrative Region filed a petition for the extradition of the private respondent. In the same case, a
petition for bail was filed by the private respondent. The petition for bail was denied by reason that
there was no Philippine law granting the same in extradition cases and that the respondent was a high
“flight risk”. SC held that a potential extraditee is entitled to bail. The right of a prospective extraditee to
apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the
Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these treaties,
the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to
liberty of every individual is not impaired.

People vs. Sandiganbayan, 529 SCRA 764

Respondent Estrada was among those charged in the crime of plunder filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman. Petitioner’s application for bail was granted on the ground that he is no longer considered
a flight risk. SC affirmed that decision and held that even if the even if the capital offense charged is
bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail may be justifiably be denied if
the probability of escape is great. Here, the likelihood on the part of private respondent is now almost
nil, given his election as Senator of the Philippines. The Court takes stock of the fact that those who
usually jump bail are shadowy characters mindless of their reputation in the eyes of the people for as
long as they can flee from retribution of justice. The Court, to be sure, cannot accept any suggestion that
someone who has a popular mandate to serve as Senator is harbouring any plan to give up his Senate
seat in exchange for becoming a fugitive from justice.

Okabe vs. Gutierrez 426 SCRA 685

Petitioner was charged with Estafa and posted bail. She left the Philippines twice but returned. The
prosecution moved for the issuance of a hold departure order to hold and prevent any attempt on the
part of the petitioner to depart from the Philippines. Petitioner filed a Very Urgent Motion To Lift/Recall
Hold Departure Order and/or allow her to regularly travel to Japan. Petitioner filed a motion for the
postponement of her arraignment alleging that, in case the trial court ruled adversely thereon, she
would refuse to enter a plea and seek relief from the appellate court. The court denied the petitioner’s
motions on the ground that when the petitioner posted a personal bail bond for her provisional liberty,
she thereby waived her right to question the court’s finding of the existence of probable cause for her
arrest and submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court, more so when she filed the motion for the
lifting of the hold departure order the court issued, and the motion to defer the proceedings and her
arraignment. SC held that there is no waiver in application for or filing of a bail. Before the appellate
court rendered its decision on January 31, 2001, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure was already in
effect.

Leviste vs. CA 615 SCRA 619

Petitioner was charged with crime of murder but was convicted by the RTC for the lesser crime of
homicide. He appealed to the RTC’s decision to the CA then he filed an application for admission to bail
pending appeal, due to his advanced age and health condition, and claiming the absence of any risk or
possibility of flight. CA denied his application for bail on the ground that bail is not a sick pass for an
ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical care outside of prison facility. SC held that CA did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for bail of Petitioner. Under Sec. 5 of
Rule 114, bail discretionary, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment; that if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third par. Of Section
5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail
pending appeal may be denied even if the bail-negating circumstances in the third par of Sec .5, Rule
114 are absent. Appellate court’s denial does not, by and of itself, constitute abuse of discretion.

Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan 18 August 2015

Petitioner was charged with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his purported involvement in
the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) Scam. Initially, Petitioner in an Omnibus Motion
requested to post bail, which the Sandiganbayan denied. A warrant for Enrile's arrest was issued, leading
to Petitioner's voluntary surrender. Petitioner again asked the Sandiganbayan in a Motion to Fix
Bail which was heard by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner argued that: (a) Prosecution had not yet
established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (b) that, because of his advanced age and voluntary
surrender, the penalty would only be reclusion temporal, thus allowing for bail and; (c) he is not a flight
risk due to his age and physical condition. Sandiganbayan denied this in its assailed resolution. Motion
for Reconsideration was likewise denied. SC however held that as a general rule, any person, before
conviction of any criminal offense, shall be bailable. Exception would be, unless he is charged with an
offense punishable with reclusion perpetua [or life imprisonment] and the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Thus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is
strong. Where evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted according to the discretion of the
court.

RULE 115

Del Castillo V People

Accused having been arrested and convicted by RTC and was affirmed by CA to have violated RA 9165
Sec 11 during a raid conducted by the authorities in his house, but no illegal drugs were found in the
said house rather in a nearby nipa hut which was presumed to be by the police officers to be owned by
the accused as his electronic shop.

Held: SC ruled that allegation by the police of his dominion and control over the nipa hut was not proven
hence constitutional guarantee of innocence unless proven otherwise must prevail

Miguel V Sandiganbayan
Accused a Government official in Koronadal City was filed of a case regarding RA 3019 as alleged by the
accused the Information filed against him is fatally defective hence should be dismissed for not properly
being informed of the accusation against him.

Held: SC ruled that the test of the informations sufficiency is whether the crime is described in
intelligible terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly
informed of the offense charged.

Lara V People of the Philippines

Lara (accused) was invited by the Police officers to appear in Police station for a Police line up for a
crime of Robbery that had transpired some time ago. The said witness positively identified the former
for having to commit such crime hence were arrested and was filed of crime of Robbery with Homicide
by the authorities. Hence raised the issue of not being assisted by a lawyer of his choice during Police
line up

Held: SC ruled that the contention is bereft of merit since Police line-up does not specifically direct the
interrogation against him and he was he was not yet under the custody of law or arrested hence no
constitutional right was violated.

People V Ayson

Private respondent was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) he was allegedly involved in
a irregularity in sales of plane ticket thus management notified him of investigation, on the following
day respondent sent a letter to the management that he will be willing to settle the amount missing
regarding the irregularities. Hence was convicted and thereafter raised the defense of being violated of
his right against self-incrimination for accepting such letter as an evidence against him.

Held: Constitutional right was not violated since it was executed voluntarily and before actual
investigation was directed against him.

Villaruel V People

Members of Ateneo Fraternity were charged of crime of murder for having to killed a neophyte during
acceptance rites, some of them were convicted and others were deprived of the continuous judicial
proceedings thus filed a motion to dismiss the case on ground of violating their rights to speedy trial

Held: case dismissed SC ruled that the right is deemed violated when the proceeding is attended with
unjustified postponements of trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the case
being tried and for no cause or justifiable motive.

RULE 116

People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Estomaca, GR. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996
The accused, an illiterate laborer, was charged of guilty of five instance of her daughter. When he was
arraigned, he pleaded guilty to all of the complaints against him. The issue is whether or not the
arraignment is valid. No, Sec. 1(a), Rule 116 provides “xxx reading the same in the language or dialect
known to him, and asking whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.” Here, the court found out that the
complaint or information was not read to the accused in the language known to him, as his local dialect
was kinaray-a and the lower court conducted the arraignment in Illongo.

People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo T. Pangilinan, GR. No. 171020, March 14, 2007

Two informations were filed charging the appellant with raping his daughter. Upon arraignment,
appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. The issue is whether or not the appellant’s
rights were prejudiced by the fact the he was arraigned only at this stage of the proceedings. No, this
procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial without raising any objection that
his client had yet to be arraigned. Here, no protest was made when appellant was subsequently
arraigned. The parties did not question the procedure undertaken by the trial court.

Joselito Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008

Petitioner, together with Mayor Kuizon, were charged with 3 counts of malversation of public funds by
falsification. The prosecution found as acceptable the proposal of the accused to plead guilty to the
lesser crime of falsification of public document by a private individual but the Sandiganbayan denied
petitioner’s motion to plea bargain. The issue is whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the
petitioner’s motion to plea bargain. Yes, the lesser offenses of falsification by private individuals and
failure to render account by an accountable officer are necessarily included in the crimes of falsification
of public documents and malversaation of public funds. Here, the petitioner may plead guilty to the
lesser offense of Falsification by Private Individuals inasmuch as it does not appear that petitioner took
advantage of his official position in allegedly falsifying the timebook and payroll of the municipality of
Bato, Leyte.

People of the Philippines vs. Khaddafy Janjalani, GR. No. 188314, January 10, 2011

Members of the Abu Sayyaf were charged with multiple frustrated murder. On their arraignment for the
multiple murder charge, all entered a plea of guilty. The issue is whether or not a searching inquiry by
the trial court in the re-arraignment is necessary before allowing the changing of pleas of the accused.
Yes, the SC ruled that all trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused’s plea of guilty,
for while justice, demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in
seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the
import of an inevitable conviction. Here, the trial court judges are required to observe the procedure
under Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.

ABS-CBN vs. Felipe Gozon, GR. No. 195956, March 11, 2015

An information for violation of RA 8293 was filed against Reyes and Manalastas on Dec. 17, 2004,
respondents moved for a Petition for Review before the DOJ on Aug. 01, 2005. The issue is whether or
not the trial court erred in not proceeding with the respondent’s arraignment after the 60-day period
from the filing of the Petition for Review before the DOJ. Yes, Sec. 1(c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure allows the suspension of the accused’s arraignement in certain circumstances only. Here,
after the expiration of the 60-day period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the
motion to defer arraignment.

Juan Ponce Enrile vs. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 213455, August 11, 2015

The Office of the Ombudsman filed an information for plunder against Enrile, Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet
Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John Raymund de Asis before the Sandiganbayan. Enrile filed
a motion for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan. The Court denied Enrile’s motion for bill of
particulars. The issue is whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the petitioner’s motion for
bill of particulars. Yes, the SC stated that the purpose of a bill of particulars is to supply vague facts or
allegations in the complaint or information to enable the accused to properly plead and prepare for trial.
Here, a court should take a liberal attitude towards its granting and order the government to file a bill of
particulars elaborating on the charges.

RULE 117

People v Lacson

Chief Superintendent PNP Director for Investigation, filed murder charges with the Office of the
Ombudsman against ninety-seven (97) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. The said petition was
amended to implead as additional party-respondents State Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC,
Quezon City, Branch 81 in which the Informations in Criminal Cases. The Court of Appeals rendered the
now assailed Decision It characterized the termination of Criminal Cases as "provisional dismissal," and
considered Criminal Cases as mere revivals of the same. Applying Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it dismissed the criminal cases against the respondent. Whether
Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven (11) informations against the respondent Lacson
involving the killing of some members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang.Thus, there is need of proof of the
following facts, viz: (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the
accused; (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party, (3) whether the 2-
year period to revive has already lapsed, and (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the
cases beyond the 2-year period. The records of the case, however, do not reveal with equal clarity and
conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties were given before the cases against the
respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir the case at bar is remanded to the RTC - Quezon
City, Branch 81 so that the State prosecutors and the respondent Lacson can adduce evidence and be
heard on whether the requirements of Section 8, Rule 117 have been complied with.

PANAGUITON VS DOJ

Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums of money from Luis Panaguiton. Upon presentment for
payment, the checks were dishonored. He filed a complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violating
Batas PambansaBilang 22 the case was dismiss and held thatthe offense had already prescribed and held
that the offense had already prescribed. No, the offense had not prescribed. Under Act No. 3326, a
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 prescribes in four (4) years from the commission of the offense or, if the same be
not knownat the time, from the discovery thereof. Nevertheless, we cannot uphold the position that
only the filingof a case in court can toll the running of the prescriptive period. It must be pointed out
that when ActNo. 3326 was passed on 4 December 1926, preliminary investigation of criminal offenses
was conductedby justices of the peace, thus, the phraseology in the law, "institution of judicial
proceedings for itsinvestigation and punishment," and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a
complaint is filedwith the justice of the peace for preliminary investigation, the prescription of the
offense is halted.wherein petitioner filed his complaint-affidavit on 24 August 1995, well within the four
(4)-year prescriptive period.

People v Dumlao

An amended information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Dumlao and La’o, Aber P.Canlas,
Jacobo C. Clave, Roman A. Cruz, Jr. and Fabian C. Ver with violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.
being then the members of the Board of Trustees of the Government Service Insurance System,
conspired and confederated together and mutually helped one another, while in theperformance of
their official functions, entered into contract of lease-purchase with Emilio G. La’o, a private person.
Dumlao then filed a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
Sandiganbayan dismissed the case. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the motion to
quash information by the accused after the pre-trial and before the petitioner could present its
witnesses and formally offer its exhibits. Yes, Sandiganbayan should not have dismissed thecase on the
motion to quash by the accused. From the reasoning given by the Sandiganbayan, it is clear that it
dismissed the case because of insufficiency of evidence. Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the
grounds of a Motion to Quash.

Soriano v people

Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan were the President and General Manager, respectively, of the
Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. (RBSM).The State Prosecutor charged Soriano in the Regional Trial Court
for the violation of General Banking Actor for the violation of the Director, Officer, Stockholder or
Related Interest (DOSRI) Rules. On the same date, an information for estafa thru falsification of
commercial document was also filed against Soriano and Ilagan covering the amount of loan supposedly
made by Virgilio J. Malang. The accused moved to quash the informations in the pending cases before
the two branches of the RTC on grounds that more than one offense is charged and that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense. Whether or not the accused can file a motion to quash
information against them on the ground that more than one offense are charged against them. No, their
motion will be denied as there are no grounds to quash the information. Indisputably, duplicity of
offenses in a single information is a ground to quash the Information however, Soriano was faced not
with one information charging more than one offense, but with more than one information, each
charging a different offense- violation of DOSRI rules in one, and estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents in the others.

Cerezo v People

Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for libel against the respondents. The Court, therefore, after hearing
and conferring with the fiscal, can dismiss the case if convinced that there is no reason to continue with
the prosecution. The DoJ refilled the case the aggrieved party argued that there is a double jeopardy.
Whether there was a valid termination of the case so as to usher in the impregnable wall of double
jeopardy. In resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial court should
not rely solely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. The respondents were
not were there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the case. Double Jeopardy has not set in.

Co. vs New Prosperity plastic products

Respondent filed a complaint for violation of BP.22 against petitioner. In the absence of
Uy and private counsel the cases were provisional dismissed (june 9 2003). Uy received
the copy on July 2, 2003 while her counsel received it on July 2 2004. Uy field a motion to
revive the case while co argued that the dismissal is final 1 year after the issuance of the
order. Whether or not the provisional dismissal of the criminal case became permanent.
No. the requisite has not been fulfilled here in this case, the rule should be construed to
mean that the order of the dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of
the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution
without the criminal case having been revived. The public prosecutor cannot be expected
to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of the dismissal.

People v De Leon

The accused were charged with robbery with homicide. The RTC found the accused guilty
of murder contrary to the charge. CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and found the
accused guilty of separate crime of robbery. Whether or not the accused Danilo De Leon
was placed in double jeopardy when the appellate court also found him guilty of robbery
based on the same information filed where he was found guilty of murder. Yes. The
accused already been found guilty on the crime of murder and the court cannot used the
same information to convict the accused of another crime. The double jeopardy will set
in.

RULE 119

Salvanera vs. People, G.R. No. 143093 May 21, 2007

Facts:

The petitioner contests the decision of the court, which discharged the accused Feliciano Abutin and
Domingo Tampelix from the Information in Criminal Case for the Murder of Ruben Parane, pending
before the Regional Trial Court of TreceMartires City, to become state witnesses. The appellate court
likewise cancelled his bail bond. The trial court granted bail of the petitioner but denied the discharge of
the accused Abutin and tampelix. The prosecution elevated the case to the CA and argued that the
testimonies of the two accused are absolutely necessary to establish that petitioner masterminded the
murder of Ruben Parane.
Issue:
Whether there is sufficient ground to discharge the accused to be a state witness against the petitioner.

Held:

Yes, there is sufficient ground.

The court is satisfied that:

a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of said accused;
c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and,
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

What is needed is that the corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have to consist of the
very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state witnesses.

Vda. De Manguerra Vs. Raul Risos, G.R. No. 152643, 28 August 2008

FACTS:

A case of Estafe Through Falsification of Public Document before the RTC of Cebu was filed against Raul
Risos, Susana Yongco, Leah Abarquez and Atty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje. While the case was on going,
Concepion was confined at the Makati Medical Center due to upper gastro-intestinal bleeding.
Respondents filed a Motion for Suspension on the ground of prejudicial question. They argued that the
civil case CEB-20359, an action for declaration of nullity of mortgage, should be first resolved.

The CA reversed the RTC stating that, the examination of the witness is governed by Section15 of Rule
119 and not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rule 23 would apply in this case.

HELD:

No, it is not applicable.

In criminal cases, all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in the presence of the
judge. This is to afford the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pursuant to his
constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face. It also gives the parties and their counsel the
chance to propound such questions as they deem material and necessary to support their position or to
test the credibility of said witnesses. Lastly, this rule enables the judge to observe the witnesses’
demeanor.

It is true that Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules of civil procedure apply to all
actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings. In effect, it says that the rules of civil procedure have
suppletory application to criminal cases. However, it is likewise true that the criminal proceedings are
primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 adequately
and squarely covers the situation in the instant case, there is no cogent reason to apply Rule 23
suppletorily or otherwise.

Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr. V. People Of The Philippines G.R. Nos. 209195, 17 September 2014

Facts:

Manuel A. Montero confessed his participation in the killing of Ruby Rose Barrameda naming Manuel J.
Jimenez and several others as co-conspirators. His statements detailed where the alleged steel casing
containing the body of Ruby Rose was dumped, led to the recovery of a cadaver near the place which he
pointed. The motion to discharge was granted by Judge Zaldy B. Docena stating that the prosecution had
presented clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence showing compliance with the requisites of
granting the said motion.

Jimenez opposed Judge Docena’s ruling averring that the Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in
granting the motion to discharge because: (1) the requirements for granting a motion were not properly
complied; (2)there is no absolute necessity of the testimony of Montero; (3)Montero’s testimony do not
corroborate with the prosecution’s evidence; (4) and Montero is favored as a state witness though he
appears to be the most guilty.

Issue:

Did Judge Docena gravely abuse his discretion when he granted the motion to discharge Montero as a
state witness?

Ruling:

No. Jurisprudence has defined “grave abuse of discretion” as the capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner. To resolve a motion to
discharge under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it only require that that
the testimony of the accused sought to be discharged be substantially corroborated in its material
points, not on all points. A trial judge cannot be expected or required, at the start of the trial, to inform
himself with absolute certainty of everything that may develop in the course of the trial with respect to
the guilty participation of the accused. It is still the trial court that determines whether the prosecution’s
preliminary assessment of the accused-witness’ qualifications to be a state witness satisfies the
procedural norms. This relationship is in reality a symbiotic one as the trial court, by the very nature of
its role in the administration of justice, largely exercises its prerogative based on the prosecutor’s
findings and evaluation.

PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO G.R. NO. 167710 JUNE 5, 2009

Facts:

On November 28, 1991, an Information for murder was filed with the RTC against Joven de Grano
(Joven), Armando de Grano (Armando), and Estanislao Lacaba (Estanislao), together with their co-
accused Leonides Landicho (Leonides), Domingo Landicho (Domingo), and Leonardo Genil (Leonardo),
who were at-large. Duly arraigned, Joven, Armando, and Estanislao pleaded “not guilty” to the crime as
charged; while their co-accused Leonides, Leonardo, and Domingo remained at-large. In 2004 an order
was issued that modified the previous decision, from murder the case was downgraded to homicide.
However, Joven, Armando, and Domingo was not present during promulgation. They maintained that
while they were not present during the promulgation of the RTC Decision, Estanislao, who was under
police custody, attended the promulgation. Thus according to them, when they filed their Joint Motion
for Reconsideration, which included that of Estanislao, the RTC was not deprived of its authority to
resolve the joint motion.

Issue:

Whether or not RTC erred in taking cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration despite the
absence of the other accused during the promulgation of judgment?

Held:

Yes, RTC is incorrect.

The RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint Motion for Reconsideration with
respect to the respondents who were at large. It should have considered the joint motion as a motion
for reconsideration that was solely filed by Estanislao. Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not
regained their standing in court. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes
from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.

JOCELYN ASISTIO y CONSINO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MONICA NEALIGA

Facts:

Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines (Republic Act No. [RA] 6938). The prosecution sought to prove that the accused had entered
into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., (Coca Cola) for the sale
of softdrink products at the same school. The audit committee found that Asistio defrauded the
Cooperative and its members for three (3) years. Trial ensued and after the presentation and offer of
evidence by the prosecution, Asistio moved to dismiss the case by way of Demurrer to Evidence with
prior leave of court. She argued, among other matters, that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
does not have jurisdiction over the case, as the crime charged (Violation of Section 46 of RA 6938) does
not carry with it a sanction for which she can be held criminally liable.
The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not the dismissal of the charge against the accused on demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal, hence, final and unappealable.

Held:

No. The dismissal of the charge by RTC does not amount to an acquittal.

In this case, however, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case not for
insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Notably, the RTC did not
decide the case on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of Asistio’s guilt or innocence based on the
evidence proffered by the prosecution. This being the case, the RTC Order of dismissal does not operate
as an acquittal, hence, may still be subject to ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Antonio Cabador vs People Of The Philippines

FACTS:

RTC issued an Order treating petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence. And,
since he filed his motion without leave of court, the RTC declared him to have waived his right to
present evidence in his defense. The trial court deemed the case submitted for decision. Cabador
questioned the RTCs actions before the CA. The latter denied his petition and affirmed the lower courts
actions. Petitioner seeks the help of Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Cabadors motion to dismiss before the trial court was in fact a demurrer to
evidence.

RULING:

Supreme Court finds that petitioner Cabador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of his
right to speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence. In criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on
the ground of denial of the accused’s right to speedy trial. This denial is characterized by unreasonable,
vexatious, and oppressive delays without fault of the accused, or by unjustified postponements that
unreasonably prolonged the trial.

People Of The Philippines vs. Dante Tan

Facts:

During the trial, petitioner made its formal offer of evidence. RTC admitted the pieces of evidence, but
denied admission of all other exhibits. Tan filed Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence.
Petitioner filed its Opposition to which Tan filed a Reply. In the end, RTC issued an order granting Tan’s
Demurrer to Evidence.
Petitioner filed a petition before the CA assailing the order of RTC, which granted Tan’s motion. CA
denied, ruling that the dismissal of a criminal action by the grant of a Demurrer to Evidence is one on
the merits and operates as an acquittal, for which reason, the prosecution cannot appeal therefrom as it
would place the accused in double jeopardy.

Issue:

Whether or not the court erred in granting Tan’s Demurrer to Evidence.

Held:

No.

The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is “filed after the prosecution had
rested its case,” and when the same is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a
dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.” Such dismissal of a
criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to
place the accused in double jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there.

The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which is not present in this case.

Imperial vs Joson

Facts:

Petitioner Francisco claims that his right to a speedy trial was violated when the Public Prosecutors
assigned to the case failed to attend the nine hearings scheduled by the Sariaya MTC. Far from being
vexatious, capricious and oppressive, however, the delays entailed by the postponements of the
aforesaid hearings were, to a great extent, attributable to petitioner Francisco’s own pursuit of
extraordinary remedies against the interlocutory orders issued by the Sariaya MTC and the assignment
of at least three public prosecutors to the case.

Issue:

Whether or not the fact that the nine postponements of the pre-trial conference of the case amounted
to a violation of Francisco's constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Held:

In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case
and to a speedy trial, four factors must be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reason for the delay;
(c) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant.”

Although the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure concededly mandates commencement of the trial
within 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order and the continuous conduct thereof for a period not
exceeding 180 days, Section 3 a (1), Rule 119 provides that delays resulting from extraordinary remedies
against interlocutory orders shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence.
In determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, moreover, courts are "required to do more than a
mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case" and
to give particular regard to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.

Pp Vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 174504 March 21, 2011

Facts:

Manuel Barcenas, the Vice-Mayor of Toledo City was charged with violation of Section 89 of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1445 before the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, the prosecution filed its formal offer of
evidence and rested its case. On April 20, 2006, private respondent filed a motion for leave to file
demurrer to evidence. On June 16, 2006, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution granting the motion.
On June 30, 2006, private respondent filed his demurrer to evidence. The said court granted the
demurrer and ordered the case dismissed.

Issue:

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in giving due course to and eventually granting the demurrer to evidence.

Held:

An order of dismissal arising from the grant of a demurrer to evidence has the effect of an acquittal
unless the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only through certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. For the writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to have acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where the prosecution
was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham thus rendering the assailed
judgment void. The burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.

In the case at bar, the Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer to evidence on the ground that the
prosecution failed to prove that the government suffered any damage from private respondent's non-
liquidation of the subject cash advance because it was later shown, as admitted by the prosecution's
witness, that private respondent liquidated the same albeit belatedly.

Bangayan Jr. vs Bangayan

Facts:

After the arraignment, during which petitioners both pleaded not guilty to the charge against them, the
prosecution presented and offered its evidence. On September 8, 2003, Benjamin, Jr. and Resally
separately filed their respective motions for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. This was granted by
the RTC in its Order dated September 29, 2003.

In its December 3, 2003 Order, the RTC dismissed the criminal case against Benjamin, Jr. and Resally for
insufficiency of evidence. It reasoned out that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that Benjamin, Jr. used the fictitious name, Benjamin Z. Sojayco Jr., in contracting his marriage with
Resally. Corollarily, Resally cannot be convicted of bigamy because the prosecution failed to establish
that Resally married Benjamin, Jr.

Issue:

WON the demurrer to evidence granted by the RTC was proper.

Ruling:

YES, the demurrer to evidence granted was proper. It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the
offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is
limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to
that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an
acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the
Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The
private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or
complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

In this case, however, neither the Solicitor General nor the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City joined the
cause of Sally Go, much less consented to the filing of a petition for certiorari with the appellate court.
Furthermore, she cannot claim to have been denied due process because the records show that the trial
court heard all the evidence against the accused and that the prosecution had formally offered the
evidence before the court granted the demurrer to evidence. Thus, the petitioners' acquittal was valid,
entitling them to invoke their right against double jeopardy.

People Of The Philippines Vs. Jose C. Go, Aida C. Dela Rosa, And Felecitas D. Necomedes
G.R. No. 191015 (August 6, 2014)

Facts:

PDIC filed two counts of Estafa thru falsification of Commercial Documents against the private
respondents. Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty. After the presentation of all of the
prosecution’s evidence, the private respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence
and a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition. The presiding judge granted the private respondents’ Motion for
Voluntary Inhibition and ordered the case to be re-raffled to another branch. Respondent Judge grant
the Motion for Leave to File Demurrer of Evidence praying for the dismissal of the criminal cases
instituted against them due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The prosecution through the Office of the Solicitor General filed a certiorari before the Court of
Appeals but was also denied.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the decision of RTC Judge erred in granting the Motion for
Leave to File Demurrer of Evidence.

Held:

Yes.CA grossly erred in affirming the trial court’s Order granting the respondent’s demurrer, which
Order was patently null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and manifest
irregularity, thus causing substantial injury to the banking industry and public interest. The Court finds
that the prosecution has presented competent evidence to sustain the indictment for the crime of
estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and that respondents appear to be the
perpetrators thereof. What the trial and appellate courts disregarded, however, is that the OCBC funds
ended up in the personal bank accountsof respondent Go, and were used to fund his personal checks,
even as he was not entitled thereto. These, if not rebutted, are indicative of estafa.

Hence, the Petition is GRANTED. Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
July 2, 2007 and October 19, 2007 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49 in Criminal
Case Nos. 00-187318 and 00-187319 are declared null and void, and the said cases are ordered
REINSTATED for the continuation of proceedings.

RULE 120- JUDGMENT

LLMAS VS. CA
Petitioner sought to annul trial and appellate court decisions convicting them of “other forms of
swindling” penalized by Art. 316 par. 2 of the RPC, by filing a petition for Annulment of Judgment under
Rule 47.
Supreme Court held that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases
but only in civil cases, thus -- Sec. 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court states that: “This Rule shall govern the
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of
Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.” The remedy cannot be
resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the
enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which have suppletory
application to criminal cases.

PEOPLE VS. MONTECLAROS

Appellant was found by the trial and appellate court as an accomplice in the commission of rape of her
13-year old daughter, and was sentenced by the appellate court to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as
maximum. Prosecution appealed stating that imposable penalty should be increased to death
considering that there are special qualifying circumstances of minority and the relationship of the minor
to the victim under Art. 266-B of the RPC that warrant the imposition of death penalty.
Supreme court held that although the victim’s minority was alleged and established, her relationship
with the accused as the latter’s daughter was not properly alleged in the Information, and even though
this was proven during the trial and not refuted by the accused, it cannot be considered as a special
qualifying circumstance that would serve to increase the penalty of the offender. Under the 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure, every Information must state the qualifying and the aggravating circumstances
attending the commission of the crime for them to be considered in rendering judgment and in the
imposition of the penalty. Appellant may only be convicted as an accomplice in the crime of simple rape,
which is punishable by Reclusion Perpetua. In any event, RA No. 9346, entitled an “Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines” prohibits the imposition of Death Penalty.

HIPOS VS. BAY

2 informations for the crime of rape and an information for the crime of acts of lasciviousness were filed
against petitioners. Later, Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the case based on the Resolution of the
Office the City Prosecutor finding no probable cause against petitioners. Petitioners also try to capitalize
on the fact that the dispositive portion of the assailed Order apparently states that there was no
probable cause. Thus, petitioners claim that since even the respondent judge himself found no probable
cause against them, the Motion to Withdraw Informations by the Office of the Prosecutor should be
granted. However, the Supreme Court noted that: “the body of the assailed Order not only plainly
stated that the court found probable cause against petitioners, but likewise provided an adequate
discussion of the reasons for such finding. It held that “the general rule is that where there is a conflict
between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. However,
where the inevitable conclusion was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will
prevail.”

PEOPLE VS. LORENZO

Accused-Appellant was convicted for illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs, a violation of
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellant questioned his conviction on the basis of reasonable doubt for
failure of the prosecution to adopt the required procedure on the custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. Supreme Court held that prosecution’s case fails
for failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty. Although the prosecution
recognized its failure to coordinate with PDEA because of urgency of the situation, it ignored the issue of
specifically identifying the prohibited drug at the point of confiscation. There is absolutely nothing in the
records to show that the inventory and photography requirements, or their credible substitute to prove
integrity and evidentiary value, were ever followed. It was not certain when and where the marking of
retrieved sachets of shabu was done nor who had specifically received and had custody of the
specimens thereafter. The totality of evidence presented in the case failed to support accused-
appellants conviction since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of
offense.

PEOPLE VS. BARON

Appellant with 2 others were charged and convicted with the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. Appellant denied the conspiracy and claimed the exempting circumstance that he acted under
the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury but the same was denied by the trial and
appellate court. Supreme Court held that even if there is no direct evidence proving that the appellant
conspired and participated in committing the crime, his complicity may be proved by circumstantial
evidence, which consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the
main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been established; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
warrant the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial
evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results to a fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the perpetrator.
Furthermore, SC held that when a homicide takes place by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, all
those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether they
actually participated in the killing, unless there is proof that there was an endeavour to prevent the
killing. In this case, no evidence was adduced that the appellant attempted to prevent the killing, the
circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution leads to the inescapable conclusion that the
appellant and his co-accused conspired to commit robbery with homicide.

PEOPLE VS. ABELLANA

Petitioner was charged with Estafa through Falsification of Public Document. The alternative sentence
imposed upon the petitioner, to wit: to institute an action for the recovery of the properties of the
spouses OR to pay them actual and other kinds of damages. Supreme Court held that sentences should
not be in the alternative.There is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the
alternative.While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose both
in the alternative. He must fix positively and with certainty the particular penalty. There is therefore
absolutely no basis for the trial court and the CA to hold petitioner civilly liable to restore ownership and
possession of the subject properties to the spouses or to pay them P 1, 103, 000.00 representing the
value of the properties and to pay them nominal damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and
litigation expenses.

PEOPLE VS. ASIS

Private respondent was charged with 2 counts of attempted murder and 1 count of frustrated murder.
Respondent Judge held PR liable only for Serious Physical Injuries and Less Serious Physical Injuries. OSG
filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of RJ in finding that PR had no intent to
kill. The CA, in the assailed resolution, dismissed the petition outright ratiocinating that filing of the
petition for certiorari was the wrong remedy as it would place the accused in double jeopardy and that
as the State was questioning the verdict of acquittal and findings of lesser offenses by the trial court, the
remedy should have been an appeal.
SC held that the appellate court erred in dismissing the petition outright. A petition for certiorari under
Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question the verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the
appellate level.In our jurisdiction, judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable; but by way of
exception, a judgment of acquittal in criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court upon showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess in jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void,
therefore the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.

Basilonia V Villaruz
On June 19, 1987, a Decision was promulgated against petitioner after almost two decades passed from
the entry of judgment, on May 11, 2009, son of the deceased victim, filed a Motion for Execution of
Judgment. Thus, such motion was assailed by the petitioner for having it to prescribed

Held: SC ruled that prescription shall commence on to run from the date when the culprit should evade
the service of his sentence, here, since the petitioner is not yet serving his sentence his contention is
therefore unmeritorious.

Morillo V People

Petitioner Morillo filed a case of BP 22 against respondent contractors for having issued a bounced
check against the petitioner, elements of the crime was made in Pampanga but the petitioner filed the
case in MeTC of Makati place where she presented the check for payment. MeTC held the respondent
guilty of BP 22 and CA then dismissed the case for not want of jurisdiction

Held: SC ruled in favor of petitioner Morillo, the unique and exceptional circumstances in the instant
case demand that the Court forego a rigid application of the technicalities under the law specially when
case was dismissed based on technicalities alone, SC explained further difference of dismissal of case
from acquittal, the former is appealable by the State while latter is not by reason of double jeopardy

RULE 121

Estino V People

Accused herein is a public officer in Sulu he was accused of crime in violation of RA 3019 anti-corrupt
practices act for having to failed in paying the Benefits of employees on year of 1999, whereas evidence
could show that accused had actually paid the RATA on year 1998, prosecution failed to clarify as to
which budget source is in issue

Held: case was remanded for new trial since the SC cannot and should not be hasty in convicting the
accused when there are factual circumstances that could save them from imprisonment

Briones V People

Accused was charged of crime of theft for having to take a caliber 38 pistol revolver from a security
guard during a mauling incident that transpired in Paranaque city, petitioner then moved for motion for
new trial as according to him he found a new evidence that would change the outcome of the decision,
and that is the stolen pistol was found and secondly, he mentioned that his former counsel imposed an
alibi instead of justifying circumstance for the accused`s defense

Held: Motion for new trial denied, SC ruled Briones was not denied of competent legal representation in
the proceedings, and there was no diligence in the discovery of the new evidence, more so evidence
cannot overturn the case in his favor

Saludaga vs Sandiganbayan
Accused where charged of a crime under RA 3019 assailing it by motion to quash which was granted for
having failed to allege and prove the amount of damages to the government hence re filed the
information was then again assailed for not having a new Preliminary Investigation under the second
Information by reason of founding new evidence in the accused`s favor

Held: SC ruled that no new evidence was found because the introduced new evidence was in fact
already available as far as during the preliminary investigation.

Lumanog V People

Accused was convicted by the RTC and was likewise affirmed by CA on its ruling that he be convicted of
the crime of murder, petitioner raised the issue to the SC by imposing that the same found new
evidence in the form an affidavit of a Police Investigator that would change the outcome of the decision
of the courts,

Held: SC ruled that the affidavit being offered by the accused as a newly found evidence is bereft of
merit, because it was belatedly introduced where as in fact can already be offered as an evidence during
the trial stage.

Payumo V Sandiganbayan

Case is about officers of PC and INP have been charged of murder for firing openly on group of civilians
and killing most of them in the process, accused was then convicted by and later moved for the first
time motion for new trial based on irregularities on the trial for having too much “Rigodon de Juezes”
and was later granted, after such retrial a 2nd motion for reconsideration was then again filed this time
by reason of having the Ponente in this case was already transferred to another division of the
Sandiganbayan.

Held: SC upheld the ruling on the 1st retrial and rendered the 2nd retrial as bereft of valid reason for re
trial because a member of Sandiganbayan transferred to another division does not render his ponente
void because he is still a justice of Sandiganbayan thus not a valid reason for another re trial.

RULE 122-125

Corazon Macapagal vs. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 193217, February 26, 2014

The RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime for estafa and received the decision on
January 19, 2009, she timely moved for reconsideration but was denied on June 29, 2010. She filed a
Notice of Appeal on August 03, 2009 but the same was denied. The issue is whether or not the RTC
gravely erred in denying the notice of appeal. No, petitioner attached to the petition only the June 29,
2010 RTC order denying her notice of appeal but she failed to attached a clearly eligible duplicate
original or a certified true copy of the assailed decision. Here, petitioner failed to comply with the
requirement which is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

People of the Philippines vs. Roldan Morales, GR. No. 172873, March 19, 2010
Roldan Morales was charged in two separate informations before the RTC with possession and sales of
shabu. The trial court and CA found Moralesa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession and
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The issue is what is the nature of appeal. The appeal throws the whole
case open for review. As a general rule, trial courts findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA,
are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal except where the facts of weight and
substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misapplied. Here, the SC hold this case falls under the exception.

Rosie Quidet vs. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 170289, April 8, 2010

The RTC found Quidet, Tubo, and Taban guilty of frustrated homicide. From this judgment, only
petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA dismissed the appeal but reduced the penalty imposed over
Taban and Tubo. The issue is whether or not Taban and Tubo may be benefitted from the favorable
result of an appeal. Yes, the rule is that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not
affect those who did not appeal except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter.

Irenorio B. Balaba vs. People of the Philippines, GR. No. 169519, July 17, 2009

An information for malversation of public funds was filed against Balaba. The trial court found Balaba
guilty hence filed a notice of appeal. The CA dismissed the appeal. The issue is whether or not the CA
erred in dismissing his appeal. No, an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal
however, the correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-day
period to appeal. Here, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing the appeal only after the
expiration of the period to appeal.

People of the Philippines vs. Charmen Olivo, GR. No. 177768, July 27, 2009

Charmen Olivo, Nelson Danda, and Joey Zafra were charged for the crime of robbery with homicide. The
trial court found Olivo, Danda, and Zafra guilty. Only Olivo and Danda appealed to the CA which affirmed
the ruling of the trial court. The SC acquitted Olivo and Danda. The issue is whether or not the acquittal
of Olivo and Danda would benefit Zafra. Yes, an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not
affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter. Here, Sec. 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court justified the extension of
judgment of acquittal to the co-accused who failed to appeal from the judgment of the trial court.

Mercedita T. Guasch vs. Arnaldo Dela Cruz, GR. No. 176015, July 16, 2009

Petitioner was charged with estafa. The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case
against petitioner. Respondent filed a motion to amend order and petition for certiorari with the CA. the
CA affirmed the order of the demurrer to evidence but ruled that the denial of the motion to amend
order was rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The issue is whether or not the CA erred in holding
that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. Yes, the statutory requirement that when no
motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period, the decision attains finality and
becomes executory. However, in exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity considerations
warrant the giving of due course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and
mandatory rules of procedure.

People v Taruc

Francisco Taruc (“Taruc”) was charged before the RTC of Bataan with the crime of murder in
connection with the death of Emelito Sualog.After trial on the merits, the RTC of Bataan found Taruc
guilty for murder and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty. The CA was informed that Taruc
escaped from prison. Whether or not Taruc has lost his right to appeal his conviction considering that he
escaped from jail and eluded arrest. Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail
or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. However,
considering that what was involved was capital punishment. Automatic review being mandatory, it is not
only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases.

Tiu vs People

Respondent Edgardo Postanes (Postanes) charged Remigio Pasion (Pasion) for slight physical
injuries. On the other hand, petitioner David Tiu (Tiu) filed a criminal charge for grave threats against
Postanes.The CA reversed the RTC decision and affirmed the dismissal of Criminal Case. Whether or not
there was double jeopardy when Tui filed a Petition for Review with the CA assailing the MeTC decision
acquitting Postanes. The petition is defective since it was not filedby the Solicitor General. It was filed by
Tiu, the private complainant through his counsel. Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may
bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in
criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals. Tiu, the offended party is without legal
personality to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals before this Court.

Colinares vs People

Arnel Colinares was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide
by the RTC of Camarines Sur. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from two years and four months
of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prison mayor, as maximum. Since the
maximum probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for
probation petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court and took the position that he should be
entitled to apply for probation in case the Court metes out a new penalty on him that makes his offense
probationable. Whether or not Arnel Colinares may still apply for probation on remand of the case to
the trial court. Yes, The Supreme Court ruled that Colinares may apply for probation upon remand of his
case to the RTC. Iin this case the Supreme Court ruled to set aside the judgment of the RTC and found
him only liable for attempted homicide therefore he is entitled of the probation.

Villaruel vs. People

A criminal case for homicide was filed against the 35 Aquilans. Four of the accused (Tecson, et.
al.) were found to be guilty of homicide by the trial court but was reduced to crime of slight physical
injuries and sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor by the Court of Appeals. However, upon appeal to
the Supreme Court by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ruled that they should be
liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide instead. Whether Tecsonet. al. can be covered by
the Probation Law despite their appeal of conviction? Yes. Had the RTC done what was right and
imposed the correct penalty, he would have had the right to apply for probation. Moreover, the Court
was quick to clarify that it remains that those who will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they
have the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.

Dungo vs People

RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The CA ruled that the appeal of Dungo and
Sibal was bereft of merit. Whether or not the circumstantial evidence is enough to prove the guilt of an
accused beyond reasonable doubt. To justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the
combination of circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the
criminal liability of the accused. Jurisprudence requires that the circumstances must be established to
form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime. They took part in the hazing and, together with
their fellow fraternity officers and members, inflicted physical injuries to Villanueva as a requirement of
his initiation to the fraternity. The physical injuries eventually took a toll on the body of the victim,
which led to his death.

Manansala v. People

Manansala was charge for the crime of falsification of private document. CA affirm the
conviction. Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed Manansala's conviction for Falsification of Private
Documents. No.It must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open
for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment,
or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as
errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court
competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the
proper provision of the penal law. While the conviction of Manansala for the aforesaid crime was
proper, it was error for the MeTC to appreciate the "mitigating circumstance" of acting under an
impulse of uncontrollable fear and for the RTC and the CA to affirm in toto the MeTC's ruling without
correcting the latter court's mistake.

RULE 126

Miclat Vs People

Facts:

Police operatives including PDEA conducted a surveillance of drug trafficking in Palmera Spring II,
Bagumbong, Caloocan City. The informant of the police directed them to the residence of a certain
“ABE” PO3 Antonio then positioned himself at the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the
members of the group deployed themselves nearby. Thru a small opening in the curtain-covered
window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and there at a distance of 1½ meters, he saw “Abe” arranging
several pieces of small plastic sachets which he believed to be containing shabu. At the same instance
they arrested the petitioner. However, the version of the petitioner is that, together with her father and
sister while watching television the police operatives barrage themselves into their house and that the
shabu was later planted to the petitioner while travelling to the police station.

The trial court rendered the decision finding the petitioner guilty of Violation of Section 11, Article II of
RA No. 9165. The CA subsequently affirmed the trial court decision. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not peeping through a curtain-covered window is within the meaning of “plain view
doctrine” for a warrantless seizure to be lawful.

Held:

Supreme Court ruled that at the time of petitioner’s arraignment, there was no objection raised as to
the irregularity of his arrest. Thereafter, he actively participated in the proceedings before the trial
court. In effect, he is deemed to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court trying his case. At any rate, the illegal arrest of an
accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint
after a trial free from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.

People Vs. Mariacos

Facts:

Respondent was found guilty of violation of the dangerous drugs act.She was arrested after she was
carrying a bag alleged to have prohibited drugs inside. The bag, before it came to her possession was
found inside a passenger jeepney with no owner so the policeman looked inside it only to find packs of
marijuana. The policeman was acting on a report made about the bag by an agent of the Barangay
Intelligence Network.

Issue:

Whether or not the warrantless search conducted was valid.

Held:

Firstly, this Court opines that the invocation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution is misplaced. At
the time, when PO2 Pallayoc looked into the contents of the suspicious bags, there was no identified
owner. He asked the other passengers atop the jeepney but no one knew who owned the bags. Thus,
there could be no violation of the right when no one was entitled thereto at that time.

The search was conducted in a moving vehicle. Time and again, a search of a moving vehicle has been
justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to move out
of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Thus, under the facts, PO2 Pallayoc
could not be expected to secure a search warrant in order to check the contents of the bags, which were
loaded on top of the moving jeepney. Otherwise, a search warrant would have been of no use because
the motor vehicle had already left the locality.

People vs Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010

Facts:

The RTC found accused guilty as charged for possession of illegal drugs. On appeal, the CA modified by
acquitting Tuan of the charge for illegal possession of firearm but affirming her conviction for illegal
possession of marijuana. Tuan raised the matter to the Supreme Court contending, among others, that
the warrant failed to particularly describe the place because the house was a two-storey building
composed of several rooms.

The search warrant states: "You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at anytime in the
day the house of the accused Estela Tuan at Brgy. Gabriela Silang, Baguio City, and forthwith seize..."
Accused insisted that the Search Warrant failed to particularly describe the place to be searched
because the house was a two-storey building composed of several rooms.

Issue:

Whether or not search warrant is valid.

Held:

Yes, it is valid.

A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the
community. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement
of definiteness. In the case at bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search
Warrant was specific enough. There was only one house located at the stated address, which was
accused-appellants residence, consisting of a structure with two floors and composed of several rooms.

Esquillo v People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010

Facts:

Police officers were assigned in Malibay, Pasay to conduct surveillance on a notorious snatcher named
“Ryan.” It was during that time the police officers noticed the petitioner. The police saw the petitioner
standing three meters away from them. They saw the latter place inside a yellow cigarette case a plastic
sachet containing a white substance. They approached the petitioner and introduced themselves as
police officer. Subsequently, they inquired regarding the sachet the petitioner placed inside the case.
The petitioner acted suspiciously and even tried to flee. The police officers prevented her from doing so.
They apprised the petitioner of her constitutional rights and then they confiscated the sachet. They
marked the sachet with the initials “SRE” and took the petitioner to the police station.
Issue:

Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid.

Held/Ratio:

Yes it is valid.

The circumstances before the eventual arrest gave the police officers a reasonable belief that a search
on her was warranted. The police officer saw IN PLAIN VIEW that the petitioner was placing a plastic
sachet containing a white substance inside her cigarette case. Given the training of police officers, they
would likely be drawn to curiosity and approach her to inquire regarding such matter. The petitioner’s
reaction of attempting to flee after the police officer introduced his self gave more reason for the officer
to check the petitioner.

In order to execute a valid warrantless search, the officer conducting the search must have a genuine
reason to exist to warrant a belief that a person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons
or contraband concealed about him. Stop-and-frisk situations have a dual purpose: a) the general
interest of crime prevention and b) the interest of safety and self-preservation.

Marimla vs People

Facts:

Special Investigator (SI) Ray Lagasca filed for a search warrant to search the house of petitioners and
certain premises on Maria Aquino St., Pampanga both for violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425.
All requisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant were met. After searching petitioners’ house
they were able to seize various amounts of dried flowering tops and cash at around 15,000. An
information for violation of RA 6425 was filed against Petitioners, who in turn filed a motion to quash
search warrants and to suppress evidence illegally seized.

They argue that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000,
should have been applied, being the later law. Hence, the enforcement of the search warrant in Angeles
City, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC Manila, was in violation of the law.

Issues:

Whether or not the court had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant

Ruling:

Yes, it has jurisdiction.

The public prosecutor was able to point out that the search warrant issued by Judge Mario Guaria III, the
Executive Judge of the Manila Regional Trial Court, is in order considering that AM 99-10-09-SC allows or
authorizes executive judges and vice executive judges of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and Quezon
City to issue warrants which may be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in cases where
the same was filed and, among others, by the NBI.

A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila
and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling,
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, and
REACT-TF.

It provides that the guidelines on the enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall continue
until further orders from this Court. In fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are reiterated in A.M.
No. 03-8-02-SC entitled Guidelines On The Selection And Designation Of Executive Judges And Defining
Their Powers, Prerogatives And Duties, which explicitly stated that the guidelines in the issuance of
search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to
Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Petition is dismissed.