Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
vs.
On 18 May 1995, 11 members of the Kuratong
HON. ZOILO HILARIO, as District Judge of the
Baleleng gang, were killed along
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and HON.
Commonwealth Ave., QC by the Anti-Bank
FLORO CRISOLOGO, respondents
Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG)
headed by Chief Supt. Jewel Canson of PNP.
One of the components of ABRITG is the
In Montilla v. Hilario,32 this Court described Presidential Anti-Crime Commission-Task
the "offense committed in relation to the
office" as:
Force Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by
petitioner Chief Supt. Panfilo Lacson.
Lacson now questions the constitutionality of
Secs. 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 because the
provisions are: (a) introduced by the Congress
SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes told the media that
in bad faith, (b) ex post facto legislation and (c)
what happened was a summary execution (or
misleading as to the law’s title. The OSG asserts
a rub out) and not a shoot-out between the
otherwise.
Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the
ABRITG.
ISSUES:
The corresponding information was filed with Section 9. How commenced. The prosecution
the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on of criminal cases falling within the scope of this
October 2, 1990. Rule shall be either by complaint or by
information filed directly in court without need
of a prior preliminary examination or
The petitioner moved to quash the information preliminary investigation:
on the ground that the crime had prescribed,
but the motion was denied.
Provided, however, That in Metropolitan
Manila and chartered cities, such cases shall be
the petitioner first argues that the charge commenced only by information; Provided,
against her is governed by the following further, That when the offense cannot be
provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure: prosecuted de oficio, the corresponding
complaint shall be signed and sworn to before
the fiscal by... the offended party.
Section 1. Scope. -- This rule shall govern the
procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal She then invokes Act No. 3326, as amended,
Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases: entitled "An Act to Establish Periods of
Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special
Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide
B. Criminal Cases: When Prescription Shall Begin to Run,"
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts
regulations; shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
prescribe in accordance with the following
rules: x x x Violations penalized by municipal
2. Violations of rental law; ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from petitioner, which is for violation of a municipal
the day of the commission of the violation of ordinance of Rodriguez, is governed by... that
the law, and if the same be not known at the rule... the Court feels that if there be a conflict
time, from the discovery thereof and the between the Rule on Summary Procedure and
institution of judicial proceedings for its Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
investigation and... punishment. Procedure, the former should prevail as the
special law. And if there be a conflict between
Act No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules... on
The prescription shall be interrupted when Criminal Procedure, the latter must again yield
proceedings are instituted against the guilty because this Court, in the exercise of its rule-
person, and shall begin to run again if the making power, is not allowed to "diminish,
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not increase or modify substantive rights"... the
constituting jeopardy. instant case is for violation of a municipal
ordinance, for which the penalty cannot
exceed six months,[8] and is thus covered by
Section 3. For the purposes of this Act, special the
acts shall be acts defining and penalizing
violations of law not included in the Penal
Code." (Emphasis supplied) Rule on Summary Procedure.
Ruling:
Our conclusion is that the prescriptive period
for the crime imputed to the petitioner
That section meaningfully begins with the commenced from its alleged commission on
phrase, "for offenses not subject to the rule on May 11, 1990, and ended two months
summary procedure in special cases," which thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance
plainly signifies that the section does not apply with Section 1 of Act No. 3326.
to offenses which are subject to summary
procedure. The phrase "in all cases" appearing
in... the last paragraph obviously refers to the It was not interrupted by the filing... of the
cases covered by the Section, that is, those complaint with the Office of the Provincial
offenses not governed by the Rule on Prosecutor on May 30, 1990, as this was not a
Summary Procedure. judicial proceeding. The judicial proceeding
that could have interrupted the period was the
filing of the information with the Municipal
As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Trial Court of Rodriguez, but this was done...
Procedure that among the offenses it covers only on October 2, 1990, after the crime had
are violations of municipal or city ordinances, already prescribed.
it should follow that the charge against the
Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim (G.R. No. days after the NBI searched respondent’s
168662) premises and seized Sanrio merchandise
therefrom. Although no information was
Date: June 9, 2016Author: jaicdn
immediately filed in court, respondent’s
0 Comments alleged violation had not yet prescribed. In the
recent case of Brillantes v. Court of Appeals,
Facts: we affirmed that the filing of the complaint for
purposes of preliminary investigation
interrupts the period of prescription of
Petitioner Sanrio Company, a Japanese criminal responsibility. Thus, the prescriptive
corporation, is the copyright owner of various period for the prosecution of the alleged
animated characters sold locally by its violation of the IPC was tolled by petitioner’s
exclusive distributor, Gift Gate Incorporated, timely filing of the complaint-affidavit before
which allowed local entities to manufacture the TAPP.
petitioner’s products. A search warrant was
issued against respondent Lim alleged to be
selling imitations of petitioner’s products. (2) NO. To be criminally liable for violation of
Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint for Section 217.3 of the IPC, the following
copyright infringement with the Task-Force on requisites must be present:
Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the
DOJ. Respondent asserted that he obtained his
merchandise from petitioner’s authorized
possession of the infringing copy and
manufacturers. The complaint was dismissed.
CA affirmed and further held that the offense knowledge or suspicion that the copy is an
had already prescribed. infringement of the genuine article.
Furthermore, when ambiguity exists in the (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
complaint or information, the court has no payment therefore.
other recourse but to resolve the ambiguity in
favor of the accused. Here, since there exists
ambiguity as to the identity of corpus delicti, To our minds, while there was indeed a
an essential element of the offense charged, it transaction between Emily and PO1 Area, the
follows that such ambiguity must be resolved prosecution failed to show that the subject
in favor of the accused-appellants. Thus, from matter of the sale to PO1 Area was the 12
the foregoing discussion, we have no other sachets of shabu. Based on the testimony of
choice but to acquit the accused-appellants of PO1 Area, the 12 sachets of shabu were the
sale of 12 sachets of shabu. sachets of shabu which Roger handed to his
wife Emily and were not sold, but which PO1
Area found in her possession after the latter
Truly, both the trial court and the CA were identified himself as a police officer.
wrong in convicting the couple for selling 12
sachets of shabu because the prosecution
failed to show that the husband and wife had In People v. Paloma, the Court acquitted the
indeed sold the 12 sachets of shabu. Section 5, accused for the prosecution's failure to prove
Article II of R.A. 9165 provides: the crime of illegal sale of drugs, and we have
set the standard in proving the same, to wit:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration,
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Under the "objective" test set by the Court in
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or People v. Doria, the prosecution must clearly
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. and adequately show the details of the
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and purported sale, namely, the initial contact
a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the
pesos ([P]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos offer to purchase, the promise or payment of
([P]10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any the consideration, and, finally, the accused's
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall delivery of the illegal drug to the buyer,
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give whether the latter be the informant alone or
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit the police officer. This proof is essential to
or transport any dangerous drug, including any ensure that law-abiding citizens are not
and all species of opium poppy regardless of unlawfully induced to commit the offense.
the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as
a broker in any of such transactions.
In the instant case, PO1 Area's testimony
showed no evidence that the transaction as to
More, jurisprudence holds that the the sale of the 12 sachets of shabu ever
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs happened. Rather, PO1 Area adequately
can only be successful when the following testified on the fact that accused-appellant
elements are established, namely: Roger handed the 12 sachets of shabu to Emily
who kept them in a coin purse. And after PO1
Area identified himself as a police operative,
he found the 12 sachets of shabu in Emily's
possession. From the foregoing, while the the sale thereof. Then Associate Justice
prosecution was able to prove the sale of one Artemio Panganiban logically and clearly
sachet of shabu, it is patently clear that it never explained the rationale behind this ruling, to
established with moral certainty all the wit:
elements of illegal sale of the 12 sachets
The prevailing doctrine is that possession of
ofshabu. And failure to show that indeed there
marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof,
was sale means failure to prove the guilt of the
except where the seller is further apprehended
accused for illegal sale of drugs, because what
in possession of another quantity of the
matters in the prosecution for illegal sale of
prohibited drugs not covered by or included in
dangerous drugs is to show proof that the sale
the sale and which are probably intended for
actually happened, coupled with the
some future dealings or use by the seller.
presentation in court of corpus delicti. Here,
the prosecution failed to prove the existence
of the sale of the 12 sachets of shabu and also
to prove that the 12 sachets of shabu Possession is a necessary element in a
presented in court were truly the subject prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
matter of the sale between the accused- It is indispensable that the prohibited drug
appellants and PO1 Area. subject of the sale be identified and presented
in court. That the corpus delicti of illegal sale
could not be established without a showing
that the accused possessed, sold and delivered
Notwithstanding the above-discussion, we
a prohibited drug clearly indicates that
convict both Roger and Emily of illegal
possession is an element of the former. The
possession of prohibited drugs despite the fact
same rule is applicable in cases of delivery of
that they were charged for the sale of illegal
prohibited drugs and giving them away to
drugs, because possession is necessarily
another.
included in sale of illegal drugs.