Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alcisso, Antonio, Arriola, Bernardo, Cajucom, Claudio, Dialino, Dizon, Escueta, Imperial, Martin, Martinez, Mendoza, Raso, Rosales, Sia,
Venzuela
PART I
A.
VENUE
IN
JURISDICTIONAL
CRIMINAL
CASES
IS
1. ISIP v PEOPLE
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Isip (and his wife Marietta) were
convicted of Estafa before the RTC of Cavite City.
Marites, however, died during the pendency of the
appeal before the CA. The spouses were engaged in
the buying and selling of pledged and unredeemed
jewelry pawned by gambling habitus. However, in
their dealings with Complainant Atty. Leonardo Jose,
they failed to account for the jewelries given to them to
be sold on commission. Also, certain checks theyve
issued in favor of Jose bounced. Procedurally, petitioner
contends that the RTC of Cavite has no jurisdiction
over the case since the elements of the crime did not
occur there. Instead, he argues that the case should
have been filed in Manila where their supposed
transactions took place.
2. LANDBANK
BELISATA
of
the
PHILIPPINES
FACTS
RULING: YES. The concept of venue of actions in
criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional.
The place where the crime was committed determines
not only the venue of the action but is an essential
element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases,
the offense should have been committed or any one of
its essential ingredients should have taken place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
ISSUE
Whether it is necessary that in cases involving claims
for just compensation under RA No. 6657 that the
decision of the Adjudicator must first be appealed to
the DARAB before a party can resort to the RTC sitting
as SAC.
RULING
Sections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide:
Section 50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR. The
DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
B.
JURISDICTION
DEPARTURE ORDERS
TO
ISSUE
C.
JURISDICTION
DETERMINED
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
BY
1. FOZ v PEOPLE
Facts:
Vicente Foz (columnist) and Danny Fajardo (editorpublisher) of Panay News were charged with libel for
writing and publishing an article against Dr. Edgar
Portigo1. The RTC found them guilty as charged which
HOLD
1. MONDEJAR v BUBAN
FACTS:
Mondejar seeks to hold Judge Buban of the Tacloban
City MTCC administratively liable for gross ignorance of
the law, partiality, serious irregularity and grave
That a certain Lita Payunan consulted with Dr. Portigo\ that she had
rectum myoma and had to undergo an operation. Even after surgery
she still experienced difficulty in urinating and defecating. On her 2 nd
operation, she woke to find that her anus and vagina were closed and
a hole with a catheter punched on her right side.\ she found out she
had cancer.\ they spent P150,000 for wrong diagnosis\
Held: NO
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction. The offense should have been committed
or any one of its essential elements took place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction
of the court is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information.
D. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN
1. PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
2.
3.
4.
RULING:
2. SERRANA v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
Serana was a senior student and a government scholar
of UP-Cebu. She was appointed by then President
Estrada as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year
term. She discussed with President Estrada the
renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman.
With her siblings and relatives, Serana registered with
the SEC the Office of the Student Regent Foundation,
Inc. (OSRFI). One of the projects of the OSRFI was the
renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex. President
Estrada gave P15M to the OSRFI as financial assistance
for the proposed renovation. The source of the funds,
according to the information, was the Office of the
President.
Issue:
Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to try a
government scholar and a student regent, along with
her brother (a private individual), of swindling
government funds? YES
Ratio:
1. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set
by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No.
3019, as amended.
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
A.
xxx
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989
(Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
xxx
" (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
2. Sandiganbayan
offense of estafa.
has
jurisdiction
over
3.
ESQUIVEL
SANDIGANBAYAN(borrowed from C)
FACTS:
PO2 Eduardo and SPO1 Catacutan are assigned
to the Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division
of San Fernando Pampanga. They filed their complaintaffidavits with the CIDG against petitioners Antonio
Esquivel (the municipal mayor Jaen, Nueva Ecija) and
his brother Eboy Esquivel. They crimes complained of
were illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, maltreatment,
attempted murder and grave threats. Several other
police officers were accused with the Esquivels.
the
Section
4(B)
of
P.D.
No.
1606
reads:
B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of
this
section
in
relation
to
their
office.
has
E. JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN
1. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE v LIWAG
FACTS:
RATIO:
Issue:
Whether or not the Ombudsman was empowered to
dismiss the complaint motu propio, without requiring
the respondents to file their counter-affidavit or
conducting preliminary investigation? (REM TOPIC)
Ruling:
Yes. The Court has consistently held that the
Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a
criminal case, given its facts and circumstances, should
be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss
the complaint forthwith should he find it to be
insufficient in form and substance or, should he find it
otherwise, to continue with the inquiry; or he may
proceed with the investigation if, in his view, the
complaint is in due and proper form and substance.
Quite relevant is the Court's ruling in Espinosa v. Office
of the Ombudsman and reiterated in the case of The
Presidential Ad Hoc FactFinding Committee on
Behest Loans v. Hon. Desierto, to wit:
The RTC denied & held that the (1) jurisdiction of the
RTC over the case did not depend on the salary grade,
but on the penalty imposable upon the latter for the
offense charged. It also (2) sustained the prosecutorial
powers of the Ombudsman since in the cited case the
court later overturned their decision in a clarificatory
resolution. Finally, it said that the (3) Motion to Quash
was contrary to Sec. 1, Rule 117, for it was filed after
Castro pleaded not guilty under the Information.
10
F.
REVIEW
OMBUDSMAN
OF
DECISIONS
OF
THE
1. ANTONINO v DESIERTO
FACTS
Petitioner filed a verified complaint-affidavit before the
Ombudsman against the respondents for violation of
Paragraphs (e), (g) and (j), Section 3 of RA No. 3019
and for malversation of public funds or property
through falsification of public documents. This
concerns the alleged conspiracy involving respondents
to cheat and defraud the city government of General
Santos through the illegal disposition of Lot X of the
Magsaysay Park in violation of law and its charter.
2. (relevant topic)
Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution, and pursuant to R.A. No. 6770, the
Ombudsman has the power to investigate and
prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or
employee when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. Well-settled is
the rule that this Court will not ordinarily
interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his
investigatory and prosecutory powers without
good and compelling reasons that indicate
otherwise. A contrary rule would encourage
innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of
investigatory proceedings conducted by the
Ombudsman, which would grievously hamper the
functions of the office and the courts, in much
the same way that courts would be swamped by
a deluge of cases if they have to review the
exercise of discretion on the part of public
prosecutors each time they decide to file an
information or dismiss a complaint by a private
complainant.
SEC. 27.
Effectivity and Finality
of Decisions. (1) All provisionary
orders of the Office of the Ombudsman
are
immediately
effective
and
executory.
11
ISSUES:
1.
1. SESBRENO v AGLUGUB
FACTS:
This case involves a complaint filed by Sesbreo
(Complainant)
against
MTC
Judge
Aglugub
(Respondent) for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Neglect
of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service relative to a criminal case (entitled People
12
DELA
PENA(Borrowed
FACTS:
Punzalan and the Plata families were
neighbors. On Aug. 13, 1997, Dela Pea, a house
boarder of the Platas, was in front of a store near their
house when the group of Rainier Punzalan, Randall
Punzalan, Ricky Eugenio, Jose Gregorio, Alex Toto
Ofrin, and others arrived. Eugenio shouted at Dela
Pea, Hoy, kalbo, saan mo binili ang sumbrero mo?
Dela Pea replied, Kalbo nga ako, ay pinagtatawanan
pa ninyo ako. Irked by the response, Gregorio slapped
Dela Pea while Rainier punched him in the mouth. The
group then ganged up on him. Somebody shouted,
Yariin na yan! Thereafter, Ofrin kicked Dela Pea
and tried to stab him with a balisong but missed.
While Dela Pea was fleeing, he met Robert
Cagara, the Platas family driver, who was carrying a
gun. He grabbed the gun and pointed it to the group
chasing him to scare them. Michael Plata, who was
nearby, intervened and tried to wrestle the gun away
from Dela Pea. The gun accidentally went off and hit
Rainier Punzalan on the thigh. The group ran after
them and when they got to the Platas house, shouted,
Lumabas kayo dyan, putang ina ninyo! Papatayin
namin kayo!
Rainier Punzalan filed a criminal complaint
against Michael Plata for Attempted Homicide and
against Robert Cagara for Illegal Possession of Firearm.
In turn, Plata, Cagara and Dela Pea filed
several counter-charges for grave oral defamation,
grave threats, robbery, malicious mischief and slight
physical injuries against the Punzalans, including one
for Attempted Murder filed by Dela Pea against
Rainier and Randall Punzalan and fourteen others and
one for Grave Threats filed by Dela Pea against Ofrin.
13
14
abuse.
I. ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL IN CRIMINAL CASES
1. PEOPLE v DUCA
FACTS
It was in 1999 that Pedro Calanayan filed an action for
ejectment and damages against Cecilia F. Duca and
several of her relatives. The case was decided in favor
of Calanayan. Decision became final and executory.
15
(1)
Represent
the
Government in the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeals in all criminal
proceedings; represent the Government
and its officers in the Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special
proceedings in which the Government or
any officer thereof in his official capacity is a
party. (emphasis supplied)
16
and
the
SC
17
PART II
A. COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
SUFFICIENCY
INFORMATION
OF
COMPLAINT
or
1. PEOPLE v DIMAANO
ISSUE:
FACTS:
RULING: NO.
RATIO:
We affirm the trial court's conviction for the crimes of
rape. However, we acquit Edgardo for the crime of
attempted rape for failure to allege in the complaint
the specific acts constitutive of attempted rape.
18
2. SASOT v PEOPLE
Facts:
NBA Propeties Inc. is a foreign corporation which owns
trademarks and names of certain basketball teams
registered with the Bureau of Trademarks and Patents
and Technology Transfer. On the basis of its complaint
filed, the NBI conducted an investigation on possible
unfair competition under RPC Art 189 against petitioner
for the unauthorized use of the trademarks and names
owned by NBA Props. Inc.
19
filed
and
3. LASOY v ZENAROSA
20
Petitioners
filed
a
Motion
for
Preliminary
Investigation dated June 4, 2008 which was strongly
opposed by the prosecution in its Opposition dated
June 18, 2008.
SUBSTITUTION OF INFORMATION
1. SALUDAGA v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
The undersigned Prosecutor of the Office of the Special
Prosecutor/Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses,
MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA and SPO2 FIEL E.
21
AMENDED INFORMATION
1. BONIFACIO v RTC
FACTS:
ISSUE:
22
x
x
x
x (emphasis
and
underscoring in the original; italics
supplied)
1. RAMISCAL v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Petitioner Jose S. Ramiscal, retired Brigadier General
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), was
President of the AFP-Retirement and Separation
Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) for almost 4 years.
During his term as president, AFP-RSBS board of
trustees approved the acquisition of a parcel of land in
General Santos City for development as housing
projects.
23
Section
7. Motion
Reconsideration.
for
Moreover, any
of
grounds
for
suspension
of
arraignment as provided for under Section 11, Rule
116 of the Rules of Court is not present in this case (i.e.
accused of unsound mind, prejudicial question, etc.)
Lastly, the Court also said that Petitioner cannot
anymore file a 2nd MR questioning again the same
finding of the Ombudsman. Otherwise, there will be no
end to litigation.
PRESCRIPTION
24
reconsideration
of
the
DOJ
resolution.
25
HELD:
YES. Ayco should be held administratively liable.
As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be
prosecuted under the control and direction of the
public prosecutor.
The court rules and so hold that the offense has not yet
prescribed. Petitioners filing of his complaint-affidavit
before the Office of the City Prosecutor on 24 August
1995 signified the commencement of the proceedings
for the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively
interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses
they had been charged under B.P. Blg. 22. Moreover,
since there is a definite finding of probable cause, with
the debunking of the claim of prescription there is no
longer any impediment to the filing of the information
against
petitioner.
26