Professional Documents
Culture Documents
29,
1995)
a. Saura Import and Export Co. vs DBP (April 27, b. Constantino vs Cuisia (472 SCRA 505) (Oct. 13,
1972) 2005)
b. BPI Investment Corp. vs CA (Feb. 15, 2002) c. ACME Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corp. and Chia Pac
c. Bonnevie vs CA (Oct. 24, 1983) vs CA (260 SCRA 714) (Aug. 22, 1996)
d. Central Bank of the Philippines vs CA (Oct. 3, d. Selegna Management and Development Corp. vs
1985) UCPB (489 SCRA 125)
e. Republic vs Bagtas f. Transfield Philippines Inc. vs Luzon Hydro
f. Catholic Vicar Apostolic Inc. of the Mt. Province vs Corporation Australia et.al. (443 SCRA 307) (Nov. 22, 2004)
CA (Sept. 21, 1988) g. Feati Bank and Trust Co. vs CA and Villaluz (196
g. Quintos and Ansaldo vs Beck (69 Phil 108) (1939) SCRA 576)
h. Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. vs CA (April 19, h. Calinares and Velaso vs CA (339 SCRA 605) (Sept.
2001) 5, 2000)
i. Republic vs Grijaldo (G.R. No. 20240) (1965) i. Dino and Uy vs CA and Metropolitan Bank and Trust
j. Casa Filipino Development Corp. vs Deputy Co. (216 SCRA 9) (Nov. 26, 1992)
Executive Secretary (209 SCRA 379) j. Escano and Silas vs RItagni (526 SCRA 26) (june
k. PNB vs CA (April 30, 1991) 29, 2007)
l. Relucio vs Garfin (G.R. No. 76518) (1990) k. Tupaz IV and Tupaz vs CA and BPI (475 SCRA 398)
m. Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. vs CA (July 12, 1994) (Nov. 18, 2005)
n. Phil. American Accident Inc. Co. vs Flores (97 l. Prudential bank vs IAC (216 SCRA 257) (Dec. 8,
SCRA 1980) 1992)
Issue: WON the evidence gathered, particularly accused- Held: No. The dismissal is with consent of the accused,
appellants hair strands can be admitted as evidence hence a waiver of his right against double jeopardy. In the
against him? present case, the accused was duly notified that the case
was set for hearing on January 19, 1983. On said date of
Held:Yes. Under the above-quoted provisions, what is hearing neither the complainant nor the fiscal appeared
actually proscribed is the use of physical or moral despite due notice. This was the first date of hearing after
compulsion to extort communication from the accused- arraignment. The court a quo should not have dismissed
appellant and not the inclusion of his body in evidence the case and should have instead reset the case to
when it may be material. For instance, substance emitted another date to give the prosecution another day in court
from the body of the accused may be received as evidence
in prosecution for acts of lasciviousness and morphine
forced out of the mouth of the accused may also be used
as evidence against him. Consequently, although accused-
appellant insists that hair samples were forcibly taken from
him and submitted to the NBI for forensic examination, the
hair samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for
what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or
any evidence communicative in nature acquired from the
accused under duress. On the other hand, the blood-
stained undershirt and short pants taken from the accused
are inadmissible in evidence. They were taken without the
proper search warrant from the police officers.
Facts: As a result of a traffic accident, accused was charge People v. Bernas G.R. Nos. 133583-85. February 20,
with slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence. 2002
Facts: Accused was charged with 3 counts of Rape. When Churchille v Mari vs Rolando Gonzales. GR No.
arraigned on the charges, accused pleaded not guilty with 187728
the assistance of counsel. Before the prosecution
presented its evidence, appellant -- through his counsel -- Facts: Accused was charged with rape based on AAAs
moved for the change of his former plea of not guilty to sworn statement that she was raped by herein private
that of guilty, a Motion which the RTC granted. Appellant respondent PO1 Rudyard Paloma. AAA filed a motion to
was thus re-arraigned, and he pleaded guilty to the cancellation of hearing due to the pendency of private
criminal charges. RTC convicted him of the charges. complainant's petition for transfer of venue before this
Court. Accused invoke his right to speedy trial.
Issue: WON the court erred accepting accused-appellants
improvident pleas of guilty to a capital offense and in Issue: WON there was a violation of his right to speedy trial
failing to conduct a searching inquiry as to whether the
accused- appellant fully understood the consequences of Held: Yes. Here, it must be emphasized that private
his plea respondent had already been deprived of his liberty on two
occasions. First, during the preliminary investigation before
Held: Yes. When the accused pleads guilty to the charge, the MCTC, a period of almost four months; then again,
both the trial judge and the defense counsel must observe when an Information had already been issued and since
the stringent requirements of the Rules of Court and rape is a non- bailable offense, he was imprisoned for a
applicable jurisprudence in order to safeguard the period of over 6 months. Verily, there can be no cavil that
constitutional rights of the accused. In the present case, deprivation of liberty for any duration of time is quite
the defense counsel not only failed to protect the rights of oppressive. Because of private respondent's continued
his client; worse, he even advised him to plead guilty to incarceration, any delay in trying the case would cause
the Information that had failed to allege the essential him great prejudice. Thus, it was absolutely vexatious and
elements of qualified rape. As a consequence, appellant oppressive to delay the trial in the subject criminal case to
was wrongly sentenced to death. await the outcome of petitioners' petition for transfer of
venue, especially in this case where there is no temporary
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction issued by
a higher court against herein public respondent from
further proceeding in the case.
RULE 116
Facts: Petitioner Manuel Borja was found guilty of the People vs Abapo GR 133387
crime slight physical injury. He was ajudged by Judges
Senining of city court of Cebu (branch 1) and Judge Facts: The accused pleaded guilty to the charge against
Mendoza, judge of court of first instance of Cebu (branch him for 86 counts of rape for raping his own daughter 86
6). Borja is contending that he was tried in absentia times. The RTC sentenced him to supreme penalty of
despite the absence of an arraignment death.
Issue: Whether or Not petitioners constitutional right was Issue: WON the conviction was valid
violated when he was not arraigned.
Held: No. While the trial court inquired as to the
Held: Yes. Procedural due process requires that the voluntariness of the accused-appellants plea, it failed to
accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as to explain fully to the accused-appellant that once convicted,
why he was indicted and what penal offense he has to he could possibly be meted the death penalty. The fact
face, to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is that the court asked him whether he would accept the
shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to punishment that may be imposed upon him is not a
disprove the evidence against him. It is also not just due sufficient explanation to the accused of the consequences
process that requires an arraignment. It is required in the of his plea. The importance of the courts obligation cannot
Rules that an accused, for the first time, is granted the be overemphasized for one cannot dispel the possibility
opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. that the accused-appellant may have been led to believe
It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible that due to his voluntary plea of guilt, he may be imposed
loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature with the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua and not
of the crime imputed to him. At the very least then, he death.
must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the
state is mobilized against him. Being arraigned is thus a
vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him.
Also, respondent Judge Senining convicted petitioner
notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment. With the
violation of the constitutional right to be heard by himself
and counsel being thus manifest, it is correct that the
Solicitor General agreed with petitioner that the sentence
imposed on him should be set aside for being null. The
absence of an arraignment can be invoked at anytime in
view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair
and impartial trial.
People vs Cariaga Gr. No. L 145354
Facts: Accuse Deogracias Carrraga was sentenced for the Kummer vs People Gr. 174461
crime of theft to 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor , to
indemnify the offended party in the sum of P1,120 with the Facts: Petitioner was charged with homicide and pleaded
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, the RTC convicted her.
insolvency. Appellant argues that the trial court committed The petitioner claims that she was not arraigned on the
errors by having found him guilty of the crime charged amended information for which she was convicted. The
without having been arraigned. Appellant argues that petitioners argument is founded on the flawed
having entered a plea of guilty, the records fails to show understanding of the rules on amendment and
when, where, or how he was arraigned. misconception on the necessity of arraignment in every
case.
Issue: was the accused validly arraigned
Issue: WON there is a need for re-arraignment
Held: Yes, accused has been validly arraigned. The court is
of the opinion that the statement in the judgment the Held: No. A mere change in the date of the commission of
accused has been arraigned and the he pleaded guilty is the crime, if the disparity of time is not great, is more
sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 16 and formal than substantial. Such an amendment would not
25 of General Orders No. 58, in as much as it may be prejudice the rights of the accused since the proposed
presumed from said statement that the law has been amendment would not alter the nature of the offense.
obeyed by causing the accused to appear before the court
and it is shown thereby that he really been arraigned, his
plea entered personally being that of guilty. The court is of
the opinion that generally a conclusion is the averment or
denial of a fact deduced from some evidence.
People vs De Luna GR L-77969
Facts: Patrick De Luna, assisted by counsel de officio Atty People vs Dayot GR 88281
David Ompos was charged with murder for assaulting one
Tricia by punching and kicking her on different parts of her Facts: Rolando Dayot was being charged with the special
body which led to hear death. When arraigned he entered complex crime of robbery with homicide punished with
a plea of guilty with the qualification that hindi ko reclusion perpetua to death. He initially pleaded not guilty
sinasadya: to the crime charged but subsequently made a plea of
guilt. When the counsel de oficio of the accused Atty
Issue : Is the plea of guilt entered valid Fernando Fernandez out him on the stand it appeared that
Dayot himself was unsure of the length of his punishment.
Held: No, such plea of guilt is not valid. The essence of a He was then convicted of the crime charged.
plea of guilt is that the accused admit his guilt, freely ,
voluntarily and with a full knowledge of the consequences Issue: is the plea of guilt valid
and meaning of his act and with a clear understanding of
the precise nature of the crime charged in the complaint or Held: No, plea of guilt is not valid. Rule 116, Sec 3 of the
information. The plea must be an unconditional admission Rules of Court requires the judge to conduct a search
of guilt. It must be of such nature as to foreclose the inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of
defendants right to defend himself from said charges. Even the consequences of the accuseds plea for capital offense.
assuming that the plea was in fact to the lesser offense of The transcript between Atty Fernandesz and Dayot fails to
homicide still as provided in Rule 116, Sec 2 of the rules on satisfy this requirement, as Dayot was not aware how long
criminal procedure, the consent of both the fiscal and really is the penalty to be imposed to him, which turned
offended party is needed. Plus upon enter of the plea of out to be for lifetime imprisonment. The judge failed to
guilt of a capital offense, the court under Sec 3 of the satisfy himself in this case that the accused pleading guilty
above mentioned rule should have required the is indeed truly guilty. The 5 questions asked to him hardly
prosecution its evidence to determine the proper penalty amount to a searching inquiry considering that the
to be imposed which the court in this case failed to do so. accused was only a 20 year old boy who was facing a
punishment of lifetime imprisonment. judge must erase such mistaken impressions. He must be
completely convinced that the guilty plea made by the
accused was not made under duress or promise of reward.
FACTS: The accused was charged for raping his two People vs Molina Gr. 14129-33 Dec 14, 2001
daughters. He pleaded guilty. The lawyer of the accused
did not cross-examine the first daughter because he was Facts: Accused Roland Molina was being charged of rape
convinced that she was telling the truth. The cross for allegedly raping his own daughter, Brenda Molina.
examination of the second daughter centered on what she Accused Molina initially pleaded not guilty but
did when she saw her sister being raped. The lawyer did subsequently withdrew his plea of not guilty when he was
not present any evidence, and expressed his conformity informed that his penalty will be lowered should he plea
for the admission of the evidence of the prosecution. guilty to the accusations in which he did. After which the
prosecution did not anymore presented any evidence nor
Issue: WON There is a searching inquiry conducted did the accused cross-examined the witnesses presented
by the prosecution
Held: No. The warnings given by the trial court in this case
fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching Isse: Is the plea of guilty made by the accused valid
inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant
understood fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been Held: Invalid. In cases where the punishment to be
said, a mere warning that the accused faces the supreme imposed is a capital offense, the presumption of regularity
penalty of death is insufficient. For more often than not, an in the performance of the official functions does not apply.
accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he In the present case it appeared that the only reason why
hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial Roland made an improvident plea of guilt was simply
because of the promise made that his penalty will be Held: Yes. It appears that, before passing sentence, the
lowered. The court also failed to make the search inquiry court first satisfied itself that the accused "was well aware
needed under Rule 116 Sec 3 of the rules of court. It also of the consequences of his plea of guilty, the full import of
appeared that the improvident plea of guilt made by which, in view of the aggravating circumstances alleged,
Roland was the only reason why the court convicted the must have been brought home to him by his lawyer, who
accused without adducing any other evidence to support was then with, him and must be supposed to have duly
the conviction. performed his duty as such. Undoubtedly aware that there
were no mitigating circumstancesfor he made no offer to
prove anycounsel must have figured that defendant's
only chance to obtain leniency was for him to attenuate his
liability with a frank admission of guilt and throw himself
upon the mercy of the. court.
Facts: Charged with the crime of homicide, the accused People v. Digoro [G.R. No. L-22032. March 4, 1966.]
Arconado, at first, pleaded not guilty but decided to
change it to that of guilty when the date of his trial arrived Facts: Camolo Digoro and two others were charged with
with the request, however, that he be allowed to present counterfeiting of treasury and bank notes. Camolo pleaded
evidence showing the presence of several mitigating guilty and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment.
circumstances which attended the killing. As he started However, Camolo subsequently appealed his conviction on
the ground that the amended information to which he entered a plea of guilty with the qualification that "hindi ko
pleaded guilty does not charge an offense. sinasadya." The accused allegedly waived his right that
the prosecution present its evidence in order to determine
Issue: Whether Camolo may be convicted for violation of for the court the degree of culpability of the accused under
Article 168 under the amended information. the present charge. The RTC convicted him of murder and
sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Held: No. A plea of guilty to such an information therefore
does not warrant conviction of the accused. It is well Issue: Whether the accused may waive the presentation of
recognized that a plea of guilty is an admission only of the evidence for the prosecution, when the accused pleaded
material allegations of the information but not that the guilty during the arraignment.
facts thus alleged constitute an offense. From the
allegations in the information to which the accused Held: No. In order to be valid, the plea must be an
pleaded guilty, intent to use cannot be clearly inferred. It is unconditional admission of guilt. It must be of such nature
true it was stated that the accused possessed the false as to foreclose the defendant's right to defend himself
treasury and bank notes "unlawfully and feloniously ... from said charge, thus leaving the court no alternative but
Contrary to and in violation of Article 168 of the Revised to impose the penalty fixed by law. Under the
Penal Code". Such statements, however, are not circumstances of the case, de Luna's qualified plea of
allegations of facts but mere conclusions that the facts guilty is not a valid plea of guilty. Thus, after a plea of
alleged constitute the offense sought to be charged. guilty in capital offenses, it is imperative that the trial
Furthermore, the information alleged "intent to possess" court requires the presentation of evidence for the
instead of intent to use. Such allegation precludes clear prosecution to enable itself to determine the precise
inference of intent to use, in the absence of express participation and the degree of culpability of the accused
allegation of the latter, since intent to use entails intent to in the perpetration of the capital offense charged.
part with the possession. Thus, the judgment of conviction
must be set aside and the case should be remanded for
new prosecution under an appropriate and valid
information.
Held: No. The court did not deprive the petitioner of his
right to present evidence in denying the motion for
postponement of the hearing. The court held that there
was no denial of due process since no right can be
successfully invoked where it was validly waived. In this
case, the petitioner alleged that his counsel had another
case at a different court as the reason for his absence
before the court received the telegram alleging that the
such counsel was sick. Also, the petitioners motion was
not filed properly since the 3-day notice required in
accordance with procedure was not followed and there was
no medical certificate nor affidavit to support the alleged
illness of counsel. The petitioners plea that the court
should have appointed a counsel de oficio in his behalf is
without legal basis. The appointment of counsel de officio
is only mandatory at the time of arraignment in
accordance with Rule 116, Sec. 6 of the Revised Rules of
Court. It is no longer applicable during the hearing of the
trial such as the situation of the petitioner. The appeal is
denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed
Facts: The accused was charged with treason. In the Rocaberte v. People [G.R. No. 72994. January 23,
information, it was alleged that the different kinds of 1991.]
properties alleged to have been sold by him to the
Japanese imperial forces, in the City of Manila, during the Facts: Rocaberte, the accused, moved to quash the
enemy occupation, was also added the phrase "and other information, alleging that the statement of the time of
similar equipments". Hence the accused requested for bill commission of the felony charged, "from 1977 to
of particulars December 1983, a period of 7 years," or "about 2,551
days," was fatally defective; there was "so great a gap as
Issue: WON the accused can request for bill of particulars to defy approximation in the commission of one and the
after arraignment same offense"; "the variance is certainly unfair to the
accused for it violates their constitutional right to be
Held: Yes. It is thus evident that, in the absence of specific informed before the trial of the specific charge against
provisions of law prohibiting the filing of specifications or them and deprives them of the opportunity to defend
bills of particulars in criminal cases, their submission may themselves.
be permitted, as they cannot prejudice any substantial
Issue: Is a defect in the averment as to the time of the resolution finding probable cause to charge petitioner with
commission of the crime charged a ground for a motion to unfair competition.
quash?
Issue: WON arraignment may be suspended
Held: No. The remedy against an indictment that fails to
allege the time of the commission of the offense with Held: No. There was no prejudicial question because the
sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars. other civil case was an independent civil action. As regards
The information against Rocaberte is indeed seriously the second issue, his pleadings and annexes submitted
defective. It places on him and his co-accused the unfair before the Court do not show the date of filing of the
and unreasonable burden of having to recall their activities petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. He thus
over a span of more than 2,500 days. It is a burden nobody failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was
should be made to bear. The public prosecutor must make entitled to a suspension of his arraignment and that the
more definite and particular the time of the commission of questioned orders are contrary to Section 11 (c), Rule 116
the crime of theft attributed to Rocaberte and his co- of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Indeed, the
defendants. If he cannot, the prosecution cannot be age-old but familiar rule is that he who alleges must prove
maintained, the case must be dismissed. his allegations.
Samson v. Daway
Facts: The accused was charged with violation of
Intellectual Property Code for unfair competition. The
accused filed a motion to suspend arraignment and other
proceedings in view of the existence of an alleged
prejudicial question for unfair competition; and also in view Trinidad v. Victor Ang
of the pendency of a petition for review filed with the Facts: Accused was charged with BP 22. He moved for the
Secretary of Justice assailing the Chief State Prosecutors suspension of the arraignment in view of the pendency of
their petition for review before the DOJ. One year and 10
months had already lapsed before the accused was Facts: That on or about the 2nd day of May, 1993, in
arraigned. Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused Cesar Givera,
conspiring together, confederating with EPEFANIO GAYON
Issue: WON the suspension was valid GERALDE and ARTURO GAYON GERALDE, and mutually
helping one another who were charged with the same
Held: No. While the pendency of a petition for review is a offense at the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The two
ground for suspension of the arraignment, the provision accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to
limits the deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with evident
days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the premeditation and treachery, attack, assault, and employ
reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that after the personal violence upon the person of EUSEBIO GARDON y
expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to arraign ARRIVAS, by then and there stabbing him with a knife
the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment. hitting him on the different parts of his body, and striking
him with a piece of stone on the head, thereby inflicting
upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct
and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of EUSEBIO GARDON y ARRIVAS.
RULE 117
People vs Givera 349 scra 513
Suy sui vs People 92 PHIL 684
Facts: That on or about the 17th day of July, 1950, in the
City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and offer for
sale to the public at 312 Quezon Boulevard, in the said
city, one bag of refined sugar, 10 lbs. at P2, which price is Los Banos v Pedro G.R. No. 173588
in excess of P0.20 than that authorized by law as the
maximum ceiling price of said commodity, to wit P1.80. Facts: Pedro was charged in court for carrying a loaded
After trial the court found the petitioner guilty and firearm without authority from the COMELEC a day before
sentenced him to pay a fine of P5,000, with subsidiary the election. After inquest, the Marinduque provincial
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to be barred from prosecutor filed the case against him. Pedro filed a motion
engaging in the wholesale and retail business in the for preliminary investigation, which was granted, however,
Philippines for a period of five years, with a did not materialize. Instead Pedro filed a motion to quash,
recommendation to the President for the immediate arguing that the information contains averments which, if
deportation of the petitioner. From this judgment the true, would constitute a legal excuse and justification or
petitioner appealed, but the same was affirmed by the that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. He
Court of Appeals. The case is now before us on certiorari attached a certification, which state that he was exempted
from the Court of Appeals. from the gun ban. The RTC quash the information. The
Peitioner, moved to reopen the case, as the certificate is
Issue: W/N the petitioner is liable? falsified, and the prosecution was deprived of due process
when the judge quash the information without hearing.
Held: No. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to raise Pedro moved for reconsideration based on section 8 of rule
the point not only in the Court of First Instance by a motion 117, arguing that the dismissal had become final or
to quash but also in the Court of Appeals, as a permanent.
consequence of which he must be deemed to have waived
the objection. In the first place, under section 10, Rule 113, Issue: WON the RTC is correct in the quashal of
of the Rules of Court, failure to move to quash amounts to information?
a waiver of all objections which are grounds for a motion to
quash, except when the complaint or information does not Held: No. We find from our examination of the records that
charge an offense, or the court is without jurisdiction of the the Information duly charged a specific offense and
same. It is apparent that the point now raised by the provides the details on how the offense was committed.
petitioner is in effect that the information does not charge We do not see on the face or from the averments of the
an offense. In the second place, as an appeal in a criminal Information any legal excuse or justification. This COMELEC
proceeding throws the whole case open for review, it Certification is a matter aliunde that is not an appropriate
should have been the duty of the Court of Appeals to motion to raise in, and cannot support, a motion to quash
correct such errors as might be found in the appealed grounded on legal excuse or justification found on the face
judgment, whether they are assigned or not. of the Information. Significantly, no hearing was ever
called to allow the prosecution to contest the genuineness
of the COMELEC certification.
firearms and ammunition, subject matter of this case, were
brought out of the residence of the accused or were used
by him in the commission or another offense, since these
circumstances are not essential ingredients of the crime of
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The
contention is without merit. In People vs. Lopez, 8 the
Court already ruled that, under Republic Act No. 4, the use
or the carrying of firearms and/or ammunition was an
ingredient, if not the sole ingredient, of the offense; i.e. the
very acts which were punished, subject to certain
conditions, and hence, should be alleged and proved.
Held: While the accused was correct insofar as the lesser offense Issue: W/N the crime has prescribed
of simple slander includible in the offense charged can no longer
be applied to him by reason of prescription, Art. 91 of the RPC, as Held: The document which was allegedly falsified was a notarized
well as jurisprudence, provides that the filing of a complaint, special power of attorney registered in the Registry of Deeds of
regardless if it is with the Fiscals office or with the court, interrupts Dagupan City on February 13, 1964 authorizing private respondent
the period of prescription. On this note, whether the court counts 2 to mortgage a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
months simple slander or 6 months grave oral defamation is No. 47682 in order to secure a loan of P8,500.00 from the People's
immaterial since the crime committed still falls within the period Bank and Trust Company. The information for estafa thru
(the offense was committed on 26 December 1965 and was filed falsification of a public document was filed only on March 29, 1974.
with the Office of the Fiscal on 3 February 1966). Still, the accused The court reject petitioner's claim that the ten-year period
cannot be convicted since the statements imputed were clearly not commenced when complainant supposedly discovered the crime in
libelous per se; at the most, such statements were merely criticism January, 1972 by reason of the ejectment suit against him.
of one doctor to another, to which is not necessarily libelous.
People vs Villalon 192 scra 521 G.R. No. 43659 December 21,
1990 PeoplevsMogulG.R. No. L-37837 August 24, 1984
Facts: De Guzman was charged with estafa thru falsification of Facts: An information for estafa was filed against petitioner Crespo.
public document on March 29 1974. As the attorney in fact of When the case was set for arraignment, accused filed a motion to
defer on the ground of a pending petition with the Secretary of who was the Officer-in-Charge Provincial Warden of the
Justice), but was denied. Upon petition to the CA, the lower court Batangas Provincial Jail, falsified a Memorandum Receipt
was directed to refrain from therefrom. Eventually, the pending for Equipment Semi-Expendable and Non-Expendable
petition for review with the Secretary was resolved, thereby Property, a public/official document. When in truth and
ordering the Provincial Fiscal to move for the dismissal of the fact, when in truth and in fact said statements are
information. Such motion by the same, however, was denied by the absolutely false when he has the legal obligation to
lower court. Petitioner Crespo files a petition for review with the disclose the truth, as said firearm is not a property of the
SC. Provincial Government of Batangas; that it is not registered
with the Firearms and Explosives Units of Batangas PNP
Issue: W/N the court can heed to the request and powers of the Command, Batangas City and Camp Crame, Quezon City;
fiscals office to dismiss the case and that Alberto Tesoro is not an employee of the
Provincial Government of Batangas, to the damage and
Held: While it is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions shall be prejudice of public interest. The trial court set the
prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal, the same it
arraignment of the accused and the initial pre-trial.
not without any limitation or control. Among others, the powers of
Apparently, out of the eleven witnesses listed in the
the fiscal in relation to his/her power to determine whether a prima
Information, only the first three witnesses were notified of
facie case that warrants prosecution exists terminates upon the
said arraignment and pre-trial. On motion of the accused
filing of the information in the proper court. In other words, once
and over the objection of the public prosecutor, the trial
filed in court, any disposition of the case (dismissal, conviction or
court issued an order dismissing the case for failure of said
acquittal) rests with the sound discretion of the court. Though
witnesses to appear before it. The bail bond posted by the
endowed with discretionary powers, the fiscal cannot impose his
accused for his provisional liberty was thereby cancelled.
opinion on the court for it is the latter which is the best and sole
The public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration
judge of the case filed with it. A motion to dismiss, even if filed by
the fiscal, must still await the decision of the court. and was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition on the ground that the errors committed by the
trial court were mere errors of judgment, which are not
correctible by a writ of certiorari. Also the CA stated that a
reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10766 would place the
private respondent in double jeopardy.
HELD: YES. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must ISSUE: Whether or not filing of the second Information has
be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons placed the accused in jeopardy of punishment for the
accused of a crime. One need not be a police officer to be same offense a second time
chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted that other public
officers like judges and mayors, who act with abuse of their HELD: NO. The application of the doctrine of waiver is
functions, may be guilty of this crime. A perusal of the powers and subject to two (2) sine qua non conditions: first, dismiss
function vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those must have been sought or induced by the defendant,
of a barrio captain except that in the case of the latter, his territorial either personally or through counsel; and second, such
jurisdiction is smaller. Having the same duty of maintaining peace dismissal must not have been on the merits and must not
and order, both must be and are given the authority to detain or necessarily amount to an acquittal. Upon which the trial
order detention. Noteworthy is the fact that even private court anchored its 27 November 1974 Order of dismissal,
respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the aid of his rural are clearly directed at the sufficiency of said information to
police, he as a barrio captain, could have led the arrest of petitioner sustain the conviction of petitioner Caniza and, hence,
Valdez. indicate the absence of the first requisite in double
jeopardy. Consequently, petitioner Caizas plea of second
jeopardy cannot be sustained: he effectively waived his
right to assert that plea when he moved to quash the first
Information filed against him.
CANIZA vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. L-53776 March 18,
1988
Held: No. the dismissal being one on the merits, the Issue: Whether the evidence proves the commission of the
doctrine of waiver of the accused to a plea of double offense.
jeopardy cannot be invoked.
Held: No. in crimes against chastity, conviction of acquittal
of the accused depends almost entirely on the credibility of
complainant testimony. Where complainant in abduction
with rape testified that she resisted accuseds advances
who boxed her but the attending physician testified that
she did not have any contusions or business in
complainants body, the former testimony is not credible.
Furthermore, if the complainant had really been raped in
the early morning of march 28, 1967, she would have
shown that same morning manifestations of the outrange
perpetrated against her.
CENTRAL BANK v CA
171 SCRA 49, Mar. 8, 1989 LOS BAOS V PEDRO
GR No. 173588, Apr. 22, 2009
FACTS: An information for Estafa was filed against Felipe Plaza
Chua and Melchor Avila Chua President and Treasurer, FACTS: Joel Pedro was charged in court for carrying a loaded
respectively, of the Surigao Development Bank. Both pleaded firearm without authorization from the COMELEC a day before
not guilty to the crime charged. Trial ensued and the trial court the elections. Pedro, then filed a Motion to Quash after his
convicted the respondents of the crime charged. On appeal, the Motion for Preliminary Investigation did not materialize. The RTC
CA reversed the decision of the trial court and acquitted private granted the quashal The RTC reopened the case for further
respondents. proceedings in which Pedro objected to citing Rule 117, Sec. 8
on provisional dismissal, arguing that the dismissal had become
ISSUE: W/n appeal by the People is proper permanent. The public prosecutor manifested his express
HELD: No. Ordinarily, errors of judgment may be corrected in a conformity with the motion to reopen the case saying that the
timely appeal from the judgment on the merits. Such remedy, provision used applies where both the prosecution and the
however, is not available in the case at bar, the decision accused mutually consented to the dismissal of the case, or
involved being one of acquittal. An appeal therefrom by the where the prosecution or the offended party failed to object to
People would run counter to the accused's constitutional the dismissal of the case, and not to a situation where the
guarantee against double jeopardy. information was quashed upon motion of the accused and over
the objection of the prosecution. The RTC, thus, set Pedros
arraignment date. Pedro filed with the CA a petition for certiorari
and prohibition to nullify the RTCs mandated reopening. The
CA, at first granted the reopening of the case but through Held: Yes. These prevent a review of the evidence by the
Pedro's Motion for Reconsideration, his argument that a year court. They frustrate the purposes of the law through open
has passed by from the receipt of the quashal order, the CA's violation. Such review is impossible in view of the abuse
decision was reversed. Petitioner now argues using the same committed in resorting to such unlawful agreements.
argument of the public prosecutor.
RULE 118
U.S v. Donato 9 Phil. 701
ALVIOLA v AVELINO A.M. No. MTJ-P-08-1697, Feb 29,
2008
Fact: The representative of the government and the FACTS: In a Complaint[1] dated 5 October 2005, complainant
attorney for the defendants made several agreements alleged that the complaint in the civil case was filed on 24
where in facts of the case were stipulated. Later, the court September 2002. After the defendants filed their answer on 10
convicted the accused of the crime charged considering October 2002, the case was set for pre-trial conference on 19
that the crime of the accused was corroborated on its November 2002. Following several postponements, the pre-trial
substantial parts in view of the form and manner by which conference was actually conducted and terminated on 26
the witnesses have testified. August 2004. More than a year after the termination of the pre-
trial conference, respondent judge had not issued a pre-trial
Issue: Whether the agreements were unlawful. order. Complainant had already filed before the sala of
respondent judge a manifestation regarding this matter but
respondent Judge still failed to issue the required pre-trial order.
Respondent judge maintained that pre-trial conferences were the plaintiffs and other residents of Marawi City and the
set on 19 November 2002 and 2 January 2003 but both were province of Lanao del Sur. Judge Adiong issued a Resolution
postponed at the instance of both parties for purposes of ordering NPC to refund the amount of P114,000,000,
settlement. Further settings were likewise postponed as representing the Fuel Compensating Cost, Foreign Exchange,
defendants counsel had moved for the suspension of the and Incremental Cost Charges; to refund the amount of
proceedings of the civil case in deference to another civil case P176,000,000, representing the Fuel and Power Cost Adjustment
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Capiz for and PPA; and to pay the amount of P97,537,000 as attorneys
annulment/cancellation of title of the same property involved. fees.[4] NPC sought reconsideration of the order alleging that no
After respondent judge had resolved the motion, the pre-trial was conducted and yet respondent judge already
continuation of the pre-trial conference was scheduled and the passed upon the merits of the case. NPCs motion, however, was
parties agreed to have it on 30 July 2004. Finally, the parties denied by Judge Adiong. Judge Adiong reasoned that before
had their exhibits marked on 26 August 2004. Thereafter, the issuing the questioned resolution, full-blown hearings were
parties were given sufficient time to settle the case. Respondent conducted and NPC was afforded all the opportunities to present
Judge admitted that the delay in the issuance of the pre-trial its evidence and to participate actively in the hearings. Having
order was due to the fact that he had opted to concentrate on done so, NPC has submitted itself to the courts jurisdiction and
the disposal of other cases required to be terminated before 30 could no longer claim that no pre-trial was conducted. Later,
December 2005 pursuant to A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC. Respondent Judge Adiong also directed Sheriff Otto Gomampong to
judge, thus, argued that he cannot be held liable for gross implement the Resolution ratiocinating that the same has
neglect of duty due to his efforts to unclog the courts docket of already become final.[5]
pending cases as borne out by the record
ISSUE: W/n the issuance of Judge Adiongs Resolution is violative
ISSUE: W/n the respondent judge is liable for undue delay in of the Rules of Court
rendering a pre-trial order
HELD: Yes. Respondent Judge failed to conduct a pre-trial
HELD: Yes. Respondent judge violated the Paragraph 8, Title I (A) conference contrary to elementary rules of procedure which he
of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC by issuing the pre-trial order only on 2 should have known all too well considering his long years of
January 2005[16] or more than four (4) months after the service in the bench. Such ignorance of a basic rule in court
termination of the pre-trial conference. It should likewise be procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to gross
underscored that since the civil case is an ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty. As to the
unlawful detainer case falling within the ambit of the Rules on allegations of poor judgment and gross ignorance of basic legal
Summary Procedure, respondent judge should have handled the principles in granting the motions for execution pending appeal
same with promptness and haste.[17] The reason for the adoption for flimsy and unsupported reasons, the particular reasons
of the Rules on Summary Procedure is precisely to prevent relied upon by respondent judge for issuing the writ of execution
undue delays in the disposition of cases. It is therefore not pending appeal are so unreliably weak and feeble that it
encouraging when, as in the case at bar, it is the judge himself highlights the lack of knowledge of respondent judge with
who occasions the delay sought to be prevented by the rule. By regard to the proper appreciation of arguments. Dire financial
no means is the aim of speedy disposition of cases served by conditions of the plaintiffs supported by mere self-serving
respondent judges inaction. statements as good reason for the issuance of a writ of
execution pending appeal does not stand on solid footing. It
NPC v ADIONG does not even stand on its own.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060, July 27, 2011
PEOPLE vs. GUTIERREZ, JR. 302 SCRA 643 People vs De Vera, Sr. 308 SCRA 77
Facts: Accused, a Police Officer, was charged with murder of Facts: Accused is indicted in two separate informations for the
ANTONIO MERCENE JR.Accused-appellant at first pleaded not crime of murder for shooting Gerardo Valdez and homicide for
guilty, but later, through a new counsel, withdrew his plea and shooting Perlita Ferrer. After a joint trial that followed the
moved for modification of the order of trial pursuant to Rule 119, arraignment and the plea of not guilty entered by the accused with
3(e) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure invoking his plea of self- the assistance of counsel, trial court found the accused guilty.
defense. The trial court ruled that accused-appellant was actually
entering a conditional plea of guilty and thus entered a plea of not Issue: Whether the trial court committed an error in convicting the
guilty for him. At the same time, it denied accused- appellants appellant of murder with homicide?
motion for a modification of the order of trial
Held: Yes. While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more
Issue: w/n trial court erred in not allowing the accused in presenting criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot
his defense in an inverted order of trial upon his counsels motion convict the accused of a complex crime consisting of the various
as he invoked self-defense crime alleged in two information.
Facts: An information filed in May 1951 after the corresponding Facts: Benjamin Aninon and Policarpio Saycon were charged with
investigation, charges Marcelino Bacsa, Evaristo de los Santo, the murder of Cesar Agustin. Upon arraignment, Aninon and
Pedro Gaspar, Ernesto Gaspar and Martin Granil with crimes of Saycon pleaded not guilty. In the course of trial, Saycon was
robbery with homicide of the aged woman, plus multiple rape discharged and utilized as a state witness. The trial court also gave
committed on Celestina Torres, probably her relative. Martin Granil weight to the testimonies of Lauro Ibalig and Policarpio Saycon,
and Marcelino Bacsa testified for the prosecution. After weighing who witnessed the commission of the crime. Benjamin Aninon
the evidence submitted on both sided, the district judge found appealed
Gregorio Bacsa guilty. Gregorio Bacsa appealed in due time. The
appellant imputes irregularity to the trial judge in permitting the Issue: w/n THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISCHARGING
release of two defendants; because Rule 115, sec. 9, according to ACCUSED SAYCON AND ALLOWING HIM TO TESTIFY
him, contemplates the discharge of only one. AGAINST HIS CO-ACCUSED ANINON
Issue: Whether or not the trial judge erred in permitting the release Held: No.It has been ruled in this connection that the discharge of a
of the two defendants? defendant to be utilized as a state witness for the prosecution,
should be availed of only if there is absolute necessity for the
Held:No. Rule 115, Section 9, of the rules of Court does not testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested or the
prohibit the discharge of more than one co-defendant to be utilized accused is the only one who has knowledge of the crime and not
as state witness. It all depends upon the needs of the fiscal and the when his testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise
discretion of the Judge. Any error of the trial judge in this matter strengthen the evidence in the hands of the prosecution. His
cannot have the effect of invalidating the testimony of the testimony merely served to corroborate and strengthen the earlier
discharged co-defendant testimony of Lauro Ibalig and furnish further details on antecedent
events. The irregular discharge of Policarpio Saycon however, will testimony, Felicita's statements cannot be readily accepted hook,
not invalidate his acquittal. Under the then applicable provision of line and sinker. More important, the testimony of a state witness
Rule 119, his acquittal becomes ineffective only if he fails or must be received with great caution and carefully scrutinized. The
refuses to testify against his co- accused rule is that the testimony of a self- confessed accomplice or co-
conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused
cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be regarded as proof of
a moral certainty that the latter committed the crime. It must be
substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable
testimony and strong circumstances, and must be to such an
extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest. Felicitas
testimony on appellants confession being uncorroborated, the
question is whether it can stand alone and be given full credence
Issue w/ court erred in GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO Issue: w/n THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE
THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-TURNED-STATE- MOTION TO DISCHARGE ACCUSED FREDERICK MOSQUEDA
WITNESS FELICITA GENERALAO. TO BE UTILIZED AS STATE WITNESS
Held: The claim of Felicita that appellant confessed to the killing of Held: No. The requirements under Section 9 of Rule 119 for the
Uy must be corroborated to be given credence. Like any other discharge of Mosqueda to become state witness were not strictly
and properly met, nonetheless, this Court does not subscribe to the Assuming arguendo that the trial court did err, this Court has held
suggestion of the defense that Mosquedas testimony should be several times in the past that any witting or unwitting error of the
disregarded. This issue has long been settled. Although the trial prosecution in asking for the discharge of an accused, and of the
court may have erred in discharging the accused, such error would trial court in granting the petition for discharge, would not deprive
not affect the competency and the quality of the testimony of the the discharged accused of the acquittal specified in Section 10 of
defendant.[8] The discharge of an accused under these Rule 119 and of the constitutional guarantee against double
circumstances is not reversible. Once his discharge is effected, the jeopardy, as long as no question of jurisdiction is involved. It is also
legal consequence of acquittal follows unless the accused so relevant to note that the improper or mistaken discharge of an
discharged fails or refuses to testify pursuant to his commitment. accused would not affect his competence as a witness or render
The order for his discharge may only be recalled in one instance, inadmissible his testimony. CATLI'S argument that he had no
and that is when he subsequently fails to testify against his co- motive to kidnap anybody because his family was well-off is
accused irrelevant. In the fist place, the rich and the poor can and do
commit crimes.
Held: Catlis issue is well within the discretion of the trial judge.
This refusal of petitioner prompted Fiscal Paulete to appear at the trial of performing his official functions. This was also denied by
the cases which was then in progress during which a discussion ensued the Sandiganbayan.
between the two prosecutors. It was on this occasion when the court
decided to postpone the trial once more in order that the incident may be ISSUE: Whether or not the first division of the
determined once and for all by the authorities concerned.
Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of its
Issue: w/n the Secretary of Justice cannot disqualify a public Prosecutor jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying
from prosecuting a case because this power belongs to the proper court petitioners demurrer to evidence.
Held: the Secretary of Justice merely acted on the matter pursuant to the HELD: The resolution of a demurrer to evidence should be left to
authority conferred upon him by law over fiscals and public prosecutors the exercise of sound judicial discretion. A lower courts order of
invoking in his favor the portion of the law which provides: "It (Department denial shall not be disturbed, that is, the appellate courts will not
of Justice) shall also have general supervision and control of the review the prosecutions evidence and precipitately decide whether
provincial sheriffs and all law officers of the Government, the provincial or not such evidence has established the guilt of the accused
and city fiscals or attorneys and other prosecuting officers." (Section 83,
beyond a reasonable doubt, unless accused has established that
in relation to Section 79[C], Revised Administrative Code). But this power
of control and supervision can only extend to administrative matters and such judicial discretion has been gravely abused, thereby
not when it may conflict or encroach on the performance by the fiscal of amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.[29] Mere allegations
his duties in connection with the prosecution of a case investigated and of such abuse will not suffice. For the special civil action of
acted upon by him. To this extent he should be given wide latitude in certiorari to lie, it is crucial that there must be a capricious, arbitrary
order that the best interest of justice may be accomplished. and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of judicial
prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and
common law traditions. We are not prepared to rule that the
Sandiganbayan has gravely abused its discretion when it denied
ALARILLA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN [G.R. No. 136806. petitioners demurrer to evidence. Public respondent found that the
August 22, 2000] prosecutions evidence satisfactorily established the elements of
FACTS: Petitioner, a public officer, being then the Municipal the crime charged
Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, committing the crime of
grave threats (Art. People vs Atienza GR. 176671
282 RPC) in relation to and taking advantage of his official Facts: An Information[2] filed on June 19, 2001,
functions, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and respondents Aristeo E. Atienza (Mayor Atienza), then
feloniously level and aim a .45 caliber pistol at and Municipal Mayor of Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, Engr.
threaten to kill one Simeon G. Legaspi,during a public Rodrigo D. Manongsong (Engr. Manongsong), then
hearing about the pollution from the operations of the Municipal Engineer of Puerto Galera and Crispin M.
Giant Achievers Enterprises Plastic Factory and after the Egarque (Egarque), a police officer stationed in Puerto
said complainant rendered a privilege speech critical of the Galera, were charged before the Sandiganbayan violation
abuses and excesses of the administration of said accused. of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), or the
Petitioners motions for reconsideration and reinvestigation Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in Criminal Case No.
and petition for certiorari were all denied. After the 26678. On January 9, 2006, Mayor Atienza and Engr.
prosecution had completed the presentation of its Manongsong filed a Demurrer to Evidence (Motion to
evidence, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence on the Acquit),[15] which was anchored on the credibility of the
ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that he witnesses for the prosecution. Respondents maintain that
had committed the crime charged in the information and the evidence presented were not sufficient to hold them
that the act complained of took place while he was
guilty of the offense charged. In granting the Demurrer to information for bigamy against Benjamin, Jr. and Resally for having
Evidence, the Sandiganbayan ratiocinated that not all the elements contracted a marriage despite knowing fully well that he was still
of the crime charged were established by the prosecution, legally married to Sally Go. After the arraignment, during which
particularly the element of manifest partiality on the part of petitioners both pleaded not guilty to the charge against them, the
respondents. The Sandiganbayan held that the evidence adduced prosecution presented and offered its evidence The RTC
did not show that the respondents favored other persons who were dismissed the criminal case against Benjamin, Jr. and Resally for
similarly situated with the private complainant. insufficiency of evidence
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY Sally Go elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari.
ERRED IN DENYING THE PEOPLE DUE PROCESS WHEN IT
RESOLVED ISSUES NOT RAISED BY RESPONDENTS IN THEIR Issue:W/n the court can review an order grating the demurrer
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, WITHOUT AFFORDING THE
PROSECUTION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THEREON. Held: A demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution has
rested its case and the trial court is required to evaluate whether
Held: Verily, in criminal cases, the grant of demurrer is tantamount the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient enough to
to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If
because this would place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the court finds that the evidence is not sufficient and grants the
the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but demurrer to evidence, such dismissal of the case is one on the
only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. For the merits, which is equivalent to the acquittal of the accused. Well-
writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to have acted with grave established is the rule that the Court cannot review an order
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused on
as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its the ground of insufficiency of evidence because to do so will place
case or where the trial was a sham, thus, rendering the assailed the accused in double jeopardy.
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 present case, no such circumstances exist to warrant a
departure from the general rule and reverse the findings of the
Sandiganbayan.
Issue:W/n the contention of the court is correct Issue: W/N tHE CA ERRED GRAVELY AND ACTED
ARBITRARILY IN NULLIFYING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL
Held: Yes. As conspirators, they are all equally liable for the COURT GRANTING THE PROSECUTIONS MOTION TO
victim's death, whoever of them actually dealt the lethal WITHDRAW THE INFORMATIONS
blow.
The killing was qualified by treachery because of the Held:Yes. In resolving a motion to dismiss the case or to
sudden and consecutive attacks made by the three withdraw the Information filed by the public prosecutor on
accused which were calculated to insure its execution his own initiative or pursuant to the directive of the
without risk to them arising from the defense the victim Secretary of Justice, either for insufficiency of evidence in
might make. Treachery absorbs the circumstances of the possession of the prosecutor or for lack of probable
superior strength and aid of armed men, 14 which should cause, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on
not have been separately considered by the trial court. the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of
We are satisfied that the guilt of the accused-appellants in Justice that no crime was committed or that the evidence
the murder of Floro Gantilao has been proved beyond in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to
reasonable doubt and that they are justly punished with support a judgment of conviction of the accused. In this
reclusion perpetua and all its accessory penalties case, the trial court failed to make an independent
assessment of the merits of the cases and the evidence on
record or in the possession of the public prosecutor
People v Abellara 69 Phil 623
Facts: In a decision dated September 20, 1973, respondent
Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr. reversed the judgment of the City
Court of Quezon City and absolved Jose de Peralta from the People v Silo, G.R. No. L-7916
charge of illegal construction of his house. However, it Facts: The accused defraud the United States Tobacco
appearing from the records that the house was Corporation, received cigarettes valued at P3,172 to be
constructed (in 1972) by the previous owner, Guillermo sold by him and under the express obligation to account
Rezo, without a building permit, which is therefore an for and deliver the proceeds of the sale thereof, if sold, or
illegal construction, that part of the decision requiring the to return the said articles, if not sold; but the said accused,
demolition of the subject house is modified. De Peralta far from complying With his aforesaid obligation and
contends that the dispositive part of the decision, ordering despite repeated demands made upon him to do so,
him to demolish his house, is inconsistent with the accounted for the sum of P2,127.65 only, and with intent
judgment of acquittal and is not warranted. Judge Campos, to defraud, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
in his comment on the petition, justified the order of misappropriated, misapplied and converted the rest, to his
demolition on the ground that it was intended to own personal use and benefit, to the damage and
implement the policy of clearing Quezon City of squatters. prejudice of the U. S. Tobacco Corporation in the amount of
P1,044.35, Philippine currency". The Judge found him
Issue: w/n the judge was in excess of jurisdiction guilty of the crime of estafa as charged,
Held: Yes. Demolition is a form of punishment. One cannot Issue: w/n the judges contention was correct
be punished in a case where he has been acquitted
Whether the proper remedy to remove De Peralta's house Held. Estafa is a well-known crime not only to lawyers but
is through an ejectment suit, or under Letter of Instruction also to the community in general, and especially to
No. 19, which orders city and district engineers "to remove businessmen and business agents. Then the court imposed
all illegal constructions, including buildings, ... and those the penalty ranging from 2 months and 1 day of arresto
built without permits on public or private property, or mayor to 1 year and 1 day of prision correctional. This
through any other appropriate civil or administrative penalty would also indicate the kind of estafa committed.
proceeding is a point which we do not decide in this case. It was not necessary, therefore, for the court to specify the
particular article and paragraph of the Revised Penal Code,
which have been violated by the appellant. There are
cases where the law or legal principle involved is not
obvious or clear. It is those cases that it would be
necessary for the court to specify the particular statute or
principle violated. On the other hand, where the statute or
principle concerned is so clear and obvious, as in the
present case, and is really understood from the facts, the
conclusion and the penalty imposed, an express
specification of the statute or an exposition of the law is the Supreme Court has frequently enjoined the observance
not necessary. of the mandates of the law in this respect.
RULING: Yes. A new trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of its
severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. Thus, the jurisdiction when it granted a new trial of the case.
Rules allows the courts to grant a new trial when there are
errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights RULING: Yes. Rule 121, Section 2(b) of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
of the accused committed during the trial, or when there exists Procedure provides that: new and material evidence has been
newly discovered evidence. Before a new trial may be granted discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence
have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and
on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown
admitted would probably change the judgment, as one of the grounds
(1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such to grant a new trial. The records of the JAGO relative to the incident do
evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the not meet the criteria for newly discovered evidence that would merit a
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is new trial. A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; may be granted only if the following requisites are met: (a) that the
and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not
change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise
discovered evidence could have been very well presented of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative,
during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such
same cannot be considered newly discovered. In the case at weight that if admitted, would probably change the judgment. In this
case, however, such records could have been easily obtained by the
bar, respondents relied in good faith on the veracity of the
accused and could have been presented during the trial with the
Order which petitioners presented in court. It was only practical exercise of reasonable diligence. Hence, the JAGO records cannot be
for them to do so, if only to expedite the proceedings. The court considered as newly discovered evidence. There was nothing that
holds that respondents exercised reasonable diligence in prevented the accused from using these records during the trial to
obtaining the evidence. The certifications therefore qualify as substantiate their position that the shooting incident was a result of a
newly discovered evidence. military operation. Petition granted.
Payumo, et.al. vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 151911
FACTS: A composite team of Philippine Constabulary (PC) and
Integrated National Police (INP) units allegedly fired at a group of
civilians instantly killing one and wounding several others. The
accused were indicted for Murder with Multiple Frustrated and
Attempted Murder before the Sandiganbayan. After four years of trial, People vs. Antonio Dalisay G.R. No. 188106
the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision, FACTS: The accused, Antonio Dalisay, is the live-in partner
convicting the accused as co- principals of said charges. The accused
filed their Motion for New Trial, which was denied. They elevated the
of the victim's mother. The 16-year old victim was raped
case to the Supreme Court, which set aside the Decision of the by the accused, but was also molested even prior to the
Sandiganbayan and remanding the case for a new trial. Thus, the case crime committed. An Information was filed against the
was remanded to the Sandiganbayan and was raffled to the First accused and in it, the victim was identified as the
Division. Accordingly, the First Division received anew all the evidence accused's stepdaughter. The RTC convicted Dalisay of
of the parties, both testimonial and documentary. Later, with the
creation of the Fourth and Fifth divisions, the case was transferred to
qualified rape. Upon appeal, the CA modified the RTC's
the Fifth Division, which promulgated judgment, convicting the ruling, convicting the accused of simple rape instead.
accused of the crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. The
ISSUE: Whether or not there should be a new trial. However, private complainant moved for the revival of the present
case claiming that petitioner failed to comply with the terms of their
agreement. Said motion was granted by the MeTC and it subsequently
RULING: No. Section 2 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of violating BP 22.
provides the court shall grant a new trial on any of the Petitioner was sentenced to one-year imprisonment and was ordered
following grounds: (a) The errors of law or irregularities to pay a fine. Petitioner submitted her Appellants Brief with the RTC,
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have and the latter promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the MeTC
been committed during the trial; (b) The new and material Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was
denied by the RTC for being filed beyond the reglementary period. On
evidence has been discovered which the accused could not appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal. It
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced sustained the RTCs ruling that petitioners motion for reconsideration
at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would with the RTC was filed out of time. Hence, it held that the RTC Decision
probably change the judgment. In the case at bar, the had become final and unalterable. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Court affirmed the decision of the CA, convicting the Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision, but this was denied.
accused of simple rape. Three principles guide the courts ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not giving due
in resolving rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be course to petitioners motion for reconsideration.
made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult
for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view RULING No. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion
of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only for reconsideration of the judgment of conviction may be filed within
15 days from the promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the
two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the final order appealed from. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; within the reglementary period renders the subject decision final and
and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall executory. Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and
on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. The modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous
conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is
Court cannot convict appellant of qualified rape because attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by this Court. In the
the special qualifying circumstances of minority and case at bar, evidence on record shows that petitioners counsel of
relationship were not sufficiently alleged in the record, Atty. Ballena, received on September 21, 2004 a copy of the
information. With the foregoing, no irregularities prejudicial RTC Decision dated September 14, 2004, which affirms petitioners
to the substantial rights of the accused have been conviction for violation of BP 22. Hence, petitioner may file a motion
for reconsideration within 15 days from such date of receipt, which
committed during the trial or new and material evidence must be on or before October 6, 2004. However, petitioner filed her
discovered. Substantial procedures of the law have been motion for reconsideration only on November 3, 2004, or on the 43rd
followed; hence, a new trial cannot be warranted. day, which was beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
Consequently, the RTC Decision dated September 14, 2004 has
become final and executory. Petitioner alleges that she learned of the
RTC Decision only on October 20, 2004 when she asked a friend to
check on the status of the case and that Atty. Ballena did not inform
her of the RTC Decision. However, the rule is that when a party is
represented by counsel, notices of all kinds, including motions,
pleadings and orders, must be served on the counsel. Notice to
Mapagay vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. counsel of record is binding on the client, and the neglect or failure of
counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of
178984 his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment, valid
FACTS: An Information was filed before the MeTC charging petitioner and regular on its face. Petition denied.
with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The MeTC provisionally
dismissed the instant case on the basis of an amicable settlement
between petitioner and private complainant Relindia dela Cruz.
the Sandiganbayan for reception and appreciation of petitioners
evidence. Petition granted.
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan 326 Phil 182 (G.R. No.
103276)
FACTS: De Guzman was charged and convicted for violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioner then filed the
instant "Omnibus Motion For Leave to Vacate First Motion For
Reconsideration In The Light Of The Present Developments And
To Consider Evidence Presented Herein And To Set Aside
Conviction". This was filed on petitioner's behalf by a new
counsel, after petitioner's former lawyers withdrew their Astorga vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 154130
appearance. Petitioner, for the first time, seeks to be relieved FACTS: Five members of the DENR, together with SPO3 Andres
from what he considers as the serious and costly mistake of his B. Cinco, Jr.
former lawyers in demurring to the prosecution evidence after and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian of the Philippine National Police
court leave was denied, the effect of which deprived him of Regional Intelligence Group, were sent to the Island of Daram,
presenting before the Sandiganbayan the pieces of Western Samar to conduct intelligence operations on possible
documentary evidence illegal logging activities. At around 4:30-5:00 p.m., the team
that would have completely belied the accusation against him. found two being constructed at Barangay LocobLocob. There
He now appeals to the Courts sense of justice and equity that they met petitioner Benito Astorga, the Mayor of Daram, who
these documents be summoned and appreciated by the Court turned out to be the owner of the boats. A heated altercation
itself or by the Sandiganbayan after remanding the case ensued between petitioner and the DENR team. Petitioner called
thereto, if only to give him the final chance to prove his for reinforcements and, moments later, a boat bearing ten
innocence. armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived at the scene. The
DENR team was then brought to petitioners house in Daram,
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners motion for reconsideration where they had dinner and drinks. The team left at 2:00 a.m.
should be granted. Petitioner was then charged with and convicted of Arbitrary
Detention
RULING: Yes. The Court held in Ronquillo v. Marasigan that the by the Sandiganbayan. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
fact that the decision has become final does not preclude a which was denied with finality. He later filed an Urgent Motion
modification or an alteration thereof because even with the for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration.
finality of judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or
unjust, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same ISSUE: Whether or not the second motion for reconsideration
with justice and the facts. In the case at bar, petitioner is just should be granted.
about to lose his liberty simply because his former lawyers
pursued a carelessly contrived procedural strategy of insisting RULING: Yes. While a second motion for reconsideration is, as a
on what has already become an imprudent remedy, which general rule, a prohibited pleading, it is within the sound
forbade petitioner from offering his evidence all the while discretion of the Court to admit the same, provided it is filed
available for presentation before the Sandiganbayan. The rules with prior leave whenever substantive justice may be better
of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to served thereby. The rules of procedure are merely tools
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of
be avoided. In order to assure against any possible miscarriage technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice,
of justice resulting from petitioners failure to present his crucial courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously
evidence through no fault of his, this case must be remanded to guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a
backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way
around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to
frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our
power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its
operation. The determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention, in
the absence of actual physical restraint, is fear. After a careful
review of the evidence on record in the case at bar, we find no
proof that petitioner instilled fear in the minds of the private
offended parties. On the contrary, what appears is that
petitioner, being then a municipal mayor, merely extended his
hospitality and entertained the DENR Team in his house. As
such, petitioner is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Petition granted; petitioner
acquitted.
People vs Ebias GR. No. 127130, October 12, 2000 People vs De Grano GR. No. 167710, June 5, 2009
FACTS: Ronaldo Narez and his cousin, Tirso Narez, went to get some jackfruit in FACTS: On November 28, 1991, an Information for murder committed against
Barangay Dambo, Pangil, Laguna. On their way, they saw two men sitting by the Emmanuel Mendoza was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6,
roadside. As they were nearing the place where the two men were, the latter Tanauan, Batangas, against Joven de Grano (Joven), Armando de Grano
waved at them. Ronaldo and Tirso Narez ignored the summon and continued (Armando), and Estanislao Lacaba (Estanislao), together with their co-accused
walking. When they were about 15 meters from the men, they heard one of the Leonides Landicho (Leonides), Domingo Landicho (Domingo), and Leonardo
men, who was brandishing a bolo, say Boy, tirahin mo na. The other man then Genil (Leonardo), who were at-large. Duly arraigned, Joven, Armando, and
drew his sulpak and shot them. Ronaldo and Tirso Narez ran towards Estanislao pleaded not guilty to the crime as charged; while their co-accused
the kaingin. Ronaldo Narez realized that his right leg was bleeding. Nonetheless, Leonides, Leonardo, and Domingo remained at-large. After the presentation of
he managed to reach his house and told his father what had happened. Ronaldo the parties respective sets of evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision dated April
was taken to the Pakil Hospital for treatment. Tirso, who had also been taken to 25, 2002, finding several accused guilty of the offense as charged. Respondents,
the same hospital, suffered a gunshot wound on his stomach. He died from his thru counsel, then filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration dated May 8, 2002,
injuries the next day. Ronaldo Narez executed an affidavit identifying his praying that the Decision dated April 25, 2002 be reconsidered and set aside and
assailant as a certain Boy Marantal. About a month later, on August 16, 1994, a new one be entered acquitting them. Acting on respondents motion for
Ronaldo executed another affidavit (Exhibit F) in which he said that accused- reconsideration, the RTC issued an Order dated April 15, 2004 modifying its
appellant Ernesto Ebias was the same Boy Marantal who shot him and his earlier decision by acquitting Joven and Armando. Petitioner, thru Assistant City
cousin. The court rendered a decision, finding accused-appellant guilty of the Prosecutor Cesar Glorioso of the Office of the Manila City Prosecutor, with the
crime of murder with frustrated murder. Accused-appellant moved for new trial on assistance of private prosecutor Atty. Michael E. David, filed a Petition
for certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. However, the the confiscation should have been included in the decision
same was dismissed. as part of the penalty, and the latter naturally claiming
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing return to the accused. The lower court issued a resolution
the petition for certiorari dated July 30, 1955, expressing the opinion and holding
that the amount of $3,140 should not be confiscated, but
HELD: Yes. A writ of certiorari is warranted when (1) any tribunal, board or officer should be exchanged with pesos in the Philippine currency
has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
at the Central Bank, and delivered to the accused. The
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) there is no
appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of government, through the Solicitor General, is appealing
law. Although this Court does not absolutely preclude the availment of the from the resolution directly to this Court.
remedy of certiorari to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner must clearly
and convincingly demonstrate that the lower court blatantly abused its authority Issue: Whether or not the accused is put into double
to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive it of its very power to dispense
justice. When the Decision dated April 25, 2002 was promulgated, only
jeopardy?
Estanislao Lacaba was present. Subsequently thereafter, without surrendering
and explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo Ruling:Yes. The confiscation or forfeiture of the above
joined Estanislao in their Joint Motion for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of mentioned sum would be an additional penalty and would
the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause the arrest of the respondents who amount to an increase of the penalty already imposed
were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion. The RTC clearly
exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint Motion for Reconsideration upon the accused. To reopen the case for the purpose of
with respect to the respondents who were at large. increasing the penalty, as is sought in the Governments
appeal, would be placing the accused in double jeopardy,
and under Rule 122, section 1 of the Rules of Court, the
Government cannot appeal in a criminal case if the
Defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy. In
the present case, the Defendant-Appellee did not file any
brief, naturally, this point of the legality of the appeal of
the Government is not raised. The appeal of the
Government from the resolution is hereby dismissed.
RULE 122
People vs Paet G.R. No. L-9551
Facts: Alejandro Paet y Velasco was accused of a violation
of Circulars Nos. 20 and 42, as amended by Circular No.
55, of the Central Bank of the Philippines. The defendant,
with the assistance of counsel asked permission to
withdraw his former plea of not guilty and to substitute
therefor a plea of guilty, which permission was granted. Central Bank vs CA G.R. No. 41859
Upon rearraignment, he pleaded guilty to the amended Fact: Private respondents Felipe Plaza Chua and Melchor
information, and upon recommendation of the prosecution, Avila Chua, were elected President and Treasurer of the
the trial court found him guilty. The decision did not Surigao Development Bank with a capital of Pl Million
provide for the confiscation or forfeiture of the which was deposited with the Pacific Banking Corporation
aforementioned amount in favor of the government. It in Manila and private respondents were authorized to sign
seems that this point was subsequently raised both by the checks and withdrawal slips to effect withdrawal from the
prosecution and the defense, the former contending that depository bank . An examination of the books of accounts
was conducted by the examiners of the Central Bank of Physical Injuries Thru Reckless Imprudence. By reason of
the Philippines and revealed a shortage. Acting the subsequent death of the victim, the information was
Superintendent of Banks Jose S. Martinez wrote private amended. Another information for Homicide Thru Reckless
respondents, asking them to authorize the Pacific Banking Imprudence was filed in the Court of First Instance of
Corporation to furnish the Central Bank with the records of Manila against the same accused. The case for physical
deposits of Surigao Development Bank but the private injuries was dismissed by the Municipal Court upon motion
respondents refused. An information was filed before the of the prosecutor. Defense counsel filed a motion to quash
Court of First Instance of Manila charging private the information, on the ground of double jeopardy, it being
respondents with the crime of estafa and thus charging alleged that the filing of separate cases, one in the
them with the crime. CA reversed the decision and Municipal Court, and the other in the Court of First
acquitted the private respondents. Instance, for offenses arising out of a single act, placed
them in danger of being twice convicted and penalized for
Issue: Whether or not the judgment is tainted with grave the same act.
abuse of discretion?
Issue: Whether or not the appeal of the prosecution from
Ruling: No. Section 2 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court the order of dismissal of the Municipal Court subjects them
provides that "the People of the Philippines cannot appeal to a second jeopardy before the Court of First Instance?
if the defendant would be placed thereby in double
jeopardy." The argument that the judgment is tainted with Ruling: No. An appeal by the prosecution from the order of
grave abuse of discretion and therefore, null and void, is dismissal by the trial court will not constitute double
flawed because whatever error may have been committed jeopardy if (1) the dismissal is made upon motion, or with
by the lower court was merely an error of judgment and the express consent, of the defendant, and (2) the
not of jurisdiction. It did not affect the intrinsic validity of dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration
the decision. This is the kind of error that can no longer be of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and (3) the
rectified on appeal by the prosecution no matter how question to be passsed upon by the appellate court is
obvious the error may be. The rule therefore, in this purely legal so that should the dismissal be found
jurisdiction is that a judgment of acquittal is not incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to the
reviewable by a higher court, for an appeal by the court of origin for further proceedings, to determine the
government from the judgment would put the accused in guilt or innocence of the defendant.
second jeopardy for the same offense. In the present case, considering that there was waiver of
the defense of double jeopardy by the failure of the
accused to object to the filing of the 2 cases in the court of
first instance and in the municipal court; that the dismissal
was not based on consideration of the merits of the case;
and the question raised in the appeal was purely legal, the
appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal in
the municipal court to the Court of First Instance did not
place them in second jeopardy. Neither does the present
People vs Desalisa G.R. No. L-15516 appeal from the order of dismissal of the Court of First
Facts: Norberto Desalisa y Doca and Dominador Bartonico Instance constitute a second jeopardy, because the motion
y Japitana were charged with the crime of Serious to quash was filed by the accused themselves before
arraignment and before they entered their plea to the
information.
ISSUE: Whether or not he automatic review of accused-appellants conviction for rape, for Ruling: Yes. The trial court in its decision did not make any
which the death penalty was imposed, include the automatic appeal of his conviction for definitive finding on the circumstances which qualified the
the less serious crime of acts of lasciviousness crime to murder. While the information charging appellant
and the other accused alleged that the commission of the or to the official government representative in the court
crime was attended by treachery, evident premeditation that had rendered the judgment appealed from, is not a
and abuse of superior strength, the court did not expound defect which can either nullify the appeal or prejudice the
upon or point to the existence of these aggravating unquestionable rights of the accused, inasmuch as what is
circumstances in the case at bar. In other words, it did not important is that the appellant should be able to exercise,
state its basis for qualifying the crime to murder. We are at the proper time, as one of the rights essentially
thus required to determine if the crime at bar could be belonging to him, the right of appeal, against whatever
qualified to murder, to resolve this appeal. It is axiomatic resolution or judgment he might consider prejudicial to his
that an appeal, once accepted by this Court, throws the rights or interests, and that the actual and physical
entire case open to review, and that this Court has the exercise of such right should be effected in writing within
authority to review matters not specifically raised or the period of fifteen days; so that for the computation of
assigned as errors by the parties, if their consideration is this period it is necessary for the clerk of court to cause to
necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case. The appear in the case the date of the service upon the
attendance of evident premeditation in the commission of accused of the notice, signed by the latter, of the rendition
the crime, though alleged in the information, is not of the judgment or resolution.
supported by the evidence, as there is no showing as to
when appellant and his co-accused determined to kill the
victim.
Third, while the Court did not consider in Neypes the ordinary appeal
period in criminal cases under Section 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure since it involved a purely civil case, it did include
Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on petitions for review
from the RTCs to the Court of Appeals (CA), and Rule 45 of the 1997
G.R. No. 170979 February 9, 2011 Rules of Civil Procedure governing appeals by certiorari to this Court,
both of which also apply to appeals in criminal cases, as provided by
Yu vs. Hon. Rosa Samson-Tatad Section 3 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedur
FACTS: An information for estafa against the petitioner was filed with
the RTC. The RTC convicted the petitioner as charged. Petitioner filed a
motion for new trial with the RTC, alleging that she discovered new
and material evidence that would exculpate her of the crime for which
she was convicted. The petitioner argues that the RTC lost jurisdiction
to act on the prosecutions motions when she filed her notice of appeal
G.R. No. 80481 June 27, 1990
People vs. Fernandez
ISSUE: W/N the judgement of the appellate court in this case should
affect those who did not appeal
HELD: YES. Note must be taken of the present rule that an appeal shall
not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of
the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. The court
held that, While, in effect, he committed an act of defiance of the law
by escaping, we are not without other prior incidents where such
undesirable conduct, which should not be condoned, has sometimes
been ascribed to a sense of desperation of those who believe they are
guiltless but fear that they cannot prove their innocence. While we
castigate and reprove his jumping bail and remaining at large up to
now, we have to concede, however, that our disquisition in this case is
applicable and favorable to him, hence he is affected by and shall [G.R. No. 129211. October 2, 2000]
benefit from the acquittal that we hand down in this appeal. People vs. Rodriguez
ISSUE: W/N the judgement of the appellate court in this case should
affect those who did not appeal
HELD: YES. Although it is only appellant who persisted with the present
appeal, the well-established rule is that an appeal in a criminal
proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects,
including those not raised by the parties.[29] The records show that
Rodriguez had withdrawn his appeal due to financial reasons. However,
Section 11 (a) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that [a]n
appeal taken by one or more [of] several accused shall not affect those
who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellant
court is favorable and applicable to the latter. As we have elucidated,
the evidence against and the conviction of both appellant and
Rodriguez are inextricably linked. Hence, appellants acquittal, which is
favorable and applicable to Rodriguez, should benefit the latter.
The appeal was directed to the Court of Appeals, but, in view of the
HELD: NO. An accused appealing from a decision sentencing him to penalty involved, the records were forwarded to this Court on October
death may be allowed to withdraw his appeal like any other appellant 4, 1969. 5 On January 2, 1977, and May 8, 1978 after the case had
in an ordinary criminal case before the briefs are filed, but his been submitted for decision on February 1, 1972 - appellants Felipe
withdrawal of the appeal does not remove the case from the Dueno and Sofronio Dueno, respectively, withdrew their appeals.
jurisdiction of this court which under the law is authorized and called These withdrawals were allowed in resolutions dated January 2, 1977
upon to review the decision though unappealed. Consequently, the and June 28, 1978.
withdrawal of the appeal in this case could not serve to render the
decision of the People's Court final. Moreover, "those prisoners whose The evidence for the prosecution establish that in the afternoon of
cases are still pending on appeal shall be released only after their January 21, 1963, the three accused-appellants fired upon Roque
appeal has been withdrawn." The implication is that the withdrawal of Dellomos and Federico Dolfo but missed them; and theft in the
the appeal rendered the decision of the People's Court final, resulting evening of the same day, the three again were Identified as the
in conviction, this is to bring it into harmony with article VII, section 10 assailants who fired upon and killed Bernardo Demontao who was
(6) of the Constitution which requires conviction as a condition mistaken for Roque Dellomos and/or Federico Dolfo. It also appears
precedent to the exercise of Executive clemency. As we have already that their defense of alibi was not worthy of credence. The guilt of the
stated, despite defendant's withdrawal of his appeal from the decision three accused-appellants, therefore, has been established and proved
imposing the death sentence, there is no definite conviction or beyond reasonable doubt.
sentence until and after this court has reviewed the case and rendered
its own decision affirming, modifying or reversing that of the lower The civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, however, was raised
court, unless of course in the new decision of the trial court based on from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00. The trial court's decision then
accordingly be modified.
ISSUE: W/N withdrawal of the appeal by the accused rendered the
decision final
After the perfection of the instant appeal, however, and during the Moreover, under the facts and circumstances appearing in the record,
pendency hereof, Branch X of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the grounds upon which the appellees anchor their defense of double
presided by the Honorable Higinio Macadaeg, dismissed the jeopardy in the motion to quash, are not clear and indubitable. One
information in Criminal Case No. 36882 against the said accused- cannot build up the defense of double jeopardy on mere hypothesis.
appellees herein without their consent; while Branch XIII of the same
Court of First Instance, presided by the Hon. Bienvenido Tan, after G.R. No. 90294 September 24, 1991
presentation by the prosecution of the available evidence against the
same accused-appellees herein in Criminal Case No. 36885 for People vs Rio
falsification, dismissed the said case by finding all said accused
innocent, with costs de officio, in its decision promulgated on March FACTS: On 29 December 1989, the accused-appellant Ricardo Rio, in
24, 1960. ...." two (2) letters dated 14 December 1989, addressed to Division Clerk
of Court Fermin J. Garma and to Assistant Clerk of Court Tomasita M.
Dris, manifested his intention to withdraw the appeal due to his
poverty.
The Solicitor General is of the belief that the dismissals of the cases by
the three branches of the Manila CFI constituted double jeopardy and,
therefore, they are a bar to the further prosecution of the remaining 24
informations for falsification. Upon the other hand, the amicus curiae In the Comment filed by the Solicitor General, the action
claims that the appeal of the State is meritorious, there is no double recommended was for the Court to ascertain from the accused-
jeopardy; and the Orders granting the motions to quash (Cases Nos. appellant, through the clerk of court of the trial court, whether he
36894, 36899 and 36904) were erroneous. desired the appointment of a counselde oficio on appeal, in view of the
reasons stated by him for the withdrawal of his appeal, and inasmuch
as poverty should not preclude anyone from pursuing a cause.
It was also recommended that the clerk of court of the trial court be
required by the Court to submit the response of the accused-appellant
ISSUE: W/N the appeal should be granted along with a certificate of compliance with the duty imposed on him by
Section 13, of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
The branch clerk of the trial court submitted the reply of the accused-
appellant informing the Court that he was no longer interested in
pursuing his appeal and had, in fact, withdrawn his appeal. G.R. No. 92415 May 14, 1991
People vs Mapalao
HELD: YES. This right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the
conviction of an accused by a trial court. It continues, even during HELD: the Court, may "upon motion of the appellee or on its own
appeal, such that the duty of the court to assign a counsel de motion, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or
oficio persists where an accused interposes an intent to appeal. Even confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the
in a case, such as the one at bar, where the accused had signified his pendency of the appeal." In this case, appellant Magumnang remained
intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is required to inquire into the at large even as his appeal was pending. Hence, by analogy his appeal
reason for the withdrawal. Where it finds the sole reason for the must be dismissed.
withdrawal to be poverty, as in this case, the court must assign a
counsel de oficio, for despite such withdrawal, the duty to protect the
rights of the accused subsists and perhaps, with greater reason. After
all, "those who have less in life must have more in law." 9 Justice
should never be limited to those who have the means. It is for The reason for this rule is because once an accused escapes from
everyone, whether rich or poor. Its scales should always be balanced prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he
and should never equivocate or cogitate in order to favor one party loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the
over another. jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek
relief from the court.
People vs Bugnay
Sycip v CA G.R. No. L-38711. January 31, 1985.
Facts: Petitioner Francisco Sycip was convicted by the CFI
of Manila of the crime of estafa. The CA affirmed the trial
courts decision. Petitioner now claims that respondent
appellate court erred in denying him of a hearing, as
provided under Sec. 9, Rule 124, RoC and in not upholding
due process of law, as provided under Sec. 1 and 17, Bill of
Rights. He argues that respondent CA erred in denying him
his day in court notwithstanding his motion praying that
the appealed case be heard.
People v Cabiling
G.R. No. L-38091. December 17, 1976.
Facts: Respondent Napoleon Estavillo bought a Ford Fiera Joaquin v Navarro G.R. No. L-5426. May 29, 1953.
from World Cars, Inc. The vehicle was seized by two Facts: Three proceedings were instituted for the summary
employees of petitioner and the deputy sheriff of the RTC settlement of the estates of Joaquin Navarro, Sr., his wife
of Isabela. Respondent was told that he was in arrears for Angela Joaquin de Navarro, and Pilar Navarro. All of them
having been heard jointly, the judge handed down a single De La Cruz v Sosing
decision which was appealed in the CA, whose decision, G.R. No. L- 4875. November 27, 1953.
modifying that of the CFI, in turn was elevated to the SC Facts: Petitioner sought to recover the ownership and
for review. The modification of the lower courts findings is possession of a parcel of land. She alleged that
now being contested by petitioner. respondent, by means of force and violence, occupied the
land, thus depriving her of its possession. The
Issue: WON the evidence may be reviewed by the lower court held that petitioner is the owner of the land.
Supreme Court. The CA reversed the decision, holding that respondent had
already acquired the land by prescription.
Held: Yes. When the evidence is purely documentary, the
authenticity of which is not questioned and the only issue Issue: WON the Supreme Court can rectify the decision of
is the construction to be placed thereon, or where a case is the CA.
submitted upon agreement of facts,
of where all the facts are stated in the judgment and the Held: Yes. Where there is no question that the decision of
issue is the correctness of the conclusions drawn the CA is premised on a misapprehension of fact, not only
therefrom, the question of one of law which may be as pointed out in a motion for reconsideration, but as may
reviewed by the SC. be seen from the record on
appeal submitted to the SC, fairness requires that proper
rectification be made to give justice where justice is due.
This rectification the court can do in the exercise of its
discretion because it is a matter that
can be gleaned from the record.
Sumbingco v CA
G.R. No. L-45114. October 26, 1987.
Facts: Jepte Demerin filed with the Court of Agrarian
Relations a complaint against Apolonio Sumbingco,
seeking reinstatement as tenant on the latters haciendas. RULE 126
The Court of Agrarian Relations dismissed the complaint. Nolasco v Pano
On appeal, however, the CA reversed judgment of the G.R. No. L-69803. October 8, 1985.
Court of Agrarian Relations. Both Sumbingco and Demerin Facts: Petitioners Nolasco, Aguilar-Rosque and Tolentino
appealed by certiorari to the SC. were accused of rebellion. Petitioners principally assert
that the search warrant used in seizing 431 items
Issue: WON the findings of the CA are conclusive upon the belonging to them is void because it is a general warrant
SC. since it does not sufficiently describe with particularity the
things subject of the search and seizure, and that probably
Held: Yes. Appeals from the CA are not entertained as a cause has not been properly established for lack of
matter of routine, they may be rejected out of hand in the searching questions propounded to the applicants
exercise of the SCs sound judicial discretion. The findings witness. The respondents contend otherwise, adding that
of fact of the CA are conclusive on the SC, subject only to a the questions raised cannot be entertained without first
few well-defined exceptions. It is incumbent on the moving for the quashal of the disputed search warrant.
appellant to make out a sufficiently strong demonstration
of serious errors on the part of the CA, failing which, the Issue: WON the search warrant is in the nature of a general
SC will dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is without warrant.
merit.
Held: Yes. It thus infringes on the constitutional mandate
requiring particular description of things to be seized.
Hence, the search warrant issued by respondent Judge
Pano is annulled and set aside.
Burgos v Chief of Staf
G.R. No. 64261. December 26. 1984.
Facts: The validity of two search warrants issued by
respondent Judge Pano is assailed in this petition. Corro v Lising
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum were searched, and office G.R. L-69894. July 15, 1985.
and printing machines, equipment, Facts: Respondent RTC Judge Lising, upon application filed
paraphernalia, books, papers and documents alleged to be by Lt. Col. Castillo, issued a search warrant authorizing the
in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Sr. search and seizure of items owned by the Philippine Times
were seized. Petitioners pray for the return of the seized which have been used as means
articles and that respondent be enjoined from using them of committing the crime of inciting to sedition. Petitioner
as evidence against petitioner Burgos. Petitioners assert filed a motion to recall the warrant and to return the
that although the warrants were directed against Burgos personal properties alleging that the properties seized
alone, articles belonging to his co-petitioners were seized. were not in any way connected with the offense of inciting
to sedition.
Issue: WON the search warrants are valid.
Issue: WON the search warrant is valid.
Held: No. Although Sec.2, Rule 126 of the RoC does not
require that the property to be seized should be owned by Held: No. The affidavit of Col. Castillo contained
the person against whom the search warrant is directed, statements which are mere conclusions of law and will not
the search warrants in question are void for being too satisfy the requirement of probable cause. They cannot
general. In the determination of whether a search warrant serve as basis for the issuance of a warrant, absent of the
describes the premises to be searched with sufficient evidence of probable cause. The search warrant was in the
particularity, it has been held that the executing officers nature of a general warrant which is constitutionally
prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is objectionable, as was held in Stonehill v Diokno.
relevant.
Columbia Pictures, Inc. V. Flores G.R. No. 78631 contain a specific description of the place to be searched
and the articles sought to be seized must be described
Facts: The MPAA, through counsel lodged a complaint with particularity.
before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against
certain video establishments for violation of Presidential
KHO V. MAKALINTAL G.R. No. 94902-06.
Decree No. 49 (Protection of Intellectual Property), in
connection with its anti-piracy campaign. Specifically Facts: NBI Agent Max B. Salvador applied for the issuance of search
complaining of the "unauthorized sale, rental, reproduction warrants by the respondent Judge against Banjamin V. Kho, now
and/or disposition of copyrighted film", the MPAA sought petitioner, in his residence at BF Homes, Paranaque. On the same day,
the NBI's "urgent assistance in the conduct of search and Eduardo T. Arugay, another NBI agent, applied with the same court for
the issuance of search warrants against the said petitioner in his house
seizure operations in Metro Manila and elsewhere". at Moonwalk, Paranaque. The search war-rants were applied for after
On the basis of said letter, NBI and private agents teams of NBI agents had conducted a personal surveillance and inves-
conducted discreet surveillance opera-tions on certain tigation in the two houses referred to on the basis of confidential
video establishments, among them private respondent FGT information they received that the said places were being used as
Video Network, Inc. (FGT). storage centers for unlicensed firearms and chop-chop vehicles.
Consequently, on May 14, 1987, NBI Agent III Lauro On the following day, armed with Search Warrants, NBI agents
C. Reyes, with Manalang and Rebec-ca Benitez-Cruz as searched subject premises at BF Homes, Paranaque, and they
witnesses, applied for a search warrant with the Regional recovered various high-powered firearms and hundreds of rounds of
Trial Court in Pasig. Upon the offer of these pieces of ammunition. Meanwhile, another search was conducted at the house
evidence, Judge Alfredo C. Flores of the aforesaid court, at Moonwalk, Pa-ranaque, by another team of NBI agents using the
other Search Warrants. The said second search yielded several high-
issued Search Warrant. On the same day, agents from the powered firearms with explosives and more than a thousand rounds of
NBI duly served Search Warrant on the opera-tors or am-munition. The simultaneous searches also resulted in the
representatives of FGT. confiscation of various radio and tele-communication equipment, two
The lower court resolved the doubt "against the units of motor vehicles (Lite-Ace vans) and one motorcycle. Upon
Government and in favor of a lawful busi-ness enterprise. verification, the NBI agents found out that no license has ever been
issued to any person or entity for the confiscated firearms in question.
Hence, the present recourse. Likewise, the radio agents found out that no license has ever been
issued to any person or entity for the confiscated firearms in question.
Issue: W/N the search warrant is valid Likewise, the radio tranceivers recovered and motor vehicles seized
turned out to be unlicensed and unregistered per records of the
Held: NO. The Search Warrant No. 45 fails to satisfy the government agencies concerned.
test of legality. The right to security against unreasonable Petitioners question the issuance of subject search warrants,
searches and seizures is guaranteed under Section 2, theorizing upon the absence of any probable cause therefor. They
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, Sections 3 and 4 contend that the surveillance and investigation conducted by NBI
of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide for the requisites agents within the premises involved, prior to the application for the
in the issuance of search warrants. search warrants under con-troversy, were not sufficient to vest in the
applicants personal knowledge of facts and circumstances showing or
indicating the commission of a crime by them (petitioners).
In issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly comply
with the constitutional and statu-tory requirements. He Issue: Whether or not the search warrant is valid
must determine the existence of probable cause by
personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in Held:
YES. Records show that the NBI agents who conducted the
the form of searching questions. The search warrant must surveillance and investigation testified unequivocably that they saw
guns being carried to and unloaded at the two houses searched, and
motor vehicles and spare parts were stored therein. It is therefore
decisively clear that the application for the questioned search warrants
was based on the personal knowledge of the applicants and their
witnesses.
Held: NO. The search warrant violates Section 3, Rule 126 of the The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the
Revised Rules of Court, which prohibits the issuance of a search warrant following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the
probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by
for more than one specific offense. The caption of Search Warrant
the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable
reflects the violation of two special laws. Search Warrant No was cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
therefore a "scatter-shot warrant" and totally null and void. complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4)
the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched
Moreover, by their seizure of articles not described in the search and persons or things to be seized.
warrant, the police acted beyond the parameters of their authority under
the search warrant. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires There is no dispute herein that the second and third factors for a
that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. validly issued search warrant were complied with. What is left for the
Court to determine is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e.,
The same constitutional provision is also aimed at preventing violations of existence of probable cause; and particular description of the place to
security in person and property and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of be searched and things to be seized.
the home, and giving remedy against such usurpations when attempted.
Clearly then, the money which was not indicated in the search warrant, Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the Search
Warrant for accused-appellants residence after said judges personal
had been illegally seized from petitioner. The fact that the members of the examination of SPO2 Fernandez, the applicant; and Lad-ing and
police team were doing their task of pursuing subversives is not a valid Tudlong, the informants.
excuse for the illegal seizure. The presumption juris tantum of regularity
in the performance of official duty cannot by itself prevail against the Appellants assertion that the Search Warrant did not describe with
particularity the place to be searched. A description of the place to be
constitutionally protected rights of an individual. searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with
PEOPLE V. TUAN G.R. No. 176066 reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
Facts: Two separate Informations were filed before the RTC against distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or
accused-appellant for illegal possession of marijuana and illegal description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of
possession of firearm. Two male informants namely, Jerry Tudlong and all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
Frank Lad-ing arrived at the office of CIDG (Criminal Investigation and satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. In the case at
Detention Group) and reported to SPO2 Fernandez, Chief of the Station bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the
Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), that a certain Estela Tuan had been Search Warrant was specific enough.
selling marijuana.SPO2 Fernandez set out to verify the report of
Tudlong and Lad-ing and filed the Application for a Search Warrant
before Judge Cortes. Judge Cortes personally examined SPO2
ASIAN SURETY and INSURANCE COMPANY, INC V. HERRERA G.R. detailed receipt of the things seized. In the seizure of two carloads of
No. L-25232 documents and other papers, the possibility that the respondents took
away private papers of the petitioner, in violation of his constitutional
Facts: On October 27, 1965, respondent Judge Herrera, upon the sworn rights, is not remote, for the NBI agents virtually had a field day with the
application of NBI agent Celso Zoleta, Jr. supported by the deposition of broad and unlimited search warrant issued by respondent Judge as their
his witness, Manuel Cuaresma, issued a search warrant in connection passport.
with an undocketed criminal case for estafa, falsification, insurance fraud,
and tax evasion, against the Asian Surety and Insurance Co. PEOPLE V. PEA G.R. No. 104947
Armed with the search warrant Zoleta and other agents assigned to the Facts: At the time of the alleged rape, Erly Rose P. Marasigan was a nine
Anti-graft Division of the NBI entered the premises of the Republic (9) year old third-grade student. On school days, she would take a
Supermarket Building and served the search warrant upon Atty. Alidio of shortcut using an alley between her school and her home. As she passed
the insurance company, in the presence of Mr. William Li Yao, president by, he grabbed her left arm with both of his hands, pulled her towards a
and chairman of the board of directors of the insurance firm. After the grassy area and threatened bodily harm if she would not keep quiet.
search they seized and carried away two (2) carloads of documents,
papers and receipts. According to the testimonies of both the complainant and the accused-
appellant, he did not have an erection and was unable to insert his penis
Issue: W/N the search warrant is valid into her vagina. Failing in this, the accused-appellant instead fondled his
victim's vagina and inserted his finger into the vaginal orifice.
Held:
Accompanied by her father and some neighbors, she thereafter narrated
NO. In the case at bar, the search warrant was issued for four separate the details of the attack to the Valenzuela Police on the same day. The
and distinct offenses of : (1) estafa, (2) falsification, (3) tax evasion and original information charged with him Attempted Rape but was later
(4) insurance fraud, in contravention of the explicit command of Section changed to Statutory Rape. RTC found him guilty as charged.
3, Rule 126, of the Rules providing that: "no search warrant shall issue for
more than one specific offense. Issue: W/N the accused should be charged with Statutory Rape and not
Attempted Rape
What is plain and clear is the fact that the respondent Judge made no
attempt to determine whether the property he authorized to be searched Held: NO. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman.
and seized pertains specifically to any one of the three classes of The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape as provided for in Article
personal property that may be searched and seized under a search 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code is carnal knowledge of a
warrant under Rule 126, Sec. 2 of the Rules. The respondent Judge woman below 12 years old. In the case at bench, there was an attempt,
simply authorized search and seizure under an omnibus description of which the accused-appellant does not deny, but carnal knowledge did not
the personal properties to be seized. actually occur.
Petitioners WWC and Cherryll Yu, and Planet Interne filed their
Held: Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized respective motions to quash the search warrants, citing basically the
that Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions same grounds: (1) the search warrants were issued without probable
cause, since the acts complained of did not constitute theft; (2) toll suspicion that they were acquired in exchange for shabu. Appellant
bypass, the act complained of, was not a crime; (3) the search insists that the shabu found in his room was planted. He points out
warrants were general warrants; and (4) the objects seized pursuant
thereto were "fruits of the poisonous tree."
variances in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which
cast doubt on his culpability. More importantly, appellant assails the
The RTC granted the motions to quash on the ground that the warrants validity of the search warrant as it did not indicate his exact
issued were in the nature of general warrants. CA reversed and set address but only the barangay and street of his residence. He
aside the assailed RTC Resolutions and declared the search warrants maintains that none of the occupants witnessed the search as they
valid and effective.
were all kept in the living room. Finally, appellant questions why the
Issues: W/N there is probable cause for the issuance of the search prosecution did nit call the barangay officials as witnesses to shed
warrant light on the details of the search.
Held: YES. In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause requires Issue: Whether or not the search warrant issued is valid.
"such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects Held: In the case at bar, the search warrant specifically authorized
sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be
the taking of shabu and paraphernalia only. By the principle of
searched." There is no exact test for the determination of probable
cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter wholly ejusdem generis where a statute describes things of a particular
dependent on the finding of trial judges in the process of exercising class or king accompanied by words of a generic character, the
their judicial function. They determine probable cause based on generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature with
"evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the
committed and that it was committed" by the offender. context of the statement which would repel such inference. Thus
When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant
we are here constrained to point out an irregularity in the search
is made by a trial judge, the finding is accorded respect by reviewing conducted. Certainly, the ladys wallet, cash. grinder, camera,
courts: component, speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws,
It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed, hammer, drill, and bolo were not encompassed by the word
absent a showing to the contrary. A magistrates determination of paraphernalia as they bear no relation to the use or manufacture of
probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great
drugs. In seizing the said items then, the police officers exercised
deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis
for that determination. Substantial basis means that the questions of their own discretion and determined for themselves which items in
the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as appellants residence they believed were proceeds of the crime or
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an means of committing the offense
offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the
offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.
Facts: LBPS and IID Mobile Force conducted a search in the Harvey V Santiago G.R. No. 82544 June 28, 1988
house of Raul R. Nuez based on reports of drug possession.
Before proceeding to appellants residence the group summoned Facts: Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles
Barangay Captain Mario Mundin and Chief Tanod Alfredo Joaquin who were apprehended after three months close surveillance by
to assist them in serving the search warrant. While conducting the the CID agents in Pagsanjan Laguna. Two days after apprehension
search SPO1 Ilagan found 31 packets of shabu, lighters, 17 opted for self deportation, one released for lack of evidenced,
improvised burners, tooters and aluminum foil with shabu residue. one was charged by another offense, working without a valid
The group also confiscated a component, camera, electric planner, working visa. Thus, three was left to face the deportation
grinder, drill, jigsaw, electric tester and assorted carpentry tools on proceedings. Seized during petitioners apprehension were rolls of
photo negatives and photos of the suspected child prostitute shown Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure
in salacious poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sexual Order No. 1205 to petitioner. It stated that there will a seizure of the
act. There were also posters and other literatures advertising the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used
child prostitution. Warrant of arrest was issued by respondent as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified
against petitioners for violation of Sec 37, 45 and 46 of the that petitioner has (1) No valid license or authority from the
Immigration act and sec. 69 of the revised administrative code. Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy
workers for overseas employment; (2) Committed/are committing
Issue: Whether or not the Philippines immigration act clothed the acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation
commissioner with any authority to arrest and detained petitioner to Article 38 of the same code. A team was then tasked to
pending determination of the existence of a probable cause. implement the said Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen
and Mandaluyong policemen, went to petitioners residence. They
Held: The Supreme court held that there can be no question that served the order to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in.
the right against unreasonable search and seizure is available to all The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with
persons, including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not. One POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties,
of the constitutional requirement of a valid search warrant or because she was not given prior notice and hearing. The said
warrant of arrest is that it must be based upon probable cause. The Order violated due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2
arrest of petitoners was based on probable cause determined after of the Bill of Rights, and the properties were confiscated against
close surveillance for three months during which period theire her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation.
activities were monitored. The existence probable cause justified
the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment
posters without warrant. Those articles were seized as an incident Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue
to a lawful arrest and, are therefore admissble in evidence. But warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the
even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitoners was not valid Labor Code
at its inception, the records show that formal deportation charges
have been filed against them as undesirable aliens. That Held: Under the new Constitution, no search warrant or warrant
petitioners were not "caught in the act" does not make their arrest of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
illegal. Petitioners were found with young boys in their respective personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
rooms, the ones with John Sherman being naked. Under those of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
circumstances the CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
that petitioners had committed "pedophilia" defined as things to be seized. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue
psychosexual perversion involving children" warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order was
based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held,
We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may
no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities
Salazar v. Achacoso G.R. No. 81510 must go through the judicial process. To that extent, we declare
Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and
Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with of no force and effect... The power of the President to order the
the POEA, charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It (the
respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases,
directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of
against him. On the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no the courts. Furthermore, the search and seizure order was in the
license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent nature of a general warrant. The court held that the warrant is null
and void, because it must identify specifically the things to be in cash. However he did not reveal the names of the persons who
seized. gave him the money, and he begged at that time not be made to
name names. He was later on hospitalized due to an indisposed
condition, he later on released a sworn statement addressed to the
Committee on Privileges mentioning the names of the persons who
gave him the "payola" Then First lady Mrs Imelda Marcos was
among others who was implicated in Quintero's sworn statement.
President Marcos later on went on air to denounce Mr. Quintero.
Mr. Marcos later on issued a statement to the NBI to raid the house
of Quintero and seized bundles of money amounting to P379, 000.
The NBI later on filed with the City Fiscal of Pasay a criminal
complaint for direct bribery against Delegate Quintero.
Facts: Delegate Quintero disclosed that on different occasions. Vlason Enterprise Corp. vs. Court of Appeals / G.R. No. 121662
certain persons had distributed money to some delegates of the Facts:
Con-Con, apparently in an effort to influence the delegates in the A civil action for for the recovery of possession of two
discharge of their functions. He revealed the aggregate amount of pieces of salvaged bronze propellers of a sunken vessel
the "payola" which he himself had received, the amount of P11,150 was instituted by Sosuan, as buyer, against the seller, Lo
Bu and against all persons from which Lo Bu purchased the 9165. Brodett later filed a motion to return non-drug
propeller. evidence. He averred that during the arrest, the PDEA had
Issue: seized several personal non-drug effects from him
Whether or not the absence of a criminal prosecution in including a car. PDEA refused to return his personal effects.
the court receiving or issuing a search warrant makes the The Office of the Prosecutor objected to the return of the
filing of a civil suit necessary. car because it appeared to be the instrument in the
Ruling: commission of the violation due to its being the vehicle
Yes. It does not itself furnish basis for or warrant the used in the transaction and sale of dangerous drugs.
transfer of possession from one party to the other in the
civil action. The theory that the act of one branch of a Issue: Whether or not the seizure of personal effects is
Court of First Instance may be deemed to be the act of lawful
another branch of the same court is, upon its face, absurd.
It flies in the teeth of the all too familiar actuality that each Ruling: Yes. Personal property may be seized in
branch is a distinct and separate court, exercising connection with a criminal offense either by the authority
jurisdiction over the cases assigned to it to the exclusion of of a search warrant or as a product of a search incident to
all other branches. a lawful arrest. The personal effects of Brodett are in
custodia legis. To release it before the judgment would be
to deprive the trial court and the parties access to it as
evidence.
Facts: One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused appellants car Facts: Jesus De Guzman, Danilo Castro, and Delfin Catap were
running fast. After a while, a screech of tires was heard and thus, made charged with Murder. Said incident happened on November 16,
the officer run out and investigate. Not so long, the car continued to run, 1984 when appellants attacked and wounded a male Filipino
so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang then radioed the incident to the inflicting upon him several wounds. and as a resulting to his
Police.When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled down the
death.Only De Guzman and Castro were arrested, while Catap
windows with his hands raised. The officers then noticed that it was the
famous actor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of the hit-and-
remains at large. Adelia Angeles, a witness for the prosecution,
run incident, the police saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. testified that at arounf ten o' clock in the evening of November 16,
So, the police insisted that the gun be shown in the office if it was legal. 1984 she was awakened by moaning sounds outside her house.
The crowd had formed and Robin was shaking their hands and pointing Thinking that the person moaning was her brother-in- law, she went
to the police while saying iyan kinuha ang baril ko, as if it was in the down to investigate and it was then she an unknown person tied to
movies. The gesture then revealed a magazine clip of a rifle which made an ipil-ipil tree being slapped by accused Delfin. Angeles further
the police suspect that there is a rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle stated that the unknown person was pleading for mercy and that
was seen. The other firearms were voluntarily surrendered by upon seeing her the 3 accused untied the man and brought him
Robin.Now, Robins defense was that his arrest was illegal and towards the direction of the Pasig River. At around 11 of the same
consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof evening Delfin returned to their house and told her and her
are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.Robin Padilla
husband that they killed the man by smashing his face with a stone
was arrested, tried, and convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He
was in possession of a .357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson with 6
and warned them not to report to the authorities.
live ammunitions, One M-16 baby Armalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .
380 Pietro Barreta with 8 live ammunitions, and six live double action Issue; Whether the accused-appellants arrest was illegal as it was
ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver. effected without a warrant of arrest.
Issue: Whether or not the search was incident to a lawful arrest Held: No. The legality of the arrest need not be discussed,
considering that in People v. Rabang, this Court has held that any
Held: Yes. In conformity with respondent court's observation, it indeed irregularity attendant to an arrest is considered cured when he
appears that the authorities stumbled upon petitioner's firearms and voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by
ammunitions without even undertaking any active search which, as it is entering his plea and participating in the trial. The alibi of the
commonly understood, is a prying into hidden places for that which is accused-appellants deserves scant consideration since both of
concealed. The seizure of the Smith & Wesson revolver and an M-16 rifle them alleged being in their respective houses in the immediate
magazine was justified for they came within "plain view" of the policemen
vicinity of the crime scene. As the Solicitor General correctly states,
who inadvertently discovered the revolver and magazine tucked in
petitioner's waist and back pocket respectively, when he raised his hands
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should not be
after alighting from his Pajero. The same justification applies to the appreciated since both appellants were arrested. Likewise, it is
confiscation of the M-16 armalite rifle which was immediately apparent to correctly pointed out that the qualifying circumstances of evident
the policemen as they took a casual glance at the Pajero and saw said premeditation and treachery have not been proved thus the
rifle lying horizontally near the driver's seat.Thus it has been held crime committed is homicide and not murder.
that:"(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a
criminal offense, the . police officers should happen to discover a criminal
offense being committed by any person, they are not precluded from
performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty
person and the taking of the corpus delicti.""Objects whose possession
are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are subject to
seizure even without a warrant."
People v. Musa 217 SCRA 609 apparent from the plain view of said object.
Facts: A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was People v Rodriguez
engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was
ordered by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a surveillance Facts: Major Florencio Junio acting upon an information given by a
and test buy on Musa. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musas house confidential informer that accused-appellant Dante Marcos was
and gave the description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper- selling marijuana at Holy Ghost Hill Baguio City, organized on
wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00. December 4, 1985 a "buy bust" operation. Serafin Artizona pose as
a buyer of the prohibited stuff together with the confidential
The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his right hand if
informant and the back up team. Dante Marcos denied the
he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to the
house, the NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 accusation against him and claimed that the sack of marijuana
meters away. From his position, Belarga could see what was going on. belonged to a certain Ronald Bayogan a student that he was only
Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he at the scene because he was asked to entertain 3 visitors of him
wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa while he go somewhere for a while. He was introduced to the 3
went into the house and came back, giving Ani two newspaper wrappers visitors and when one of the visitors saw the content of the sack he
containing dried marijuana. Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his said "Ok, I'll pay it" That when the NARCOM agents emerged and
right hand as a signal to the other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved arrested them.
in and arrested Musa inside the house. Belarga frisked Musa in the living
room but did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped Issue: Whether or not arrest of accused-appellant was incident to a
away). T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found a lawful arrest
cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen.
They asked Musa about its contents but failed to get a response. So they Held: Artizona's testimony was corroborated by the "buy-bust"
opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Musa was then operation team who confirmed that appellant was truly a marijuana
placed under arrest.
dealer. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana
Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction In the
inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence. case at bar, the appellant handed over the blue sack containing the
ten kilos of marijuana upon the agreement with Artizona to
Held: Yes. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not exchange it for money. The circumstances show that there was an
be admitted as evidence. The warrantless search and seizure, as an agreement between the poseur-buyer and the appellant to
incident to a suspects lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of consummate the sale. The fact that the appellant returned with the
the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his amount of marijuana corresponding to the aforesaid price suffices
immediate control. Objects in the plain view of an officer who has to constitute if not sale, then delivery or giving away to another and
that view are subject to seizure and
the right to be in the position to have distribution of the prohibited drug. What is important is the fact that
may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine is usually
the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and
applied where a police officer is notsearching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating that the contents were presented as evidence in court. Proof of the
object. It will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating transaction suffices.Neither can the appellant aver that no
nature of the object is not apparent from the plain view of the consideration or payment was made. It is true that police officers
object. did not have the amount of P1,600 with them to buy marijuana from
the appellants during the incident. Be that as it may, it was not
In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the plain view of the indispensable for their operation. Sgt,. Raquidan went through the
police. They arrested the accused in the living room and moved into the motion as a buyer and his offer was accepted by the appellant who
kitchen in search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. produced and delivered the marijuana. There was no need to hand
Furthermore, the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately
the marked money to the appellants in the payment thereof. The presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that they saw
crime was consummated by the delivery of the goods. the same before it was seized.
People vs. Usana / G.R. No. 129756-58 (Justice Davide Jr.)
Facts: Some law enforcers of the Makati Police were
manning a checkpoint at the South Luzon Expressway
(SLEX). They were checking the cars going to Pasay City,
stopping those they found suspicious. At about past
midnight, they stopped a Kia Pride car and one of them
saw a long firearm at the passenger seat, who was later
identified as Virgilio Usana. The three passengers were thereafter People. V. Che Chung Ting 328 SCRA 592
brought to the police station and since SPO4 de los Santos was suspicious
Facts:
of the vehicle, he requested Escao to open the trunk which he agreed
They noticed a blue bag inside it, which they asked Escao Following a series of buy-bust operations, Mabel Cheung
to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped in tape, Mei Po was apprehended as a suspected drug dealer. She
which, upon examination by National Bureau of revealed the name of Che Chung Ting as the source of the
Investigation Forensic Chemist, was found positive for drugs. Thus, a team of agents was deployed for the latters
hashish entrapment. Mabel went to Unit 122 at the place and the
agents saw the door open as a man went out to hand
Issue: Whether or not this was an illegal search or seizure
Mabel transparent plastic bag containing a white
crystalline substance. The NARCOM agents immediately
Ruling: No. PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely
alighted and arrested the man. Unit 122 was searched and
stopping cars they deemed suspicious, such as those
a bleck bag containing several plastic bags containing a
whose windows are heavily tinted just to see if the
white crystalline substance was seized in an open cabinet
passengers thereof were carrying guns. Jurisprudence
in the second floor. The contents were later tested and
recognizes six generally accepted exceptions to the
found positive for shabu.
warrant requirement: (1) search incidental to an arrest; (2)
search of moving vehicles; (3) evidence in plain view; (4) Issue:
customs searches; (5) consented warrantless search; and
(6) stop-and-frisk situations. Even though there was ample Whether the search and seizure was lawful
opportunity to obtain a search warrant, we cannot
invalidate the search of the vehicle, for there are Held:
indications that the search done on the car of Escao was
consented to by him. No fact was adduced to link Usana No. Although the case falls within a search incidental to an
and Lopez to the hashish found in the trunk of the car. arrest, Che Chung Ting was admittedly outside of Unit 122.
Their having been with Escao in the latters car before the The inner portion of the house can hardly be said to
"finding" of the hashish sometime after the lapse of an constitute a permissible area within his reach or immediate
appreciable time and without their presence left much to control, to justify a warrantless search therein. However,
be desired to implicate them to the offense of selling, this does not totally exonerate the accused. He was caught
distributing, or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact, in flagrante delicto. His arrest was lawful and the shabu,
there was no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the being the fruit of the crime was admissible in evidence.
"area within his immediate control" because there was no way for him
to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used
against him. The arresting officers would have been justified in
searching the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in
front of him, for any concealed weapon that might be used against the
former. But under the circumstances obtaining, there was no
comparable justification to search through all the desk drawers and
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. It is
worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search
as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting officer from
being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence
within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond
what is needed to serve its purpose. In the case before us, search was
made in the locked cabinet, which cannot be said to have been within
Valerosos immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds
ValerosovCourtofAppealsG.R.No.164815 of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.
Held:
Yes. The seizure was valid. Under the plain view doctrine,
objects failling un the plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence. Hence, the
police officers were justified in seizing the firearms