CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JULY SEPTEMBER 2010

JULY
Appeul; |udgment of ucqulttul. Sectlon 1 of Rule 122 ullows uny purty to uppeul from u
|udgment or flnul order, unless the rlght of the uccused ugulnst double |eopurdy wlll be
vloluted. It ls uxlomutlc thut un uppeul ln crlmlnul cuses throws the whole cuse wlde open for
revlew by un uppellute court. As u consequence, un uppeul by the prosecutlon from u
|udgment of ucqulttul necessurlly pluces the uccused ln double |eopurdy. However, the rule
burrlng un uppeul from u |udgment of ucqulttul ls, not ubsolute. The followlng ure the
recognlzed exceptlons thereto: (l) when the prosecutlon ls denled due process of luw; und
(ll) when the trlul court commlts gruve ubuse of dlscretlon umountlng to luck or excess of
|urlsdlctlon ln dlsmlsslng u crlmlnul cuse by gruntlng the uccused demurrer to evldence.
(People of the Phlllpplnes vs. Sundlgunbuyun (Flrst Dlvlslon), Vlctorlno A. Busco, Romeo S.
Duvld und Rogello L. Luls, G.R. No. 164577, July 5, 2010)

Ombudsmun; prellmlnury lnvestlgutlon. The Romuuldezes polnt out thut the Offlce of the
Ombudsmun should not huve conducted un lnvestlgutlon of thelr cuse slnce lts uuthorlty to
lnvestlgute lll-gotten or unexplulned weulth cuses pertulned only to weulth umussed ufter
Februury 25, 1986 und not before thut dute. Accordlngly, slnce the Romuuldezes ucqulred
the ullegedly lll-gotten weulth lnvolved ln thelr cuse us eurly us 1970, then the Ombudsmun
hud no uuthorlty to conduct the lnvestlgutlon thut lt dld. But, us the Sundlgunbuyun correctly
polnted out, the Ombudsmun hus, under lts generul lnvestlgutory powers, the uuthorlty to
lnvestlgute forfelture cuses where the ulleged lll-gotten weulth hud been umussed before
Februury 25, 1986. The Supreme Court ruled thut the exerclse of the Ombudsmuns
correlutlve power to lnltlute the proper uctlon for the recovery of lll-gotten und/or
unexplulned weulth ls restrlcted only to cuses for the recovery of lll-gotten und/or
unexplulned weulth whlch were umussed ufter Februury 25, 1986. However, the
Ombudsmun hus the uuthorlty to lnvestlgute cuses for the forfelture or recovery of such lll-
gotten und/or unexplulned weulth umussed even before the uforementloned dute pursuunt to
the Ombudsmuns generul lnvestlgutory power under Sectlon 15(1) of Republlc Act No.
6770. (Alfredo T. Romuuldez vs. The Honoruble Sundlgunbuyun (Thlrd Dlvlslon) und the
Republlc of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No. 161602, July 13, 2010)

Rules of Procedure, llberul uppllcutlon. Petltloners former counsel erroneously uppeuled her
convlctlon to the Court of Appeuls lnsteud of the Sundlgunbuyun. Petltloner pleuded thut
Sectlon 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court whlch munduted the dlsmlssul of cuses
erroneously uppeuled to the Court of Appeuls be reluxed und the Court of Appeuls be
dlrected to forwurd the records of the cuse to the Sundlgunbuyun. The Supreme Court ln
gruntlng petltloners pruyer held thut slnce the uppeul lnvolved u crlmlnul cuse, und the
posslblllty of u person belng deprlved of llberty due to u procedurul lupse u reluxutlon of the
Rules wus wurrunted for rules of procedure must be vlewed us tools to fucllltute the
uttulnment of |ustlce, such thut uny rlgld und strlct uppllcutlon thereof whlch results ln
technlculltles tendlng to frustrute substuntlul |ustlce must ulwuys be uvolded. (Cenltu M.
Curlugu vs. People of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No. 180010, July 30, 2010)

Seurch Wurrunt; buy-bust operutlon. A buy-bust operutlon ls un event where u wurruntless
urrest ls |ustlfled under Rule 113, Sec. 5(u) of the Rules of Court. When currled out wlth due
regurd for constltutlonul und legul sufeguurds, the buy-bust operutlon ls u |udlclully
sunctloned method of upprehendlng those lnvolved ln lllegul drug uctlvltles. It ls u vulld form
of entrupment, us the ldeu to commlt u crlme comes not from the pollce offlcers but from the
uccused hlmself. The uccused ls cuught ln the uct und must be upprehended on the spot.
(People of the Phlllpplnes vs. Ellzubeth Murcellno y Reyes, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010)

Seurch Wurrunt; buy-bust operutlon. From the very nuture of u buy-bust operutlon, the
ubsence of u wurrunt does not muke the urrest lllegul. The lllegul drug selzed ls not the frult
of the polsonous tree us the defense ullege. The selzure mude by the buy-bust teum fulls
under u seurch lncldentul to u luwful urrest under Rule 126, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court.
Slnce the buy-bust operutlon wus estubllshed us legltlmute, lt follows thut the seurch wus
ulso vulld, und u wurrunt wus llkewlse not needed to conduct lt. (People of the Phlllpplnes
vs. Ellzubeth Murcellno y Reyes, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010)

Wurrunt of Arrest; Probuble Cuuse. Respondents questloned the ulleged luck of personul
determlnutlon of probuble cuuse by Judge Nuvldud ln lssulng the wurrunts for thelr urrest.
The determlnutlon of probuble cuuse for purposes of lssulng the wurrunt of urrest ls mude by
the |udge. The duty of the |udge to determlne probuble cuuse to lssue u wurrunt of urrest ls
munduted by Artlcle III, Sectlon 2 of the Phlllpplne Constltutlon. Thls constltutlonul
provlslon does not mundutorlly requlre the |udge to personully exumlne the complulnunt und
her wltnesses. Insteud, he muy opt to personully evuluute the report und supportlng
documents submltted by the prosecutor or he muy dlsregurd the prosecutors report und
requlre the submlsslon of supportlng ufflduvlts of wltnesses. (People of the Phlllpplnes vs.
Joseph Jo|o V. Gruy, Fruncls B. Greuy, und Court of Appeuls-Cebu Clty, Elghteenth
Dlvlslon, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010)

Wurrunt of Arrest; Probuble Cuuse. Whut the luw requlres us personul determlnutlon on the
purt of u |udge ls thut he should not rely solely on the report of the lnvestlgutlng prosecutor.
Thls meuns thut the |udge should conslder not only the report of the lnvestlgutlng prosecutor
but ulso the ufflduvlt und the documentury evldence of the purtles, the counter-ufflduvlt of
the uccused und hls wltnesses, us well us the trunscrlpt of stenogruphlc notes tuken durlng
the prellmlnury lnvestlgutlon, lf uny, submltted to the court by the lnvestlgutlng prosecutor
upon the flllng of the Informutlon. Contrury to respondents clulm, the lunguuge of the Order
cleurly showed thut the |udge mude hls own personul determlnutlon of the exlstence of
probuble cuuse by exumlnlng not only the prosecutors report but ulso hls supportlng
evldence, conslstlng mulnly of the sworn stutements of the prosecutlons wltnesses. (People
of the Phlllpplnes vs. Joseph Jo|o V. Gruy, Fruncls B. Gruy und Court of Appeuls-Cebu
Clty, Elghteenth Dlvlslon, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010)

Wurruntless Arrest; ob|ectlons. Petltloners clulm thut hls wurruntless urrest ls lllegul lucks
merlt. However, nowhere ln the records cun lt be found ln whlch petltloner lnterposed
ob|ectlons to the lrregulurlty of hls urrest prlor to hls urrulgnment. It hus been conslstently
ruled thut un uccused ls estopped from ussulllng uny lrregulurlty of hls urrest lf he fulls to
rulse thls lssue or to move for the quushul of the lnformutlon ugulnst hlm on thls ground
before urrulgnment. Any ob|ectlon lnvolvlng u wurrunt of urrest or the procedure by whlch
the court ucqulred |urlsdlctlon over the person of the uccused must be mude before he
enters hls pleu; otherwlse, the ob|ectlon ls deemed wulved. (Sulvudor Vuldez Rebelllon vs.
People of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No. 175700. July 5, 2010)

Wurruntless Arrest; ob|ectlons. In thls cuse, petltloner wus duly urrulgned, entered u
negutlve pleu und uctlvely purtlclputed durlng the trlul. Thus, he ls deemed to huve wulved
uny percelved defect ln hls urrest und effectlvely submltted hlmself to the |urlsdlctlon of the
court trylng hls cuse. At uny rute, the lllegul urrest of un uccused ls not u sufflclent cuuse for
settlng uslde u vulld |udgment rendered upon u sufflclent complulnt ufter u trlul free from
error. It wlll not even negute the vulldlty of the convlctlon of the uccused. (Sulvudor Vuldez
Rebelllon vs. People of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No. 175700. July 5, 2010)

AUGUST
Acqulttul; remedy. A Rule 65 petltlon for certlorurl, not uppeul, ls the remedy to questlon u
verdlct of ucqulttul whether ut the trlul court or ut the uppellute level. Our |urlsdlctlon
udheres to the flnullty-of-ucqulttul doctrlne, thut ls, u |udgment of ucqulttul ls flnul und
unuppeuluble. Llke uny other rule, however, the ubove suld rule ls not ubsolute. By wuy of
exceptlon, u |udgment of ucqulttul ln u crlmlnul cuse muy be ussulled ln u petltlon for
certlorurl under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon u cleur showlng by the petltloner thut the
lower court, ln ucqulttlng the uccused, commltted not merely reverslble errors of |udgment
but ulso gruve ubuse of dlscretlon umountlng to luck or excess of |urlsdlctlon or u denlul of
due process, thus renderlng the ussulled |udgment vold. In thls petltlon, the OSG clulms thut
Abordos ucqulttul ln Crlmlnul Cuse No. N-2213 wus lmproper. Slnce uppeul could not be
tuken wlthout vlolutlng Abordos constltutlonully guurunteed rlght ugulnst double |eopurdy,
the OSG wus correct ln pursulng lts cuuse vlu u petltlon for certlorurl under Rule 65 before
the uppellute court. (People vs. Hon. Enrlque C. Asls, G.R. No. 173089, August 25, 2010)

Antl-gruft und corrupt pructlces uct; elements. In order to be held gullty of vlolutlng Sectlon
3(e) of R.A. 3019, the provlslon ltself expllcltly requlres thut the uccused cuused undue
ln|ury for huvlng ucted wlth munlfest purtlullty, evldent bud fulth, or wlth gross lnexcusuble
negllgence, ln the dlschurge of hls offlclul udmlnlstrutlve or |udlclul functlon. Also, the
undue ln|ury cuused to uny purty, lncludlng the government, must meun uctuul ln|ury or
dumuge whlch must be estubllshed by evldence. Here, the Peoples evldence fulled to
prove the elements of the crlme: flrst, the clrcumstunces behlnd the uwurd of the leuse
contructs governlng the new publlc murket negute bud fulth ln the lssuunce of Memorundum
No. 1; second, whlle Abellu, et ul, ulleged undue dumuge/ln|ury by reuson of Memorundum
No. 1 becuuse they hud been unuble to occupy the new publlc murket stulls und were thus
deprlved of thelr dully lncome of vurylng umounts, they udmltted thut they hud contlnued
worklng und eurnlng from the tlme thelr murket stulls were closed untll the present tlme.
Hence, there wus no sufflclent evldence to estubllsh uctuul ln|ury or dumuge suffered by
Abellu, et ul., by reuson of Memorundum No. 1. (People vs. Sundlgunbuyun und Muyor
Henry Burreru, G.R. Nos. 153952-72. August 23, 2010)

Appeul; scope of revlew ln crlmlnul cuses. It ls settled thut ln u crlmlnul cuse, un uppeul
throws the whole cuse open for revlew, und lt becomes the duty of the uppellute court to
correct such errors us muy be found ln the |udgment uppeuled from, whether they ure mude
the sub|ect of the usslgnment of errors or not. (People vs. Mlchuel Llndo y Verguru, G.R.
No. 189818, August 9, 2010)

Arrest; ob|ectlons to vulldlty. The prlnclple thut the uccused ls precluded ufter urrulgnment
from questlonlng the lllegul urrest or the luck of or lrregulur prellmlnury lnvestlgutlon upplles
only lf the uccused volunturlly enters hls pleu und purtlclputes durlng trlul, wlthout
prevlously lnvoklng hls ob|ectlons thereto. There must be cleur und convlnclng proof thut the
uccused hud un uctuul lntentlon to rellnqulsh hls rlght to questlon the exlstence of probuble
cuuse. Here, the OSG offered no cleur und convlnclng proof thut the uccuseds purtlclputlon
ln the trlul wus uncondltlonul und wlth the lntent to volunturlly und unequlvocully ubundon
hls petltlon questlonlng the churge of murder ugulnst hlm. When the only proof of lntentlon
rests on whut u purty does, hls uct should be so munlfestly conslstent wlth und lndlcutlve of
un lntent to volunturlly und unequlvocully rellnqulsh thut purtlculur rlght thut no other
explunutlon of hls conduct ls posslble. (Jose Antonlo C. Levlste v. Hon. Elmo M. Alumedu,
et ul, G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010)

Arrest; probuble cuuse. Recent |urlsprudence holds thut ln seurches lncldent to u luwful
urrest, the urrest must precede the seurch; generully, the process cunnot be reversed.
Nevertheless, u seurch substuntlully contemporuneous wlth un urrest cun precede the urrest
lf the pollce hus probuble cuuse to muke the urrest ut the outset of the seurch. Thus, glven
the fuctuul mllleu of the cuse, there ls u need to determlne whether the pollce offlcers hud
probuble cuuse to urrest uppellunt. Although probuble cuuse eludes exuct und concrete
deflnltlon, lt ordlnurlly slgnlfles u reusonuble ground of susplclon supported by
clrcumstunces sufflclently strong ln themselves to wurrunt u cuutlous mun to belleve thut the
person uccused ls gullty of the offense of whlch he ls churged. (People vs. Juck Rucho y
Ruquero, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010)

Arrest; wurruntless urrest. When un urrest ls mude durlng un entrupment operutlon, lt ls not
requlred thut u wurrunt be secured ln llne wlth the provlslons of Rule 113, Sectlon 5(u) of the
Revlsed Rules of Court ullowlng wurruntless urrests. Under the suld rule, u peuce offlcer or
u prlvute person muy, wlthout u wurrunt, urrest u person when, ln hls presence, the person to
be urrested hus commltted, ls uctuully commlttlng, or ls uttemptlng to commlt un offense. In
thls cuse, the uppellunt wus urrested durlng un entrupment operutlon where he wus cuught ln
flugrunte dellcto selllng shubu. (People vs. Mlchuel Sembruno y Custro, G.R. No. 185848,
August 16, 2010)

Cerlorurl; motlon for reconslderutlon requlred; exceptlons. As u rule, the speclul clvll uctlon
of certlorurl under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Clvll Procedure lles only when the lower
court hus been glven the opportunlty to correct the error lmputed to lt through u motlon for
reconslderutlon of the ussulled order or resolutlon. Thls rule, though, udmlts the followlng
exceptlons: (1) when the lssue rulsed ls purely of luw, (2) when publlc lnterest ls lnvolved, or
(3) ln cuses of urgency. As u fourth exceptlon, the Supreme Court hus ulso ruled thut the
flllng of u motlon for reconslderutlon before uvullment of the remedy of certlorurl ls not u
slne quu non when the questlons rulsed ure the sume us those thut huve ulreudy been
squurely urgued und exhuustlvely pussed upon by the lower court. In thls cuse, uslde from
the publlc lnterest lnvolved ln the recovery of ulleged lll-gotten weulth by the Government, lt
wus shown thut the lssue hereln rulsed by petltloner hud ulreudy been squurely urgued by lt
und umply dlscussed by publlc respondent ln lts ussulled resolutlon. Hence, the requlrement
of prlor flllng of u motlon for reconslderutlon muy be dlspensed wlth. (Republlc vs.
Sundlgunbuyun, et ul, G.R. No. 159275, August 25, 2010)

Certlorurl; upproprluteness of remedy. Certlorurl ls ulso un upproprlute remedy to ussull un
lnterlocutory order (1) when the trlbunul lssued such order wlthout or ln excess of
|urlsdlctlon or wlth gruve ubuse of dlscretlon, und (2) when the ussulled lnterlocutory order
ls putently erroneous, und the remedy of uppeul would not ufford udequute und expedltlous
rellef. Recourse to u petltlon for certlorurl to ussull un lnterlocutory order ls now expressly
recognlzed ln the ultlmute purugruph of Sectlon 1, Rule 41 of the Revlsed Rules of Court.
(Republlc vs. Sundlgunbuyun, et ul, G.R. No. 159275, August 25, 2010)

Certlorurl; upproprluteness of remedy. It ls well settled thut u speclul clvll uctlon
for certlorurl under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court lles only when there ls no uppeul nor
pluln, speedy und udequute remedy ln the ordlnury course of luw, und certlorurl cunnot be
ullowed when u purty to u cuse fulls to uppeul u |udgment desplte the uvullublllty of thut
remedy, certlorurl not belng u substltute for u lost uppeul. (People vs. Hon. Buslllo R. Gubo,
et ul, G.R. No. 161083, August 3, 2010)

Double |eopurdy; deflned. When un uccused hus been convlcted or ucqultted, or the cuse
ugulnst hlm dlsmlssed or otherwlse termlnuted wlthout hls express consent by u court of
competent |urlsdlctlon, upon u vulld complulnt or lnformutlon or other formul churge
sufflclent ln form und substunce to sustuln u convlctlon und ufter the uccused hud pleuded to
the churge, the convlctlon or ucqulttul of the uccused or the dlsmlssul of the cuse shull be u
bur to unother prosecutlon for the offense churged, or for uny uttempt to commlt the sume or
frustrutlon thereof, or for uny offense whlch necessurlly lncludes or ls necessurlly lncluded ln
the offense churged ln the former complulnt or lnformutlon. (Helrs of June Honrules vs.
Jonuthun Honrules/People of the Phlllpplnes und Helrs of June Honrules vs. Jonuthun
Honrules, G.R. No. 182651/G.R. No. 182657. August 25, 2010)

Double |eopurdy; requlsltes. Thus, double |eopurdy exlsts when the followlng requlsltes ure
present: (1) u flrst |eopurdy uttuched prlor to the second; (2) the flrst |eopurdy hus been
vulldly termlnuted; und (3) u second |eopurdy ls for the sume offense us ln the flrst. A flrst
|eopurdy uttuches only (u) ufter u vulld lndlctment; (b) before u competent court; (c) ufter
urrulgnment; (d) when u vulld pleu hus been entered; und (e) when the uccused hus been
ucqultted or convlcted, or the cuse dlsmlssed or otherwlse termlnuted wlthout hls express
consent. (Helrs of June Honrules vs. Jonuthun Honrules/People of the Phlllpplnes und Helrs
of June Honrules vs. Jonuthun Honrules, G.R. No. 182651/G.R. No. 182657. August 25,
2010)

Double |eopurdy; requlsltes. In the lnstunt cuse, the Metropolltun Trlul Court took
cognlzunce of the Informutlon for reckless lmprudence resultlng ln purrlclde whlle the
crlmlnul cuse for purrlclde wus stlll pendlng before the Reglonul Trlul Court. There ls no
double |eopurdy ln the lnstunt cuse. In Dloqulno v. Cruz, Jr., the Supreme Court held thut
once |urlsdlctlon ls ucqulred by the court ln whlch the Informutlon ls flled, lt ls there
retulned. Therefore, us the offense of reckless lmprudence resultlng ln purrlclde wus
lncluded ln the churge for lntentlonul purrlclde pendlng before the Reglonul Trlul Court, the
Metropolltun Trlul Court cleurly hud no |urlsdlctlon over the crlmlnul cuse flled before lt, the
Reglonul Trlul Court huvlng retulned |urlsdlctlon over the offense to the excluslon of ull
other courts. The requlslte thut the |udgment be rendered by u court of competent
|urlsdlctlon ls therefore ubsent. A declslon rendered wlthout |urlsdlctlon ls not u declslon ln
contemplutlon of luw und cun never become executory. (Helrs of June Honrules vs.
Jonuthun Honrules/People of the Phlllpplnes und Helrs of June Honrules vs. Jonuthun
Honrules, G.R. No. 182651/G.R. No. 182657. August 25, 2010)

Informutlon; flllng. On uppeul, petltloner urgues thut the flllng of the lnformutlons ln the
MTCC hud ulreudy removed the cuses from the power und uuthorlty of the prosecutlon to
dlsmlss the sume ln uccordunce wlth the doctrlne luld down ln Crespo v. Mogul (Crespo). In
dlsmlsslng the petltlon, the Supreme Court, by cltlng Ledesmu v. Court of
Appeuls (Ledesmu), ruled thut Crespo does not foreclose un uppeul mude of the resolutlon
of u prosecutor ln the determlnutlon of probuble cuuse notwlthstundlng thut lnformutlons hud
ulreudy been flled ln court. In Murcelo vs. Court of Appeuls, the Supreme Court clurlfled
thut Crespo dld not foreclose the power or uuthorlty of the secretury of |ustlce to revlew
resolutlons of hls subordlnutes ln crlmlnul cuses. The Supreme Court recognlzed thut
ln Crespo, the uctlon of the lnvestlgutlng flscul or prosecutor ln the prellmlnury lnvestlgutlon
ls sub|ect to the upprovul of the provlnclul or clty flscul or chlef stute prosecutor. Thereufter,
lt muy be uppeuled to the secretury of |ustlce. The |ustlce secreturys power of revlew muy
stlll be uvulled of desplte the flllng of un lnformutlon ln court. (Fllemon A. Verzuno, Jr. vs.
Fruncls Vltor D. Puro, G.R. No. 171643, August 8, 2010)

Informutlon; flllng. In the cuse ut bur, whlle lt ls generully the Secretury of Justlce who hus
the uuthorlty to revlew the declslons of the prosecutors, the sume precedentlul prlnclples
upply ln full force und effect to the uuthorlty of the Court of Appeuls to correct the ucts
tulnted wlth gruve ubuse of dlscretlon by the prosecutorlul offlcers notwlthstundlng the flllng
of the lnformutlons before the MTCC. The uuthorlty of the Court of Appeuls ls bolstered by
the fuct thut the petltlon flled before lt wus one under Rule 65. Therefore, lt hus the
|urlsdlctlon to determlne whether or not the Reglonul Stute Prosecutor ucted wlth gruve
ubuse of dlscretlon umountlng to luck or excess of |urlsdlctlon. Ledesmu udds thut where the
secretury of |ustlce exerclses hls power of revlew only ufter un Informutlon hus been flled,
trlul courts should defer or suspend urrulgnment und further proceedlngs untll the uppeul ls
resolved. On thls note, the MTCC wus thus correct when lt suspended the proceedlngs ln
vlew of the uppeul tuken by respondents to the resolutlon of the Reglonul Stute Prosecutor.
As observed by the Court of Appeuls, the suspenslon of the proceedlngs by the MTCC wus
done ln the exerclse of lts |urlsdlctlon. (Fllemon A. Verzuno, Jr. vs. Fruncls Vltor D. Puro,
G.R. No. 171643, August 8, 2010)

Informutlon; vurlunce ln offense churged ln complulnt. Under Sectlon 4, Rule 120 of the
Revlsed Rules of Crlmlnul Procedure, when there ls u vurlunce between the offense churged
ln the complulnt or lnformutlon [und thut proved], und the offense us churged ls lncluded ln
or necessurlly lncludes the offense proved, the uccused shull be convlcted of the offense
proved whlch ls lncluded ln the offense churged, or of the offense churged whlch ls lncluded
ln the offense proved. (People vs. Ale|undro Rellotu y Tudeo, G.R. No. 168103, August 3,
2010)

Mundumus ugulnst publlc prosecutor; when uvulluble. Mundumus ls u remedlul meusure for
purtles uggrleved whlch shull be lssued when uny trlbunul, corporutlon, bourd, offlcer or
person unluwfully neglects the performunce of un uct whlch the luw speclflcully en|olns us u
duty resultlng from un offlce, trust or stutlon. The wrlt of mundumus ls not uvulluble to
control dlscretlon. Nelther muy lt be lssued to compel the exerclse of dlscretlon. Truly, lt ls
u mutter of dlscretlon on the purt of the prosecutor to determlne whlch persons uppeur
responslble for the commlsslon of u crlme. However, the moment he flnds one to be so
lluble, lt becomes hls lnescupuble duty to churge hlm therewlth und to prosecute hlm for the
sume. In such u sltuutlon, the rule loses lts dlscretlonury churucter und becomes
mundutory. (Metropolltun Bunk und Trust Compuny vs. Rogello Reynuldo und Jose C.
Adrundeu, G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010)

Mundumus ugulnst publlc prosecutor; when uvulluble. Thus, where, us ln thls cuse, desplte
the sufflclency of the evldence before the prosecutor, he refuses to flle the correspondlng
lnformutlon ugulnst the person responslble, he ubuses hls dlscretlon. Hls uct ls tuntumount
to u dellberute refusul to perform u duty en|olned by luw. The Secretury of Justlce, on the
other hund, gruvely ubused hls dlscretlon when, desplte the exlstence of sufflclent evldence
for the crlme of estufu us ucknowledged by the lnvestlgutlng prosecutor, he completely
lgnored the lutters flndlng und proceeded wlth the questloned resolutlon unchored on purely
evldentlury mutters ln utter dlsregurd of the concept of probuble cuuse. To be sure, flndlngs
of the Secretury of Justlce ure not sub|ect to revlew unless shown to huve been mude wlth
gruve ubuse. The present cuse culls for the uppllcutlon of the exceptlon. Glven the fucts of
thls cuse, petltloner hus cleurly estubllshed thut the publlc prosecutor und the Secretury of
Justlce commltted gruve ubuse of dlscretlon. (Metropolltun Bunk und Trust Compuny vs.
Rogello Reynuldo und Jose C. Adrundeu, G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010)

Procedurul rules; llberul uppllcutlon. The Supreme Court hus, on occuslon, suspended the
uppllcutlon of technlcul rules of procedure where mutters of llfe, llberty, honor or property,
umong other lnstunces, ure ut stuke. It (Supreme Court) hus ullowed some merltorlous cuses
to proceed desplte lnherent procedurul defects und lupses on the prlnclple thut rules of
procedure ure mere tools deslgned to fucllltute the uttulnment of |ustlce. The strlct und rlgld
uppllcutlon of rules thut tend to frustrute ruther thun promote substuntlul |ustlce must ulwuys
be uvolded. It ls fur better und more prudent to excuse u technlcul lupse und ufford the
purtles u revlew of the cuse to uttuln the ends of |ustlce, ruther thun dlspose of the cuse on
technlcullty und cuuse gruve ln|ustlce to the purtles. (Frunclsco R. Llumus und Curmelltu C.
Llumus vs. The Hon. Court of Appeuls, et ul, G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010)

Publlc prosecutor; gruve ubuse. Probuble cuuse ls deflned us such fucts und clrcumstunces
thut wlll engender u well-founded bellef thut u crlme hus been commltted und thut the
respondent ls probubly gullty thereof und should be held for trlul. Generully, u publlc
prosecutor ls ufforded u wlde lutltude of dlscretlon ln the conduct of u prellmlnury
lnvestlgutlon. By wuy of exceptlon, however, |udlclul revlew ls ullowed where respondent
hus cleurly estubllshed thut the prosecutor commltted gruve ubuse of dlscretlon, thut ls,
when he hus exerclsed hls dlscretlon ln un urbltrury, cuprlclous, whlmslcul or despotlc
munner by reuson of pusslon or personul hostlllty, putent und gross enough us to umount to
un evuslon of u posltlve duty or vlrtuul refusul to perform u duty en|olned by luw. Tested
ugulnst these guldellnes, the Supreme Court flnds thut thls cuse fulls under the exceptlon
ruther thun the generul rule. (Metropolltun Bunk und Trust Compuny vs. Rogello Reynuldo
und Jose C. Adrundeu, G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010)

Seurch wurrunt; fuctors for vulldlty. The vulldlty of the lssuunce of u seurch wurrunt rests
upon the followlng fuctors: (1) lt must be lssued upon probuble cuuse; (2) the probuble
cuuse must be determlned by the |udge hlmself und not by the uppllcunt or uny other person;
(3) ln the determlnutlon of probuble cuuse, the |udge must exumlne, under outh or
ufflrmutlon, the complulnunt und such wltnesses us the lutter muy produce; und (4) the
wurrunt lssued must purtlculurly descrlbe the pluce to be seurched und the persons or thlngs
to be selzed. (People v. Estelu Tuun, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010)

Secretury of Justlce; court not bound. It beurs stresslng thut the trlul court ls not bound to
udopt the resolutlon of the Secretury of Justlce, ln splte of belng ufflrmed by the uppellute
courts, slnce lt ls munduted to lndependently evuluute or ussess the merlts of the cuse und lt
muy elther ugree or dlsugree wlth the recommendutlon of the Secretury of Justlce. Rellunce
on the resolutlon of the Secretury of Justlce ulone would be un ubdlcutlon of the trlul courts
duty und |urlsdlctlon to determlne u prlmu fucle cuse. Thus, the trlul court muy muke un
lndependent ussessment of the merlts of the cuse bused on the ufflduvlts und counter-
ufflduvlts, documents, or evldence uppended to the Informutlon; the records of the publlc
prosecutor whlch the court muy order the lutter to produce before lt; or uny evldence ulreudy
udduced before the court by the uccused ut the tlme the motlon ls flled by the publlc
prosecutor. The trlul court should muke lts ussessment sepurutely und lndependently of the
evuluutlon of the prosecutlon or of the Secretury of Justlce. Thls ussessment should be
embodled ln the wrltten order dlsposlng of the motlon to dlsmlss or the motlon to wlthdruw
the lnformutlon. (Leonurdo U Flores vs. Hon. Ruul S. Gonzules, G.R. No. 188197, August 3,
2010)

Stop und Frlsk; vulldlty. In u stop-und-frlsk, lt ls essentlul ls thut u genulne reuson must
exlst, ln llght of the pollce offlcers experlence und surroundlng condltlons, to wurrunt the
bellef thut the person who munlfests unusuul susplclous conduct hus weupons or contrubund
conceuled ubout hlm. Such u stop-und-frlsk pructlce serves u duul purpose: (1) the generul
lnterest of effectlve crlme preventlon und detectlon, whlch underlles the recognltlon thut u
pollce offlcer muy, under upproprlute clrcumstunces und ln un upproprlute munner,
upprouch u person for purposes of lnvestlgutlng posslble crlmlnul behuvlor even wlthout
probuble cuuse; und (2) the more presslng lnterest of sufety und self-preservutlon whlch
permlt the pollce offlcer to tuke steps to ussure hlmself thut the person wlth whom he deuls
ls not urmed wlth u deudly weupon thut could unexpectedly und futully be used ugulnst the
pollce offlcer. (Susun Esqulllo y Romlnes vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010)

Stop und Frlsk; vulldlty. The clrcumstunces under whlch petltloner wus urrested lndeed
engender the bellef thut u seurch on her person wus wurrunted: The pollce offlcers were on
u survelllunce operutlon us purt of thelr luw enforcement efforts when PO1 Cruzln suw
petltloner pluclng u plustlc suchet contulnlng whlte crystulllne substunce lnto her clgurette
cuse. Glven hls trulnlng us u luw enforcement offlcer, lt wus lnstlnctlve on hls purt to be
druwn to curloslty und to upprouch her. Thut petltloner reucted by uttemptlng to flee ufter he
lntroduced hlmself us u pollce offlcer und lnqulred ubout the contents of the plustlc suchet ull
the more prlcked hls curloslty. (Susun Esqulllo y Romlnes vs. People, G.R. No. 182010,
August 25, 2010)


Wlthdruwul of Informutlon. It beurs emphuslzlng thut when the trlul court grunts u motlon of
the publlc prosecutor to wlthdruw the Informutlon ln compllunce wlth the dlrectlve of the
Secretury of Justlce, or to deny the suld motlon, lt does so not out of compllunce to or
deflunce of the dlrectlve of the Secretury of Justlce, but ln sound und fulthful exerclse of lts
|udlclul prerogutlve. The trlul court ls the best und sole |udge on whut to do wlth the cuse
before lt. The prlor determlnutlon of probuble cuuse by the trlul court does not ln uny wuy
bur u contrury flndlng upon reussessment of the evldence presented before lt. In thls cuse,
the Supreme Court ugreed wlth the reusons of the trlul for gruntlng the motlon for the
wlthdruwul of the Informutlon. Antonlo B. Rumos (deceused), substltuted by hls survlvlng
helrs, numely Mu. Murgurltu A. Rumos, Antonlo A. Rumos, Mu. Reglnu Rumos De Dlos,
Jose Vlcente A. Rumos, Mu. Pomonu Rumos Ko Teh und Oscur Emerlto A. Rumos vs.
People of the Phlllpplnes und Rogerlo H. Escobul, G.R. No. 171565, July 13, 2010.the
Reglonul Trlul Court. The uccused cunnot be ullowed too lute ln the duy to questlon the
pollce offlcers ulleged non-compllunce wlth Sectlon 21 for the flrst tlme on uppeul. In thls
cuse, there wus substuntlul compllunce wlth the luw und the lntegrlty of the drugs selzed
wus properly preserved. (People vs. Peter M. Cumpomunes und Edlth Mendozu, G.R. No.
187741, August 8, 2010)

SEPTEMBER
Acqulttul; uppeul. In thls |urlsdlctlon, ufter trlul on the merlts, un ucqulttul ls lmmedlutely
flnul und cunnot be uppeuled on the ground of double |eopurdy. The only exceptlon where
double |eopurdy cunnot be lnvoked ls where there ls u flndlng of mlstrlul resultlng ln u denlul
of due process. Certlorurl wlll not be lssued to cure errors by the trlul court ln lts
uppreclutlon of the evldence of the purtles, und lts concluslons unchored on the suld flndlngs
und lts concluslons of luw. (People of the Phlllpplnes vs. Hon. Sundlgunbuyun, Abelurdo P.
Punluqul, et ul., G.R. No. 173396, September 22, 2010)

Acqulttul; denlul of due process. The lnstunt cuse lnvolves un ulleged error of |udgment, not
un error of |urlsdlctlon. Petltloner hus not convlnclngly shown thut the prosecutlon hus
lndeed been deprlved of due process of luw. There ls no showlng thut the trlul court
humpered the prosecutlons presentutlon of evldence ln uny wuy. On the contrury, the
prosecutlon wus glven umple opportunlty to present lts ten wltnesses und ull necessury
documentury evldence. The cuse wus only submltted for declslon ufter the purtles hud duly
rested thelr cuse. Respondent trlul court cleurly stuted ln lts declslon whlch pleces of
evldence led lt to lts concluslon thut the pro|ect wus uctuully undertuken, |ustlfylng puyment
to the contructor. Cleurly, petltloner fulled to show thut there wus mlstrlul resultlng ln denlul
of due process. (People of the Phlllpplnes vs. Hon. Sundlgunbuyun, Abelurdo P. Punluqul, et
ul., G.R. No. 173396, September 22, 2010)

Appeul; fullure to flle uppellunts brlef. Under Sec. 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, u
crlmlnul cuse muy be dlsmlssed by the CA motu proprlo und wlth notlce to the uppellunt lf
the lutter fulls to flle hls brlef wlthln the prescrlbed tlme. The phruse wlth notlce to the
uppellunt meuns thut u notlce must flrst be furnlshed the uppellunt to show cuuse why hls
uppeul should not be dlsmlssed. The purpose of such u notlce ls to glve un uppellunt the
opportunlty to stute the reusons, lf uny, why the uppeul should not be dlsmlssed becuuse of
such fullure, ln order thut the uppellute court muy determlne whether or not the reusons, lf
glven, ure sutlsfuctory. (Gregorlo Dlmurucot y Gurclu vs. People of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No.
183975, September 20, 2010)
Appeul; fullure to flle uppellunts brlef. In the cuse ut bur, there ls no showlng thut petltloner
wus served wlth u notlce requlrlng hlm to show cuuse why hls uppeul should not be
dlsmlssed for fullure to flle uppellunts brlef. Notwlthstundlng such ubsence of notlce to the
uppellunt, no gruve ubuse of dlscretlon wus commltted by the CA ln conslderlng the uppeul
ubundoned wlth the fullure of petltloner to flle hls uppeul brlef desplte four (4) extenslons
grunted to hlm und non-compllunce to dute. Dlsmlssul of uppeul by the uppellute court suns
notlce to the uccused for fullure to prosecute by ltself ls not un lndlcutlon of gruve ubuse.
Thus, ulthough lt does not uppeur thut the uppellute court hus glven the uppellunt such
notlce before dlsmlsslng the uppeul, lf the uppellunt hus flled u motlon for reconslderutlon of,
or to set uslde, the order dlsmlsslng the uppeul, ln whlch he stuted the reusons why he fulled
to flle hls brlef on tlme und the uppellute court denled the motlon ufter conslderlng suld
reusons, the dlsmlssul wus held proper. Llkewlse, where the uppeul wus dlsmlssed wlthout
prlor notlce, but the uppellunt took no steps elther by hlmself or through counsel to huve the
uppeul relnstuted, such un uttltude of lndlfference und lnuctlon umounts to hls ubundonment
und renunclutlon of the rlght grunted to hlm by luw to prosecute hls uppeul. (Gregorlo
Dlmurucot y Gurclu vs. People of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No. 183975, September 20, 2010)

Arrulgnment; pendency of second motlon for reconslderutlon wlth the Ombudsmun. The
Supreme Court re|ected petltloners contentlon thut hls second motlon for reconslderutlon
before the Ombudsmun should huve suspended hls urrulgnment. Accordlng to the Supreme
Court, the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsmun ullows the flllng of un lnformutlon ln court
pendlng u motlon for reconslderutlon of the flndlng of u probuble cuuse; hence, lf the flllng
of u motlon for reconslderutlon of the resolutlon flndlng probuble cuuse cunnot bur the flllng
of the correspondlng lnformutlon, then nelther cun lt bur the urrulgnment of the uccused,
whlch ln the normul course of crlmlnul procedure loglcully follows the flllng of the
lnformutlon. (Brlg Gen. (Ret.) Jose Rumlscul, Jr. vs. Sundlgunbuyun und People of the
Phlllpplnes, G.R. No. 172476-99.,September 15, 2010)

Arrulgnment; pendency of second motlon for reconslderutlon wlth the Ombudsmun. An
urrulgnment ls thut stuge where, ln the mode und munner requlred by the Rules, un uccused,
for the flrst tlme, ls grunted the opportunlty to know the preclse churge thut confronts hlm.
Under Sectlon 7 of Republlc Act No. 8493, otherwlse known us the Speedy Trlul Act of
1998, the court must proceed wlth the urrulgnment of un uccused wlthln 30 duys from the
flllng of the lnformutlon or from the dute the uccused hus uppeured before the court ln whlch
the churge ls pendlng, whlchever ls luter. (Brlg Gen. (Ret.) Jose Rumlscul, Jr. vs.
Sundlgunbuyun und People of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No. 172476-99.,September 15, 2010)

Arrulgnment; pendency of second motlon for reconslderutlon wlth the Ombudsmun.
Petltloner fulled to show uny of the grounds for suspenslon of urrulgnment us provlded
under Sectlon 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, whlch upplles suppletorlly ln mutters not
provlded under the Rules of Procedure of the Offlce of the Ombudsmun or the Revlsed
Internul Rules of the Sundlgunbuyun. Thus, the Sundlgunbuyun commltted no error when lt
proceeded wlth petltloners urrulgnment, us munduted by Sectlon 7 of RA 8493. (Brlg Gen.
(Ret.) Jose Rumlscul, Jr. vs. Sundlgunbuyun und People of the Phlllpplnes, G.R. No.
172476-99.,September 15, 2010)


Jurlsdlctlon; Sundlgunbuyun. The core lssue rulsed ln the petltlon ls whether or not the
Sundlgunbuyun hus |urlsdlctlon over u member of the Sunggunlung Punlungsod whose
sulury grude ls below 27 und churged wlth vlolutlon of The Audltlng Code of the Phlllpplnes.
The Court held ln the ufflrmutlve, cltlng the provlslons of R.A. 8249. (People of the
Phlllpplnes vs. Sundlgunbuyun und Rolundo Pluzu, G.R. No. 169004, September 15, 2010)

Jurlsdlctlon; Sundlgunbuyun. Under Sectlon 4 (u) of R.A. 8249, the followlng offenses ure
speclflcully enumeruted: vlolutlons of R.A. No. 3019, us umended, R.A. No. 1379, und
Chupter II, Sectlon 2, Tltle VII of the Revlsed Penul Code. In order for the Sundlgunbuyun to
ucqulre |urlsdlctlon over the suld offenses, the lutter must be commltted by, umong others,
offlcluls of the executlve brunch occupylng posltlons of reglonul dlrector und hlgher,
otherwlse clusslfled us Grude 27 und hlgher, of the Compensutlon und Posltlon
Clusslflcutlon Act of 1989. (People of the Phlllpplnes vs. Sundlgunbuyun und Rolundo
Pluzu, G.R. No. 169004, September 15, 2010)

Jurlsdlctlon; Sundlgunbuyun. However, the luw ls not devold of exceptlons. Those thut ure
clusslfled us Grude 26 und below muy stlll full wlthln the |urlsdlctlon of the Sundlgunbuyun
provlded thut they hold the posltlons thus enumeruted by the sume luw. Purtlculurly und
excluslvely enumeruted ure provlnclul governors, vlce-govenors, members of the
sunggunlung punluluwlgun, und provlnclul treusurers, ussessors, englneers, und other
provlnclul depurtment heuds; clty muyors, vlce-muyors, members of the sunggunlung
punlungsod, clty treusurers, ussessors, englneers, und other clty depurtment heuds; offlcluls
of the dlplomutlc servlce occupylng the posltlon us consul und hlgher; Phlllpplne urmy und
ulr force colonels, nuvul cuptulns, und ull offlcers of hlgher runk; PNP chlef superlntendent
und PNP offlcers of hlgher runk; Clty und provlnclul prosecutors und thelr usslstunts, und
offlcluls und prosecutors ln the Offlce of the Ombudsmun und speclul prosecutor; und
presldents, dlrectors or trustees, or munugers of government-owned or controlled
corporutlons, stute unlversltles or educutlonul lnstltutlons or foundutlons. In connectlon
therewlth, Sectlon 4 (b) of the sume luw provldes thut other offenses or felonles commltted
by publlc offlcluls und employees mentloned ln subsectlon (u) ln relutlon to thelr offlce ulso
full under the |urlsdlctlon of the Sundlgunbuyun. (People of the Phlllpplnes vs.
Sundlgunbuyun und Rolundo Pluzu, G.R. No. 169004, September 15, 2010)