Crim Pro Digest 4

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales
CASTILLO v CA (ROSARIO) 176 SCRA 591 FERNAN; August 21, 1989

NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - May 2, 1965: Parties figured in a vehicular accident which caused injuries to their persons and damage to their respective vehicles. They had conflicting versions of the accident. - June 30: Petitioners instituted a civil case for the recovery of damages for the injuries sustained and for the damage to the vehicle in CFI Manila. - September 29: While this case was pending, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information against Rosario, private respondent, for double physical injuries; double less serious physical injuries; and damage to property thru reckless imprudence, in CFI Urdaneta. - Rosario was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court in the criminal case. CA acquitted him from the crime charged on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. - April 3, 1972: Respondents filed a "Request for Admission" in the civil case, requesting petitioners to admit the truthfulness of the facts set forth as well as the correctness and genuineness of the documents attached. - May 5,1972: Petitioners filled a "Manifestation", admitting the allegations in the "Request for Admission" with some qualifications. Later, both parties submitted their respective memoranda. - December 28, 1972: On the basis of the testimonies and evidence submitted by the petitioners, as well as the records of the criminal case attached in the "Request for Admission" of the private respondents, CFI Manila rendered a decision, dismissing the complaint of the petitioners against private respondents as well as the counterclaim of private respondents against the petitioners. - February 13, 1978: CA affirmed Petitioners Version Bernabe Castillo was driving his jeep on the northbound lane of the McArthur Highway with his wife, father, and child at the rate of 25 kph. Just past San Nicolas bridge, he noticed, from a distance of 120 meters more or less, a speeding oncoming car along the same lane he was driving, overtaking a cargo truck ahead of it. - He switched on his headlights to signal the car to return to its own right lane as the way was not clear
a2010
page 57
Prof.
are based; (8) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (9) when the finding of facts of the Court of Appeals is premised on the absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record. Reasoning - The subject action for damages, being civil in nature, is separate and distinct from the criminal aspect, necessitating only a preponderance of evidence. - A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code, with a substantively all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. A distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extracontractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasidelictos or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case. - But this rule is not without exception. Thus, Section 2 (c) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides: Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration from a final judgment that the fact from which the civil action might arise did not exist. - In a previous case, CA-G.R. No. 07684-CR, People v. Rosario, the CA after a painstaking analysis of. (a) the testimonial evidence; (b) the relative positions of the two vehicles as depicted in the sketches; (c) the distance of each of the two vehicles from the cemented edge of the road; (d) the point of impact; (e) the visible tire marks, and (f) the extent of the damage caused upon each of the two vehicles, ruled that it was the driver of the jeep and not the accused driver of the car who was negligent and accordingly acquitted the latter. - Negligence, being the source and foundation of actions of quasi-delict, is the basis for the recovery of damages. In the case at bar, the CA found that collision was not due to the negligence of Rosario but rather it was Castillo's own act of driving the jeep to the shoulder of the road where the car was, which was actually the proximate cause of the collision. With this finding, the CA exonerated Rosario from civil liability on the ground that the alleged negligence did not exist. - During the trial of the case before the CFI, respondents were not present because they were
for it to overtake the truck. The signal was disregarded, as the car proceeded on its direction. - To evade the collision, he swerved his jeep to the right towards the shoulder and applied on the brakes, leaving his feet on it, even, immediately after the impact. The car rested on the shoulder of the right lane. The jeep's rear left wheel was on the road, leaving short tire marks behind it; while the car left long tire marks, specially its left rear wheel. Respodents Version Juanito Rosario who was driving the car, with his wife and daughter, were along MacArthur Highway going southwards. They saw ahead of them a big heavily loaded cargo truck. The truck was moving very slowly because of its heavy load so that Rosario decided to overtake it. But before doing so, he first saw to it that the road was clear and as additional precautionary measure, he blew his horn several times at the time he was overtaking the truck. - As the car was about to overtake the slow moving cargo truck, the car's front left tire suddenly burst due to pressure causing the car to swerve to the left and naturally making steering and control difficult. - Because of the tendency of the car to veer towards the left due to the blown out tire, the driver steered the car towards the direction where he could find a safe place to park and fix the tire. He finally brought the car to a halt at the left shoulder of the road. - Just as he was about to get off to fix the flat tire, the car was suddenly bumped by the jeep which came from the opposite direction ISSUE WON petitioners were deprived of due process because their civil action was decided on the basis of private respondent Juanita Rosario's acquittal in the criminal case for reckless imprudence HELD NO Ratio Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and on the Supreme Court, unless (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admission of both appellant and appellee; (6) the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (7) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they

abroad. Their counsel introduced as part of their evidence, the records in the criminal case, in accordance with Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. These records, mostly composed of transcripts of the hearing in the criminal case, were attached to their "Request for Admission" and were substantially admitted by petitioners. Petitioners raised, as one of their objections, the propriety and correctness of admitting and adopting these transcripts as part of the record in the civil case. According to them, this is a violation of Section 41, Rule 130, on the ground that petitioners were not given the opportunity to cross-examine. We disagree. A careful reading of the transcripts would reveal that counsel for petitioners actively participated during the proceedings of the criminal case. He raised various objections, in the course of the trial. Petitioners, therefore, thru counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Dispositive Petition denied
a2010
page 58
Prof.
- The teachings of the cases of Soliven1, Inting2, Lim3, Allado, and Webb reject the proposition that the investigating prosecutors certification in an information or his resolution which is made the basis for the filing of the information, or both, would suffice in the judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. - In the present case, nothing accompanied the information upon its filing with the trial court. Clearly, when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed order directing, among other things, the issuance of warrants of arrest, he had only the information, amended information, and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. He did not have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutors finding of probable cause. And strangely enough, he made no specific finding of probable cause; he merely directed the issuance of warrants of arrest. It may, however, be argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable cause. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic.
order (1) denying the petitioners Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold In Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and the public prosecutors Motion to Defer Arraignment and (2) directing the issuance of the warrants of arrest after and setting the arraignment on 28 June 1993. - The petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for a temporary restraining order. They contended therein that respondent Judge Asuncion had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforementioned order. - The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. ISSUE WON public respondent Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest without examining the records of the preliminary investigation. HELD YES. - Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. - The determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this determination. - The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the Prosecutors certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutors certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his determination.
JARANTILLA v CA 171 SCRA 429 JIMENEZ v AVERIA 22 SCRA 380 PEOPLE v VELOSO 112 SCRA 173 ALLADO v DIOKNO 232 SCRA 192 ROBERTS v CA 254 SCRA 307 DAVIDE, JR; March 5, 1996
FACTS - Several thousand holders of 349 Pepsi crowns in connection with the Number Fever Promotion filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City complaints against the petitioner officials of PEPSI. - The petitioners filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor a motion for the reconsideration of the Joint Resolution and with the DOJ a Petition for Review. The petitioners also Motions to Suspend Proceedings and to hold in Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest on the ground that they had filed the aforesaid Petition for Review. - Respondent Judge Asuncion issued the challenged
REPUBLIC v CA 301 SCRA 475 CASTILLO v VILLALUZ 171 SCRA 39 NARVASA; March 8, 1989
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS - In July 1971, a complaint and a Joint Affidavit were filed directly by Renato Montes and Jose de Silva
1
The Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscals bare certification. All of these should be before the Judge. 2 The supporting documents may consist of, viz., the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutors certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his determination of probable cause
The issuance of the warrants of arrest by a judge solely on the basis of the prosecutors certification in the information that there existed probable cause, without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause, is null and void.

against Manuel Laconico. The complaint charged the latter with estafa in the amount of P1K. Preliminary investigation (now in question) was conducted by respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, and thereafter issued a warrant of arrest. He ordered Provincial Fiscal to file the corresponding information against the respondent before the court of competent jurisdiction within 24 hours from receipt of said order. - Provincial Fiscal failed to file the information required within the time appointed, or at any time thereafter. Consequently, he was directed by His Honor to explain within 10 days "why he should not be punished for contempt of court for delaying the speedy administration of justice for disobeying a lawful order of the Court." Fiscal filed a MFR, but was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition was presented by petitioner Fiscal, seeking annulment of the aforesaid orders. ISSUES 1.WON respondent judge had no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations, because the law creating Circuit Criminal Courts, R.A. 5179, did not confer on said courts the power to conduct preliminary investigations 2. WON judge erred in compelling fiscal under sanction of contempt, to file an information in court without conducting his own preliminary investigation HELD 1. YES Ratio: The conduct of a preliminary investigation is not a judicial function but part of the fiscals job, a function of the executive. Wherever there are enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations, courts are counseled to leave this job which is essentially executive to them, and the fact that a certain power is granted does not necessarily mean that it should be indiscriminately exercised. Reasoning: [a] Sec. 37 of BP. 129 reiterated the removal from Judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts in the National Capital Region of the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and Sec 2 of Rule 112 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure no longer authorizes RTC Judges to conduct PIs. [b] The assignment of PI function to judges of inferior courts and to a very limited extent to courts of first instance was dictated by necessity and practical considerations, and the consequent policy, was that wherever there were enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations, courts were to leave that job which is essentially executive to them.
a2010
page 59
Prof.
the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that "there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charge in the complaint". The fiscal returned the records on the ground that Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest against the accused as provided in Sec 5, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Judge Samulde sent back the records to Fiscal Salvani. He pointed out that under Sec 6, Rule 112, he may issue a warrant of arrest if he is satisfied "that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, " implying that, although he found that a probable cause existed, he did not believe that the accused should be immediately placed under custody. Hence, he refused to issue a warrant of arrest. - A special civil action of mandamus was filed in the RTC by Provincial Fiscal Salvani against Judge Samulde to compel the latter to issue a warrant of arrest. The RTC dismissed the petition but nevertheless ordered Judge Samulde to issue a warrant of arrest, and to transmit the warrant to the Provincial Fiscal for appropriate action. He further advised the Municipal Judge "that henceforth he adheres to the same rule in similar cases where he conducts a preliminary investigation with a finding of a prima facie or probable cause." Unconvinced, Judge Samulde appealed to this Court. ISSUE WON a judge may be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest upon a finding of probable cause HELD NO Ratio 3 conditions must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. The investigating judge must: (a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; (b) be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and (c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Reasoning The mandatory provision that the investigating judge "must issue a warrant of arrest" if he finds probable cause that the respondent committed the crime charged, found in all previous rules of criminal procedure, from General Orders No. 58 down to Rule 112 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, is absent in Section 1 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is not obligatory, but merely
It follows that the conclusions derived by a judge from his own investigation cannot be superior to and conclusively binding on the fiscal or public prosecutor, in whom that function is principally and more logically lodged. 2. YES The power to conduct PI is lodged in the fiscal. It is grave abuse of discretion on a judge to seek to foreclose the fiscal's prerogative to conduct his own preliminary investigation to determine for himself the existence or non-existence of probable cause, and to require him to show cause for not filing the information within 24 hours, on the sole basis of the Judge's conclusions. The fiscal has the duty to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause, and could not shirk or be made to evade it by an unreasoning and indiscriminate reliance on the judge's investigation. Dispositive: Petition GRANTED. Challenged Orders annulled and set aside.
SEPARATE OPINION CRUZ [concurring]

- The fiscal prevails over the judge only in the determination of the existence of a prima facie case to justify the filing of a complaint or information. This task is executive. - But the determination of probable cause to justify the issuance of a search warrant or a warrant of arrest is the constitutional prerogative of the judge and may not be withdrawn from him or even only limited by statute or ROC. This task is judicial. The findings of fiscal in the PI do not control or foreclose the exercise of the power conferred personally on the judge under Sec. 2 the Bill of Rights. That power is his alone.
SAMULDE v SALVANI 165 SCRA 734 GRIO-AQUINO: September 26, 1988

NATURE Appeal from the decision of the RTC FACTS - Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation upon a complaint for robbery. After making a preliminary investigation based on the affidavits of the complainant and her witnesses and counter-affidavits of the respondent and his witnesses, Judge Samulde transmitted the records of

discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused, for the determination of whether a probable cause exists and whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his sound judgment or discretion. In this particular case, since the robbery charge was the offshoot of a boundary dispute between two property owners, the investigating judge did not believe there was any danger of the accused absconding before the filing of the information against him by the fiscal, hence, he found no need to place him under immediate custody. Dispositive The appealed decision is SET ASIDE.
a2010
page 60
Prof.
CALLANTA v VILLANUEVA 77 SCRA 377 FERNANDO; June 20, 1977

NATURE Original petitions in the Supreme Court, certiorari with preliminary injunction FACTS - Judge Villanueva of Dagupan refused to grant the motions to quash two complaints for oral defamation against Callanta. - Callantas counsel argued that there was an issue with regard to the validity of Villanuevas issuance of the warrants of arrest on the ground that it should have been the City Fiscal who conducted the preliminary investigation. - After the warrants were issued (with bail pegged at P600), Callanta posted the required bail bonds and was granted her provisional liberty. - The City Fiscal had manifested his intent to prosecute the case. - February 25, 1965 After the Court had conducted preliminary investigation and had acquired jurisdiction over the case, the Court referred the case to the Fiscal. - March 4, 1965 The arraignment was postponed because the Fiscal was still doing his investigation. - In the proceedings of April 20, 1965, the Fiscal entered his appearance for the government and manifested that he was ready for trial. ISSUE WON Callanta can contest the validity of his arrest HELD NO
Ratio Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person and estops him from discussing the validity of his arrest. Reasoning - In the case of Luna vs. Plaza, the Court held that where petitioner has filed an application for bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper, he waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted, prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. - This doctrine has been upheld in a number of cases including People vs. Olandar, Zacarias vs. Cruz, Bermejo vs. Barrios, People vs. La Caste, Manzano vs Villa and People vs. Obngayan which stated that where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper, he has waived whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. - The city fiscal had been quite active in the investigation and in the prosecution of the accused. It was he who manifested his readiness to appear in the trial. Obiter - With regard to the issue of whether or not the only person vested with authority to conduct a preliminary investigation is the city fiscal, the Charter of the City of Dagupan provides that the City Court of Dagupan City may also conduct preliminary investigation for for any offense, without regard to the limits of punishment and may release or commit any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court. Dispositive WHEREFORE, these petitions for certiorari are dismissed. The restraining order issued by this Court is lifted and set aside. Costs against petitioner.
RODRIGUEZ v VILLAMIEL 65 Phil 230 IMPERIAL; DEC 23, 1937

FACTS -Victor Villamiel, special agent for the Anti-Usury Board, made two affidavits for the purpose of obtaining search warrants against Rodriguez and Evangelista. The text of both affidavits reads as follows: "Victor D. Villamiel having taken the oath prescribed by law, appears and states: that he has and there is just and probable cause to believe and he does believe that the books, lists, chits, receipts, documents, and other papers relating to the activities of Juan Evangelista, as usurer, are being kept and concealed in the house of said Juan Evangelista situated at Lucena, Tayabas, all of which is contrary to the statute of law." -The justice of the peace of the provincial capital issued the two search warrants against the petitioners (see original for the wording of the warrant) -Villamiel, with other agents and a constabulary soldier, executed the warrants, went to the residences of the petitioners, searched them and seized documents and papers belonging to petitioners. Villamiel issued a receipt to each of the petitioners, without specifying the documents and papers seized by him, which were taken to his office in Manila, keeping them there until he was ordered by the CFI to deposit them in the office of the clerk of court. -Petitioners filed a petition praying that the search warrants be declared null and void and illegal; that Villamiel be punished for contempt of court for having conducted the searches and for having seized the documents and papers without issuing detailed receipts and for not having turned them over to the court, and that said documents and papers be ordered returned to the petitioners. -the CFI found Villamiel guilty of contempt of court and fined him P10. The court declared the search warrants and the seizure of the documents and papers VALID, authorizing the agents of the AntiUsury Board to examine them and retain those that are necessary and material to whatever criminal action they may wish to bring against the petitioners. -Petitioners appealed. They contend that the search warrants issued by the court are illegal because they have been based on the affidavits of special agent Villamiel wherein he affirmed and stated that he
SEPARATE OPINION AQUINO [concurring]

- Sec. 77 of the Dagupan City charter expressly empowers its city court (formerly municipal court) to conduct preliminary investigation for any offense, without regard to the limits of punishment. - Every justice of the peace, municipal judge (meaning city judge), city or provincial fiscal, shall have authority to conduct preliminary examination or investigation in accordance with these rules of all offenses alleged to have been committed within his municipality, city or province, cognizable by the Court of First Instance (Sec. 87 of the Judiciary Law and Sec. 2, Rule 112).

had no personal knowledge of the facts that were to serve as basis for the issuance of the search warrants, but merely confined himself to asserting that he believed and there was probable cause to believe that the documents and papers were related to the activities of the petitioners as usurers. As has been seen, the special agent's affirmation in this respect consisted merely in the following: "that he has and there is just and probable cause to believe and he does believe that the books (etc) relating to the activities of . . . as usurer, are being kept and concealed in the house. . . all of which is contrary to the statute of law." ISSUE WON the search warrant and the seizure were illegal HELD YES -Reason 1: it appears that the affidavits, which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrants, are insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oaths were made and, therefore, it is hereby held that the search warrants in question and the subsequent seizure of the documents and papers are illegal and do not in any way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioners were subjected. -The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. -Sec 1, par 3, of Art III, Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Sec 97 of General Orders No. 58: "A search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing
a2010
page 61
Prof.
133 SCRA 800 PEOPLE v BURGOS 144 SCRA 1 GUTIERREZ; Sept.4, 1986
NATURE Appeal from RTC decision convicting Ruben Burgos of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion FACTS - Prosecution version: Upon obtaining information from one Cesar Masamlok, who personally and voluntarily surrendered to the Davao del Sur police HQ stating that accused Ruben Burgos forcibly recruited him to join the NPA with the use of a firearm against his life, a team was dispatched the following day to arrest Burgos. Through the help of Pedro Burgos, the brother of accused, the team was able to locate Ruben Burgos, who was plowing his field at the time. - When asked about the firearm, the accused denied possession of it, but after questioning the accuseds wife, the police were able to locate and retrieve the said firearm, a .38 caliber S & W, buried in the ground below their house. The police, after accused pointed them to the location, were also able to retrieve alleged subversive documents (a notebook and a pamphlet) hidden underground a few meters away from the house. - To prove accuseds subversive activities, Masamlok testified that accused came to his house and told him to join the NPA or his family will be killed along with him. The threat to his life and family forced Masamlok to join the NPA. He later attended an NPA seminar where Burgos, the first speaker, said very distinctly that he is an NPA together with his companions, to assure the unity of the civilian. That he encouraged the group to overthrow the government. To prove illegal possession, a person in charge of firearms and explosives of the PC HQ in Davao testified that accused was not among the list of firearm holders - On the other hand, accused-appellants claims that he was taken to the PC barracks and when he denied ownership of the gun, he was beaten, tortured, mauled and subjected to physical agony. He was forced to admit possession or ownership of the gun. 2 witnesses as well as Rubens wife Urbana, were presented by the defense in support of the accuseds
the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized." - Both provisions require that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. In its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. -Reason 2: At the hearing of the case, it was shown that the documents and papers had really been seized to enable the Anti-Usury Board to conduct an investigation and later use all or some of them as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal cases that may be brought against them. The seizure of books and documents by means of a search warrant, for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found, is unconstitutional because it makes the warrant unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify against himself Therefore, it appearing that the documents and papers were seized for the purpose of fishing for evidence to be used against the petitioners in the criminal proceedings for violation of the Anti-Usury Law which might be instituted against them, this court holds that the search warrants issued are illegal and that the documents and papers should be returned to them. - Definition and rationale of search warrant: A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or a justice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court. Of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves the exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.
BURGOS v CHIEF OF STAFF

denial of the charge against him. Urbana claimed that it was Masamlok who left the firearm there. - The RTC after considering the evidences presented by both prosecution and defense convicted accused Ruben Burgos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion. The RTC justified the warrantless arrest as falling under one of the circumstances when arrests may be validly made without a warrant, under Rule 113 Sec.6 of the Rules of Court. It stated that even if there was no warrant for the arrest of Burgos, the fact that the authorities received an urgent report of accused's involvement in subversive activities from a reliable source (report of Cesar Masamlok) the circumstances of his arrest, even without judicial warrant, is lawfully within the ambit of Sec. 6(a) of Rule 113 and applicable jurisprudence on the matter. If the arrest is valid, the consequent search and seizure of the firearm and the alleged subversive documents would become an incident to a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126, Sec. 12. A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. ISSUES 1. WON the arrest was lawful and WON the search of his house and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and documents conducted in a lawful manner. 2. WON there is enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HELD 1. NO Art.III Sec.2 of the Constitution safeguards against wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy and liberty of a citizen as to his person, papers and effects. In this case, the arrest was made without warrant and since it does not fall within the exceptions of arrests that can be made without a warrant, it is unlawful and therefore, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. Reasoning Under Sec.6 (a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given by Burgos wife. At
a2010
page 62
Prof.
seizure which transpired afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest. Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver, or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed to object. To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein. 2. NO. Since the extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents are inadmissible in evidence, the only remaining proof to sustain the charge is the testimony of Masamlok, which is inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. Reasoning Although it is true that the trial court found Masamloks testimony credible and convincing, the SC is not necessarily bound by the credibility which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. As stated in People v Cabrera (100 SCRA 424): When it comes to question of credibility the findings of the trial court are entitled to great respect upon appeal for the obvious reason that it was able to observe the demeanor, actuations and deportment of the witnesses during the trial. But We have also said that this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be no reversals of convictions upon appeal. We must reject the findings of the trial court where the record discloses circumstances of weight and substance which were not properly appreciated by the trial court. In the instant case, Masamloks testimony was totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok surrendered to the military, certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities. Otherwise, he would also be charged with subversion. Masamlok may be considered as an interested witness. His testimony cannot be said to be free from the opportunity and temptation to be exaggerated and even fabricated for it was intended to secure his freedom. Moreover, despite the fact that there were other persons present during the alleged NPA seminar who could have corroborated Masamlok's testimony that the accused used the gun in furtherance of subversive activities or actually engaged in subversive acts, the prosecution never presented any other witness.
the time of arrest, Burgos was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. Neither was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his field at the time. - The SolGen believes that the arrest may still be considered lawful under Sec.6(b) using the test of reasonableness. The SolGen submits that the info given by Masamlok was sufficient to induce a reasonable ground that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. In arrests without a warrant under Sec.6(b), however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. More important, We find no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. - The basis for the action taken by the arresting officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok who was not required to subscribe his allegations under oath. There was no compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges under pain of criminal prosecution. Consequently, the need to go through the process of securing a search warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. The arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is illegal. The arrest being unlawful, the search and

Dispositive Judgment of conviction is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused Burgos is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt.
a2010
page 63
Prof.
exaggeration that the basest criminal, ranged against the rest of the people who would condemn him outright, is still, under the Bill of Rights, a majority of one. - The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of the raid because it was in fact not urgent. They knew where the petitioners were. They had every opportunity to get a search warrant before making the raid. If they were worried that the weapons inside the compound would be spirited away, they could have surrounded the premises in the meantime, as a preventive measure. - Conceding that the search was truly warrantless, might not the search and seizure be nonetheless considered valid because it was incidental to a legal arrest? Surely not. If all the law enforcement authorities have to do is force their way into any house and then pick up anything they see there on the ground that the occupants are resisting arrest, then we might as well delete the Bill of Rights as a fussy redundancy. - If the arrest was made under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court in connection with a crime about to be committed, being committed, or just committed, what was that crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a justification. Parenthetically, it may be observed that under the Revised Rule 113, Section 5(b), the officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground therefor. - It follows that as the search of the petitioners' premises was violative of the Constitution, all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the proceedings against the petitioners. These articles are "fruits of the poisonous tree. Dispositive WHEREFORE, the search of the petitioners' premises on November 25, 1984, is hereby declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence against the petitioners in any proceedings. However, the said articles shall remain in custodia legis pending the outcome of the criminal cases that have been or may later be filed against the petitioners.
ALIH v CASTRO 151 SCRA 279 CRUZ; June 23, 1987

NATURE Petition for prohibition and mandamus preliminary injunction and restraining order with
FACTS - On November 25, 1984, a contingent of more than two hundred Philippine marines and elements of the home defense forces raided the compound occupied by the petitioners at Gov. Alvarez street, Zamboanga City, in search of loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives. - The military operation was commonly known and dreaded as a "zona," which was like the feared practice of the kempeitai during the Japanese Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality, arresting the persons fingered by a hooded informer, and executing them outright (although the last part is not included in the modern refinement). - The initial reaction of the people inside the compound was to resist the invasion with a burst of gunfire. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoot-out ensued, resulting in a number of casualties. - 16 male occupants were arrested, later to be fingerprinted, paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. The military also inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle grenades, and several rounds of ammunition found in the premises. - On December 21, 1984, the petitioners came to this Court. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them, to prevent these from being used as evidence against them, and to challenge their finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of their right against self-incrimination. - The petitioners demand the return of the arms and ammunition on the ground that they were taken without a search warrant as required by the Bill of Rights. This is confirmed by the said report and in fact admitted by the respondents, "but with avoidance. ISSUE WON the search of petitioners premises was illegal.
HELD YES. Ratio Even if were assumed for the sake of argument that they were guilty, they would not have been any less entitled to the protection of the Constitution, which covers both the innocent and the guilty. Reasoning Article IV, Section 3, of the 1973 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Article IV, Section 4(2): Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. -The respondents, while admitting the absence of the required such warrant, sought to justify their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders. There was also the suggestion that the measure was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem generated by the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco. - Superior orders" cannot, of course, countermand the Constitution. The fact that the petitioners were suspected of the Climaco killing did not excuse the constitutional short-cuts the respondents took. - Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures. There was no state of hostilities in the area to justify, assuming it could, the repressions committed therein against the petitioners. - The record does not disclose that the petitioners were wanted criminals or fugitives from justice. At the time of the "zona," they were merely suspected of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even been investigated for it. As mere suspects, they were presumed innocent and not guilty as summarily pronounced by the military. - lacking the shield of innocence, the guilty need the armor of the Constitution, to protect them, not from a deserved sentence, but from arbitrary punishment. Every person is entitled to due process. It is no
POSADAS v CA (PEOPLE) 188 SCRA 288 GANCAYCO; August 2, 1990

NATURE Petition for review

FACTS - Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force, were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City on October 16, 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning. They spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously while they were within the premises of the Rizal Memorial Colleges They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. 770196 two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so. - He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the officer then on duty. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City wherein after a plea of not guilty and trial on the merits a decision was rendered on October 8, 1987 finding petitioner guilty of the offense. (It appearing that the accused was below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the commission of the offense (Art. 68, par. 2), he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor to TWELVE (12) Years, FIVE (5) months and Eleven (11) days of Reclusion Temporal, and to pay the costs. The firearm, ammunitions and smoke grenade are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to turn over said items to the Chief, Davao Metrodiscom, Davao City.) - The petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision was rendered on February 23, 1989 affirming the appealed decision with costs against the petitioner. Hence, this petition for review, the main thrust of which is that there being no lawful arrest or search and seizure, the items which were confiscated from
a2010
page 64
Prof.
thwart plots to destabilize the government in the interest of public security. In this connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of which are reported in media, most likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions ? which all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal times.) - In this case, the warrantless search and seizure is more reasonable considering that unlike in the former, it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless, futile and much too late. - In People vs. CFI of Rizal, the Court held as follows: . . . In the ordinary cases where warrant is indispensably necessary, the mechanics prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be followed and satisfied. But We need not argue that there are exceptions. Thus in the extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed except without warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure becomes purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched and the character of the articles procured. Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has not been violated. Dispositive The petition is denied
the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him. ISSUE WON the warrantless petitioner is valid search imposed on the
HELD NO Ratio - The argument of the Solicitor General that when the two policemen approached the petitioner, he was actually committing or had just committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence of the police officers and consequently the search and seizure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure is untenable. At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did now know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant. However, there are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and search" without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld by this Court in Valmonte vs. de Villa (to quote: Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle or flashes a light therein, these do not constitute unreasonable search. True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to
ALLADO v DIOKNO [supra, page]

MALALOAN v CA (FINEZA) 232 SCRA 249 REGALADO; May 6, 1994
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA. FACTS - 1st Lt. Absalon V. Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern Sector (now Central Sector) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City an application for search warrant. The search warrant was sought for in connection with an alleged violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions) perpetrated at No. 25 Newport St., corner Marlboro St., Fairview, QUEZON CITY. On March 23, 1990, respondent RTC Judge of KALOOKAN CITY issued Search Warrant No. 95-90. - On the same day, at around 2:30 p.m., members of the CAPCOM, armed with subject search warrant, proceeded to the situs of the offense alluded to, where a labor seminar of the Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research (EILER) was then taking place. According to CAPCOM's 'Inventory of Property Seized,' firearms, explosive materials and subversive documents, among others, were seized and taken during the search. And all the sixty-one (61) persons found within the premises searched were brought to Camp Karingal, Quezon City but most of them were later released, with the exception of the herein petitioners, EILER Instructors, who were indicted for violation of P.D. 1866 in Criminal Case No. Q-90-11757 before Branch 88 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, presided over by respondent Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco. - On July 10, 1990, petitioners presented a 'Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and For the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence' before the Quezon City court; and a 'Supplemental Motion to the Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and Exclusion of evidence Illegally Obtained'. - On September 21, 1990, the respondent Quezon City Judge issued the challenged order, consolidating subject cases but denying the prayer for the quashal of the search warrant under attack, the validity of which warrant was upheld; opining that the same falls under the category of Writs and Processes, within the contemplation of paragraphs 3(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, and can be serve not only within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing
a2010
page 65
Prof.
jurisdiction through decisional dicta. For that matter, we are unaware of any instance wherein a search warrant was struck down on objections based on territorial jurisdiction. - We do not believe that the enforcement of a search warrant issued by a court outside the territorial jurisdiction wherein the place to be searched is located would create a constitutional question. Nor are we swayed by the professed apprehension that the law enforcement authorities may resort to what could be a permutation of forum shopping, by filing an application for the warrant with a "friendly" court. It need merely be recalled that a search warrant is only a process, not an action. Furthermore, the constitutional mandate is translated into specifically enumerated safeguards in Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a search warrant, and all these have to be observed regardless of whatever court in whichever region is importuned for or actually issues a search warrant. Said requirements, together with the ten-day lifetime of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in another judicial region, not only because of the distance but also the contingencies of travel and the danger involved, unless there are really compelling reasons for the authorities to do so. Besides, it does seem odd that such constitutional protests have not been made against warrants of arrest which are enforceable indefinitely and anywhere although they involve, not only property and privacy, but persons and liberty. - On the other hand, it is a matter of judicial knowledge that the authorities have to contend now and then with local and national criminal syndicates of considerable power and influence, political or financial in nature, and so pervasive as to render foolhardy any attempt to obtain a search warrant in the very locale under their sphere of control. Nor should we overlook the fact that to do so will necessitate the transportation of applicant's witnesses to and their examination in said places, with the attendant risk, danger and expense. Also, a further well-founded precaution, obviously born of experience and verifiable data, is articulated by the court a quo, as quoted by respondent court: "This court is of the further belief that the possible leakage of information which is of utmost importance in the issuance of a search warrant is secured (against) where the issuing magistrate within the region does not hold court sessions in the city or municipality, within the region, where the place to be searched is located."
court but anywhere in the judicial region of the issuing court (National Capital Judicial Region). - Respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment, in effect affirming that of the trial court, by denying due course to the petition for certiorari and lifting the temporary restraining order it had issued on November 29, 1990 in connection therewith. This judgment of respondent court is now impugned in and sought to be reversed through the present recourse before us. ISSUE WON a court may take cognizance of an application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial jurisdiction and to issue a warrant to conduct a search on a place likewise outside its territorial jurisdiction. HELD YES - No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants, in the same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of arrest. The arguments of petitioners are not inferable by necessary implication from the statutory provisions which are presumed to be complete and expressive of the intendment of the framers. A contrary interpretation on whatever pretext should not be countenanced. - A bit of legal history on his contestation will be helpful. The jurisdictional rule heretofore was that writs and process of the so-called inferior courts could be enforced outside the province only with the approval of the former court of first instance. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act, the enforcement of such writs and processes no longer needs the approval of the regional trial court. On the other hand, while, formerly, writs and processes of the then courts of first instance were enforceable throughout the Philippines, under the Interim or Transitional Rules and Guidelines, certain specified writs issued by a regional trial court are now enforceable only within its judicial region. - PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Court cannot be blind to the fact that it is extremely difficult, as it undeniably is, to detect or elicit information regarding the existence and location of illegally possessed or prohibited articles. The Court is accordingly convinced that it should not make the requisites for the apprehension of the culprits and the confiscation of such illicit items, once detected, more onerous if not impossible by imposing further niceties of procedure or substantive rules of

- The foregoing situations may also have obtained and were taken into account in the foreign judicial pronouncement that, in the absence of statutory restrictions, a justice of the peace in one district of the county may issue a search warrant to be served in another district of the county and made returnable before the justice of still another district or another court having jurisdiction to deal with the matters involved. In the present state of our law on the matter, we find no such statutory restrictions both with respect to the court which can issue the search warrant and the enforcement thereof anywhere in the Philippines. - NONETHELESS, TO PUT DOUBTS TO REST, THE SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING POLICY GUIDELINES; 1. The Court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. An application for a search warrant may be filed with another court only under extreme and compelling circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which may or may not give due course to the application depending on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the court with primary jurisdiction thereover. 2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court, without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. All grounds and objections then available, existent or known shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed waived. 3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court, the interested party may move in the court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the same is offered therein for said purpose. Since two separate courts with different participations are involved in this situation, a motion to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative remedies. In order to prevent forum shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress
a2010
page 66
Prof.
The territorial jurisdiction of the courts is determined by law, and a reading of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 discloses that the territorial jurisdiction of regional trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts are confined to specific territories. In the second place, the majority view may legitimize abuses that would result in the violation the civil rights of an accused or the infliction upon him of undue and unwarranted burdens and inconvenience as when, for instance, an accused who is a resident of Basco, Batanes, has to file a motion to quash a search warrant issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with an offense he allegedly committed in Itbayat, Batanes. - Nor can Stonehill vs. Diokno (20 SCRA 383) be an authoritative confirmation of the unlimited or unrestricted power of any court to issue search warrants in connection with crimes committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. While it may be true that the forty-two search warrants involved therein were issued by several Judges ---- specifically Judges (a) Amado Roan of the City Court of Manila, (b) Roman Cansino of the City Court of Manila, (c) Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch), (d) Eulogio Mencias of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig Branch), and (e) Damian Jimenez of the City Court of Quezon City (Footnote 2, page 387) ---- there is no definite showing that the forty-two search warrants were for the searches and seizures of properties outside the territorial jurisdiction of their respective courts. The warrants were issued against the petitioners and corporations of which they were officers and some of the corporations enumerated in Footnote 7 have addressed in Manila and Makati. (pp. 388-89). Rizal (which includes Makati) and Quezon City both belonged to the Seventh Judicial District. That nobody challenged on jurisdictional ground the issuance of these search warrants is no argument in favor of the unlimited power of a court to issue search warrants. - I have serious misgivings on the majority decision on the matter where another court may, because of extreme and compelling circumstances, issue a search warrant in connection with a criminal case pending in an appropriate court. To illustrate this exception, the Municipal Trial Court of Argao, Cebu, may validly issue a warrant for the search of a house in Davao City and the seizure of any property therein that may have been used in committing an offense in Manila already the subject of an information filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. I submit
shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher court. 4. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from further proceeding thereon, all personal property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court wherein the criminal case is pending, with the necessary safeguards and documentation therefor. 5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same criminal offense is charged in different informations or complaints and filed in two or more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action. When the issue of which court will try the case shall have been resolved, such court shall be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to act on applications for search warrants incident to the criminal case. Dispositive WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 23533 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SEPARATE OPINION DAVIDE [concurring and dissenting]

- The absence of any express statutory provision prohibiting a court from issuing a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction should not be construed as a grant of blanket authority to any court of justice in the country to issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. The majority view suggests or implies that a municipal trial court in Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, or Batanes can validly entertain an application for a search warrant and issue one in connection with a crime committed in Manila. Elsewise stated, all courts in the Philippines, including the municipal trial courts, can validly issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed anywhere in the Philippines. Simply put, all courts of justice in the Philippines have, for purposes of issuing a search warrant, jurisdiction over the entire archipelago. - I cannot subscribe to this view since, in the first place, a search warrant is but an incident to a main case and involves the exercise of an ancillary jurisdiction therefore, the authority to issue it must necessarily be co-extensive with the court's territorial jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would be to add an exception to the statutory provisions defining the territorial jurisdiction of the various courts of the country, which would amount to judicial legislation.

that the exception violates the settled principle that even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the first court which acquires jurisdiction over the case acquires it to the exclusion of the other. (People vs. Fernando, 23 SCRA 867, 870 [1968]). This being so, it is with more reason that a court which does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the first which had taken cognizance of the case does not also have the authority to issue writs or processes, including search warrants, in connection with the pending case. Moreover, since the issuance of a search warrants is an incident to a main case or is an exercise of the ancillary jurisdiction of a court, the court where the main case is filed has exclusive jurisdiction over all incidents thereto and in the issuance of all writs and processes in connection therewith. Furthermore, instead of serving the ends of justice, the exception may provide room for unwarranted abuse of the judicial process, wreak judicial havoc and procedural complexities which effective law enforcement apparently cannot justify. I cannot conceive of any extreme and compelling circumstance which the court that first acquired jurisdiction over the case cannot adequately meet within its broad powers and authority. - In the light of the foregoing, and after re-examining my original view in this case, I respectfully submit that: 1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed may validly entertain an application for and issue a search warrant in connection with said crime. However, in the National Capital Judicial Region, Administrative Circulars No. 13 of 1 October 1985, and No. 19 of 4 August 1987 must be observed. 2. After the criminal complaint or information is filed with the appropriate court, search warrants in connection with the crime charged may only be issued by said court.
a2010
page 67
Prof.
executive function, the correctness of the exercise of which is matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. - If the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, courts should not dismiss it for 'want of evidence,' because evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial. The functions and duties of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in "the proper scheme of things" in our criminal justice system should be clearly understood. Reasoning: Executive Determination of Probable Cause - The Separate (Concurring) Opinion of former Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Roberts v. Court of Appeals : xxxthe Court is being asked to examine and assess such evidence as has thus far been submitted by the parties and, on the basis thereof, make a conclusion as to whether or not it suffices "to engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial." - It is a function that this Court should not be called upon to perform. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor., one that, as far as crimes cognizable by a Regional Trial Court are concerned, and notwithstanding that it involves an adjudicative process of a sort, exclusively pertains, by law, to said executive officer, the public prosecutor. It is moreover a function that in the established scheme of things, is supposed to be performed at the very genesis of, indeed, prefatorily to, the formal commencement of a criminal action. The proceedings before a public prosecutor, it may well be stressed, are essentially preliminary, prefatory and cannot lead to a final, definite and authoritative adjudgment of the guilt or innocence of the persons charged with a felony or crime. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. It is not for instance permitted for an accused, upon the filing of the information against him by the public prosecutor, to preempt trial by filing a motion with the Trial Court praying for the quash or dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the evidence upon which the same is based is inadequate. Nor is it permitted, on the antipodal theory that the evidence is in truth inadequate, for the complaining party to present a petition before
PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) 301 SCRA 475 PANGANIBAN; January 21, 1999

NATURE Petition for Review under Rule 45. FACTS - Rosalinda Dy was shot at pointblank range by Jonathan Cerbo in the presence and at the office of his father, Billy Cerbo
- Elsa B. Gumban (eyewitness) identified Jonathan Cerbo as the assailant. - The 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of NabunturanMawab, Davao, after a preliminary investigation, found "sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief" that the crime of murder has been committed by private respondent Jonathan Cerbo and resolved to forward the entire records of the case to the provincial prosecutor at Tagum, Davao. - After an information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo, petitioner Alynn Plezette Dy, daughter of the victim Rosalinda Dy, executed an affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing , supported by a supplemental affidavit of Elsa B. Gumban, alleging that the shooting was done in the office and in the presence of Billy Cerbo who after the shooting did nothing (did not apply first aid nor bring the victim to the hospital) After a reinvestigation the prosecution filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. A warrant for his arrest was later issued. - Private respondent Billy Cerbo then filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause. Respondent Judge issued the first assailed order dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo for lack of probable cause and recalling the warrant for his arrest and ordered the withdrawal of the amended information and the filing of a new one charging Jonathan Cerbo only. - Private Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the respondent judge. - The Court of Appeals held that Judge Eugenio Valles did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling the warrant of arrest issued against Private Respondent Billy Cerbo and subsequently dismissing the Information for murder filed against the private respondent, because the evidence presented thus far did not substantiate such charge. ISSUE WON the Trial Court had the authority to reverse the public prosecutor's finding of probable cause to prosecute accused and thus dismiss the case filed by the latter on the basis of a motion to quash warrant of arrest HELD NO Ratio The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an

the Court praying that the public prosecutor be compelled to file the corresponding information against the accused. xxx xxx xxx - Indeed, the public prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he or she believes to have committed the crime as defined by law. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case list be filed in court. - Crespo v. Mogul: It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence, in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions by private persons. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause - The determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial must be distinguished from the determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, which is a judicial function. The judicial determination of probable cause in the issuance of arrest warrants has been emphasized in numerous cases. - The rulings in Soliven, Inting and Lim, Sr. were iterated in Allado v. Diokno, where we explained again what probable cause means. Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Hence, the judge, before issuing a warrant of arrest, "must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof." At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he personally evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause.
a2010
page 68
Prof.
QUISUMBING; March 31, 2000
NATURE Appeal from judgment of RTC. FACTS - Acting on a report by an informant, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation (of marijuana) in Caloocan. They arrested the person who sold them the marijuana (Spencer), but the same was able to escape. Then: the buy-bust team pursued Spencer, who ran inside a bungalow-type house. Having trapped Spencer inside the house, the police officers frisked him and recovered the marked money. The officers also found Elamparo repacking 5 bricks of marijuana inside the houses sala Elamparo was then arrested and were taken to a precinct and delivered to an inquest fiscal for further investigation. The buy-bust operation and arrest happened on the same day (12 Feb 1995), while the information for illegal possession of drugs was filed on 15 Feb 1995. - Arraignment: plea of not guilty. - Trial: prosecution presented the ff witnesses: police officer who was also poseur-buyer, another officer who took part in buy-bust, and NBI chemist who examined and confirmed the confiscated drugs to be marijuana. Defense presented as witnesses boarders of Elamparos house, saying that Elamparo was at their house when somebody knocked at their door. His father opened the same and was informed that somebody was looking for him. He went out and saw Spencer with handcuffs and being held by an arresting officer. When Elamparo persistently questioned Spencer as to why he was arrested, the arresting officers got mad at him prompting them to likewise bring him to the police station where he was detained. The officers demanded P15,000.00 for his release which he did not give. On the other hand, Spencer gave the sum and was released. - RTC: Guilty, under RA 6425. penalty of reclusion perpetua and fine of P9million. Elamparo appealed. ISSUE: 1. WON RTC was correct in the assessment of credibility of witnesses 2. WON the arrest of Elamparo was valid 3. WON the penalty imposed was correct HELD: 1. YES
- As held in Inting, the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. - Verily, a judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so. Corollary to this principle, the judge should not override the public prosecutor's determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was insufficient, as in the present case. Inapplicabilty of Allado and Salonga - Allado and Salonga constitute exceptions to the general rule and may be invoked only if similar circumstances are clearly shown to exist. However, the present case is not on all fours with Allado and Salonga. First, Elsa Gumban, the principal eyewitness to the killing of Rosalinda Dy, was not a participation or conspirator in the commission of the said crime. In Allado and Salonga, however, the main witnesses were the confessed perpetrators of the crimes, whose testimonies the court deemed 'tainted'. Second, in the case at bar, the private respondent was accorded due process, and no precipitate haste or bias during the investigation of the case can be imputed to the public prosecutor. On the other hand, the Court noted in Allado the "undue haste in the filing of the Information and in the inordinate interest of the government" in pursuing the case; and in Salonga, " . . . the failure of the prosecution to show that the petitioner was probably guilty of conspiring to commit the crime, the initial disregard of petitioner's constitutioner rights and the massive and damaging publicity against him." The rulings in the two aforementioned cases cannot apply to it.
PEOPLE v USANA 323 SCRA 754 PEOPLE v DORIA 301 SCRA 668 PEOPLE v ELAMPARO 329 SCRA 404

Ratio: Unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which would affect the outcome of the case, we accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. Reasoning: -Elamparo contends that it is highly unusual for arresting officers to act on an information of an unknown source without confirming the veracity of the report, and that it is incredible that a peddler of marijuana would be so brazen as to approach total strangers and offer to sell them marijuana. He insists that he was charged with illegal possession of marijuana because he failed to pay the police officers P15,000.00 for his release. - it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during their testimonies. As compared to the baseless claims of Elamparo, the version of the prosecution witnesses appears worthy of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. -in many cases, drug pushers did sell their prohibited articles to prospective customers, be they strangers or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, some drug pushers appear to have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting sale and delivery of prohibited drugs 2. YES Ratio: The arrest was within the purview of Sec5 (a), Rule 113, Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: Arrest without warrant, when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; Reasoning: -Elamparo assails the legality of his arrest for failure of the apprehending officers to secure a search warrant. - for warrantless arrests, 2 elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating the he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Thus, when he was seen repacking the marijuana, the police officers
a2010
page 69
Prof.
- contends that if found guilty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated in his favor. - In drug cases, the quantity of prohibited drugs involved is determinative of the imposable penalty. Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that when the quantity of indian hemp or marijuana is 750 grams or more, as in this case, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00). - Appellant having been born on January 9, 1978, was only 17 years, 1 month, and 3 days old, at the time of the commission of the crime on February 12, 1995. - being a minor over 15 and under 18 at the time of the commission, he is entitled to a reduced penalty due to the privileged mitigating circumstance - Thus, penalty should be reduced to reclusion temporal. No fine is imposable in this case, for it is imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Dispositive Petition AFFIRMED with modification.
were not only authorized but also duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. Re: warrantless seizures: -However, not being absolute, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is subject to exceptions. Thus, for example, Sec.12, Rule 126, Rules on CrimPro, provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. -5 generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have also been judicially formulated, viz: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. - this case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine People v Doria: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. - members of the buy-bust team were justified in running after Spencer (when he escaped) and entering the house without a search warrant for they were hot in the heels of a fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the police officers cornered Spencer and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They also caught Elamparo in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view 3. YES Ratio: Minority serves as a privileged mitigating circumstance to a crime, thus entitling the accused to a reduction of penalty one degree lower than that imposable (by virtue of art.13 (2) RPC) Reasoning:
PEOPLE v MANES 303 SCRA 231 PARDO; February 17, 1999

NATURE An appeal taken by accused Sergon Manes and Ramil Manes from the judgment of RTC Iloilo City, convicting them of murder and sentencing them to each "suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties as provided in Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code" and "to indemnify the family of their victim in the amount of P50,000.00 plus P21,250.00 as expenses for the burial, wake and other related matter and to pay the costs. FACTS - July 12, 1991, Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo Province filed with RTC Iloilo City, an INFORMATION charging the accused with MURDER: "That on or about the 23rd of June, 1991, in the Municipality of Badiangan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another to better realize their purpose armed with a knife and a .38 caliber revolver respectively, with treachery and/or evident premeditation, did then and

there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attack, stab and shot Nicanor Tamorite with the knife and .38 caliber revolver with which they were then provided, inflicting upon the said Nicanor Tamorite stab wounds and gun shot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death immediately thereafter." - prosecution recommended NO BAIL for the provisional liberty of the accused. - July 22, 1991 - TC issued a WARRANT OF ARREST against the accused - October 18, 1991 TC ordered the case ARCHIVED for failure to locate the two accused - June 24, 1992 - Sergon and Ramil Manes were ARRESTED in Romblon, Romblon - September 17, 1992 - Upon ARRAIGNMENT, both accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to the information - August 25, 1992 - accused filed a PETITION FOR BAIL which was opposed by the prosecution. TC did not hear the petition for bail. Neither did the accused invoke the right to bail at any stage of the trial. - January 13, 1995 - TC convicted the accused of murder - February 10, 1995 - both accused appealed to SC where accused questioned TCs failure (a) to hear the petition for bail (b) to consider defense of relative in favor of Ramil Manes and (c) to take note that Sergon Manes was a mere victim of Tamorite's unlawful aggression According to the prosecution > June 23, 1991 5 in the afternoon, ALAN Catequista with NICANOR Tamorite and JOSE Cubita, went to see a basketball game at the barangay plaza. When the game was over, Alan approached and invited Nicanor to go home; at that time, he was still seated. Accused RAMIL Manes approached Nicanor and pointed a 38 caliber revolver at him, saying "It is a bad luck you did not kill me during the fiesta in Barangay Cabayugan. Now I will be the one to kill you." Nicanor ran to Alan and used him as a shield from Ramil. At that point, Alan heard a thud and as he looked back, he saw accused SERGON Manes with a gory knife and he also saw Nicanor running away, with blood on his back. Ramil Manes pursued Nicanor and shot him hitting him at the back, just above the waistline. Both accused continued to chase Nicanor who ran towards the premises of the house of ADING Ablado. Ramil Manes fired two more shots. It could not be determined whether those shots hit Nicanor as he and the accused were already inside the premises of the fence of Ading. Jose who was near Nicanor when the
a2010
page 70
Prof.
hear a petition for bail to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong before deciding to grant or deny bail to the accused. While the accused can apply for bail and have the court hear his application summarily and promptly, such right may be waived expressly or impliedly. In this case, the trial court proceeded to try the case without resolving the petition for bail that appellants filed. However, the latter did not call the attention of the trial court to their unresolved application for bail. It was only in the appeal that they raised this issue. Thus, for failure to bring to the attention of the trial Court at the earliest opportune time, appellants are deemed to have waived their right to bail. - defense of relative: FAILED TO PROSPER because 1) unlawful aggression, the essential element to defense of relative is absent because if it were true that Sergon was being attacked, he would have suffered injuries. 2) if indeed he acted in defense of his younger brother Sergon who was then under attack, he would not harbor any fear in presenting himself to the proper authorities. - even though prosecution failed to show evident premeditation, trial court correctly considered treachery as qualifying the killing of the victim to murder. Dispositive we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court convicting accused-appellants Sergon Manes and Ramil Manes of murder and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Nicanor Tamorite in the amount of P50,000.00, plus P21,250.00, as actual damages.
two accused chased him did not render assistance to him. After Alan heard the two shots, he and Jose ran home. Alan told his father and uncle that Sergon stabbed Nicanor and that Ramil shot him. Alan, his father, uncle, Jose and the mother of Nicanor then went to where the body of Nicanor was in the downhill portion of the premises of the house of Ading. Nicanor was lying on his back, with 2 wounds on the breast, 1 gunshot wound and 1 stab wound. According to the accused(Ramil) > June 23, 1991 in the afternoon, he was at home cooking. At around 5:00 to 5:30, he heard shouts coming from the direction of the barangay basketball court, which was about ten (10) meters away from his house. He went to the window to check what it was. He saw his younger brother Sergon lying on the concrete pavement and several persons were ganging up on him, three of whom he identified as Nicanor, Alan and Jose. They kept on boxing and kicking his brother prompting him to come to the latter's aid. On his way out, he saw a gun on top of the table and brought it with him to the basketball court. > While on his way to the basketball court, Ramil fired a warning shot to prevent Nicanor from stabbing his brother Sergon. Nicanor persisted in the pursuit of Sergon, with a knife in his hand. Sergon was about three meters ahead of Nicanor who was about ten meters ahead of the pursuing Ramil. Ramil fired another shot that hit Nicanor who,, fell to the ground. Meanwhile, Sergon managed to flee. Ramil also fled to the direction of the sugarcane field as soon as he fired the second shot because he saw the group of Alan approaching,, armed with guns .12 Ramil and his brother Sergon went into hiding and only surfaced a year later when they were arrested in Romblon. - prosecutions set of facts was favored by the court ISSUE WON petitioner has a right to bail HELD NO Ratio When an accused is charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment or death, and evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied, as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion Reasoning - In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, the accused has no right to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. The court must
PEOPLE v CABRAL 303 SCRA 361 ROMERO; February 18, 1999

NATURE Special Civil Action FACTS - Roderick Odiamar was charged with the rape of 15 year old Cecille Buenafe. In a bid to secure temporary liberty, the accused filed a motion for bail which was opposed by the petitioner. - The lower court grated the motion on the ground that despite the crime alleged to have been committed is punishable by reclusion perpetua, the evidence thus far presented is not strong enough to

warrant denial of the bail. The judge in concluding thus cited the fact that the girl went with the offender voluntarily and did not resist during the commission of the rape. In addition, the judge quoted the medico legal report as not conclusion that rape was in fact committed consideration that the lacerations on the victim may have been weeks or months old when the medical examination was performed six days after the offense occurred. - The CA affirmed the decision saying that there was no abuse of discretion in this case. There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of the law. The People filed the appeal on the ground that while the judge had discretion on the grant of bail, he had abused this discretion. ISSUE - WON the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse despite a showing by the prosecutor that there is strong evidence proving respondents guilt for the crime charged. HELD YES - The SC held that the CA and the lower court failed to mention and include some facts which are significant factors and circumstances which are strong, clear, and convincing. Consideration of the said factors and circumstances would have resulted in the denial of bail. Reasoning - Article III, Section 13 of the Bill of Rights provides: All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. the right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. - Section 7 Rule 4 of the Rules of court provides: No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of criminal prosecution.
a2010
page 71
Prof.
Dispositive Grant of bail is declared void. The court should issue a warrant of arrest of Odiamar if his bail bond has been approved.
- In the case at bar, bail is discretionary and not a matter of right considering that the punishment for the offense is reclusion perpetua. the grant of the bail is dependent on the evidence of the guilt which should which should be strong to justify denial. this determination is a matter of judicial discretion. - By judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of whether proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. Proof evident or evident proof is this connection, has been held to mean clear, strong evidence which leads a well guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that an offense has been committed as charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered. Presumption great exists when the circumstances testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion. In other words, the test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. - In the case of an application for bail, the duties of the judge are as follows: 1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation; 2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its discretion 3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution 4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. Otherwise the petition should be denied. - Based on the duties, the courts order granting or denying bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. A summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a test or statement. HENCE, THE SUMMARY SHOULD NECESSARILY BE A COMPLETE COMPILATION OR RESTATEMENT OF ALL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING PROPER. The Lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to what pieces of evidence should be included in the summary. Otherwise, the same will be considered defective in form and substance which cannot be sustained or be given a semblance of validity.
SEPARATE OPINION VITUG [dissenting]

- The extraordinary remedies under Rule 65 of the rules of Court are not open when the question is whether the trial judge has erred in the exercise of sound discretion. These special reliefs are available only when the judge has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in his decision or order such as by arbitrarily ignoring the evidence or completely acting on bias and whim.
LAVIDES v CA (PISON and PEOPLE) 324 SCRA 321 MENDOZA; February 1, 2000
FACTS - Lavides was arrested for child abuse under R.A. 7610. His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. - Parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter, then 16 years old, had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation that night at petitioners room at the Metropolitan Hotel. This was not the first time the police received reports of petitioners activities. An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion. The police saw him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a shirt and an underwear, whereupon they arrested him. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers, which were submitted at the inquest, an information for violation of Art. III, 5(b) of R.A. 7610 was filed. - Petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged." - Nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by three other minor children, Mary Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer Catarman, and Annalyn Talingting. In all the cases, it was alleged that, on various dates mentioned in the informations, petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants

who had been "exploited in prostitution and . . . given money [by petitioner] as payment for the said [acts of] sexual intercourse." - No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases. - Trial court granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of P800,000.00 for all the cases under the following conditions: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases; b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia; c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10, 1997 stands; and d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused; - Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him. Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled. He then filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment. - Trial court denied petitioners motions to reduce bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to suspend arraignment. - Petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of P800,000.00, subject to the conditions and the "hold-departure" order. The pretrial conference was set. - Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in CA, assailing the trial courts orders. - While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, two more informations were filed against petitioner, bringing the total number of cases against him to 12, which were all consolidated. - CA: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases; b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his arrest shall be immediately
a2010
page 72
Prof.
- On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the accuseds constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail. [Under Art. III, 5 of R.A. 7610, the offenses with which petitioner is charged are punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.] - It is the condition in the May 16, 1997 order of the trial court that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment," which CA should instead have declared void. The condition imposed in the trial courts order of May 16, 1997 that the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that he must be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114. For another condition of bail under Rule 114, 2(c) is that "The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, trial shall proceed in absentia." - Art. III, 14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt,9 [Rule 116, 1(b)] (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes, and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative.11 [Rule 120, 6.] At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived. - Although this condition is invalid, it does not follow that the arraignment of petitioner on May 23, 1997 was also invalid. Contrary to petitioners contention, the arraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment." Even without such a condition, the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are valid.
issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia;] - CA invalidated the first two conditions imposed in the May 16, 1997 order for the grant of bail to petitioner but ruled that the issue concerning the validity of the condition making arraignment a prerequisite for the approval of petitioners bail bonds to be moot and academic. It noted "that petitioner has posted the cash bonds; that when arraigned, represented by lawyers, he pleaded not guilty to each offense; and that he has already been released from detention." CA thought that the aforesaid conditions in the May 16, 1997 order were contrary to Art. III, 14(2) of the Constitution which provides that "[a]fter arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable." - With respect to the denial of petitioners motion to quash the informations against him, CA held that petitioner could not question the same in a petition for certiorari before it, but what he must do was to go to trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion to quash on appeal should the decision be adverse to him. ISSUE WON CA erred in not determining the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial courts order of May 16, 1997 for the grant of bail.. HELD YES - CA should have determined the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial courts order of May 16, 1997 for the grant of bail because petitioners contention is that his arraignment was held in pursuance of these conditions for bail. - Bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. In the second place, the trial court could ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment. Under Rule 114, 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules," while under Rule 116, 1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required.

- Petitioner concedes that the rule is that the remedy of an accused whose motion to quash is denied is not to file a petition for certiorari but to proceed to trial without prejudice to his right to reiterate the grounds invoked in his motion to quash during trial on the merits or on appeal if an adverse judgment is rendered against him. However, he argues that this case should be treated as an exception. He contends that the Court of Appeals should not have evaded the issue of whether he should be charged under several informations corresponding to the number of acts of child abuse allegedly committed by him against each of the complainants. Dispositive The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and another one is RENDERED declaring the orders dated May 16, 1997 and May 23, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City to be valid, with the exception of condition (d) in the second paragraph of the order of May 16, 1997 (making arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of bail to petitioner), which is hereby declared void.
a2010
page 73
Prof.
entered a plea of guilty. The appellant without denying the fact in itself, contends that the record does not show when, where or how he was arraigned. ISSUE WON the statement in the judgment that the accused has been arraigned and pleaded guilty is sufficient HELD YES - The statement is in compliance with the provisions of section 16&25 of Gen. Order No. 58, inasmuch as it may be presumed from said statement that the law has been obeyed by causing the accused to appear before the court, and it is shown thereby that he has really been arraigned, his plea entered personally being that of guilty. All this is not a mere conclusion as appellant contends, because the court is of the opinion that generally a conclusion is the averment or denial of a fact deduced from some evidence, or the averment or denial of a point of view of law derived from a law or a principle of law. In this case, however, the courts averment that the accused was arraigned and that he pleaded guilty, is not a deduction or consequence of an evidence, legal provision or principle of law, but a positive statement of facts. - It does not make a difference if the court, after hearing the accused plead guilty upon arraignment, stated such facts in the judgment rendered immediately, in open court and in the presence of the accused, or caused said arraignment and plea to be stated in the minutes. What is important is that the accused be arraigned and that he enters his plea. It is immaterial how or in what manner such facts are stated. For legal purposes, it makes no difference whether they appear in the minutes or in the judgment itself.
in court until after the fiscal had presented all of the witnesses for the prosecution; all of the other defendants were present, were duly arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and were represented by a lawyer; that after the prosecution had closed its case against all of the said defendants except Rufino Lavarias, the court discovered that Rufino Lavarias was outside the court room. Upon discovering this fact the court ordered the said defendant Rufino Lavarias to appear in the court room, and then and there recalled one of the witnesses for the prosecution, Regino Maminta, and proceeded to examine him with reference to the part Rufino Lavarias took in the said robbery charged in the complaint, without arraigning the said Rufino Lavarias, reading to him the complaint, or informing him that he had the right to be represented by an attorney during the trial, in accordance with the provisions of sections 16, 17, and 18 of General Orders, No. 58. ISSUE WON the court did not comply with the provisions of sections 16, 17, and 18 of General Order No. 58 HELD YES. Rufino Lavarias was not arraigned. Dispositive The judgment of the court with reference to Rufino Lavarias is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the CFI Pangasinan for the purpose of a new trial. The court is affirmed as to the sentence of Fabiano Diadib and Inocencio Valerio on the ground of sufficiency of evidence.
PEOPLE v MARK JIMENEZ G.R. No. 148571 PEOPLE v FITZGERALD G.R. No. 149723 US v PALISOC 4 Phil 207 JOHNSON; February 13, 1905
FACTS The defendants were charged with the crime of robbery for entering the house of one Regino Maminta, all being armed with talibones took and carried carried away the sum of 20 pesos, Mexican, and various pieces of jewelry, all of the value of 120 pesos, Mexican. The said defendants were tried and each of the defendants, Paulino Palisoc, Fabiano Diadib, Inocencio Valerio, and Domingo Torres, was sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of five years of presidio correccional; and Rufino Lavarias, because the court found that he was the leader of the said band of robbers, was sentenced to a period of six years of presidio correccional. From this sentence Fabiano Diadib, Inocencio Valerio, and Rufino Lavarias appealed to this court. The record shows that at the beginning of the trial Rufino Lavarias was not present and did not appear
PEOPLE v AMBROSIO 56 Phil 801 PEOPLE v CARIAGA 64 Phil 1057 CONCEPCION; June 29, 1937
NATURE Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Manila FACTS - Appellant Deogracias Cariaga was convicted of the crime of theft and sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P1.50. - Cariaga alleges that the court erred in having found him guilty of the crime based of the fact that the appealed judgment states: Upon arraignment, he
PEOPLE v SERNA 130 SCRA 550 CONCEPCION, July 25, 1984

NATURE Automatic review to the Supreme Court FACTS -In Samar during the night of November 28, 1970, Rafael Serna and Antonio Cipriano took away P80 from Romualdo Villones and Leonardo Carlos. The latter were paying for the fish that they bought from

a fisherman when the former stole their P80 and on the occasion killed the 2 victims. -the 2 were charged with Robbery with Double Homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of use of motorized banca as a means for flight or concealment, plus recidivism as regards Serna since he was previously convicted by final judgment in CFI of Manila, and was sentenced to an imprisonment from 10 to 17 years in 1958. -upon arraignment, both pleaded guilty, invoking the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt. Immediately, CFI of Samar found the 2 guilty, considering the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and the aggravating circumstance cited above. Cipriano was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua (MC offset AC) while Serna was sentenced to death (1MC to 2AC), therefore sent to SC for automatic review. -the information was read to the appellants in English and translated in Samar dialect, thereafter, the 2 pleaded guilty. After the plea, the Fiscal asked the plea of guilty to be considered mitigating then asked the court to consider the 2 aggravating circumstance against Serna. The court did not explain the import of the plea to the 2 accused, did not even bother to ask if they understood their plea, and just imposed on Serna the death penalty. ISSUE WON the trial court erred in automatically rendering the penalty of death to Serna HELD NO. Ratio. Considering that the appellant was charged with an offense punishable by death, the trial court should have required the prosecution to present its evidence to prove the extent of his culpability. The taking of such testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing not only the guilt but also the precise culpability of the defendant. Where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant, in cases where the capital penalty may be imposed, the court should make certain that defendant fully understands the nature of the charge preferred against him and the character of the punishment provided by law before it is imposed. The trial court should therefore call witnesses for the purposes of establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant, not only to satisfy the trial judge, but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and
a2010
page 74
Prof.
to suffer the death penalty in each case, and to indemnify the heirs of the victims. ISSUES 1. WON a plea of guilt is always binding upon the accused for all the contents of the information 2. WON the killing was qualified by treachery 3. WON there were aggravating circumstances present HELD 1. NO. Ratio It may be true that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances listed therein, as stated by the trial judge, yet where there has been a hearing and such circumstances are disproven by the evidence, they should be disallowed in the judgment. Reasoning The norm that should be followed where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant, especially in cases where the capital penalty may be imposed, is that the court should be sure that defendant fully understands the nature of the charges preferred against him and the character of the punishment provided by law before it is imposed. For this reason, the Court requires that in every case under a plea of guilty, where the penalty may be death, the trial court should call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant and not only to satisfy the trial judge but to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether accuse understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea. In the instant case, the trial judge required the taking of testimony as to the circumstances under which the crime was committed before passing judgment so that the resulting verdict cannot in any way be branded as deficient. 2. NO. Reasoning The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act of killing a human being must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner, mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical facts not being sufficient to consider them justified. - According to the RPC, "there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make."
comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea. Dispositive. WHEREFORE, the judgment under automatic review is hereby SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.
SEPARATE OPINION AQUINO [dissenting]

-Serna should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua because: (1) recidivism not aggravating, the information not alleging the prior crime for which Serna was convicted; (2) use of motorized banca not aggravating, it was a means of flight and not for the commission of the crime; (3) treachery generic aggravating but offset by plea of guilt; (4) fact of more than 1 homicide not aggravating, not enumerated under Art14, RPC. -Serna understood his plea because there was no improvident plea -dont need to remand, 14 years already passed
PEOPLE v TIONGSON 130 SCRA 614 CONCEPCION; July 25, 1984

NATURE Mandatory review for imposition of death penalty FACTS - Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with de la Cruz and Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of escaping, Tiongson killed a member of the police force who was guarding them and a PC Constable who went in pursuit. - By reason thereof, Tiongson was then charged with Murder, in two separate informations, alleging that the commission of the offense was qualified by the circumstance of treachery, and aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities, nocturnity, committed in an uninhabited place and with abuse of superior strength. - Upon arraignment, the said accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both informations. The trial court did not render judgment outright, but ordered the prosecution to present its evidence, after which, it sentenced the said accused

- It does not appear how and in what position the victim was when he was killed so that it cannot be said for certain that the accused had adopted a mode or means of attack tending directly to insure or facilitate the commission of the offense without risk to himself arising from the defense or retaliation which the victim might put up. - Pat. Garcia of the Bulalacao police force merely declared that he was in his house, about 15 meters away from the municipal building when the accused Rudy Tiongson and his companions escaped from prison, and he did not see the accused shoot Pat. Gelera. Pat. Gelera was already dead when the other witness saw him. - Treachery is also not present in the killing of PC Constable since the deceased was actually warned by another PC not to remain standing but seek cover because of the known presence of the accused in the vicinity, but that the said deceased disregarded the warning. - Since treachery, which would qualify the killing of Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela to Murder, was not present, the crimes may only be punished as Homicide. 3. NO. Reasoning (a) Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that a plan to kill the victims existed, the execution of which was preceded by deliberate thought and reflection. (b) That the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot be appreciated since they are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority. (c) In order that commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be considered, it is necessary that the place of occurrence be where there are no houses at all, a considerable distance from the village or town, or where the houses are a great distance apart. (d) Abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed it. Dispositive Petition is affirmed with the modification that the accused Rudy Tiongson should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each homicide committed by him. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is hereby increased to P30,000.00 in each case.
a2010
MENDOZA; February 2, 2000
page 75
Prof.
degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence on his behalf. -Under this Rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court when a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and, (3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. -As explained in People v. Alicando, a searching inquiry must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. -In the case at bar, the record does not show what exactly transpired at the re-arraignment of accusedappellant, for what reason he changed his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty," and whether he fully understood the consequences of his guilty plea. -In its decision, the trial court described the manner in which the accused pleaded guilty, thus: Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by Atty. Manolo A. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. However, when these cases were called for pre-trial and trial, counsel for the accused manifested that the accused, realizing the futility of entering into trial and considering that he actually committed the acts complained of, intimated his intention to enter a plea of guilty to the above-mentioned charges. The accused was then asked by this Court if he was aware of the consequences of a plea of guilty to a capital offense: that for the rape he committed on May 17, 1992 against his daughter, Oleby Nadera, who was 9 years old at the time, he would be sentenced to reclusion perpetua and for the three other counts of rape committed on April 17 and 24, 1995 [both against Oleby Nadera] and on March 3, 1996 [against Maricris Nadera, 11 years old at the time], he would be sentenced to death by lethal injection. After having been informed of this, he insisted that he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to the crimes charged and is ready to face the consequences thereof. -The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant understood fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere
NATURE Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro FACTS -On April 28, 1996, Oleby and Maricris, assisted by a neighbor, Lita Macalalad, told their mother that they had been raped by their father, herein accusedappellant. Thereupon, they went to the police authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against accused-appellant -After preliminary examination, on June 6, 1996, four informations charging accused-appellant with rape on various dates were filed in the Regional TrialCourt, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. -The record shows that at his arraignment on July 23, 1996, accused-appellant, assisted by Atty. Manolo A. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him. -However, on August 5, 1997, after the prosecution had presented Dr. Cynthia S. Fesalbon, accusedappellant pleaded guilty to the crime charged in all the informations. -On August 12, 1997, the prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence and rested its case thereafter. -Accused-appellant did not present any evidence in his defense. -On August 27, 1997, the trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of four counts of rape against his daughters. -Nadera appealed ISSUES 1. WON the trial court erred when it accepted his plea of guilty to a capital offense without making a searching inquiry to determine whether he understood the consequences of his plea 2. WON the conviction must be set aside HELD 1. YES - Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the Court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
PEOPLE v NADERA 324 SCRA 490

warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient. For more often than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial 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. The judge must ask the accused the manner the latter was arrested or detained, and whether he was assisted by counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations. In addition, the defense counsel should also be asked whether he conferred with the accused and completely explained to him the meaning and the consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, since the age, educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights for a proper verdict in the case, the trial court must ask questions concerning them. -In this case, absent any showing that these questions were put to accused-appellant, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken by the trial court. -In People v. Sevillano, this Court held that: In every case where the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense, especially where he is an ignorant person with a little or no education, the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information, including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated, not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea. -Clearly, the plea of guilty of accused-appellant in this case was made improvidently. 2. Yes. -Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged. -The prosecution evidence consisted of the testimonies of Oleby and Maricris Nadera, the results of their medical examinations, and the testimonies of
a2010
page 76
Prof.
date, without reasonable ground therefor and for the purpose of delivering said Marcial Apolonio y Santos to the proper authorities, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously arrest said Marcial Apolonio y Santos; that after the said Marcial Apolonio y Santos had been arrested in the manner aforestated, and while the latter was supposedly being investigated by the said accused, the said accused did then and there place on commingle a marked P1.00 bill together with the money taken from said Marcial Apolonio y Santos, supposedly given to the latter by one Emerita Calupas de Aresa, so that he (Marcial Apolonio y Santos), then an employee of the Local Civil Registrar's Office of Manila, would appear to have agreed to perform an act not constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his (Marcial Apolonio y Santos) duties, which was to expedite the issuance of a birth certificate, thereby directly incriminating or imputing to said Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the crime of bribery." -defendants filed a motion to quash saying that (1) the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense (because the two crimes cannot be complexed); and (2) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged -CFI granted motion to dismiss agreeing with defendants -MFR was denied -appeal by fiscal before SC ISSUE WON the CFI erred in granting motion to quash HELD YES - It is very apparent that by the use of the phrase "thru unlawful arrest" in the information an idea is conveyed that the unlawful arrest was resorted to as a necessary means to plant evidence in the person of the offended party, thereby incriminating him. From a reading of the info the SC finds a close connection between the act of the accused in first unlawfully arresting the offended party and then investigating him; and it was during that investigation that they plated incriminatory evidence against him. SC agrees with the Solicitor General in his contention that the accused first had to resort to unlawful arrest in order to be able to plant the P1.00 bill among the money taken from the offended party. Also the court a quo has jurisdiction to try the accused of the offense charged in the information. The crime of unlawful arrest is punishable with arresto mayor or
their mother, Daisy, and the physician who conducted the medical examination of the two girls, Dr. Cynthia Fesalbon. Certain circumstances present in this case, however, persuade us that a remand of this case is necessary. -First, a perusal of the decision of the court reveals that the trial judge failed to state the factual and legal reasons on which he based accused-appellant's conviction. Except for the narration of the prosecution's evidence and a bare recital of R.A. No. 7659, amending Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, there is nothing else to indicate the reason for the decision. There is no evaluation of the evidence and no reason given why the court found the testimonies of the witnesses credible. -Second, the cavalier attitude of accused-appellant's counsel, Atty. Manolo A. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, cannot go unnoticed. It is discernible in (a) his refusal to cross examine Oleby Nadera; (b) the manner in which he conducted Maricris Nadera's cross examination; and, (c) his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but also to inform the accused of his right to do so, if he desires. Dispositive The appealed decision is set aside.
PEOPLE v NAVARRO 75 Phil 516 PEOPLE v ALAGAO 16 SCRA 879 ZALDIVAR; April 30, 1966
NATURE This is an appeal by the City Fiscal of Manila from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining the motion to quash the information FACTS -City Fiscal of Manila filed an information against the defendants-appellees charging them of the complex crime of incriminatory machinations thru unlawful arrest, as follows: "That on or about the 28th day of February, 1961, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then members of the Manila Police Department, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously incriminate or impute to one Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of the crime by bribery thru unlawful arrest, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, on the aforesaid

imprisonment of from one month and one day to six months, and a fine not exceeding P500.00; 5 and the crime of incriminatory machinations is punishable with arresto mayor, or imprisonment of from one month and one day to six months. Dispositive The order appealed from is reversed and set aside
a2010
page 77
Prof.
is no allegation in said information that the firearms and ammunition enumerated therein were carried outside the accused's residence or used in the commission of some other crime. - In support thereof, the respondent judge cited the decision in People vs. Lopez, 79 Phil 658. -The prosecution filed a MR of said Resolution, but the motion was denied -Hence, the present recourse by the prosecution. Petitioners Claims -nothing is contained in said EOs which legalizes the possession of firearms and ammunition without a permit; -that said EOs merely authorized holders or possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition to surrender the same within a specified filing period without incurring criminal liability; -that illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is still penalized under PD No. 1866 which was not repealed by said EO NO. 107 and 222. ISSUES 1. WON J. Asuncion erred in holding that the possession of loose firearms and explosives is not illegal per se during the period covered by EO Nos. 107 and 222 2. WON it was not necessary for the prosecution to allege in the information that the 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 3. WON under the allegation in the information, prosecution may prove that the accused earned the firearms and ammunition outside of his residence HELD 1. EO NO. 107, as amended by EO No. 222, is similar to RA Nos. 4 and 482. SC did NOT give it a different meaning because there is no basis for such a difference. 2. NO. IT IS NECESSARY TO ALLEGE IT IN THE INFO. 3. NO. The information, in this particular charge against Abadilla, is fatally defective. It would be fatally defective against any other accused charged with the same offense. J. Asunction, in dismissing the information, committed no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion. Ratio (citing People vs. Austria) the presentation of evidence "cannot have the effect of validating a void information, or proving an offense which does not
LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE [supra, page 41] GAMBOA v CRUZ 162 SCRA 642 PADILLA; June 27, 1988
NATURE Peition for certiorari and prohibition to review the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Br. 29 FACTS Petitioner alleges that he was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant of arrest. Thereafter, he was brought to Precinct 2, Manila where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained therein together with several others. The next day, five detainees, including petitioner, complainant Bernal pointed to petitioner and said, that one is a companion. After the identification, the other detainees were brought back to their cell but petitioner was ordered to stay on. While the complainant was being interrogated by the police investigator, petitioner was told to sit down in front of her. Subsquently, an information for robbery was filed against petitioner. He was arraigned and thereafter hearings were held. The prosecution formally offered its evidence and then rested its case. Petitioner, by counsel, instead of presenting his defense, manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence. Petitioner filed said motion on the ground that the conduct of the line-up without notice to, and in the absence of, his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The respondent court issued an order denying the Motion to Acquit. Hence, the instant petition. ISSUE WON the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order HELD NO
If a defendant does not move to quash the complaint or information before pleading, defendant is deemed to have waived all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash, except where the complaint or information does not charge an offense, or the court is without jurisdiction of the same. Here, petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit only after the the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case. Since the exceptions above-stated, are not applicable, petitioner is deemed to have waived objections which are grounds for a motion to quash. Besides, the grounds relied upon by petitioner in his Motion to Acquit are not among the grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for quashing a complaint or information. Consequently, the lower court did not err in denying petitioner's Motion to Acquit. Dispositive Petition dismissed.
PEOPLE v ASUNCION 161 SCRA 490 PADILLA; May 24, 1988

NATURE Certiorari FACTS: -Rolando Abadilla, a former colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was charged before the QC RTC with the offense of Violation of PD No. 1866 [ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION) --The Information read that he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession and under his custody and control rifles, pistons, ammunitions and magazines (see orig case for the list) without first securing the necessary license and/or permit from the lawful authority. -Upon motion of the accused, Asuncion dismissed the Information on the ground that it did not allege sufficient facts to constitute an offense, since the possession of loose firearms and explosives is not illegal per se, in view of Executive Order No. 107 which gives holders or possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition a period of six months from its effectivity, extended to 31 December 1987 by EO No. 222, within which to surrender the same to the proper authorities, without incurring any criminal liability therefor, except if the unlicensed firearm or ammunition is carried outside of one's residence, not for the purpose of surrendering the same, or used in the commission of any other offense, and there

legally exist. ... The information was not merely defective but it does not charge any offense at all. Technically speaking, that information does not exist in contemplation of law." -Abadilla is regarded with unusual ease and facility as the "hit man" of the Marcos regime. But the Court cannot be swayed by appellations for it has a duty, as a temple of justice, to accord to every man who comes before it in appropriate proceedings the right to due process and the equal protection of the laws. Reasoning 1. It may be true that there is nothing in EO Nos. 107 and 222 that expressly legalizes the unlicensed possession of firearms and ammunition, but this Court, applying statutes similar to the executive orders in question, and which also provided for a period within which a holder or possessor of unlicensed firearms and ammunition may surrender the same to the proper authorities without incurring criminal liability, had ruled that a criminal liability was temporarily LIFTED for mere possession' of unlicensed firearms and ammunition during the period covered, although such person is not exempt from criminal liability filing within the period provided, he carries the firearm and ammunition (unless it is for the purpose of surrendering the same) or he commits any other offense with the use of such unlicensed firearm and ammunition. -People vs. Lopez~ It will be seen that sec 2 (of RA NO 4) excluded from the operation of sec 1 up to August 31, 1946, possession of firearms and ammunition so long as they were not used for any purpose other than self-defense or carried for any purpose other than of surrendering them to the proper authorities. The Government does not dispute this interpretation. Although the law does not categorically state that criminal liability was temporarily lifted for mere possession of filing firegems and ammunition, that is the only construction compatible with the spirit and purposes of the enactment as revealed by its context. -People vs. Feliciano~ SC ruled that RA No. 482 legalized mere unlicensed possession of firearms and ammunition for the limited period specified in said law, and punished only (1) the use of unlicensed firearm or ammunition, or (2) the carrying of such firearm or ammunition on the person, except to surrender them. The Court said: -Feliciano ruling was reiterated in People vs. Tabunares: RA No. 482, in effect legalized mere unlicensed on within one year from said date, and punished only (1) the use of a or ammunition or (2) the carriage thereof on the person except for
a2010
page 78
Prof.
review, and that respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion. - Because Layosa defied suspension, lower court adjudged him in contempt of court and penalized him by imprisonment for 3 mos and fine of P500. Layosa appealed to CA. - Respondent Judge explained that, to avoid delay, he acted on motion for suspension because case was filed after raffling between 2 branches of court had been terminated. He was scheduled to hold sessions and the other Judge was to begin one-month vacation. Judge pointed out that his action was sanctioned by Administrative Order No. 6 of SC which empowers Executive Judge to act on interlocutory matters prior to raffling. Case was eventually raffled to sala of respondent Judge. Layosa posted bail bond. He was arraigned and replaced as collector of customs. Office of State Prosecutors sustained filing of information against Layosa. - Layosa did not submit memorandum. Respondent fiscal alleged that petitioner had abandoned contention as to lack of jurisdiction. Fiscal stressed that case had been scheduled for trial at instance of petitioner and that latter manifested his willingness to proceed. ISSUE WON trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering suspension HELD NO - Lower court acquired jurisdiction upon filing of information. Petitioner was notified of presuspension hearing. His counsel participated. Requirements of due process were observed. Public interest demands a speedy determination of that question. - It is true that petitioner was not yet arrested or taken into custody when pre-suspension hearing was held. However, voluntary appearance through counsel was submission to lower court's jurisdiction. (Note that in civil cases, defendant's voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons.) - "Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or subject matter, the objection that it has no jurisdiction of the person of the accused may be waived. One who desires to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person must appear in court for that purpose only, and if he raises other questions, he waives the objection." Layosa waived the objection based on lack of jurisdiction over his person
purpose of surrender. Appellant's conviction cannot stand, since it is rested solely on unlicensed possession on or about November 6, 1950. 2. People vs. Lopez~ the Court already ruled that, under RA 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. -People vs. Austria~ the Court also ruled that in order that an information charging illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, under RA No. 482, may be deemed suffident, it must allege that the accused was using the unlicensed firearm or carrying it in his person at the time he was apprehended by the authorities with said firearm. Dispositive Petition is DENIED.
LOPEZ v CITY JUDGE [supra, page 41] LAYOSA v RODRIGUEZ 86 SCRA 300 AQUINO; November 10, 1978
NATURE Certiorari from order of CA FACTS - This is about suspension of Layosa, collector of customs, who was charged by city fiscal in CFI w/ having violated AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Law (Republic Act No. 3019). Information was based on complaint filed by assistant director of District AntiSmuggling Action Center. It was one of 5 cases filed against Layosa, aside from malversation case. - Gravamen is that he demanded and received from M/V Lady Angelita I 2 to 3 cases of beer & soft drinks as consideration for giving preferential berthing facilities. - Fiscal, pursuant to sec 13 of RA No. 3019, filed motion for Layosa's suspension. Respondent Judge granted motion. He found that a valid information had been filed against Layosa. - Layosa filed instant petition for certiorari. He prayed that suspension be set aside. He contended that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because no warrant of arrest had as yet been issued when hearing on his suspension was held and the case was not raffled to respondent Judge, that the Chief State Prosecutor in a telegram to the fiscal directed that the record of the case be elevated for

when, as already noted, he appeared at the presuspension hearing and his counsel cross-examined the prosecution witness.
a2010
page 79
Prof.
- At any rate, I concur in the affirmance of the order of dismissal in line with the many protections that the Constitution and the laws give to the accused in criminal prosecutions.
PEOPLE v CITY COURT OF MANILA 121 SCRA 637 RELOVA; April 27, 1983
NATURE Petition to review the order of the City Court of Manila, Branch XI FACTS - October 17, 1971: The incident occurred. - October 18, 1971: An information for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed against Francisco Gapay y Mallares, driver of the truck. On the same day, the victim Diolito de la Cruz died. - October 20, 1972: Gapay was arraigned on the charge of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. He pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor, and commenced serving sentence. - October 24, 1972: An information for homicide thru reckless imprudence was filed against Gapay - November 17, 1972: the City Court of Manila, upon motion of private respondent, issued an order dismissing the homicide thru reckless imprudence case on the ground of double jeopardy. ISSUES WON a person who has been prosecuted for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and convicted thereof may be prosecuted subsequently for homicide thru reckless imprudence if the offended party dies as a result of the same injuries he had suffered HELD NO Ratio One who has been charged with an offense cannot be charged again with the same or identical offense though the latter be lesser or greater than the former. However, where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. Reasoning
- Respondent court held that above rule does not apply in this case. It based its decision on the ruling in People v Buan, which held that Article 365 of the Penal Code punishes the negligent state of mind and not the resulting injury. The trial court concluded that once prosecuted for and convicted of negligence, the accused cannot again be prosecuted for the same negligence although for a different resulting injury. - In his memorandum, the Solicitor General made mention of the fact that on October 21, 1972, the City Fiscal filed an Urgent Motion asking that the "hearing and arraignment of this case be held in abeyance for there is information that the victim, Diolito dela Cruz died, and the information would have to be amended." - Be that as it may, the fact remains that the victim Diolito dela Cruz died on October 18 "one (1) day after the accident and the arrest of the respondent Gapay" and that on October 20, 1972, the accused was arraigned, pleaded guilty and sentenced accordingly. Thus, jeopardy had attached and no new fact supervened after the arraignment and conviction of the accused. Dispositive Order of dismissal of lower court affirmed.
GALMAN v SANDIGANBAYAN 144 SCRA 43 PEOPLE v RELOVA 148 SCRA 292 PEOPLE v GROSPE [supra, page 43] CANIZA v PEOPLE 159 SCRA 16 QUE v COSICO 177 SCRA 410 GUTIERREZ, JR.; September 8, 1989
FACTS - Petitioners in G.R. No. 81861 and private respondent in G.R. No. 83114 all stand as the accused in Criminal Case No. C-2152 for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents which case was dismissed but subsequently reinstated. - During the trial for the estafa case, Atty. Rodriguez Dadivas, counsel for the accused Devera and Machado, orally moved for the inhibition of the presiding Judge Suplico on the ground that he had some doubts as to the impartiality of the judge against whom he and some nineteen (19) other practicing lawyers had filed serious administrative charges with the President of the Philippines, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Minister of Justice. Following Atty. Dadivas, Atty. Roberto Barrios, former private prosecutor, also moved for the inhibition of the judge for the same reason alleged by Atty. Dadivas. The presiding judge, however, ruled Attys. Dadivas and Barrios out of order and asked the City Fiscal to present the evidence for the prosecution. Thereupon, the City Fiscal manifested that he was authorizing the private prosecutor to actively handle the prosecution of the case. Atty. Roberto Barrios, however, insisted that the presiding judge should first rule on their previous motion for inhibition. Instead of resolving the motion for inhibition, the presiding judge asked the comments of Atty. Lorenzo E. Coloso, counsel for the
SEPARATE OPINION GUTIERREZ [concurring]

- Knowing the volume of the caseload in the City Court of Manila and the inevitably slow pace of work, it is most surprising that the accused could have been arraigned for the charge of serious physical injuries only 3 days after the incident, 2 days after the filing of the information and the death of the victim. The accused does not appear to have been a detention prisoner necessitating his immediate arraignment right after the filing of the information. The only sensible conclusion is that the accused was hastily made to plead guilty to serious physical injuries to foreclose a charge for homicide even before it could be filed. In such a case, there would be a trifling with the processes of justice and a collusive effort amounting to fraud or deceit to deprive the State of its authority to prosecute an accused for the correct offense. - However, records are inadequate to show that the arraignment, while hasty and surrounded by seemingly suspicious circumstances, was tainted by fraud, collusion, or other form of chicanery sufficient to sustain a finding that the State was denied due process

accused Bernabe Que and Amelia Que, and Atty. Alberto Villarruz, counsel for the accused Paz L. Martelino, who both invoked the constitutional right of their clients to a speedy trial. The presiding judge asked again the prosecution to present its evidence but the private prosecutor insisted that a ruling be made by the presiding judge with regard to the pending motion for inhibition. As a result, the presiding judge issued the order dated November 10, 1986 dismissing this case. - On November 21, 1986, the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of dismissal. This was opposed by the defense. - In the meantime, the case was re-raffled to Judge Rodrigo Cosico. Judge Cosico in an order dated May 22, 1987, granted the prosecution's motion for reconsideration and caused the case to be reopened. The subsequent motion for reconsideration flied by the defense was denied in an order dated November 27, 1987. - G.R. No. 83114 - accused Martelino filed before the CA a petition for certiorari praying that the order of Judge Cosico reinstating the case be declared null and void on the ground of double jeopardy. CA found merit in the petition and set aside Judge Cosico's order as "it amounts to double jeopardy on the part of the petitioner." The decision of the appellate court is based on precedents which discuss the failure of the prosecution to appear for trial, produce its witnesses, or present its evidence. - G.R. No. 81861 - the accused Bernabe Que and Amelia Que filed a petition for certiorari directly with this court seeking to declare Judge Cosico's orders dated May 22, 1987 and November 27, 1987 as null and void and to prohibit respondent from further proceeding with the criminal case. ISSUE WON the reinstatement of the criminal case placed the accused in double jeopardy. HELD Ratio the requisites that must concur for legal jeopardy to attach are, to wit: 1) a valid complaint or information; 2) a court of competent jurisdiction; 3) the accused has pleaded to the charge and 4) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused. Reasoning The fourth requisite is lacking in the instant case. The case was dismissed upon motion and with the express consent of the accused. The accused Bernabe Que, Amelia Que and Paz Martelino
a2010
page 80
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari
Prof.
invoked their constitutional right to a speedy trial when the prosecution refused to present evidence until the court had ruled on the motion for inhibition. It was on their oral motion that the lower court ordered the case to be dismissed. There were no oppressive delays on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution's insistence that Judge Suplico rule on the motion to inhibit before further proceedings in the case was not dilatory. There is no reason apparent from the records why Suplico should vacillate or show anger on a matter that affects the subsequent course of the trial. He could have easily granted or denied the motion, giving sound reasons for his ruling. He could have required that the motion be submitted formally. The subsequent behavior of the former Judge, especially his precipitate dismissal of the case shows that his reaction was not mere impetuousness or pique. It bears the earmarks of bias and prejudice. As noted by Judge Cosico in his order dated November 27, 1987: ... A closed scrutiny of the foregoing chronology of facts that transpired at the Regional Trial Court does not show that the prosecution deliberately delayed the prosecution of this case nor does it appear that the prosecution was unprepared to present its evidence. The two (2) postponements requested by the prosecution appear to be reasonable. Moreover, it appears that on November 10, 1986, Mr. Angel Yu, principal witness for the prosecution, was then present and ready to testify. On the other hand, it appears that Atty. Lorenzo Coloso also asked for at least two (2) postponements. In invoking the right of the accused to speedy trial, Atty. Coloso is not therefore coming to this court with clean hands. Considering the two (2) postponements requested by Atty. Coloso, the accused in effect waived their right to speedy trial." Dispositive WHEREFORE, the petition docketed as G.R. 81861 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The petition docketed as G. R. No. 83114 is GRANTED and the questioned orders of Judge Cosico dated May 22, 1987 and November 27, 1978 are AFFIRMED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22, 1988 is SET ASIDE.
SAMSON v CA 103 Phil 277 PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON G.R. No. 149453 RESOLUTION: May 28, 2002
FACTS The assailed Decision of the appellate court granted respondent Lacsons Second Amended Petition for Prohibition with application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, (1) assailing the Order issued by Judge Herminia Pasamba of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, that allowed the continuation of the reinvestigation of the Kuratong Baleleng cases; and (2) praying for the dismissal of Criminal Cases entitled People of the Philippines v. Panfilo Lacson, et al. pending before Branch 81 of the RTC of Quezon City. - On May 18, 1995, then PNP Director-General Recaredo Sarmiento II announced, in a press conference, the killing of eleven (11) members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a shootout with police elements near the fly-over along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City at about 4:00 A.M. that day. - On May 22, 1995, morning papers carried the news that SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes had claimed that the killing of the eleven (11) gang members was a rubout or summary execution and not a shootout. - In an affidavit he executed the following day, delos Reyes stated that he was part of a composite police team called the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Force Group (ABRITFG) composed of elements of the National Capital Region Commandand headed by Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson; Traffic Management Command, headed by Senior Superintendent Francisco Subia, Jr.; Presidential AntiCrime Commission (PACC), headed by Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police District Command, headed by Chief Superintendent Ricardo de Leon; and Criminal Investigation Command (CIC), headed by Chief Superintendent Romeo Acop - Delos Reyes claimed that the police team arrested the eleven (11) gang members in early morning of May 18, 1995 at the gangs safe house in Superville Subdivision, Paraaque; that after their arrest, the gang members were made to board two vans, their hands tied behind their backs, and brought initially to Camp Crame where a decision to summarily execute them was made, and later to Commonwealth Avenue where they were shot to death by elements of the Anti-Bank Roberry Intelligence Task Force Group - On May 26, 1995, SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz, another CIC investigator, executed an affidavit corroborating the material allegations of delos Reyes

- On May 31, 1995, Armando Capili, a reporter of Remate, executed an affidavit stating that he was present when the KBG members were arrested in Superville Subdivision - On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job A. Mayo, PNP Director for Investigation, filed murder charges with the Office of the Ombudsman against ninetyseven (97) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. The next-of-kin of the slain KBG members also filed murder charges against the same officers and personnel. - Ombudsman Aniano Desierto then created a panel of investigators to conduct a preliminary investigation of the murder charges. On October 20, 1995, the panel issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the charges for lack of probable cause. - Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for review. On November 20, 1995, the review panel reversed the resolution and found probable cause for the prosecution of multiple murder charges against twenty-six (26) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. - On November 2, 1995, the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for MURDER, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057, against respondent Panfilo M. Lacson and twenty-five (25) other accused. All twenty-six (26) of them were charged as principals. - Upon motion of the respondent, the criminal cases were remanded to the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. On March 1, 1996, Amended Informations were filed against the same twenty-six (26) suspects but the participation of respondent Lacson was downgraded from principal to accessory. Arraignment then followed and respondent entered a plea of not guilty. - With the downgrading of charges against him, respondent Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to hear the criminal cases as none of the principal accused in the Amended Informations was a government official with a Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher, citing Section 2 of R. A. No. 7975 then prevailing. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ordered the cases transferred to the Regional Trial Court - The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration of the transfer. Pending resolution of the motion, R. A. No. 8249 took effect on February 23, 1997, amending R. A. No. 7975. In particular, the amendatory law deleted the word principal in Section 2 of R. A. No. 7975, thereby expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all cases where at least one of the accused, whether principal, accomplice or accessory, is a government official of
a2010
page 81
Prof.
witness Corazon de la Cruz testified to affirm her affidavit. - On March 29, 1999, Judge Agnir issued a Resolution dismissing the Criminal Cases - On March 27, 2001, PNP Director Leandro R. Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice the new affidavits of P/Insp. Ysmael S. Yu and P/S Insp. Abelardo Ramos regarding the Kuratong Baleleng incident for preliminary investigation. On the strength of this indorsement, Secretary of Justice Hernando B. Perez formed a panel to investigate the matter. - On April 17, 2001, the respondent was subpoenaed to attend the investigation of said Criminal Cases - On May 28, 2001, respondent Lacson, et al., invoking, among others, their constitutional right against double jeopardy, filed a petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, primarily to enjoin the State prosecutors from conducting the preliminary investigation. - The plea for temporary restraining order was denied - On June 6, 2001, eleven (11) Informations for murder involving the killing of the same members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City - The new Informations charged as principals thirtyfour (34) people, including respondent Lacson and his twenty-five (25) other co-accused in the original informations. The criminal cases were assigned to Judge Ma. Theresa L. Yadao. - On the same day, respondent Lacson filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari against Judge Pasamba, the Secretary of Justice, the PNP Chief, State Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Jamolin, and the People of the Philippines. The said petition was amended to implead as additional party-respondents State Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 81 - In the meantime, on June 8, 2001, respondent Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC Branch 81 (presided by Judge Ma. Theresa Yadao), a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in the absence thereof, to dismiss the cases outright. Respondent Lacson, however, filed a Manifestation and Motion dated June 13, 2001 seeking the suspension of the proceedings before the trial court. - The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Judge Yadao from issuing a warrant of arrest or conducting any proceeding or hearing in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112.
Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. The amendment is made applicable to all cases pending in any court in which trial has not yet begun as of the date of its approval. - In Lacson v. Executive Secretary, respondent Lacson challenged the constitutionality of the amendment and contended that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the criminal cases. This Court, while dismissing the constitutional challenge, nonetheless ordered the transfer of the criminal cases to the Regional Trial Court on the ground that the Amended Informations for murder failed to indicate that the offenses charged therein were committed in relation to, or in discharge of, the official functions of the respondent, as required by R. A. No. 8249. - The Criminal Cases were raffled off to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, then presided by Judge, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, Wenceslao Agnir, Jr. - Before the accused could be arraigned, prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes, Corazon de la Cruz, Armando Capili and Jane Gomez recanted their affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson in the murder of the KBG members. - On the other hand, private complainants also executed their respective affidavits of desistance declaring that they were no longer interested to prosecute these cases. - Due to these developments, the twenty-six (26) accused, including respondent Lacson, filed five separate but identical motions to: (1) make a judicial determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants (3) dismiss the cases should the trial court find lack of probable cause. - The records of the case before us are not clear whether the private offended parties were notified of the hearing on March 22, 1999 held by Judge Agnir to resolve the motions filed by respondent Lacson and the other accused. - During the said hearing, the private offended parties who desisted do not appear to have been presented on the witness stand. In their stead, Atty. Godwin Valdez testified that he assisted them in preparing their affidavits of desistance and that he signed said affidavits as witness. On the other hand, Atty. Aurora Bautista of the Philippine Lawyers League presented the affidavits of recantation of prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes, Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. Only prosecution

- On August 24, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision. It characterized the termination of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q99-81689 as provisional dismissal, and considered Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as mere revivals of the same. Applying Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it dismissed the criminal cases against the respondent ISSUE WON Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven (11) informations against the respondent Lacson involving the killing of some members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. HELD - This rule which took effect on December 1, 2000 provides: SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.- A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. - Like any other favorable procedural rule, this new rule can be given retroactive effect. However, the Court cannot rule on this issue due to the lack of sufficient factual bases. Thus, there is need of proof of the following facts: (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had the express consent of the accused; (2) whether it was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party, (3) whether the 2year period to revive has already lapsed, and (4) whether there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year period. - There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that the provisional dismissal of the cases against respondent Lacson bears his express consent. It was respondent Lacson himself who moved to dismiss the subject cases for lack of probable cause before then Judge Agnir, hence, it is beyond argument that their dismissal bears his express consent. - The records of the case, however, do not reveal with equal clarity and conclusiveness whether
a2010
page 82
Prof.
cases against respondent Lacson are being revived within or beyond the 2-year bar. The reckoning date of the 2-year bar has to be first determined - - whether it is from the date of the Order of then Judge Agnir dismissing the cases or from the dates the Order were received by the various offended parties or from the date of the effectivity of the new rule. - If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, the State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with said timeline. The new rule fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in courts. It can therefore present compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year bar. - In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence on the various requirements to determine the applicability of Section 8, Rule 117, this Court is not in a position to rule whether or not the re-filing of the cases for multiple murder against respondent Lacson should be enjoined. Fundamental fairness requires that both the prosecution and the respondent Lacson should be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence on the presence or absence of the predicate facts upon which the application of the new rule depends. They involve disputed facts and arguable questions of law. The reception of evidence on these various issues cannot be done in this Court but before the trial court. Dispositive Case remanded
notices to the offended parties were given before the cases against the respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir. It appears from the resolution of then Judge Agnir that the relatives of the victims who desisted did not appear during the hearing to affirm their affidavits. Their affidavits of desistance were only presented by Atty. Godwin Valdez who testified that he assisted the private complainants in preparing their affidavits and he signed them as a witness. It also appears that only seven (7) persons submitted their affidavits of desistance. From the records of the case before us, it cannot be determined whether there were affidavits of desistance executed by the relatives of the three other victims. The same records do not show whether they were notified of the hearing or had knowledge thereof. To be sure, it is not fair to expect the element of notice to be litigated before then Judge Agnir for Section 8, Rule 117 was yet inexistent at that time. - The fact of notice to the offended parties was not raised either in the petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction filed by respondent Lacson in the RTC of Manila, to enjoin the prosecutors from reinvestigating the said cases against him. The only question raised in said petition is whether the reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent Lacson against double jeopardy. Thus, the issue of whether or not the reinvestigation is barred by Section 8, Rule 117 was not tackled by the litigants. - Nor was the fact of notice to the offended parties the subject of proof after the eleven (11) informations for murder against respondent Lacson and company were revived in the RTC of Quezon City presided by Judge Yadao. There was hardly any proceeding conducted in the case for respondent Lacson immediately filed a petition for certiorari in the appellate court challenging, among others, the authority of Judge Yadao to entertain the revived informations for multiple murder against him. - The applicability of Section 8, Rule 117 was never considered in the trial court. It was in the Court of Appeals where respondent Lacson raised for the first time the argument that Section 8, Rule 117 bars the revival of the multiple murder cases against him. But even then, the appellate court did not require the parties to elucidate the crucial issue of whether notices were given to the offended parties before Judge Agnir ordered the dismissal of the cases against respondent Lacson and company. - Indeed, the records of this case are inconclusive on the factual issue of whether the multiple murder
PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON PEOPLE v PANFILO LACSON BULAONG v CA (PEOPLE) 181 SCRA 618 MEDIALDEA; January 30, 1990
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA FACTS - In March 1984, petitioner Bulaong filed with the RTC of Zambales an action for sum of money against Vistan, Buenaventura and Sta. Maria. Later, Vistan also filed a complaint against Bulaong for rescission of contract with damages. The said cases were consolidated and are pending trial.

- In Nov. 1984, Bulaong filed a criminal complaint for estafa with the City Fiscal of Pasay against Vicente Vistan and Leonardo Buenaventura. The complainant and the defendants filed their affidavit and counteraffidavits respectively. - In Jan. 1985, petitioners Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman submitted to City Fiscal of Pasay a replyaffidavit containing statements which are alleged to be libelous. Hence, Vistan and Buenaventura filed a complaint for libel against Bulaong and his counsel de Guzman with the City Fiscal. The latter conducted an investigation, and thereafter, filed an information for libel against petitioners. The said information was later amended on. - Petitioners moved to quash the Information on the ff. grounds: (1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and 2) that the fiscal has no authority to file the Information. They further argue that the reply-affidavit was submitted and sworn to by petitioner Bulaong not only because he was required to do so by the investigating fiscal but also because it was in compliance with his legal and moral duty as complainant in the case for estafa against Vistan and Buenaventura and hence, the reply-affidavit belongs to the class of absolutely privileged communications - The assistant city fiscal filed an opposition to the motion to quash filed by petitioners. RTC of Pasay City denied the motion to quash. Petitioners filed MFR but was denied. Petitioners filed with CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, with preliminary injunction. CA dismissed petition for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari was filed ISSUE WON the procedure availed by petitioners after denial by the RTC of the motion to quash (MTQ) was correct HELD NO Ratio: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are not the correct remedies against an order denying a motion to quash. The defendant should instead, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law Reasoning: [a] Sec. 1, Rule 117 of the ROC provides that, upon arraignment, defendant shall immediately either move to quash the complaint or
a2010
page 83
Prof.
-Only the prosecution presented its evidence. Petitioner-appellant waived the right to present evidence and submitted a Memorandum confirming the Stipulation of Facts. The Trial Court convicted petitioner-appellant. -On appeal, respondent Appellate Court upheld the Stipulation of Facts and affirmed the judgment of conviction. 1 ISSUE WON CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC convicting the petitioner of the offense charged, despite the cold fact that the basis of the conviction was based solely on the stipulation of facts made during the pre-trial on August 8, 1985, which was not signed by the petitioner, nor by his counsel HELD YES. The CA committed a mistake. -The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which became effective on January 1, 1985, applicable to this case since the pre-trial was held on August 8, 1985, provides: "SEC. 4. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel." (Rule 118) The Rule is mandatory. Under the rule of statutory construction, negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory (McGee vs. Republic). The use of the term "shall" further emphasizes its mandatory character and means that it is imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced (Bersabal vs. Salvador). And more importantly, penal statutes whether substantive and remedial or procedural are, by consecrated rule, to be strictly applied against the government and liberally in favor of the accused (People vs. Terrado). -The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that the omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the lawyer of the accused, in his memorandum, confirmed the Stipulation of Facts does not cure the defect because Rule 118 requires both the accused and his counsel to sign the Stipulation of Facts. What the prosecution should have done, upon discovering that the accused did not sign the Stipulation of Facts, as required by Rule 118, was to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime, instead of relying solely on
information or plead thereto, or do both and that, if the defendant moves to quash, without pleading, and the motion is withdrawn or overruled, he should immediately plead, which means that trial must proceed. If, after trial on the merits, judgment is rendered adversely to the movant in the MTQ, he can appeal the judgment and raise the same defenses or objections earlier raised in his MTQ which would then be subject to review by the appellate court. [b] An order denying a MTQ, like an order denying a motion to acquit, is interlocutory and not a final order, and thus, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such order of denial may only be reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an appeal from the judgment, after trial. [c] In Collins vs. Wolfe and reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, the accused, after the denial of his MTQ, should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below, and if final judgment is rendered against him, he could then appeal, and upon such appeal, present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari.[d] Whether or not the alleged libelous statements in the reply-affidavit are covered within the mantle of absolutely privileged communications, is a defense which petitioners could raise upon the trial on the merits, and, if that defense should fail, they could still raise the same on appeal. The MTQ the information for libel on the ground of qualified privilege, duly opposed by the prosecution, is properly denied, as the prosecution is entitled to prove at the trial that there was malice in fact on the part of the petitioners Dispositive Petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.
FULE v CA 162 SCRA 446 MELENCIO-HERRERA ; June 22, 1988

NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the CA FACTS -Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the RTC of Lucena City that convicted Fule of Violation of BP 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law) on the basis of the Stipulation of Facts entered into between the prosecution and the defense during the pre-trial conference in the Trial Court.

the supposed admission of the accused in the Stipulation of Facts. Without said evidence independent of the admission, the guilt of the accused cannot be deemed established beyond reasonable doubt. -Consequently, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, the ends of justice require that evidence be presented to determine the culpability of the accused. When a judgment has been entered by consent of an attorney without special authority, it will sometimes be set aside or reopened (Natividad vs. Natividad). Dispositive WHEREFORE, the judgment of respondent Appellate Court is REVERSED and this case is hereby ordered RE-OPENED and REMANDED to the appropriate Branch of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, for further reception of evidence. SO ORDERED.
a2010
page 84
Prof.
admissions which his counsel may have entered into without his knowledge, as he may have waived his presence at the pre-trial conference; eliminate any doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon. - Nevertheless, Uy cannot take advantage of the absence of his and his counsels signatures on the pre trial order. They did not object when the prosecution presented the plastic bags and said that it contained shabu. Uy cannot now raise it for the first time on appeal. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Dispositive Decision affirmed in toto
PEOPLE v UY 327 SCRA 335 DAVIDE; March 7, 2000

FACTS - Ramon Uy was caught by the PNP in a buy bust operation. 3 informations was filed against him for the illegal sale of 5.8564 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," and possession of 401 grams of the same drug. - When arraigned, RAMON pleaded not guilty in each case. During the pre-trial, the parties agreed on a joint trial and to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. They also agreed on the marking of the exhibits for the prosecution. - During the trial, Uy claimed that he was merely framed. - The trial court gave credence to the prosecutions story of a legitimate buy bust and convicted him of 2 of the 3 charges against him. ISSUE 1. WON there was a legitimate buy bust 2. WON Uy agreed to waive the testimony of the Forensic Chemist during the pre-trial HELD 1. YES. - As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be
evidence to the contrary; moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellants self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed - Moreover, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 2. NO. - Uys premise is that at the pre-trial he did not waive the Forensic Chemists testimony but only "stipulated on the markings of the prosecutions evidence." Indeed, the records disclose that during the pre-trial, conducted immediately after the arraignment on 21 November 1995, Uy, duly represented by counsel de parte Atty. Gerardo Alberto, and the prosecution stipulated on the markings of the prosecutions exhibits, and agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. - During the pre-trial, prosecution and defense agreed to stipulate on the markings of the following prosecutions exhibits, thereby dispensing will the testimony of Forensic chemist Loreto E. Bravo. - It may at once be noted that neither Uy nor his counsel made express admission that the contents of the plastic bags to "be marked" contain shabu. That Uy agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bravo may not be considered an admission of the findings of Bravo on the contents of the plastic bag. Strictly, from the tenor of the aforequoted portion of the Joint Order, it is clear that Uy and his counsel merely agreed to the marking of the exhibits, and the clause "thereby dispensing with the testimony of forensic Chemist Loreto E. Bravo" must be understood in that context. - Even granting for the sake of argument that Uy admitted during the pre-trial that the plastic bags contained shabu , the admission cannot be used in evidence against him because the Joint Order was not signed by Uy and his counsel. Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides: SEC. 40. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed and his counsel. - The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the accused against improvident or unauthorized agreements or
PEOPLE v LARRANAGA G.R. No. 138874-75 PEOPLE v QUIAZON 78 SCRA 513 FERNANDO; August 31, 1977
NATURE Plea of Acting Solicitor Vicente Mendoza to acquit the accused. FACTS - Judgment of lower court convicted Antonio Quiazon of abduction with rape. Acting Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza, instead of filing a brief for appellee, submitted a Manifestation recommending that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and another be entered acquitting him, the need for a thorough study of the record became evident. - Events started in a chance encounter between complainant, Virginia Salazar de la Cruz (Virginia), and appellant while they were passengers in a Baliuag Transit bus, both of them being residents thereof and bound for San Jose City, Nueva Ecija. Virginia was quite friendly, and during the trip was leaning on Quiazon. Encouraged, Quiazon asked if he could visit her at home. Virginia said that instead they could meet in the public market of San Jose City. - Two days thereafter they met. Quiazon brought Virginia home and introduced her to his parents, announcing that she was going to be their daughterin-law. That same day they had sexual intercourse in the house of Quiazon. - After that day, it was not unexpected for such intimacies to be repeated. Every time Virginia visited Quiazon they had sexual intercourse.

- May 1973: the accused was eating in the public market with his friend Rogelio Vigilia and the complainant Virginia. Suddenly Virginia stood up and left them because she saw her husband. The following morning, when Rogelio went to visit his brother-in-law, who is a neighbor of the complainant in Barrio Abar, he saw Virginia with contusions and a swollen face. He asked his brother-in-law what had happened, and was told that complainant's husband had beaten her. - Quiazon and Virgina seldom saw each other after the former learned of the latters marriage. However, they wrote each other letters, and even saw each other on countless occasions after the knowledge regarding the marriage surfaced. - Manifestation: "The complainant had earlier introduced herself to the accused as a widow. Antonio did not know that Virginia was in fact married, until sometime during the first week of May, 1973 when they were eating at the restaurant. When he learned that she was married, he told her to avoid him, but she answered that she could not, because she loved him. Antonio did not also try to avoid her because he loved her xxx Even Quiazons parents objected to the relationship, but to no avail. - To avoid being found out, Quiazon and Virginia traveled from barrio to barrio until they reached Barrio Armenia in Tarlac, where they stayed for more than a week. While on their way to the voting precinct which was near a P.C. Detachment, a P. C. soldier, Sgt. Daton, stopped them because he noticed that they were new in the place. The P. C. Officer asked her whether Antonio Quiazon was her husband, and she answered in the negative. At the P.C. Headquarters, Virginia was asked who her husband was, and she answer that her husband is Sgt. Gaudencio de la Cruz, an army man. It was then when the P.C. soldiers became interested in asking her why she was in Tarlac. The complainant answered that she was brought there by the accused and that Antonio abducted and raped her. - In Cabanatuan City the accused Antonio was detained in jail, by virtue of the complaint brought by Virginia against him. When he was in jail, Virginia visited him. She apologized to him and told him that she did not want what had happened to him, but she had to do it because she was afraid of her husband. ISSUE WON Quiazon is guity of abduction with rape. HELD
a2010
page 85
Prof.
NO, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and according to the Manifestation of the Acting Solicitor General, the evidence supports Quiazons innocence. Ratio Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime has been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. Moral certainty is required. Reasoning - Art. 3, Section 14 (2) (Constitution) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved xxx - It is precisely because of such notorious lack of any persuasive force in the testimony of complainant that the Manifestation asserted most emphatically that appellant could rely on the constitutional presumption of innocence, one of the most valuable rights of an accused person - The complainant alleges that on July 3, 1973 the accused, whom the complainant had never met before, suddenly grabbed her while she was in the public market of San Jose City and forced her to board a tricycle. Then he took her to the house of his parents where he ravished her. The abduction occurred in broad daylight, or at about 10:00 in the morning. The improbability of the complainant's charge is immediately visible from the time and locus where the crime was supposed to have been committed. The market, being a public place, was at its busiest at 10 in the morning. Virginia was also with a niece at the time. Any commotion would easily attract attention. In addition, there was a police outpost near the market. Dispositive Decision is reversed, and the accused is acquitted.
CASTILLO v FILTEX 124 SCRA 900 ESCOLIN; September 30, 1983

NATURE Appeal from CFI Rizal decision
FACTS -Artemio Castillo, an employee of FILTEX and a member of the Samahan ng Malaya Manggagawa sa Filtex (FFW), was charged together with others in the MTC Makati with the offense of slight physical injuries, for his alleged involvement in a mauling and shining incident which occurred sometime in July 1964 at the height of a strike called by the SAMAHAN. During the pendency of the case, Castillo was suspended from his job. -July 8, 1964: FILTEX and SAMAHAN entered into a Return Work Agreement: >par. 3: company employees against whom court cases are filed or to be filed, shall be suspended by the company upon filing of such cases by the fiscal with the proper courts for as long as the said cases shall remain pending in court >par. 4: in the event said employees are found innocent by the courts, the COMPANY agrees to reinstate them to their respective jobs with back wages minus whatever earnings they earned during the period of suspension; otherwise, if found guilty they shall remain dismissed; -After trial, the MTC Makati found Castillo guilty of slight physical injuries. -CFI Rizal dismissed the case (November 28, 1966) because complainant failed to appear at the scheduled trial. -Castillo asked for reinstatement and back wages. When FILTEX paid no head to his demands, he instituted action in CFI Rizal, claiming that dismissal of the criminal case justified his reinstatement and payment of back wages, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Return to Work Agreement. -FILTEX filed motion to dismiss; grounds: lack of cause of action and want of jurisdiction, the case being allegedly within the exclusive jurisdiction of CIR. This motion was denied. -Pre-trial: the parties defined the principal issue Is Castillo entitled to reinstatement and back wages after the dismissal of the charge against him in accordance with par. 4 of the "Return to Work Agreement? -Case was submitted for decision on the bases of the parties memoranda and stipulation of facts. CFI Rizal dismissed Castillos complaint, and ordered him to pay FILTEX P1thou as attorney's fees, plus costs. Reasoning: CFI Rizals dismissal of the case was only because of the failure of the complainant to appear at the scheduled trial. The agreement to reinstate an employee expressly states that there must be a

finding of innocence by the courts. It did not stipulate that the case should be dismissed. -Hence, this appeal. ISSUE WON Castillo backwages is entitled to reinstatement and
a2010
page 86
Prof.
comment was considered as answer, with the case being submitted for decision. ISSUE WON the accuseds constitutional right to procedural due process was violated. HELD YES. The Constitution requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as to why be was indicted and what penal offense he has to face, to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. - It is at that stage of arraignment where in the mode and manner required by the Rules, an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom, even of his life depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. At the very least then, he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him. It is a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. It is not useless formality, much less an idle ceremony. - Petitioner was not arraigned at all and was not represented by counsel throughout the whole proceedings in the respondent City Court. It is indisputable then that there was a denial of petitioner's constitutional right to be heard by himself and counsel. - An equally fatal defect in the proceeding had before respondent Judge Senining was that notwithstanding its being conducted in the absence of petitioner, he was convicted. It was shown that after one postponement due to his failure to appear, the case was reset for hearing. When that date came, without petitioner being present, although his bondsman were notified, respondent Judge, as set forth in the comment of the Solicitor General, "allowed the prosecution to present its evidence. Thereupon, respondent City Court promulgated thedecision. - It is the constitutional right of the accused to be heard in his defense before sentence is pronounced on him. Such "constitutional right is inviolate." There is no doubt that it could be waived, but here there was no such waiver, whether express or implied. - The provision in the present Constitution allowing trial to be held in absentia is unavailing. It cannot justify the actuation of respondent Judge Senining. Its language is clear and explicit. What is more, it is mandatory. Thus: "However, after arraignment, trial
HELD YES. Since the criminal case was ultimately dismissed, the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellant should be applied. Castillos innocence need no longer be proved, since under the fundamental law his innocence is presumed. -While it is true that Castillo was convicted of the offense of slight physical injuries by MTC Makati, it is undisputed that on appeal, CFI Rizal dismissed the case for failure of the prosecution witnesses to appear. -ROC Rule 123, Sec 7: Trial de novo on appeal. An appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in the courts of first instance as if it had been originally instituted in that court. -Applying this rule, the judgment of conviction rendered by MTC Makati was vacated upon perfection of the appeal, to be tried de novo in the CFI as if it were originally instituted therein. The phrase "to vacate" applied to a judgment means "to annul, to render void." -People vs. Dramayo: The starting point is the constitutional presumption of innocence - a right safeguarded the accused. Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. Guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. To such a standard this Court has always been committed. -There is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by person on trial under such an exacting test could sentence be one of conviction. -It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the
act but that it amounted to a crime. So it has been held from the 1903 decision of United States v. Reyes. Interpretation of par. 4 of Return to Work Agreement -FILTEX: said paragraph requires an express finding of innocence by the court in order to entitle an employee to reinstatement and back wages; no such finding of innocence had been made because the criminal case was dismissed on a mere technicality; interpretation of said agreement should not be stretched to include a "mere presumption of innocence under the law." -SC: Constitutional provision on protection to labor constrains courts to interpret the agreement in question in favor of the claim of the laborer and against that of management. Those who are less fortunate in terms of economic well-being should be given preferential attention. States obligation to protect labor is welfare state concept vitalized. (Art. 4, Labor Code. Art. 1700, NCC. ^_^ hehe! ) Dispositive CFI Rizal decision set aside. Remand to Labor Arbiter of NLRC for determination of the amount of back wages.
BORJA v MENDOZA 77 SCRA 422 FERNANDO; June 20, 1977

FACTS - Notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment of petitioner Manuel Borja, accused of slight physical injuries, respondent Judge Romulo R. Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and found the accused guilty of such offense. - An appeal was filed in the CFI of Cebu presided by respondent Judge Rafael T. Mendoza. - It was then alleged that without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit his memorandum, a decision on the appealed case was rendered affirming the judgment of the City Court. Petitioners Claim It is the contention of petitioner that the failure to arraign him is violative of his constitutional right to procedural due process, more specifically of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and of his right to be heard by himself and counsel. - The Solicitor General, when asked to comment, agreed that the procedural defect was of such gravity as to render void the decision of the City Court affirmed by the Court of First Instance. The

may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified." As pointed out then by the Solicitor General, the indispensable requisite for trial in absentia is that it should come "after arraignment." - Without the accused having been arraigned, it becomes academic to discuss the applicability of this exception to the basic constitutional right that the accused should be heard by himself and counsel. - The appeal to the Court of First Instance presided by respondent Judge Mendoza did not possess any curative aspect. Respondent considered the appeal taken by the petitioner as waiver of the defects in the proceedings in the respondent City Court. - Precisely, the appeal itself is tantamount to questioning those defects. In fact, the Memorandum in support of the appeal unmistakably raised as error the absence of petitioner at the arraignment and cited jurisprudence, commentaries and the rules to bolster his position. Specifically, 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. Dispositive The petition was granted.
a2010
page 87
Prof.

Crim Pro Digest 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Pro Digest 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

CASTILLO v CA (ROSARIO) 176 SCRA 591 FERNAN; August 21, 1989

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

SEPARATE OPINION CRUZ [concurring]

SAMULDE v SALVANI 165 SCRA 734 GRIO-AQUINO: September 26, 1988

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

CALLANTA v VILLANUEVA 77 SCRA 377 FERNANDO; June 20, 1977

RODRIGUEZ v VILLAMIEL 65 Phil 230 IMPERIAL; DEC 23, 1937

SEPARATE OPINION AQUINO [concurring]

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

BURGOS v CHIEF OF STAFF

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

ALIH v CASTRO 151 SCRA 279 CRUZ; June 23, 1987

POSADAS v CA (PEOPLE) 188 SCRA 288 GANCAYCO; August 2, 1990

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

ALLADO v DIOKNO [supra, page]

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

SEPARATE OPINION DAVIDE [concurring and dissenting]

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v CA (CERBO) 301 SCRA 475 PANGANIBAN; January 21, 1999

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v MANES 303 SCRA 231 PARDO; February 17, 1999

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v CABRAL 303 SCRA 361 ROMERO; February 18, 1999

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

SEPARATE OPINION VITUG [dissenting]

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v SERNA 130 SCRA 550 CONCEPCION, July 25, 1984

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

SEPARATE OPINION AQUINO [dissenting]

PEOPLE v TIONGSON 130 SCRA 614 CONCEPCION; July 25, 1984

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v NADERA 324 SCRA 490

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v ASUNCION 161 SCRA 490 PADILLA; May 24, 1988

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

SEPARATE OPINION GUTIERREZ [concurring]

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

FULE v CA 162 SCRA 446 MELENCIO-HERRERA ; June 22, 1988

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

PEOPLE v UY 327 SCRA 335 DAVIDE; March 7, 2000

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

CASTILLO v FILTEX 124 SCRA 900 ESCOLIN; September 30, 1983

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

BORJA v MENDOZA 77 SCRA 422 FERNANDO; June 20, 1977

Criminal Procedure Rowena Daroy Morales

You might also like