Jurisdiction CRISTINA B. CASTILLO, Petitioner, vs. PHILLIP R. SALVADOR, Respondent G.R. No. ! "#$ % Ju&' ($, "$# THIRD DIVISION
FACTS: Phillip Salvador and his brother Ramon Salvador were charged with estafa under Article 31! paragraph " #a$ of the Revised Penal Code in an %nformation& 'pon their arraignment! Phillip and Ramon pleaded not guilt( to the offense charged& Trial on the merits thereafter ensued& The RTC rendered a )ecision *nding Phillip guilt( be(ond reasonable doubt and ordered him to pa( Castillo! 'S+1,,!,,,&,, or its e-uivalent in Philippine currenc(& Ramon was ac-uitted for insufficienc( of evidence& Phillip appealed his conviction to the CA! which overturned the RTC decision& Castillo filed a petition for review on certiorari on the civil aspect of the case! arguing that the Court should have at least retained the amount of damages to her& %SS'.: /hether the ac-uitted accused remains liable for damages& R'0%2: es& 4is ac-uittal was onl( based on failure to prove guilt be(ond reasonable doubt& RAT%5: 6%7n 8anantan v& CA! we discussed the conse-uences of an ac-uittal on the civil liabilit( of the accused as follows: 5ur law recogni9es two inds of ac-uittal! with di;erent e;ects on the civil liabilit( of the accused& First is an ac-uittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the actor omission complained of& This instance closes the door to civil liabilit(! for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of an( act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act oromission& There being no delict! civil liabilit( e< delictois out of the -uestion! and the civil action! if an(! which ma( be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of& This is the situation contemplated in Rule %%% of the Rules of Court& The second instance is an ac-uittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused& %n this case! even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactoril( established! he is not e
for the same act or omission&> < <<& A reading of the reasonable CA decisiondoubt& would 6S7ince show that wasisac-uitted the doubt! prosecution failed to prove his guilt be(ond thePhillip ac-uittal based onbecause reasonable 6Phillip7 is not egreater weight of the evidence> or>greater weight of the credible evidence&> Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which! in the last anal(sis! means probabilit( of the truth& %t is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worth( of belief than that which is o;ered in opposition thereto& %n discrediting 6Castillo@s7 allegation that she gave 6Phillip7 'S+1,,!,,,&,, in 8a( ",,"! the CA found that: #1$ 6Castillo7 failed to show how she was able to raise the mone( in such a short period of time and even gave conicting versions on the source of the sameB #"$ 6Castillo7failed to re-uire respondent to sign a receipt so she could have a record of the transaction and o;ered no plausible reason wh( the mone( was allegedl( handcarried to4ong DongB #3$ 6Castillo@s7 claim of trust as reason for not re-uiring 6Phillip7 to sign a receipt was inconsistent with the wa( she conducted her previous transactions with himB and #E$ 6Castillo@s7 behavior after the alleged fraud perpetrated against her was inconsistent with the actuation of someone who had been swindled& P)OPL) O* TH) PHILIPPIN)S, Petitioner, vs. H)R+)N)GILDO D+LAO ' CASTILIANO -nd )+ILIO LAO ' GON/AL)S, Respondents. G.R. No. 01!1 +-rc2 ", "$$! THIRD DIVISION
FACTS: 4erein respondents )umlao and 0ao! Aber P& Canlas! Gacobo C& Clave! Roman A& Cru9! Gr& and Fabian C& Her were charged with violation of Section 3#g$ of Republic Act o& 3,1= )umlao filed an 8)
1
on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an o;ense&I o 4e stated that the prosecutions main thrust against him was the alleged approval b( the 2overnment Service %nsurance S(stem #2S%S$ ?oard of Trustees of which he was a member of the 0easePurchase Agreement entered into b( and among the 2S%S! the 5Jce of the 2overnment Corporate Counsel #52CC$ and respondent 0ao& 4e argued that the allegedl( approved ?oard Resolution was not in fact approved b( the 2S%S ?oard of Trustees! contrar( to the allegations in the information& Since the signatures of Fabian Her! Roman Cru9! Aber Canlas and Gacobo Clave did not appear in the minutes of the meeting held on "3 April 1=K"! he said it was safe to conclude that these people did not participate in the alleged approval of the 0easePurchase Agreement& This being the case! he maintained that there was no -uorum of the board to approve the supposed resolution authori9ing the sale of the 2S%S propert(& There being no approval b( the maLorit( of the ?oard of Trustees! there can be no resolution approving the 0easePurchase Agreement& The unapproved resolution! he added! proved his innocence& 4e further contended that the person to be charged should be Att(& 0uis Gavellana! who sold the subLect to respondent 0aotwo without the proper authorit(& liewise wondered he alone chargedpropert( without including the other signatories in the minutes 4e of the meeting held on wh( "3 April 1=K"&was S? granted the 8) People filed a Rule E before the SC o Petitioner argues it was denied its right to due process when the court a -uo dismissed the case against respondent )umlao after pretrial and before it could present its witnesses and formall( o;er its ethe facts charged do not constitute an o;ense&> 4e contends that the alleged approved ?oard Resolution was not approved b( the 2S%S ?oard of Trustees! contrar( to the allegation in the information& Since the signatures of four out of the seven members of the board did not appear in the minutes of the meeting held on "3 April 1=K"! there was no -uorum present or no maLorit( that approved the supposed resolution& This being the case! he asserts that there was no resolution adopted b( the 2S%S ?oard of Trustees approving the sale of the subLect properties to respondent 0ao& The Sandiganba(an! basing its resolution on the Pretrial Stipulation entered into b( the prosecution and respondent )umlao! dismissed the case against the latter! since it found that the 2S%S ?oard of Trustees failed to approve or validl( pass the 0easePurchase Agreement! because onl( three out of the seven members of the ?oard signed the minutes of the meeting held on "3 April 1=K"& %t eno amount of evidence can change the fact that the Resolution dated April "3! 1=K" was not validl( passed b( the ?oard of Trustees of 2S%S since it was onl( signed b( three members of the ?oard& Thus! it never had the force and e;ect of a valid resolution and did not in e;ect approve the 0ease and Purchase Agreement subLect matter hereof& Therefore! the prosecution has no cause of action against herein movantaccused 4ermenegildo C& )umlao&> The ground raised b( respondent )umlao in his 8otion to OuashN)ismiss is that the facts charged do not constitute an o;ense& The fundamental test in determining the suJcienc( of the material averments of an information is whether the facts alleged therein! which are h(potheticall( admitted! would establish the essentials elements of the crime de*ned b( law& .vidence aliunde! or matters e
"
)umlaos motion& From the reasoning given b( the Sandiganba(an! it is clear that it dismissed the case because of insuJcienc( of evidence& Ouash& The grounds! as enumerated in Section 3! Rule 11I of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure! are as follows: #a$ That the facts charged do not constitute an o;enseB #b$ That the court tr(ing the case has no Lurisdiction over the o;ense chargedB #c$ That the court tr(ing the case has no Lurisdiction over the person of the accusedB #d$ That the oJcer who *led the information had no authorit( to do soB #e$ That it does not conform substantiall( to the prescribed formB #f$ That more than one o;ense is charged e
FACTS: The instant controvers( stemmed from a criminal charge for slight ph(sical inLuries filed b( respondent .dgardo Postanes #Postanes$ against Remigio Pasion #Pasion$& 5n the other hand! petitioner )avid Tiu #Tiu$ filed a criminal charge for grave threats against Postanes& Conse-uentl(! an %nformation for Slight Ph(sical %nLuries! doceted as Criminal Case o& =E1"! and an %nformation for 2rave Threats! doceted as Criminal Case o& =E13! were filed with the 8etropolitan Trial Court #8eTC$ of Pasa( Cit(& 'pon motion of Pasion! Criminal Case os& =E1" and =E13 were consolidated and Lointl( heard before the 8eTC of Pasa( Cit(! ?ranch EE& 8eTC dismissed both chargesB denied Tius ensuing 8R Tiu filed a Rule before RTC o RTC granted This case is remanded to the Court of srcin for reconsideration of its )ecision RTC then declared void the 8eTCs Ludgment Postanes filed an 8R before RTC o RTC denied Postanes filed a Rule before the CA Court of Appeals directed respondents #Tiu and Gudge Francisco 2& 8endiola of RTC Pasa(! ?ranch 11$ to *le their Comment on the petition& The Court of Appeals found no reason to Lustif( the issuance of a temporar( restraining order&
3
8eanwhile! Tiu! through his counsel! filed with the 8eTC a 8otion for Compliance asing the 8eTC to
enforce the RTC decision& 4e also *led a motion to inhibit 8eTC Presiding Gudge .strellita 8& Paas& Postanes! on the other hand! *led a motion to suspend the proceedings and an 5pposition to the motion for compliance o 8eTC granted Postanes motion to suspend the proceedings& o Presiding Gudge .strellita 8& Paas also inhibited herself from further hearing the case& Tiu filed with CA an 8) the petition on the ground of forum shopping& o CA issued a Reso stated that >action on the 8otion to )ismiss Petition filed b( the private respondents! together with the petitioners 5pposition thereto! and private respondents Repl( to 5pposition shall be included in the preparation of the decision in the present petition& CA then reversed RTCB denied Tius ensuing 8R o n annulling the RTC decision! the Court of Appeals held that the RTC >has granted upon the State! through the e o The Court of Appeals stated that the prosecution had not been denied b( the 8eTC of its right to due process& 4ence! it was wrong for the RTC to declare the *ndings of the 8eTC asagainst having been arrived at with grave abuse of discretion! Postanesand of his Constitutional right double Leopard(& o The Court of Appeals opinedthereb( that theden(ing 8eTC evaluated passed upon the evidence presented both b( the prosecution and the defense& The 8eTC! however! believed that the evidence of the prosecution was not suJcient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of Postanes! thus ac-uitted him based on reasonable doubt& Tiu filed a Rule E before the SC %SS'.: /hether there was double Leopard( when Tiu *led a petition for certiorari -uestioning the ac-uittal of Postanes b( the 8eTC 4.0): 5& At the outset! the Court finds that the petition is defective since it was not filed b( the Solicitor 2eneral& %nstead! it was *led b( Tiu! the private complainant in Criminal Case o& =E13! through his counsel& Settled is the rule that onl( the Solicitor 2eneral ma( bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines! or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals&", Tiu! the o;ended part( in Criminal Case o& =E13 is without legal personalit( to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals before this Court& othing shows that the 5Jce of the Solicitor 2eneral represents the People in this appeal before this Court& 5n this ground alone! the petition must fail& 4owever! the Court opts to resolve the -uestion of double Leopard( to finall( put an end to this controvers(& The elements of double Leopard( are #1$ the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a convictionB #"$ the court had LurisdictionB #3$ the accused had been arraigned and had pleadedB and #E$ the accused was convicted or ac-uitted or the case was dismissed without his etwice < << in Leopard( of punishment for the same o;ense&>"E Further! as found b( the Court of Appeals! there is no showing that the prosecution or the State was denied of due process resulting in loss or lac of Lurisdiction on the part of the 8eTC! which would have allowed an appeal b( the prosecution from the order of dismissal of the criminal case&" Tiu also contends that since the defense in Criminal Case o& =E13 failed to submit a formal of evidence! the defense in e;ect had no evidence to dispute the charge against Postanes& Tiu insists that though Criminal Case os& =E1" and = E13 were consolidated! the 8eTC should not have considered the evidence o;ered in Criminal Case o& = E1" to dismiss Criminal Case o& =E13& %n doing so! the 8eTC allegedl( committed grave abuse of discretion rendering its dismissal of Criminal Case o& =E13 #grave threats case$ void& Tius arguments fail to convince us& There is nothing in the Revised Rules on Summar( Procedure prohibiting the 8eTC from appreciating the evidence presented and formall( o;ered in Criminal Case o& =E1" in resolving Criminal Case o& =E13! inasmuch as these two criminal cases were properl( consolidated and Lointl( tried& %n fact! the 8eTCs act of assessing the evidence in Criminal Case o& =E1" in deciding Criminal Case o& =E13 is consistent with the avowed obLective of the Revised Rules on Summar( Procedure >to achieve an e covered b( these Rules& ?esides! the testimonies of Postanes! A(naga!" and Samson"I were properl( o;ered at the time when these witnesses were called to testif(&"K 4ence! while the aJdavits as documentar( evidence were not formall( o;ered! there were
E
testimonial evidences supporting Postanes defense in Criminal Case o& =E13& Contrar( to the RTCs *nding! there is nothing capricious or whimsical in the act of the 8eTC of considering the evidence formall( o;ered in Criminal Case o& =E1" in resolving the consolidated Criminal Case o& =E13& Therefore! the 8eTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case o& =E13 for insuJcient evidence& %n view of the foregoing! the Court finds no need to discuss the forum shopping issue& Ru&e $
)AT. 0A& G%8..Q! in his capacit( as President and representative of '0A) S4%PP%2 8AA2.8.T C5RP5RAT%5! Petitioner! vs& 45& .)/% S5R525 #in his capacit( as Presiding Gudge of ?ranch "1E of the Regional Trial Court of 8andalu(ong Cit($! S5CRAT.S ATQ5'0AT5S! CAR8. A0A8%0! 8ARC.0l 2AQA and 8ARD5S AH25'ST%S! Respondents KI SCRA 11 2&R& o& 1IK,I )ecember ! ",1" S.C5) )%H%S%5 *ACTS4
%n " ,,3! G imene9! t he p resident o f ' nlad S hipping 8anagement Corporation! *led a complaintaJdavit with the 5Jce of the Cit( Prosecutor of 8andalu(ong Cit( against Ant9oulatos! et al&! listed incorporators of Tsaos 8aritime Services! %nc& #T8S%$! for s(ndicated and large scale illegal recruitment! alleging that Ant9oulatos! et al& falsel( represented their stocholdings in T8S%s articles of incorporation to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agenc( from the Philippine 5verseas .mplo(ment Agenc( #P5.A$&
An %nformation was then filed before the Regional Trial Court #RTC$ 8andalu(ong& Subse-uentl(! the Cit( Prosecutor reconsidered resolution and *led a motion with the RTC to withdraw the information&
The RTC denied the motion to withdraw information as it found the e
Thus! t he R TC o rdered t he i ssuance o f w arrants o f a rrest a gainst Ant9oulatos! et al& Ant9oulatos and 2a9a *led an omnibus motion for reconsideration and for deferred enforcement of the warrants of arrest! which was denied&
Alamil filed a motion for Ludicial determination of probable cause with a re-uest to defer enforcement of the warrants of arrest&! which was denied for being moot and academic& Alamil moved for reconsideration and for the inhibition of Gudge Capco'mali! for being biased or partial&
Gudge Capco'mali voluntaril( inhibited herself from the case and did not resolve Alamils motion for reconsideration and the Gimene9@s motion to e
The case was later reraffled to ?ranch "1E! presided b( Gudge .dwin )&
Sorongon&
The RTC granted Alamils motion for reconsideration! and treated the motion for Ludicial determination as a motion to dismiss for lac of probable cause&
Gimene9 moved for reconsideration! stressing the e
The RTC ordered the motion e
motion did not have the public prosecutors conformit(&
Gimene9 filed a notice of appeal& Alamil moved to e
The RTC denied the Gimene9@s notice of appeal since Gimene9 filed it without the conformit( of the Solicitor 2eneral! who is mandated to represent the People of the Philippines in criminal actions appealed to the CA&
Thus! the RTC ordered the notice of appeal e
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration that followed&
ISS)4/hether Gimene9! the private complainant! has legal personalit( in assailing the RTC 5rders&
RLING4 o& RAT%5:
%t is wellsettled that >ever( action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real part( in interest6!7> >who stands to be bene*ted or inLured b( the Ludgment in the suit! or b( the part( entitled to the avails of the suit&> %nterest means material interest or an interest in issue to be a;ected b( the decree or Ludgment of the case! as distinguished from mere interest in the -uestion involved& ?( real interest is meant a present substantial interest! as distinguished from a mere e
Procedural law basicall( mandates that >6a7ll criminal actions commenced b( complaint or b( information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor&> %n appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before this Court! the 5S2 is the appellate counsel of the People! pursuant to Section 3#1$! Chapter 1"! Title %%%! ?oo %H of the 1=KI Administrative Code&
The People is the real part( in interest in a criminal case and onl( the 5S2 can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court& This ruling has been repeatedl( stressed in several cases and continues to be the controlling doctrine&
/hile there ma( be rare occasions when the offended part( ma( be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf #as when there is a denial of due process$! this e
Ru&e +AG)STRADO v. P)OPL)
Rule 111 M PreLudicial Ouestion
Private respondent .lena 8& 0ibroLo *led a criminal complaint for perLur( against petitioner with the 5Jce of the Cit( Prosecutor of Oue9on Cit(& After the *ling of petitioners counteraJdavit and the appended pleadings! the 5Jce of the Cit( Prosecutor recommended the *ling of an information for perLur( against petitioner& Thus! Assistant Cit( Prosecutor Gosephine Q& Fernande9 *led an information for perLur( against petitioner with the 8etropolitan Trial Court #8eTC$ of Oue9on Cit(& *ACTS4 Petitioner *led a motion for suspension of proceedings based on a preLudicial -uestion& Petitioner alleged that the case for recover( of a sum of mone( pending before the Regional Trial Court #RTC$ of Oue9on Cit( and case for Cancellation of 8ortgage! )eliver( of Title and )amages! pending before the RTC of Oue9on Cit( must be resolved *rst before Criminal Case #for perLur($ ma( proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or intimatel( related to the issues raised in the criminal action& +eTC: denied motion for suspension of proceedings& The motion lacs merit as it appears that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil actions is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused& 8R was liewise denied&
Aggrieved! petitioner *led petition for certiorari under rule with a pra(er for %ssuance of a /rit of Preliminar( %nLunction before the RTC of Oue9on Cit(! on the ground that 8eTC Gudge ?ill( G& Apalit committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e
)issatis*ed! petitioner *led with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule of the Revised Rules of Court arguing that the RTC Ludge gravel( abused its discretion& CA4 dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioners remed( should have been an appeal from the dismissal b( RTC?ranch K3 of his Petition forCertiorari.
4ence! petitioner comes before us via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule E of the Revised Rules of Court& ISS)4 /hether or not Gudge .strella T& .strada of the Regional Trial Court Oue9on Cit(! had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or in e
Petitioner harps on the need for the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case for perLur( pending before 8eTC based on a preLudicial -uestion still to be resolved in Civil Case #for cancellation of mortgage$ and Civil Case #for collection of a sum of mone($ which are pending before other trial courts& *or c&-rit', 5e s2-&& 6rst discuss t2e -&&e7-tions o8 petitioner in 2is co9p&-int in Civi& C-ses. FOR complaint for Cancellation of Mortgage, Delivery of Title and Damages led by petitioner against private respondent with RTC. Petitioner alleges that he purchased a parcel of land covered b( TCT thru private respondent! a real estate broer& %n the process of negotiation! petitioner was pressured to sign a )eed of Sale prepared b( private respondent& 'pon signing the )eed of Sale! he noticed that the )eed was alread( signed b( a certain Cristina 2on9ales as attorne(infact of vendor Spouses 2uillermo and Amparo
I
2alve9& Petitioner demanded from private respondent a special power of attorne( and authorit( to sell! but the latter failed to present one& Petitioner averred that private respondent refused to deliver the certi*cate of title of the land despite e
As to whether it is proper to suspend Criminal Case for perLur( pending *nal outcome of Civil Cases we tae into consideration Sections and I! Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court! which read: Sec& & !spension by reason of pre"dicial #estion & A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendenc( of a preLudicial -uestion in a civil action ma( be *led in the oJce of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminar( investigation& /hen the criminal action has been *led in court for trial! the petition to suspend shall be *led in the same criminal action at an( time before the prosecution rests& Sec& I& $lements of pre"dicial #estion & The elements of a preLudicial -uestion are: #a$ the previousl( instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimatel( related to the issue raised in the subse-uent criminal actionB and #b$ the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action ma( proceed& Pre:udici-& ;uestion, de6ned.A preLudial -uestion is de*ned as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein! and the cogni9ance of which pertains to another tribunal& The preLudicial -uestion must be determinative of the case before the court but the Lurisdiction to tr( and resolve the -uestion must be lodged in another court or tribunal& %t is a -uestion based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimatel( connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused& R-tion-&e o8 Pre:udici-&
accused would necessaril( be determined& Re;uisites o8 P<.#1$ the civil case involves facts intimatel( related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be basedB #"$ in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action! the guilt or
K
innocence of the accused would necessaril( be determinedB and #3$ Lurisdiction to tr( said -uestion must be lodged in another tribunal& Deter9in-tion o8 P< is -n e>ercise o8 discretion ?' t2e court.The court in which an action is pending ma(! in the e
%t is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independentl( of each other& Regardless of the outcome of the two civil cases! it will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for perLur(& The purchase b( petitioner of the land or his e
=
The Prosecution did not prove the elements of recless imprudence be(ond reasonable doubt because the circumstances cited b( the CA were insuJcient to establish that )r& Solidum had been guilt( of ine
1,
Wengaged in an( ind of industr(&Y The termindstry means an( department or branch of art! occupation or business! especiall( one that emplo(s labor and capital! and is engaged in industr(& 4owever! 5spital ng 8a(nila! being a public hospital! was not engaged in industr( conducted for pro*t but purel( in charitable and humanitarian wor& !econdly! assuming that 5spital ng 8a(nila was engaged in industr( for pro*t! )r& Solidum must be shown to be an emplo(ee of 5spital ng 8a(nila acting in the discharge of his duties during the operation on 2erald& et! he de*nitel( was not such emplo(ee but a consultant of the hospital& And! thirdly! assuming that civil liabilit( was adLudged against )r& Solidum as an emplo(ee #which did not happen here$! the e
ISS)H)LD4 /5 an accused in a pending criminal case for reclessimprudence can validl( *le! simultaneousl( and independentl(! a separate civil action for -uasidelict against the private complainant in the criminal case& AFF%R8AT%H. RATIO DICID)NDI4
The Court held that the 8CTC dismissed the civil action for -uasidelict on the ground of forumshopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular o& ,E=E& The 8CTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with preLudice& 'nder the Administrative Circular! the order of dismissal is without preLudice to re*ling the complaint! unless the order of dismissal e
11
with preLudice& Thus! the 8CTC@s dismissal! being silent on the matter! is a dismissal without preLudice& Section 1 of Rule E1 provides that an order dismissing an action without preLudice is not appealable& The remed( of the aggrieved part( is to *le a special civil action under Rule & Clearl(! the Capas RTC@s order dismissing the petit ion for certiorari on the groun d that the prope r remed( is an ordinar( appeal! is erroneous& 0aro(a *led the criminal case for recless imprudence resulting in damage to propert( based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo *led the civil action for damages based on Article "1I of the Civil Code& Although these two actions arose from the same act or omission! the( have di;erent causes of action& The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised Penal Code while the civil case is based on culpa a-uiliana actionable under Articles "1I and "1II of the Civil Code& And par ! sec 1 of Rule 111& Since the present Rules re-uire the accused in a criminal action to *le his counterclaim in a separate civil action! there can be no forumshopping if the accused *les such separate civil action& 'nder the present Rule 111! the o;ended part( is still given the option to *le a separate civil action to recover civil liabilit( e<delicto b( reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence& Also! the o;ended part( is deemed to mae such reservation if he *les a separate civil action before *ling the criminal action& %f the civil action to recover civil liabilit( e<delicto is *led separatel( but its trial has not (et commenced! the civil action ma( be consolidated with the criminal action& The consolidation under this Rule does not appl( to separate civil actions arising from the same act or omission *led under Articles 3"! 33! 3E and "1I of the Civil Code& Section "! Rule 111 of the present Rules did not change the rule that the separate civil action! *led to recover damages e<delicto! is suspended upon the *ling of the criminal action& Section " of the present Rule 111 also prohibits the *ling! after commencement of the criminal action! of a separate civil action to recover damages e<delicto& Section 3 of the present Rule 111! lie its counterpart in the amended 1=K Rules! eo;ended part(> to bring an independent civil action under Articles 3"! 33! 3E and "1I of the Civil Code& As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111! this civil action shall proceed independentl( of the criminal action and shall re-uire onl( a preponderance of evidence& %n no case! however! ma( the >o;ended part( recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action&> There is no -uestion that the o;ended part( in the criminal action can *le an independent civil action for -uasidelict against the accused& Section 3 of the present Rule 111 eo;ended part(> ma( bring such an action but the >o;ended part(> ma( not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action& Clearl(! Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the o;ended part( in the criminal action! not to the accused& Thus! the o;ended part( can *le two separate suits for the same act or omission& The *rst a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liabilit( e<delicto is deemed instituted! and the other a civil case for -uasidelict U without violating the rule on nonforum shopping& The two cases can proceed simultaneousl( and independentl( of each other& The commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the civil action for -uasidelict& The onl( limitation is that the o;ended part( cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant& %n most cases! the o;ended part( will have no reason to *le a second civil action since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused& %n some instances! the accused ma( be insolvent! necessitating the *ling of another case against his emplo(er or guardians& Similarl(! the accused can *le a civil action for -uasidelict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case& This is ema( be litigated in a separate civil action&> This is onl( fair for two reasons& First! the accused is prohibited from setting up an( counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case& The accused is therefore forced to litigate separatel( his counterclaim against
1"
the o;ended part(& %f the accused does not *le a separate civil action for -uasidelict! the prescriptive period ma( set in since the period continues to run until the civil action for -uasidelict is *led& Second! the accused! who is presumed innocent! has a right to invoe Article "1II of the Civil Code! in the same wa( that the o;ended part( can avail of this remed( which is independent of the criminal action& To disallow the accused from *ling a separate civil action for -uasidelict! while refusing to recogni9e his counterclaim in the criminal case! is to den( him due process of law! access to the courts! and e-ual protection of the law&Thus! the civil action based on -uasidelict *led separatel( b( Casupanan and Capitulo is proper& RL) , S)C. # )ect o8 de-t2 on civi& -ctions DOCTRIN)4 T2e de-t2 o8 t2e -ccused -8ter -rr-i7n9ent -nd durin7 t2e pendenc' o8 t2e cri9in-& -ction s2-&& e>tin7uis2 t2e civi& &i-?i&it' -risin7 8ro9 t2e de&ict
Please pa( attention to second #issue"$& ung main case asi hind nag focus sa rule 111 sec E&Thans G.R. No. "!1 Apri& ", !!! P)OPL) O* TH) PHILIPPIN)S, vs& +ARTIN L. RO+)RO -nd )RN)STO C. RODRIG)/ *ACTS4
The case before the court is an appeal of accused 8artin 0& Romero and .rnesto C& Rodrigue9 from the Loint Ludgment of the regional trial court butuan cit(& Convicting each of them of estafa under article 31 of the rpc& %n relation to P&)& o& 1K= and sentencing each of them to Lointl( and severall ( pa( .rnesto A& Rui9 the amount of #1,!,,,$ Rui9 was a radio commentator in ?utuan Cit(& 4e learned about the business of Surigao San Andres %ndustrial )evelopment Corporation #SA%).C5R$! when he interviewed Romero and Rodrigue9 regarding the corporation@s investment operations in ?utuan Cit( and Agusan del orte& Romero was the president and general manager of SA%).C5R! while Rodrigue9 was the operations manager& SA%).C5R started its operation as a mareting business& 0ater! it engaged in soliciting funds and investments from the public& The corporation guaranteed an K,,X return on investment within *fteen #1$ or twent( one #"1$ da(s& %nvestors were given coupons containing the capital and the return on the capital collectible on the date agreed upon& %t stopped operations in September! 1=K=& 5n September 1E! 1=K=! Rui9 went to SA%).C5R oJce in ?utuan Cit( to mae an investment& After handing over the amount of P1, to Rodrigue9! Rui9 received a postdated chec instead of the usual redeemable coupon& The check indicated P1,000,200.00 as the amount in words, but the amount in fgures was or P1,200,000.00, as the return on the investment. Rui9 did not notice the discrepanc(& /hen the chec was presented to the ban for pa(ment on 5ctober ! 1=K=! it was dishonored for insuJcienc( of funds! as evidenced b( the chec return slip issued b( the ban& Romero and Rodrigue9 could not be located and demand for pa(ment was made onl( sometime in ovember 1=K= during the preliminar( investigation of this case& Romero and Rodrigue9 responded that the( had no mone(&
13
Romero and Rodrigue9 were both convicted for the crime of estafa& The( claimed that the( had suJcient funds in the ban! but it was dishonored because what was recogni9ed was the amount in *gures #P1!",,!,,,&,,$ instead of the amount in words #P1!,,,!",,&,,$& 4owever during the pendenc( of the appeal on ovember 1" 1==I! accused .rnesto Rudrigue9 died& ISS) 4/N the court erred in convicting Romero and Rodrigue9 on the basis of the dishonored chec H)LD 4 o& There is no merit in this appeal& /e sustain accusedappellant@s conviction&
Accusedappellant relies on the fact that there was a discrepanc( between the amount in words and the amount in *gures in the chec that was dishonored& The amount in words was P1!,,,!",,&,,! while the amount in *gures was P1!",,!,,,&,,& %t is admitted that the corporation had in the ban P1!1EE!I,&,, on September "K! 1=K=! and P1!1"E!3,I&1E on April "! 1==,& The chec was presented for pa(ment on 5ctober ! 1=K=& The rule in the egotiable %nstruments 0aw is that when there is ambiguit( in the amount in words and the amount in *gures! it would be the amount in words that would prevail& 4owever! this rule of interpretation *nds no application in the case& The agreement was perfectl( clear that at the end of twent( one #"1$ da(s! the investment of P1,!,,,&,, would become P1!",,!,,,&,,& .ven if the trial court admitted the stipulation of facts! it would not be favorable to accusedappellant& ISS) "4 =2et2er or not )rnesto Rodri7ueEs cri9in-& &i-?i&it' -nd civi& &i-?i&it' s2ou&d ?e e>tin7uis2F H)LD "4 @)S. As provided in ru&e section # o8 t2e ru&es o8 court it st-te t2-t4
Sec& E& .;ect of death on civil actions& M The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendenc( of the criminal action shall e
Li&' Li9 v ou Co Pin7
Principle: A single act or omission that cause damage to an o;ended part( ma( gave rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the o;ender M #1$ civil liabilit( e< delicto! that is! civil liabilit( arising from the
1E
criminal o;ense under Article 1,, of the Revised Penal Code and #"$ independent civil liabilit(! that is civil liabilit( that ma( be pursued independentl( of the criminal proceedings& The independent civil liabilit( ma( be based on Wan obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as felon(Y& %t ma( also be based on an act or omission that ma( constitute felon( but! nevertheless! treated independentl( from the criminal action b( speci*c provision of the Article 33 of the Civil Code& Facts: FR Cement Corporation issued several withdrawal authorities for the account of cement dealers and traders! FilCement and Tigerbilt& .ach withdrawal authorit( contained provision that it is valid for si< months from its date of issuance! unless revoed b( FRCC 8areting )epartment& Filcement and Tigerbilt sold their withdrawal authoriti es to Co& 5n Februar( Co then sold these withdrawal authorities to 0im& 'sing the withdrawal authorities 0im withdrew cement bags from FRCC on a staggered basis& Sometime in April 1===! FRCC did not allow 0im to withdraw the remaining bags covered b( the withdrawal authorities& 0im clari*ed the withand Co would and administrative manager FilCement! that the implemented pricematter increase onl( release the goodsofonce 0im pa(swho thee
?ernardo Hergara! Gr&$ against Rosa Fene-uito! Cora9on .& 4ernande9! and 0auro 4& Rodrigue9& 5n April "3! ",,E! Fene-uito! et al& *led a 8otion to )ismiss the case based on Absence of Probable Cause& The 8eTC issued an order granting the said motion& 'pon appeal b( the public prosecutor! however! the RTC set aside the 8eTC@s order and directed the latter to proceed to trial& Fene-uito! et al& *led an appeal before the CA!
1
which subse-uentl( ruled that the RTC@s assailed decision was interlocutor( in nature and was therefore not appealable& 4ence! the instant petition for review& ISS)4 =ON decision was interlocutor( =ON there is probable cause H)LD4 . 5ne of the grounds for the CA@s outright dismissal of Fene-uito et al&@s petition for review was because of the latter@s failure to submit copies of pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the petition *led! as re-uired under Section "! Rule E" of the Rules of Court& %t is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due processB it is merel( a statutor( privilege! and ma( be e
statutor( an appealing part(attitude must strictl( the re-uisites laid down indesigned the Rulesto offacilitate Court& Theright! rationale for this strict is not compl( diJcultwith to appreciate as the Rules are the orderl( disposition of appealed cases& ?ut even if the Court bends its Rules to allow the present petition! the Court still *nds no cogent reason to depart from the assailed ruling of the CA& This is because Fene-uito et al& erroneousl( assumed that the RTC )ecision is *nal and appealable! when in fact it is interlocutor(& An order is interlocutor( if it does not dispose of a case completel(! but leaves something more to be done upon its merits& %n contrast! a *nal order is one that which disposes of the whole subLect matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action! leaving nothing to be done but to enforce b( ereveal divergences in the manner of e The Court agrees with the prosecutor@s pronouncement in its Resolution dated September ""! ",,3! that although the *ndings
of the PP Crime 0aborator( were -uali*ed b( the statement contained in the Report that >no de*nite conclusion can be rendered due to the fact that -uestioned signatures are photocopies wherein minute details are not clearl( manifested!> the fact that an eactual and positive cause> nor does it import absolute certaint(& %t is merel( based on opinion and reasonable belief& Probable cause does not re-uire an in-uir( into whether there is suJcient evidence to procure a conviction& %t is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the o;ense charged& A *nding of probable cause needs onl( to rest on evidence showing that! more liel( than not! a crime has been committed b( the suspects& %t need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt! not on evidence establishing guilt be(ond reasonable doubt! and de*nitel( not on evidence establishing absolute certaint( of guilt& %n determining probable cause! the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical nowledge& 4e relies on
1
common sense& /hat is determined is whether there is suJcient ground to engender a wellfounded belief that a crime has been committed! and that the accused is probabl( guilt( thereof and should be held for trial& %t does not re-uire an in-uir( as to whether there is suJcient evidence to secure a conviction& BRGND@ R)ALT@ VS. R)@)S
2R& 1K1,"1 )ecember 1,! ",1" FACTS: Gosefa Re(es o;ered her services to ?urgund( Realt( to be the latters real estate agent in bu(aing parcels of land in Calamba! 0aguna! which are to be developed into a golf course& ?urgund( Realt( released the amount of P"3!E"3!3"I&, for bu(ing certain parcels of land& 4owever! Re(es converted and misappropriated the mone( for her personal use and bene*t& Re(es denied the allegation& She alleged that it was her subbroer 8ateo .loLorde who was depositing the mone( entrusted to him to his personal account& 5n 8arch "K! ",,,! through a board resolution! petitioner allegedl( authori9ed Re(es to institute! proceed! pursue and continue with whatever criminal or civil action against 8ateo .leLorde& After the Preliminar( %nvestigation! the Assistant Prosecutor of 8aati recommended that Re(e be indicted for .stafa& Re(es *led a Petition for Review in the )5G Secretar( that reversed the recoomendation of the Assistant Prosecutor& 4ence the petition& %SS'.: /5 the Secretar( of Gustice was correct in reversing the recommendation of the Assistant Prosecutor& 4.0): 5& %t must be remembered that the *nding of probable cause was made after conducting a preliminar( investigation& A preliminar( investigation constitutes a realistic Ludicial appraisal of the merits of a case& %ts purpose is to determine whether #a$ a crime has been committedB and #b$ whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilt( thereof& This Court need not overemphasi9e that in a preliminar( investigation! the public prosecutor merel( determines whether there is probable cause or suJcient ground to engender a wellfounded belief that a crime has been committed! and that the respondent is probabl( guilt( thereof and should be held for trial& %t does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a Ludgment of conviction re-uires after trial on the merits& The complainant need not present at this stage proof be(ond reasonable doubt& A preliminar( investigation does not re-uire a full and e
1I
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinar( caution and prudence to believe! or entertain an honest or strong suspicion! that a thing is so& T2e ter9 does not 9e-n -ctu-& or positive c-use nor does it i9port -?so&ute cert-int'& It is 9ere&' ?-sed on opinion -nd re-son-?&e ?e&ie8. T2us, - 6ndin7 o8 pro?-?&e c-use does not re;uire -n in;uir' into 52et2er t2ere is sucient evidence to procure conviction& It is enou72 t2-t it is ?e&ieved t2-t t2e -ct or o9ission co9p&-ined o8 constitutes t2e oense c2-r7ed. Ru&e ( ANTI<)RA vs P)OPL) 1"N11N",13 *ACTS4 Assistant Cit( Prosecutor of Pasa( Cit( charged the accused 2eorge Codes Anti-uera and Cora9on 5liven9a Cru9 with illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs& The prosecution evidence shows that at around E:E a&m& of Februar( 11! ",,E! P51 2regorio Recio! P51 0aurence Cabutihan! PN%nsp& .ric %bon! P51 Rodelio Rania! and two civilian operatives on board a patrol car and a tric(cle were conducting a police visibilit( patrol on )avid Street! Pasa( Cit(! when the( saw two unidenti*ed men rush out of house number 1,IC and immediatel( boarded a Leep&
Suspecting that a crime had been committed! the police oJcers approached the house from where the men came and peeed through the partiall( opened door& P51 Recio and P51 Cabutihan saw accused Anti-uera holding an improvised tooter and a pin lighter& ?eside him was his livein partner! Cru9! who was holding an aluminum foil and an improvised burner& The( sat facing each other at the living room& This prompted the police oJcers to enter the house! introduce themselves! and arrest Anti-uera and Cru9& /hile inspecting the immediate surroundings! P51 Cabutihan saw a wooden Lewelr( bo< atop a table& %t contained an improvised burner! wo! scissors! 1, small transparent plastic sachets with traces of white cr(stalline substance! improvised scoop! and seven unused strips of aluminum foil& The police oJcers con*scated all these and brought Anti-uera and Cru9 to the )rug .nforcement 'nit of the Philippine ational Police in Pasa( Cit( for further investigation and testing RTC rendered a )ecision& RTC found accused Anti-uera and Cru9 guilt( of the crime charged& 5n appeal! the CA aJrmed& %SS'.: /hether CA erred in *nding accused Anti-uera guilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia based on the evidence of the police oJcers that the( saw him and Cru9 in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia 4.0): .S& Section #a$! Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a >peace oJcer or a private person ma(! without a warrant! arrest a person when! in his presence! the person to be arrested has committed! is actuall( committing! or is attempting to commit an o;ense&> This is an arrest in agrante delicto& The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting oJcer& ?ut the circumstances here do not mae out a case of arrest made in agrante delicto& 1& The police oJcers claim that the( were alerted when the( saw two unidenti*ed men suddenl( rush out of 1,I )avid Street! Pasa( Cit(& Since the( suspected that a crime had been committed! the natural thing for them to do was to give chase to the Leep that the two eeing men boarded! given that the oJcers were in a patrol car and a tric(cle& Running after the eeing suspects was the more urgent tas but the oJcers instead gave priorit( to the house even when the( heard no cr( for help from it&B "& Admittedl(! the police oJcers did not notice an(thingits amiss going on in the house street where the( stood& %ndeed! evenit&as the( peeed through partiall( opened door! the(from saw the no activit( that warranted their entering Clearl(! no crime was plainl( e
1K
the search and sei9ure that resulted from it was liewise illegal& Conse-uentl(! the various drug paraphernalia that the police oJcers allegedl( found in the house and sei9ed are inadmissible! having proceeded from an invalid search and sei9ure The failure of the accused to obLect to the irregularit( of his arrest b( itself is not enough to sustain his conviction& A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carr( with it a waiver of the inadmissibilit( of evidence sei9ed during the illegal warrantless arrest& ROD)L L/ ' ONG, petit ioner, vs. P)OPL) O* TH) PHILIPPIN)S, respondent. Under R.A. 1!", or the #and Trans$ortation and Tra%c &ode, the genera' $rocedure or dea'ing with a tra%c vio'ation is not the arrest o the o(ender, but the confscation o the driver )s 'icense o the 'atter.*Arrest is the taking o a $erson into custod+ in order that he or she ma+ be bound to answer or the commission o an o(ense.t is e(ected b+ an actua' restraint o the $erson to be arrested or b+ that $erson)s vo'untar+ submission to the custod+ o the one making the arrest. -either the a$$'ication o actua' orce, manua' touching o the bod+, or $h+sica' restraint, nor a orma' dec'aration o arrest, is reuired. t is enough that there be an intention on the $art o one o the $arties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the $art o the other to submit, under the be'ie and im$ression that submission is necessar+. &ustodia' nterrogation/ The roadside uestioning o a motorist does not a'' under custodia' interrogation, nor can it be considered a orma' arrest.*n erkemer v. c&art+, the United tates 3U..4 u$reme &ourt discussed at 'ength whether the roadside uestioning o a motorist detained $ursuant to a routine tra%c sto$ shou'd be considered custodia' interrogation. The &ourt he'd that, such uestioning does not a'' under custodia' interrogation, nor can it be considered a orma' arrest, b+ virtue o the nature o the uestioning, the e5$ectations o the motorist and the o%cer, and the 'ength o time the $rocedure is conducted. At the time a $erson is arrested, it sha'' be the dut+ o the arresting o%cer to inorm the 'atter o the reason or the arrest and must show that $erson the warrant o arrest, i an+.*Persons sha'' be inormed o their constitutiona' rights to remain si'ent and to counse', and that an+ statement the+ might make cou'd be used against them. t ma+ a'so be noted that in this case, these constitutiona' reuirements were com$'ied with b+ the $o'ice o%cers on'+ ater $etitioner had been arrested or i''ega' $ossession o dangerous drugs. 6A&T7 %O) $mmanel &. *lte+a, who was then assigned at the !b!tation - of the aga City %olice !tation as a tra/c enforcer, sbstantially testied that on March -0, )001 at arond 1(00 o'cloc2 in the morning, he saw the accsed, who was coming from the direction of %anganiban Drive and going to Diversion Road, aga City, driving a motorcycle withot a helmet3 that this prompted him to 4ag down the accsed for violating a mnicipal ordinance which re#ires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet 5sic6 while driving said motor vehicle3 that he invited the accsed to come inside their sbstation since the place where he 4agged down the accsed is almost in front of the said sbstation3 that while he and !%O- Rayford 7rillante were issing a citation tic2et for violation of mnicipal ordinance, he noticed that the accsed was neasy and 2ept on getting something from his "ac2et3 that he was alerted and so, he told the accsed to ta2e ot the contents of the poc2et of his "ac2et as the latter may have a weapon inside it3 that the accsed obliged and slowly pt ot the contents of the poc2et of his "ac2et which was a nic2elli2e tin or metal container abot two 5)6 to three 516 inches in si+e, inclding two 5)6 cellphones, one 5-6 pair of scissors and one 5-6 !wiss 2nife3 that pon seeing the said container, he as2ed the accsed to open it3 that after the accsed opened the container, he noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it3 and that pon his instrction, the accsed spilled ot the contents of the container on the table which trned ot to be for 586 plastic sachets, the two 5)6 of which were empty while the other two 5)6 contained sspected shab. *rraigned on ) 9ly )001, petitioner, assisted by consel, entered a plea of :ot gilty: to the charge of illegal possession of dangeros drgs. Dring trial, %olice O/cer 1 5%O16 $mmanel *lte+a and a forensic chemist testied for the prosection. On the other hand, petitioner testied for himself and raised the defense of planting of evidence and e;tortion.
1=
RTC convicted petitioner. $!. Ong was ac#itted.
First, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. ?hen he was 4agged down for committing a tra/c violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. *t the time that he was waiting for %O1 *lte+a to write his citation tic2et, petitioner cold not be said to have been :nder arrest.: There was no intention on the part of %O1 *lte+a to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or ta2e him into cstody. %rior to the issance of the tic2et, the period dring which petitioner was at the police station may be characteri+ed merely as waiting time.
Ru&e # /NO VS CAB)B)
FACTS: Chief State Prosecutor Govencito R& Quno of the )epartment of Gustice! against *led a complaint against Gudge AleLandrino C& Cabebe! then Presiding Gudge! Regional Trial Court! ?ranch 1K! ?atac! %locos orte& The charges are nowingl( rendering an unLust Ludgment! gross ignorance of the law and partialit(& %n his complaint! Quno alleged that in a criminal case for illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs *led with the Regional Trial Court! ?ranch 1K! ?atac! %locos orte against *ve police oJcers& 'pon arraignment! all the accused! assisted b( their counsel de parte, pleaded not guilt( to the crime charged& Conse-uentl(! the accused *led a motion to dismiss invoing as ground the right of the accused to a speed( trial& 5n ovember ! ",,"! respondent Ludge mot propio issued an 5rder 7 granting bail to the accused! *
",
%n his comment! respondent denied the charges& /hile admitting that he issued the 5rder dated ovember ! ",," granting bail to the accus ed without an( hearing! the same was prem ised on the constitutional right of the accused to a speed( trial& There was dela( in the proceedings due to complainants fre-uent absences and failure of the witnesses for the prosecution to appear in court! resulting in the cancellation of the hearings& The prosecution did not obLect to the grant of bail to the accused& 4e added that the administrative complaint *led against him is purel( harassment& %t is not the appropriate remed( to -uestion his alleged erroneous 5rder& Accordingl(! and considering his fort( #E,$ (ears of government service! he pra(s that the administrative complaint be dismissed& 5ne (ear later! respondent Ludge retired from service& )eput( Court Administrator Gose P& Pere9 found respondent Ludge liable for gross ignorance of the law and recommended that a *ne of P",!,,,&,, be imposed upon him! with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar o;ense will be dealt with more severel(& %SS'.: /hether or not the bail was granted properl( 4.0): 5& %n DocenaCaspe vs. 9dge *rnlfo O. 7gtas ! we held that Lurisprudence is replete with decisions on the procedural necessit( of a hearing! whether summar( or otherwise! relative to the grant of bail! especiall( in cases involving o;enses punishable b( death! reclsion perpeta! or life imprisonment! where bail is a matter of discretion& 'nder the present Rules! a hearing is mandator( in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion. %t must be stressed that the grant or the denial of bail in cases where bail is a matter of discretion! hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong! and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of Ludicial discretion which remains with the Ludge& %n order for the latter to properl( e
%n Cortes vs. C-tr-& ! we laid down the following rules outlining the duties of the Ludge in case an application for bail is *led: 1& %n all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion! notif( the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or re-uire him to submit his recommendation #Section 1K! Rule 11E of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure$B "& /here bail is a matter of discretion! conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to e
"1
3& )ecide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summar( of evidence of the prosecutionB E& %f the guilt of the accused is not strong! discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond #Section 1=! id&$B otherwise the petition should be denied& ?ased on the abovecited procedure! after the hearing! the court@s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summar( of the evidence of the prosecution and based thereon! the Ludge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused& Respondent Ludge did not follow the above Rules and procedure enumerated in Cortes& 4e did not conduct a hearing before he granted bail to the accused! thus depriving the prosecution of an opportunit( to interpose obLections to the grant of bail& %rrespective of his opinion on the strength or weaness of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused! he should have conducted a hearing and thereafter made a summar( of the evidence these of the are prosecution& Theaspects importance of a bail hearing and afor summar( of prosecution evidence cannot be downpla(ed! considered of procedural due process both the and the defenseB its absence will invalidate the grant or denial of bail& 2R o& 1K=1"" 8arch 1I! ",1, JOS) ANTONIO L)VIST) v. TH) CORT O* APP)ALS -nd t2e P)OPL) O* TH) PHILIPPIN)S
Facts: Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas! petitioner Gose Antonio 0eviste was convicted b( the Regional Trial Court of 8aati Cit( for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to su;er an indeterminate penalt( of si< (ears and one da( of prision ma(or as minimum to 1" (ears and one da( of reclusion temporal as ma
""
Ru&e 0
P.5P0. 5F T4. P4%0%PP%.S! Plainti;Appellee! vs& A0FR.)5 PA2%0%A ( TR%%)A)! AccusedAppellant& 2&R& o& 1I1,", . ?AC 8arch 1E! ",,I
FACTS: was charged with " informations for the rape of his daught er! AAA Pangilinan was arrested and Pangilinan detained with no bail recommended
4e then *led a petition for bailThe petition for bail was heard and prosecution presented evidence RTC denied petition)efense then presented its evidenceRTC #having discovered that Pangilinan was not (et arraigned$ scheduled his arraignmentPangilinan pleaded not guilt(RTC convicted himB sentenced him to death
%SS'.: /hether the belated arraignment was valid 4.0): .S& 5n the *rst assigned error! appellant assails his conviction because he was not properl( arraigned& Since he was arraigned onl( after the case was submitted for decision! said irregularit(! he argues! is a procedural error which is preLudicial to the appellant and is tantamount to denial of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him& 4e claims that his subse-uent arraignment did not cure the defect in the trial proceedings because at the time the petition for bail was heard! the trial court had not (et ac-uired Lurisdiction over his person& Appellant is mistaen& /hen the hearings for his petition for bail were conducted! the trial court had alread( ac-uired Lurisdiction over his person& Settled is the rule that Lurisdiction over the person of the accused is ac-uired upon his arrest or voluntar( appearance&1= %n the case at bar! the trial court ac-uired Lurisdiction over the person of the appellant when he was arrested on 1= 8arch 1==I& 4is arrest! not his arraignment! conferred on the trial court Lurisdiction over his person& Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him&", The purpose of arraignment is! thus! to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom! even of his life! depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him! or at the ver( least to inform him of wh( the prosecuting arm of the State is mobili9ed against him&"1 Admittedl(! appellant was arraigned after the case was submitted for decision& The -uestion is: /ere appellants rights and interests preLudiced b( the fact that he was arraigned onl( at this stage of the proceedingsZ
"3
=e do not t2in so. Appe&&-ntEs ?e&-ted -rr-i7n9ent did not pre:udice 2i9. T2is procedur-& de8ect 5-s cured 52en 2is counse& p-rticip-ted in t2e tri-& 5it2out r-isin7 -n' o?:ection t2-t 2is c&ient 2-d 'et to ?e -rr-i7ned. In 8-ct, 2is counse& even crossKe>-9ined t2e prosecution 5itnesses. His counse&Es -ctive p-rticip-tion in t2e 2e-rin7s is - c&e-r indic-tion t2-t 2e 5-s 8u&&' -5-re o8 t2e c2-r7es -7-inst 2i9 ot2er5ise, 2is counse& 5ou&d 2-ve o?:ected -nd in8or9ed t2e court o8 t2is ?&under. +oreover, no protest 5-s 9-de 52en -ppe&&-nt 5-s su?se;uent&' -rr-i7ned. T2e p-rties did not ;uestion t2e procedure undert-en ?' t2e tri-& court. It is on&' no5, -8ter ?ein7 convicted -nd sentenced to t5o de-t2 sentences, t2-t -ppe&&-nt cries t2-t 2is constitution-& ri72t 2-s ?een vio&-ted. It is -&re-d' too &-te to r-ise t2is procedur-& de8ect. T2is Court 5i&& not -&&o5 it.
%n People v& Cabale"" and People v& Atien9a"3 where the same issue was raised under similar circumstances! we held that the arraignment appellant was conducted after appellants the cases had been submitted decision! the while error is non preLudicialofand has been full( cured& Since rights and interestsfor were not preLudiced b( this lapse in procedure! it onl( follows that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was not violated& D--n vs. S-ndi7-n?-'-n, G.R. Nos. 0(!3"K33 +-rc2 "1, "$$1
G5S.0%T5 RA%.R5 G& )AA! Petitioner! vs& T4. 45& SA)%2A?AA Respondent&
*ACTS4 Petitioner was one of the accused charged for three counts of malversation of public funds involving the sums of P3!"=3&,,! P1!K=&,,! and P13!"K&,,! respectivel(! which the( purportedl( tried to conceal b( falsif(ing the time boo and pa(rolls for given period maing it appear that some laborers wored on the construction of the new municipal hall building of ?ato! 0e(te and collected their respective salaries thereon
when! in truth and in fact! the( did not& Thus! in addition to the charge for malversation! the accused were also indicted before this Court for three counts of falsi*cation of public document b( a public oJcer or emplo(ee& %n the falsi*cation cases! the accused o;ered to withdraw their plea of >not guilt(> and substitute the same with a plea of >guilt(>! provided! the mitigating circumstances of confession or plea of guilt and voluntar( surrender will be appreciated in their favor& %n the alternative! if such proposal is not acceptable! said accused proposed instead to substitute their plea of >not guilt(> to the crime of falsi*cation of public document b( a public oJcer or emplo(ee with a plea of >guilt(>! but to the lesser crime of falsi*cation of a public document b( a private individual& 5n the other hand! in the malversation cases! the accused o;ered to substitute their plea of >not guilt(> thereto with a plea of >guilt(>! but to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable oJcer to render accounts& The prosecution accepted the said o;er of the petitioner& The Sandiganba(an! however! denied the said 8otion for Plea ?argain on the main ground that no cogent reason was presented to Lustif( its approval& 8R was liewise denied& 4ence this petition& Petitioner argues that the !andiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in den(ing his plea bargaining o;er on the following grounds: *rst! petitioner is not an accountable oJcer and he merel( aJroutinar( basis!> negating an( criminal intentB and that the amount involved is onl( P1K!K,&,,! which he alread( restituted& ISS)4 /hether the o;er of plea bargain of the petitioner is meritorious H)[email protected](! plea bargaining is made during the pretrial stage of the proceedings& Sections 1 and "! Rule 11K of the Rules of Court! re-uire plea bargaining to be considered b( the trial court at the pretrial
"E
conference& ?ut it ma( also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has *nished presenting its evid ence and rested its case & Thus! the Court has held that it is immaterial that plea bargaining was not made during the pretrial stage or that it was made onl( after the prosecution alread( presented several witnesses& Section "! Rule 11 of the Rules of Court presents the basic re-uisites upon which plea bargaining ma( be made! i.e.! that it should be with the consent of the o;ended part( and the prosecutor! 1, and that the plea of guilt should be to a lesser o;ense which is necessaril( included in the o;ense charged& The rules however use word ma( in the second sentence of Section "! denoting an eonl( serve to triviali9e the seriousness of the charges against them and send the wrong signal to potential grafters in public oJce that the penalties the( are liel( to face would be lighter than what their criminal acts would have merited or that the economic bene*ts the( are liel( to derive from their criminal activities far outweigh the riss the( face in committing themB thus! setting to naught the deterrent value of the laws intended to curb graft and corruption in government&>1I-avvphiApparentl(! the !andiganbayan has pro;ered valid reasons in reLecting petitioner@s plea o;er& 4owever! subse-uent events and higher interests of Lustice and fair pla( dictate that petitioner@s plea o;er should be accepted& The present case calls for the Ludicious e
"
A*n oBense may be said to necessarily inclde another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former as alleged in the complaint or information constitte the latter. *nd vice versa, an oBense may be said to be necessarily inclded in another when the essential ingredients of the former constitte or form part of those constitting the latter.
Ru&e 3 P-n-7uiton v. DOJ, Ton7son, C-5i&i *ACTS: Cawili borrowed mone( from petitioner& As pa(ment for the loan! Cawili and Tongson Lointl( issued three checs in favor of petitioner& The checs were dishonored! either for insuJcienc( of funds or b( closure of the account& Petitioner *led a complaint for violation of ?P ""& The prosecutor found probable cause onl( with respect to Cawili as Tongsons defense that his signatures on the checs had been falsi*ed& Petitioner then *led a partial appeal before the )5G even while the case against Cawili was alread( *led in court& The Chief State Prosecutor directed the cit( prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation and to refer the falsi*ed document to the ?%& After reinvestigation! still onl( probable cause with respect to Cawili was sustained& %n the cit( prosecutors resolution! it was held that the case with respect to Tongson had alread( prescribed pursuant to Act o& 33" which provides that violations penali9ed b( ?&P& ?lg& "" shall prescribe after four #E$ (ears& n this case! the four #E$(ear period started on the date the checs were dishonored! or on ", Ganuar( 1==3 and 1K 8arch 1==3& The *ling of the complaint before the Oue9on Cit( Prosecutor on "E August 1== did not interrupt the runni ng of the prescriptive period! as the law contemplates Ludicial! and not administrative proceedings& Thus! considering that from 1==3 to 1==K! more than four #E$ (ears had alread( elapsed and no information had as (et been *led against Tongson! the alleged violation of ?&P& ?lg& "" imputed to him had alread( prescribed& 'ltimatel(! the )5G held that the action on the crime has prescribed&
%n Lustif(ing its resolution! the )5G e
WSec& "& Prescription shall begin to run from the da( of the commission of the violation of the law! and if the same be not nown at the time! from the discover( thereof and the institution o8 :udici-& proceedin7s 8or its investi7-tion -nd punis29ent& The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilt( person! and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting Leopard(&Y %t must be pointed out that when Act o& 33" was passed on E )ecember 1="! preliminar( investigation of criminal o;enses was conducted b( Lustices of the peace! thus! the phraseolog( in the law! >institution of Ludicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment!> and the prevailing rule at the time was that once a complaint is *led theoce Lustice of the peace preliminar( investigation! thee>e prescription theicio;ense is halted& W t2e terwith 9 Mpr edin7s E s2o u&d for no5 ?e unders tood eit2er cutive orof :ud & in c2-r-cterY # citing S.C v& %nterport Resources$& To rule otherwise would deprive the inLured part( the right to obtain vindication on account of dela(s that are not under his control #citing People v& 5larte$&
"
Cereo vs Peop&e, GR 1"($, June , "$ *-cts: Petitioner *led a complaint for libel against respondents& Finding probable cause! the Prosecutor *led the corresponding %nformation against them! but reversed its earlier *nding and recommended the withdrawal of the %nformation&
Rel(ing on the recommendation o f the prosecutor! the RTC ordered the criminal case dismissed on the ground that it is a settled rule that the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primaril( with the Public Prosecutor who is vested with -uasiLudicial discretion in the discharge of this function& ?eing vested with such power! he can reconsider his own resolution if he *nds that there is reasonable ground to do so& 4owever! upon petitioners motion for reconsideration! the RTC granted the same and reinstated the case after the )5G Secretar( reversed the resolution of the prosecutor& Issue: /hether or not the RTC Ludge necessaril( has to mae an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case& He&d: es& /ellentrenched is the rule that once a case is *led with the court! an( disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court& %n thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an %nformation! the trial court should not rel( solel( and merel( on the *ndings of the public prosecutor or the Secretar( of Gustice& %t is the courts bounden dut( to assess independentl( the merits of the motion! and this assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion& /hile the recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the )5G Secretar( is persuasive! it is not binding on courts&
?( rel(ing solel( on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution of the )5G Secretar(! the trial court abdicat ed its Ludicial power and refused to perform a positive dut( enLoine d b( law& The said 5rders were thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and violated the complainants right to due process& The( were void! had no legal standing! and produced no e;ect whatsoever Ru&e 1 Ru&e ! +ANG)RRA v RISOS *-cts4
Respondents were charged with $stafaThrogh Falsication of %blic Docment before the RTC of Cebu Cit(& The case arose from the falsi*cation of a deed of real estate mortgage allegedl( committed b( respondents where the( made it appear that Concepcion! the owner of the mortgaged propert( nown as the 2orordo propert(! aJ
"I
Respondents assailed the RTC orders in a special civil action for certiorari& CA rendered a )ecisionfavorable to the respondents!the CA resolved the matter on its merit! declaring that the e
5n " 5ctober ",,E! 8aria Pimentel #private respondent$ *led an action for frustrated parricide against Goselito R& Pimentel in RTC Oue9on Cit(& 5n I Februar( ",,! petitioner received summons to appear before the RTC Antipolo for the pretrial and trial for )eclaration of ullit( of 8arriage under Section 3 of the Famil( Code on the ground of ps(chological incapacit(& 5n 11 Februar( ",,! petitioner *led motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Oue9on Cit( on the ground of the e
/hether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a preLudicial -uestion that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner&
"K
He&d4
o& 67 Section I! Rule 111 of the ",,, Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Section I& .lements of PreLudicial Ouestion& The elements of a preLudicial -uestion are: #a$ the previousl( instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimatel( related to the issue raised in the subse-uent criminal action and #b$ the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action ma( proceed& The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted *rst before the *ling of the criminal action& %n this case! clearl(! the civil case for annulment was *led after the *ling of the criminal case for frustrated parricide& The issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimatel( related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide& Further! the relationship between the o;ender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused& .ven if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled! petitioner could still be held criminall( liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime! he was still married to respondent&There is a preLudicial -uestion when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending! and there e
P)OPL) vs JOS) GO $1$0"$#
FACTS: 5n 5ctober 1E! 1==K! the 8onetar( ?oard of the ?ango Sentral ng Pilipinas #?SP$ issued Resolution ordering the closure of the 5rient Commercial ?aning Corporation #5C?C$ and placing such ban under the receivership of the Philippine )eposit %nsurance Corporation #P)%C$& P)%C! as the statutor( receiver of 5C?C! e;ectivel( too charge of 5C?Cs assets and liabilities& /hile all the aforementioned events were transpiring! P)%C began collecting on 5C?Cs past due loans receivable b( sending demand letters to its borrowers for the immediate settlement of their outstanding loans& Allegedl( among these borrowers of 5C?C are Timm(s! %nc& and Asia Te
"=
%n an 5rder dated )ecember 1=! ",,! the respondent RTC Ludge granted the private respondents 8otion for 0eave to File )emurrer to .vidence& 5n Ganuar( 1I! ",,I! the private respondents *led their )emurrer to .videnceI pra(ing for the dismissal of the criminal cases instituted against them due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt be(ond reasonable doubt& RTC Ludge found the private respondents )emurrer to .vidence to be meritorious dismissed the Criminal Cases and ac-uitted all of the accused& Private prosecutor in Criminal Case os& ,,1KI31K and ,,1KI31= moved for reconsideration but was denied& 5S2 moved for reconsideration but was denied! hence this petition& %SS'.: /5 2RAH. A?'S. 5F )%SCR.T%5 /AS C588%TT.) ? R.SP5).T RTC G')2. % 2RAT%2 T4. ).8'RR.R T5 .H%).C. #.S$B And /5 T4. 5R).R 5F ACO'%TTA0 4AS A0R.A) ATTA%.) F%A0%T /4. %T /AS 5T C4A00.2.) % A T%8.0 A) APPR5PR%AT. 8A.R #5$ 4.0): As a general rule! an order granting the accuseds demurrer to evidence amounts to an ac-uittal& There are certain ethat capricious or whimsical e %n the esuperintending control over inferior courts! we are to be guided b( all the circumstances of each particular case \as the ends of Lustice ma( re-uire& So it is that the writ will be granted where necessar( to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial Lustice&>EI 2uided b( the foregoing pronouncements! the Court declares that the CA grossl( erred in aJrming the trial courts Gul( "! ",,I 5rder granting the respondents demurrer! which 5rder was patentl( null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and manifest irregularit(! thus causing substantial inLur( to the baning industr( and public interest& The Court *nds that the prosecution has presented competent evidence to sustain the indictment for the crime of estafa through falsi*cation of commercial documents! and that respondents appear to be the perpetrators thereof& %n evaluating the evidence! the trial court e;ectivel( failed andNor refused to weigh the prosecutions evidence against the respondents! which it was dut(bound to do as a trier of factsB considering that the case involved hundreds of millions of pesos of 5C?C depositors mone( M not to mention that the baning industr( is impressed with public interest! the trial court should have conducted itself with circumspection and engaged in intelligent reection in resolving the issues& S-&v-ner- v. Peop&e
3,
State witness *ACTS4 %n an information! petitioner Salvanera! together with Feliciano Abutin! .dgardo 0ungca( and )omingo Tampeli
As per theor( of the prosecution! petitioner was the alleged mastermindB 0ungca(! the hired hitmanB Abutin! the driver of the motorc(cle which carried 0ungca( to the place of the commission of the crimeB while Tampeli< delivered the blood mone( to the latter& All the accused have been arrested and detained! e
The prosecution then appealed to the Court of Appeals& %t contended that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to discharge accused Abutin and Tampeli< to be state witnesses& %t alleged that the testimonies of the two accused are absolutel( necessar( to establish that petitioner masterminded the murder of Ruben Parane& CA4The Court of Appeals sustained the prosecution& %t discharged accused Feliciano Abutin and )omingo Tampeli< from the %nformation to become state witnesses ISS)4 /5 the CA erred in reversing the Trial Courts decision in discharging the accused Abutin and Tampeli< as State witness&
He&d. o] A. Re;uire9entsconditions to ?e considered in -&&o5in7 one to ?e - st-te 5it ness.%n the
discharge of an accused in order that he ma( be a state witness! the following conditions must be present! namel(: #1$ Two or more accused are Lointl( charged with the commission of an o;enseB #"$ The motion for discharge is *led b( the prosecution before it rests its caseB #3$ The prosecution is re-uired to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the dischargeB #E$ The accused gives his consent to be a state witnessB and #$ The trial court is satis*ed that: a$ There is absolute necessit' 8or t2e testi9on' o8 t2e -ccused whose discharge is re-uestedB b$ There is no ot2er direct evidence -v-i&-?&e for the proper prosecution of the o;ense committed! e
31
d$ Said accused does not -ppe-r to ?e t2e 9ost 7ui&t'B and! e$ Said -ccused 2-s not -t -n' ti9e ?een convicted o8 -n' oense invo&vin7 9or-& turpitude & . a'vanera)s Argument7 #accusedNpetitioner$According to petitioner! the testimon( of an accused sought to be discharged to become a state witness must be substantiall( corroborated! not ?' a coaccused liewise sought to be discharged!?ut ?' other prosecution witnesses who are not the accused in the same criminal case& Petitioner Lusti*es this theor( on the general principles of Lustice and sound logic& 4e contends that it is a notorious fact in human nature that a culprit! confessing a crime! is liel( to put the blame on others! if b( doing so! he will be freed from an( criminal responsibilit(& Thus! in the instant case! petitioner supposes that both Abutin and Tampeli< will naturall( sei9e the opportunit( to be absolved of an( liabilit( b( putting the blame on one of their coaccused& Petitioner argues that prosecution witnesses Parane and Sala9ar! who are not accused! do not have personal nowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged conspirac(& Thus! the( could not testif( to corroborate the statement of Abutin and Tampeli< that petitioner is the mastermind or the principal b( induction&
C& Courts ethere must be no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the o;ense committed! e The corroborative evidence re-uired b( the Rules does not have to consist of the ver( same evidence as will be testi*ed on b( the proposed state witnesses& /e have ruled that >a conspirac( is more readil( proved b( the acts of a fellow criminal than b( an( other method& %f it is shown that the statements of the conspirator are corroborated b( other evidence! then we have convincing proof of veracit(& $ven if the conrmatory testimony only applies to some particlars, we can properly infer that the witness has told the trth in other respects.>
%t is enough that the testimon( of a coconspirator is corroborated b( some other witness or evidence& %n the case at bar! we satis*ed fromb( a reading of thetestimonies records that the testimonies of Abutin and through Tampelito such e As part of the conspirac(! Abutin and Tampeli< can testif( on the criminal plan of the conspirators& ;here a crime is contrived in secret, the discharge o one o the cons$irators is essentia' because on'+ the+ have know'edge o the crime. The other prosecution witnesses are not e(ewitnesses to the crime! as! in fact! there is none& o one e
3"
JA+OLIN -nd CIT@ PROS)CTOR O* <)/ON CIT@ CLARO AR)LLANO, petitioners, vs. PAN*ILO +. LACSON, respondent. Provision-& Dis9iss-& Sec. 1. Provision-& dis9iss-&. A c-se s2-&& not ?e provision-&&' dis9issed e>cept 5it2 t2e e>press consent o8 t2e -ccused -nd 5it2 notice to t2e oended p-rt'. T2e provision-& dis9iss-& o8 oenses punis2-?&e i9prison9ent not e>ceedin7 si> 0 'e-rs or - 6ne o8 -n' -9ount, or ?ot2, s2-&& ?eco9e per9-nent one 'e-r -8ter issu-nce o8 t2e order 5it2out t2e c-se 2-vin7 ?een revived. =it2 respect to oenses punis2-?&e ?' i9prison9ent o8 9ore t2-n si> 0 'e-rs, t2eir provision-& dis9iss-& s2-&& ?eco9e per9-nent t5o " 'e-rs -8ter issu-nce o8 t2e order 5it2out t2e c-se 2-vin7 ?een revived. Conditions 8or t2e -pp&ic-?i&it' o8 Section 1, Ru&e 34 1& The prosecution! with the e
"&
The o;ended part( is noti*ed of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case
3&
The court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionall(
E&
The public prosecutor is served with a cop( of the order of provisional dismissal of the case
B)NJA+IN B. BANGA@AN, JR., petitioner, vs. SALL@ GO BANGA@AN, respondent. In cri9in-& c-ses, t2e -c;uitt-& o8 t2e -ccused or t2e dis9iss-& o8 t2e c-se -7-inst 2i9 c-n on&' ?e -ppe-&ed ?' t2e So&icitor Gener-&, -ctin7 on ?e2-&8 o8 t2e St-te.QT2is Court &e-ns to5-rd Res-&&'Es contention t2-t S-&&' Go 2-d no person-&it' to 6&e t2e petition 8or certiorari beore the &A. t has been consistent'+ he'd that in crimina' cases, the acuitta' o the accused or the dismissa' o the case against him can on'+ be a$$ea'ed b+ the o'icitor
7en"amin and !ally's cohabitation prodced two children, 7ernice and 7entley. Dring the period of their cohabitation, they ac#ired several real properties. The relationship of 7en"amin and !ally ended when !ally left for Canada, bringing 7ernice and 7entley with her. !he then led criminal actions for bigamy and falsication of pblic docments against 7en"amin, sing their simlated marriage contract as evidence. 7en"amin, in trn, led a petition for declaration of a none;istent marriage andor declaration of nllity of marriage before the trial cort on the grond that his marriage to !ally was bigamos and that it lac2ed the formal re#isites to a valid marriage.
33
The trial cort rled in favor of 7en"amin. -6 the marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the ational !tatistics O/ce becase it cold not be registered de to 7en"amin's sbsisting marriage with *+cena3 )6 that the marriage between 7en"amin and !ally was not bigamos3 and 16 that the second marriage was void not becase of the e;istence of the rst marriage bt becase of other cases, particlarly, the lac2 of a marriage license. @ence, bigamy was not committed in this case. The C* held that the following pieces of evidence presented by the prosection were s/cient to deny the demrrer to evidence( 5-6 the e;istence of three marriages of 7en"amin, 9r. to *+cena, !ally Go and Resally3 5)6 the letters and love notes from Resally to 7en"amin, 9r.3 516 the admission of 7en"amin, 9r. as regards his marriage to !ally Go and *+cena3 and 586 7en"amin, 9r.'s admission that he and Resally were in some 2ind of a relationship.The C* frther stated that 7en"amin, 9r. was mista2en in claiming that he cold not be gilty of bigamy becase his marriage to !ally Go was nll and void in light of the fact that he was already married to *+cena. nllity was re#ired in order for him to be able to se the nllity of his marriage as * a "dicial defensedeclaration in a bigamyofcharge. U87 ?hether the Doble 9eopardy has set in= 98#:7 >$!.
This Cort leans toward Resally's contention that !ally Go had no personality to le the petition for certiorari before the C*.
Ru&e "$ HIPOS SR. VS BA@
3E
*ACTS4 5n 1 )ecember ",,3! two informations for the crime of rape and one %nformation for the crime of acts of lasciviousness were *led against petitioners )arr(l 4ipos! Ga(cee Corsi^o! Arthur Hillaruel and two others before the RTC of Oue9on Cit(! acting as a Famil( Court! presided b( respondent Gudge ?a(& 5n "3 Februar( ",,E! private complainants AAA and ??? *led a 8otion for Reinvestigation asing Gudge ?a( to order the Cit( Prosecutor of Oue9on Cit( to stud( if the proper %nformation had been *led against petitioners and their coaccused& Gudge ?a( granted the 8otion and ordered a reinvestigation of the cases& 5n 1= 8a( ",,E! petitioners *led their Goint 8emorandum to )ismiss the Case6s7 before the Cit( Prosecutor& The( claimed that there was no probable cause to hold them liable for the crimes charged& 5n 1, August ",,E! the 5Jce of the Cit( Prosecutor issued a Resolution on the reinvestigation aJrming the %nformations *led against petitioners and their coaccused& The Resolution was signed b( Assistant Cit( Prosecutor Raniel S& Cru9 and approved b( Cit(
Prosecutor Claro A& Arellano& 5n 3 the 8arch ",,! "nd Assistant Cit( 0amberto C& dereversed Hera! treating the Goint 8emorandum to )ismiss Case as an appeal of the 1, Prosecutor August ",,E Resolution! the Resolution dated 1, August ",,E! holding that there was lac of probable cause& 5n the same date! the Cit( Prosecutor *led a 8otion to /ithdraw %nformations before Gudge ?a(& 5n " 5ctober ",,! Gudge ?a( denied the 8otion to /ithdraw %nformations in an 5rder of even date& Said order states: W/4.R.F5R.! *nding no probable cause against the herein accused for the crimes of rapes and acts of lasciviousness! the motion to withdraw informations is ).%.)&Y /ithout moving for a reconsideration of the above assailed 5rder! petitioners *led the present Petition for 8andamus! to compel the trial court to accept the Prosecutors 8otion to /ithdraw information& ISS)4 /5 the 4on& Supreme Court can compel Gudge ?a( to dismiss the case through a writ of mandamus b( virtue of the resolution of the oJce of the cit( prosecutor of OC *nding no probable cause against the accused and subse-uentl( *ling a motion to withdraw information H)LD4 NO. 8andamus is an e
unlawfull( neglects the performance of an act which the law speci*call( enLoins as a dut( resulting from an oJce! trust! or stationB or when the respondent e
The Petition for Mandams is directed not against the prosecution! but against the trial court! seeing to compel the trial court to grant the 8otion to /ithdraw %nformations b( the Cit( Prosecutors 5Jce& The
3
prosecution has alread( *led a case against petiti oners& Recentl(! in !antos v. Orda, 9r. ! E3I SCRA ,E #",,E$! we reiterated the doctrin e we established in the leading case of Crespo v. Mogl! 11 SCRA E" #1=KI$! that once a criminal complaint or an information is *led in court! an( disposition or dismissal of the case or ac-uittal or conviction of the accused rests within the Lurisdiction! competence! and discretion of the trial court& %n Crespo v& 8ogul! the Court held that once a criminal complaint or information is *led in court! an( disposition of the case or dismissal or ac-uittal or conviction of the accused rests within the e
2R o& 1I3,K= August "! ",," P)OPL) O* TH) PHILIPPIN)S, petitioner, vs. Hon. )NRI<) C. ASIS, in 2is c-p-cit' -s presidin7 Jud7e o8 t2e Re7ion-& Tri-& Court o8 Bi&ir-n Province, Br-nc2 0, -nd JAI+) ABORDO, respondents
Facts: %n ",,"! Gaime Abordo was riding his motorc(cle on his wa( home& 4e was met b( Dennard 8aLait! GoenilCalve9 and Gose 8ontes& An altercation ensued between them& Abordo shot 8aLait in the leg while Calve9 hit in the lower left side of his abdomen& 8ontes escaped unhurt& Abordo was charged with two #"$ counts of attempted murder and one #1$ count of frustrated murder before the RTC of ?iliran Province ?ranch 1& The trial court found no treacher( and evident premeditation& Thus! in its decision! the RTC held Abordo liable onl( for Serious Ph(sical %nLuries for shooting Calve9 and 0ess Serious Ph(sical %nLuries with regard to 8aLait& %t also appreciated four #E$ generic mitigating circumstances in favor of Abordo& /ith respect to the complaint of 8ontes! Abordo was ac-uitted& All three complainants moved for reconsideration regarding the civil aspect& The( *led a supplemental motion to include moral damages& Calve9 without the conformit( of the Provincial Prosecutor! *led a notice of appeal for both the civil and the criminal aspects& For said reason! Calve9 later sought withdrawal of his motion for reconsideration while Calve9 motion to withdraw was granted& 5n said date! the trial court also dismissed Calve9 appeal for not bearing the conformit( of the Provincial Prosecutor& Acting on Chief State Prosecutor Govencito R& Qunos%ndorsement of the letter of Assistant Cit( Prosecutor ida C& Tabuldan2ravino! a relative of Calve9! the 5S2 *led a petition for certiorari under rule & The CA dismissed the petition outright& ot in conformit(! the 5S2 comes to this court via this petition for review under Rule E&
3
%ssues: 1& /hether a petition for certiorari under Rule ! and not app eal! is the remed( to -uestion a verdict of ac-uittal& "& /hether the case need be remanded to the CA for app ropriate proceedings& Ruling: 1& es! in line with the *nalit(ofac-uittal doctrine& "& o! as a remand will onl( prolong the proceedings& RAT%5: A petition for certiorari Rulelevel& ! not appeal! is the remed( to -uestion a verdict of ac-uittal whether at the trial court or at the under appellate %n our Lurisdiction! we adhere to the *nalit(ofac-uittal doctrine! that is! a Ludgment of ac-uittal is *nal and unappealable& The rule! however! is not without e
Roldan 8orales ( 8idarasa was charged in two separate %nformations before the RTC with possession and sale of meth(lamphetamine h(drochloride #shabu$& 'pon arraignment! 8orales! assisted b( counsel! pleaded not guilt( to both charges read in Filipino! a language nown and understood b( him& 5n motion of the Cit( Prosecutor! the cases were consolidated for Loint trial& Trial on the merits ensued thereafter& %n ",,E! the trial court rendered a )ecision *nding 8orales guilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs& The CA aJrmed the )ecision of the trial court in toto& Appellant elevated the case to this Court via otice of Appeal& %n the Supreme Court Resolution! the Court resolved to accept the case and re-uired the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs simultaneousl(! if the( so desire! within 3, da(s from notice& ?oth parties adopted their respective appellants and appellees briefs! instead of *ling supplemental briefs& ISS)4/hether the appeal opens the whole case! including facts! for review& RATIO4
es& This is the uni-ue nature of an appeal in a criminal case& RLING:
At the outset! we draw attention to the uni-ue nature of an appeal in a criminal case: the appeal throws the
3I
whole case open for review and it is the dut( of the appellate court to correct! cite and appreciate errors in the appealed Ludgment whether the( are assigned or unassigned& 5n the basis of such review! we *nd the present appeal meritorious& Prevailing Lurisprudence uniforml( hold that the trial courts *ndings of fact! especiall( when aJrmed b( the CA! are! as a general rule! entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal& 4owever! this rule admits of e
5n 8arch "! ",,1! the Cit( Prosecutor of 8anila issued a Resolution recommending that an information for estafa be *led against petitioner& 5n Februar( I! ",,"! the Cit( Prosecutor of 8anila *led an %nformation for estafa against petitioner& After petitioner entered her plea of not guilt( and after the prosecution rested its case! petitioner *led a 8otion /ith 0eave To Admit )emurrer to .vidence& The trial court issued an 5rder6=7 dated Gune 1! ",, granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the case& The trial court found that respondents assertion of misrepresentation b( petitioner that her chec will be full( funded on the maturit( date was not supported b( the evidence on record& Accordingl(! her guilt not having been proven be(ond reasonable doubt! petitioner was ac-uitted& respondent *led a 8anifestation61,7 with attached 8otion to Amend 5rder dated Gune 1! ",,6117 #8otion to Amend$ to include a *nding of civil liabilit( of petitioner& %n the 8anifestation! respondents counsel Lusti*ed his failure to *le the motion within the reglementar( period of 1 da(s because all postal oJces in 8etro 8anila were allegedl( ordered closed in the afternoon due to the rall( staged on A(ala Avenue& The trial court denied respondents 8otion to Amend <<< *nding that counsel for respondent was ine
3K
ISS)4 T2e &one issue in t2is c-se is 52et2er t 2e Court o8 Appe-&s erred in 2o&din7 t2-t t2e tri-& court co99itted 7r-ve -?use o8 discretion 52en it denied respondents +otion to A9end. H)LD4 @es, we *nd that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondents 8otion to Amend&
As a general rule! the statutor( re-uirement that when no motion for reconsideration is *led within the reglementar( period! the decision attains *nalit( and becomes e
3=
Doctrine4Conspirac( must be proved as clearl( and convincingl( as the commission of the o;ense itself for it is a facile device b( which an accused ma( be ensnared and ept within the penal fold& %n case of reasonable doubt as to its e
*ACTS4 Petitioner Rosie Ouidet! Feliciano Taban! Gr& #Taban$! and Aurelio Tubo #Tubo$ were charged with homicide for the death of Gimm( Tagarda #Gimm($&
5n even date! the aforesaid accused were also charged with frustrated homicide for the stab wounds sustained b( Gimm(s cousin! Andrew Tagarda #Andrew$! arising from the same incident& 'pon arraignment! all the accused entered a plea of not guilt( in frustrated homicide& 8eanwhile! in homicide! Taban entered a voluntar( plea of guilt while petitioner and Tubo maintained their innocence& Accordingl(! thereafter! the trial court rendered a partial Ludgmentsentencing Taban to imprisonment of si< #$ (ears and one #1$ da( of prision mayor, as minimum! to twelve #1"$ (ears! two #"$ months and one #1$ da( of reclsion temporal, as ma
ISS)4
E,
. /hether the )ecision of the CA *nding petitioner to have acted in conspirac( with the other accused #Taban and Tubo$ in the commission of the o;enses charged is in accordance with law andNor LurisprudenceB ". /hether the CA correctl( modi*ed the crime from frustrated to attempted homicideB (. /hether the CA erred in deleting the award of civil indemnit( to the heirs of Andrew on the ground that the same was not full( substantiated&
H)LD4 . @es. The e;istence of conspiracy was not proved beyond reasonable dobt. Ths, petitioner is criminally liable only for his individal acts. Taen together! the evidence of the prosecution does not meet the test of moral certaint( in order to establish that petitioner conspired with Taban and Tubo to commit the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide& /e agree with petitioner that this case is similar to %eople v. istido and the ruling there applies with e-ual force here&
?( and large! the evidence for the prosecution failed to show the e
". @es.Anent the penalt( imposed on Taban and Tubo! in Criminal Case o& =",K, #frustrated homicide$! the CA correctl( modi*ed the same& The crime committed was attempted homicide and not frustrated homicide because the stab wounds that Andrew sustained were not lifethreatening& Although Taban and Tubo did not appeal their conviction! this part of the appellate courts Ludgment is favorable to them! thus! the( are entitled to a reduction of their prison terms& The rule is that an appeal taen b( one or more of several accused shall not a;ect those who did not appeal e
E1
(. @es.Anent the award of damages for which Taban and Tubo should be made solidaril( liable! in Criminal Case o& =",I=! the trial court properl( awarded civil indemnit( in the amount of P,!,,,&,, to the heirs of Gimm(& Civil indemnit( is automaticall( granted to the heirs of the deceased victim without need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime&%n addition! the trial court should have awarded moral damages in the sum of P,!,,,&,, in consonance with current Lurisprudence& As to actual damages! the prosecution was able to prove burialrelated e
E"
4.0): Rule 1"E! Section K! paragraph " of the same Rules allows the Court of Appeals! upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio! to dismiss the appeal of the accusedappellant who eludes the Lurisdiction of the courts over his person! vi9: S.C& K& )ismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute& The Court of Appeals ma(! upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case! dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to *le his brief within the time prescribed b( this Rule! e
The Court of Appeals ma( also! upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio! dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or con*nement! Lumps bail or ees to a foreign countr( during the pendenc( of the appeal& %n allowing the dismissal of the appeal of the accusedappellant under the circumstances identi*ed b( the foregoing rule! the Court! in People v& 8apalao!617e
5nce an accused escapes from prison or con*nement or Lumps bail or ees to a foreign countr(! he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the Lurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived an( right to see relief from the court Although Rule 1"E! Section K particularl( applies to the Court of Appeals! it has been e
the
There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even b( the accused himself! but the right of appeal is not one of them& This right is granted solel( for the bene*t of the accused& 4e ma( avail of it or not! as he pleases& 4e ma( waive it either e
Ru&e "0 Ru&e "3
E3
EE
