omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

The law
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the
1.Re; Prosecution of offenses UY vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been
105965-70, March 20, 2001 held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of any public official"
FACTS: Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the is broad enough to embrace all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance
Philippine Navy designated to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, and non-feasance committed by public officers and employees
the latters supervisor, on matters relating the activities of the Fiscal during their tenure of office. The exercise by the Ombudsman of his
Control Branch. Six informations for Estafa through falsification of primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is
official documents and one information for violation of Section 3 of not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
RA 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act) were filed with the prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and
Sandiganbayan against petitioner Uy and 19 other accused. The employees. The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers
Sandiganbayan recommended that the infomation be withdrawn and employees is one of the most important functions of the
against some of the accused after a comprehensive investigation. Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress deliberately
Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that it is the Court endowed the Ombudsman with such power to make him a more
Martial and not the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in
offense charged or the person of the accused. public office. Even a perusal of the law (PD 1630) originally creating
the Office of theOmbudsman then (to be known as the Tanodbayan),
ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject and the amendatory laws issued subsequent thereto will show that,
criminal cases or the person of the petitioner. at its inception, the Office of theOmbudsman was already vested with
WON the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends the power to investigate and prosecute civil and criminal cases
only to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the before the Sandiganbayan and even the regular courts.
Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute cases falling within the
jurisdiction of regular courts. 2. PEOPLE VS BAUTISTA
Facts: Private complainant Felipe Goyena filed with the City
HELD: Prosecutor (OCP) a Complaint for slight physical injuries against
1. No, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction. The fundamental rule Bautista. After conducting the preliminary investigation, Prosecutor
is that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force Jessica Junsay-Ong issued a recommendation for the filing of an
at the time of the commencement of the action. Thus, Information against Bautista. Such recommendation was approved
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petitioner at the time of by the City Prosecutor, represented by First Assistant City
the filing of the informations and as now prescribed by law. RA 8249, Prosecutor Eufrocino A. Sulla, but the date of such approval cannot
the latest amendment of PD 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan be found in the records. The Information was, however, filed with the
provides that such will have jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 of Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 28 only on June
members of the Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval 20, 2000.
captains and all officers of higher rank. In the case at bar, while the Respondent sought the dismissal of the case against him on the
petitioner is charged with violation of RA 3018, his position as ground that by the time the Information was filed, the 60-day period
Lieutenant Commander of the Philippine Navy is a rank lower than of prescription from the date of the commission of the crime, that is,
naval captains and all officers of higher rank. It must be noted that on June 12, 1999 had already elapsed.
both the nature of the offense and the position occupied by the Issue: Whether or not the prescriptive period began to run anew
accused are conditions sine qua non before Sandiganbayan can after the investigating prosecutors recommendation to file the proper
validly take cognizance of the case. Thus, regular courts shall have criminal information against the respondent was approved by the City
exclusive jurisdiction over the person of the accused as provided by Prosecutor
the Sandiganbayan Law which states that in cases where none of the Ruling: No. The crime has not yet prescribed.
accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 The proceedings against respondent was not terminated upon the
or higher, exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper City Prosecutor's approval of the investigating prosecutor's
RTC, MTC, MCTC or METC pursuant to BP Blg. 129. Consequently, recommendation that an information be filed with the court. The
it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the offense charged since prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the complaint was
under Section 9 of RA 3019, the commission of any violation of said filed with the Office of the Prosecutor until such time that respondent
law shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six years is either convicted or acquitted by the proper court. The Office of the
and one month to fifteen years. The indictment of the petitioner Prosecutor miserably incurred some delay in filing the information but
therefore cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC, METC or such mistake or negligence should not unduly prejudice the interests
MCTC. of the State and the offended party. As held in People v. Olarte, it is
unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on
2. No, the power of the Ombudsman is not an exclusive authority but account of delays that are not under his control. All that the victim of
rather a shared or concurrent authority between the Ombudsman the offense may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to file the
and other investigative agencies of the government in prosecution of requisite complaint.
cases. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving 3. SEC vs INTERPORT RESOURCES
public officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of Facts:
the Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the regular - The Board of Directors of IRC approved a Memorandum of
courts as well. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by Agreement with GHB (Ganda Holdings Berhad). Under said
law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any memorandum of agreement, IRC acquired 100% of the entire capital
act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or stock of GEHI (Ganda Energy Holdings Inc.) which would own and
operate a 102 megawatt gas turbine power generating barge. In same purpose and entails substantially similar duties as the
exchange, IRC will issue to GHB 55% of the expanded capital stock preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ, this process cannot
of IRC. On the side, IRC would acquire 67% of the entire capital of simply be disregarded. In Baviera v. Paglinawan, 515 SCRA 170
PRCI (Philippine Racing Club). (2007), this Court enunciated that a criminal complaint is first filed
with the SEC, which determines the existence of probable cause,
- It is alleged herein that a press release announcing the approval of before a preliminary investigation can be commenced by the DOJ. In
the agreement was sent to the Philippine Stock Exchange through the aforecited case, the complaint filed directly with the DOJ was
facsimile and the SEC, but the facsimile machine of the SEC could dismissed on the ground that it should have been filed first with the
not receive it. However, the SEC received reports that the IRC failed SEC. Similarly, the offense was a violation of the Securities
to make timely public disclosures of its negotiations with GHB and Regulations Code, wherein the procedure for criminal prosecution
that some of its directors, heavily traded IRC shares utilizing this was reproduced from Section 45 of the Revised Securities Act. This
material insider information. For this reason, the SEC required the Court affirmed the dismissal, which it explained thus: The Court of
directors to appear before the SEC to explain the alleged failure to Appeals held that under the above provision, a criminal complaint for
disclose material information as required by the Rules on Disclosure violation of any law or rule administered by the SEC must first be
of Material Facts. Unsatisfied with the explanation, the SEC issued filed with the latter. If the Commission finds that there is probable
an order finding that the IRC violated the Rules in connection with the cause, then it should refer the case to the DOJ. Since petitioner
then Old Securities Act when it failed to make timely disclosures of its failed to comply with the foregoing procedural requirement, the DOJ
negotiations with GHB. In addition, the SEC found that the directors did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint in I.S.
of IRC entered into transactions involving IRC shares in violation of No. 2004-229. A criminal charge for violation of the Securities
the Revised Securities Act. Regulation Code is a specialized dispute. Hence, it must first be
referred to an administrative agency of special competence, i.e., the
- Respondents, however, questioned the authority of the SEC to SEC. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts will not
investigate on said matter since according to PD 902-A, jurisdiction determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of
upon the matter was conferred upon the PED (Prosecution and the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise
Enforcement Department) of the SEC however, this issue is of sound administrative discretion requiring the specialized
already moot since pending the disposition of the case, the Securities knowledge and expertise of said administrative tribunal to determine
Regulation Code was passed thereby effectively repealing PD 902-A technical and intricate matters of fact. The Securities Regulation
and abolishing the PED. They also contended that their right to due Code is a special law. Its enforcement is particularly vested in the
process was violated when the SEC required them to appear before SEC. Hence, all complaints for any violation of the Code and its
the SEC to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon implementing rules and regulations should be filed with the SEC.
them since such requirement shifted the burden of proof to Where the complaint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the
respondents. complaint to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and prosecution as
provided in Section 53.1 earlier quoted.
The case reached the CA and said court ruled in favor of the
respondents and effectively enjoined the SEC from filing any 4. Salazar v People |g.r no. 149472 |October 15, 2002|
criminal, civil or administrative cases against respondents. In its
resolution, the CA stated that since there are no rules and FACTS: The accused received from Olivier Philippines and Skiva
regulations implementing the rules regarding DISCLOSURE, International, Inc. the amount of $41,300.00 for the sole purpose of
INSIDER TRADING OR ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE meeting the cost of textile and labor in the manufacture of seven
REVISED SECURITIES ACT, the SEC has no statutory authority to hundred dozen stretch twill jeans which he (accused) is duty bound
file any suit against respondents. The CA, therefore, prohibited the to deliver to said complainant, and the accused once in possession
SEC from taking cognizance or initiating any action against the of the same, far from complying from his obligation, with
respondents for the alleged violations of the Revised Securities Act. unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence and to defraud said
complainant, did, then and there willfully and unlawfully and
RULING: feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the same for his
A criminal complaint is first filed with the Securities and Exchange own personal use and benefit despite repeated demands to return
Commission, which determines the existence of probable cause, the said amount, failed and refused and still fails and refuses to do
before a preliminary investigation can be commenced by the so, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant, in the
Department of Justicea criminal complaint for violation of any law aforementioned amount of $41,300.00 or its equivalent in Philippine
or rule administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission currency.
(SEC) must first be filed with the latter. If the Commission finds that
there is probable cause, then it should refer the case to the ISSUE: WON it is necessary that the proper offended party file a
Department of Justice (DOJ); A criminal charge for violation of the complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal?
Securities Regulation Code is a specialized dispute, hence it must
first be referred to an administrative agency of special competence, RULING: No. It is not necessary that the proper offended party file
i.e., the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); Under the a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscala
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts will not determine a complaint filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be filed
controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the by any person; If a complaint is filed directly in court, the same must
administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of be filed by the offended party and in case of an information, the same
sound administrative discretion requiring the specialized knowledge must be filed by the fiscal.The complaint referred to in Rule 110
and expertise of said administrative tribunal to determine technical contemplates one that is filed in court to commence a criminal action
and intricate matters of fact.While the SEC investigation serves the in those cases where a complaint of the offended party is required by
law, instead of an information which is generally filed by a fiscal. It is cooperated with the authorities. Otherwise, he would also be charged
not necessary that the proper offended party file a complaint for with subversion. The trade-off appears to be his membership in the
purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal. The rule is that Civil Home Defense Force. Masamlok may be considered as an
unless the offense subject of the complaint is one that cannot be interested witness. It can not be said that his testimony is free from
the opportunity and temptation to be exaggerated and even
prosecuted de oficio, any competent person may file a complaint for fabricated for it was intended to secure his freedom.
preliminary investigation. Thus, as a general rule, a criminal action is
commenced by a complaint or information, both of which are filed in This Court is, therefore, constrained to rule that the evidence
presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the guilt of the
court. If a complaint is filed directly in court, the same must be filed accused beyond reasonable doubt. As held in the case of People v.
by the offended party and in case of an information, the same must Bania where after stressing that accusation is not, according to the
be filed by the fiscal. However, a complaint filed with the fiscal prior fundamental law, synonymous with guilt, it was made clear: Only if
to a judicial action may be filed by any person. Thus, in the case at the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a
bar, the complaint was validly filed by Skiva despite the finding of the conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the
lower court that petitioner had no obligation to account to Skiva. person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be
one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring
CONTROL OF PROSECUTION his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must
5. People v. Burgos survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be
permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that
on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense
FACTS: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted
furtherance of subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the to a crime. What is required then is moral certainty.
NPA and collection of contributions from its members) and found
guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del Sur. From the information filed
by the police authorities upon the information given by Masamlok, 6. PINOTE vs AYCO
allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the police A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, December 13, 2005
authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched.
Subsequently, certain NPA-related documents and a firearm,
allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. Pol of the NPA, are FACTS: Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
confiscated. Defendant denies being involved in any subversive South Cotabato allowed the defense in a criminal case to present
activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept evidence consisting of the testimony of two witnesses, even in the
ownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial absence of State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote who was prosecuting
statements have been made only under fear, threat and intimidation the case. State Prosecutor Pinote was at that time undergoing
on his person and his family. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City. On
is done without valid warrant, that the trial court erred in holding the the subsequent scheduled hearings of the criminal case, Pinote
search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful, and that the trial refused to cross-examine the two defense witnesses, despite being
court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for ordered by Judge Ayco, maintaining that prior proceedings
violation of PD 9 in relation to General Orders 6 and 7. conducted in his absence were void. Judge Ayco considered the
prosecution to have waived its right to cross-examine the two
defense witnesses. Hence, arose the present administrative
Issue: Did the trial court erred in holding accused-appellant guilty complaint lodged by Pinote against Judge Ayco for Gross Ignorance
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of P.D No. 9 in relation to of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct.
General Orders No. 6 and 7?
ISSUE: Did Judge Ayco violate the Rules on Criminal Procedure for
Ruling: The trial court validly rejected the extra-judicial confession of allowing the defense to present evidence in the absence of a
the accused as inadmissible in evidence. The court stated that the prosecutor?
appellants having been exhaustively subjected to physical terror,
violence, and third degree measures may not have been supported
by reliable evidence but the failure to present the investigator who RULING: YES. The judges act of allowing the presentation of the
conducted the investigation gives rise to the provocative defense witnesses in the absence of public prosecutor or a private
presumption that indeed torture and physical violence may have prosecutor designated for the purpose is a clear transgression of the
been committed as stated. The accused-appellant was not accorded Rules. As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted
his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial under the control and direction of the public prosecutor. If the
interrogation. The lower court correctly pointed out that the securing schedule of the public prosecutor does not permit, however, or in
of counsel, Atty. Anyog, to help the accused when he subscribed case there are no public prosecutors, a private prosecutor may be
under oath to his statement at the Fiscals Office was too late. It authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the
could have no palliative effect. It cannot cure the absence of counsel Regional State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case, subject to
at the time of the custodial investigation when the extrajudicial the approval of the court. Once so authorized, the private prosecutor
statement was being taken. With the extra-judicial confession, the shall continue to prosecute the case until the termination of the trial
firearm, and the alleged subversive documents inadmissible in even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is
evidence against the accused-appellant, the only remaining proof to revoked or otherwise withdrawn. Violation of criminal laws is an
sustain the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm in Furtherance of affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole and not merely to
Subversion is the testimony of Cesar Masamlok. the person directly prejudiced, he being merely the complaining
We find the testimony of Masamlok inadequate to convict Burgos witness. It is on this account that the presence of a public prosecutor
beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the trial court found in the trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect vital state
Masamloks testimony credible and convincing. However, we are not interests, foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of law,
necessarily bound by the credibility which the trial court attaches to a the bedrock of peace of the people. Judge Aycos intention to uphold
particular witness. In the instant case, Masamloks testimony was the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of the case, no
totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok surrendered to matter how noble it may be, cannot justify a breach of the Rules. If
the military, certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he the accused is entitled to due process, so is the State. Judge Aycos
lament about Pinotes failure to inform the court of his inability to State. The private complainant or the offended party may question
attend the hearings or to file a motion for postponement thereof or to such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the
subsequently file a motion for reconsideration of his Orders allowing accused is concerned. A perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by
the defense to present its two witnesses on said dates may be Sally Go before the CA discloses that she sought reconsideration of
mitigating. It does not absolve Judge Ayco of his utter disregard of the criminal aspect of the case. Specifically, she prayed for the
the Rules. reversal of the trial courts order granting petitioners demurrer to
evidence and the conduct of a full blown trial of the criminal case.
Nowhere in her petition did she even briefly discuss the civil liability
7. Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. v. Sally Bangayan of petitioners. It is apparent that her only desire was to appeal the
dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioners. Because
Facts: Sally Go-Bangayan filed a complaint for bigamy against bigamy is a criminal offense, only the OSG is authorized to prosecute
Benjamin Bangayan and Resally Delfin. On March 7, 1982, the case on appeal. Thus, Sally Go did not have the requisite legal
Benjamin, Jr. married Sally Go in Pasig City and they had two standing to appeal the acquittal of the petitioners. Double jeopardy
children. Later, Sally learned that Benjamin, Jr. had taken Resally as had already set-in. A demurrer to evidence is filed after the
his concubine whom he subsequently married on January 5, 2001 prosecution has rested its case and the trial court is required to
under the false name, Benjamin Z. Sojayco. Benjamin, Jr. fathered evaluate whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is
two children with Resally. Furthermore, Sally discovered that on sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond
September 10, 1973, Benjamin, Jr. also married a certain Azucena reasonable doubt. If the court finds that the evidence is not sufficient
Alegre in Caloocan City. After pleading not guilty, Benjamin and and grants the demurrer to evidence, such dismissal of the case is
Resally both filed their motions for leave to file a demurrer to one on the merits, which is equivalent to the acquittal of the accused.
evidence. Benjamin, Jr. filed his Demurrer to Evidence, praying that Well-established is the rule that the Court cannot review an order
the criminal case for bigamy against him be dismissed for failure of granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused on the
the prosecution to present sufficient evidence of his guilt. His plea ground of insufficiency of evidence because to do so will place the
was anchored on two main arguments: (1) he was not legally married accused in double jeopardy. The only instance when the accused
to Sally Go because of the existence of his prior marriage to can be barred from invoking his right against double jeopardy is
Azucena; and (2) the prosecution was unable to show that he and when it can be demonstrated that the trial court acted with grave
the Benjamin Z. Sojayco Jr., who married Resally, were one and abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such
the same person. RTC dismissed the criminal case against as where the prosecution was not allowed the opportunity to make its
Benjamin, Jr. and Resally for insufficiency of evidence. Sally Go case against the accused or where the trial was a sham. In this
elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA case, all four elements of double jeopardy are doubtless present.
promulgated its Decision granting her petition and ordering the Valid information for the crime of bigamy was filed against the
remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings. The CA held petitioners, resulting in the institution of a criminal case against them
that the following pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution before the proper court. They pleaded not guilty to the charges
were sufficient to deny the demurrer to evidence: (1) the existence of against them and subsequently, the case was dismissed after the
three marriages of Benjamin, Jr. to Azucena, Sally Go and Resally; prosecution had rested its case. Therefore, the CA erred in reversing
(2) the letters and love notes from Resally to Benjamin, Jr.; (3) the the trial courts order dismissing the case against the petitioners
admission of Benjamin, Jr. as regards his marriage to Sally Go and because it placed them in double jeopardy. An acquittal by virtue of a
Azucena; and (4) Benjamin, Jr.s admission that he and Resally were demurrer to evidence is not appealable because it will place the
in some kind of a relationship. CA further stated that Benjamin, Jr. accused in double jeopardy. However, it may be subject to review
was mistaken in claiming that he could not be guilty of bigamy only by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
because his marriage to Sally Go was null and void in light of the fact showing that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
that he was already married to Azucena. A judicial declaration of amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.
nullity was required in order for him to be able to use the nullity of his
marriage as a defense in a bigamy charge. 8. Fenequito vs. Vergara G.R. No. 172829. July 18, 2012-ortiz
Issues:
1. Whether Sally Go had the legal standing to file a petition for FACTS: An Information for falsification of public documents was filed
certiorari before the CA despite the lack of consent of either the with the MeTC of Manila by the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila
Office of the Solicitor General or the Office of the City Prosecutor against herein petitioners. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the
(OCP) of Caloocan Case Based on Absence of Probable Cause. After respondent's
2. Whether petitioners right against double jeopardy was violated by Comment/Opposition was filed, the MeTC issued an Order
the CA when it reversed the December 3, 2003 RTC Order dismissing the case on the ground of lack of probable cause.
dismissing the criminal case against them. Aggrieved, respondent, with the express conformity of the public
prosecutor, appealed the case to the RTC of Manila.
Held: The Court finds merit in the petitions.
1. Only the OSG, and not the private offended party, has the ISSUE: Does a city/provincial prosecutor and not the OSG, has the
authority to question the order granting the demurrer to evidence in a authority to appeal the instant case to the RTC?
criminal case. RULING: YES. It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG
2. Double Jeopardy had already set-in. Even if the trial court had which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC. The
incorrectly overlooked the evidence against the petitioners, it only Administrative Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to represent the
committed an error of judgment, and not one of jurisdiction, which Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all
could not be rectified by a petition for certiorari because double criminal proceedings. On the other hand, Presidential Decree No.
jeopardy had already set in. 1275, provides that the provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to as
prosecutor) shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes in the
courts of such province or city and shall therein discharge all the
Ratio: It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the duties incident to the institution of criminal prosecutions. In
acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can consonance with the above-quoted provision, it has been held by
only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the this Court that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in
the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts at the metropolitan this was motion was denied for failure of prosecutor to present
trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts and the evidence provided in Sec 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
regional trial courts. Since the appeal, in the instant case was made Procedure. The private respondents then filed a motion to set the
with the RTC of Manila, it is clear that the City Prosecutor or his case for hearing based on their constitutional right to speedy trial
assistant had authority to file the same. With respect to respondent's
legal personality to appeal the Order of the MeTC, suffice it to say which was granted and the hearing was set on July 29, 1994. On that
that the appeal filed with the RTC was made with the express date, the prosecution filed an MR, instead of presenting of further
conformity of the public prosecutor who handles the case. evidence. The hearing was postponed and set for another hearing.
Also, the prosecutor again filed for MR and invoked its pending
petition for certiorari with the SC but the respondents objected to
9. Jimenez v. J. Sorongon
reset the hearing again. The judge called for recess to allow the
prosecution to present the NBI agent would be presented to prove
Facts:
the extrajudicial confession of the accused Nuada but after the
Jimenez (petitioner), President of Unlad Shipping and
recess, the public prosecutor declined to present the NBI agent and
Management Corp, local manning agency, filed a complaint-affidavit
manifested that it would not anymore present further evidence. The
with the Office of City Prosec of Mandaluyong City against Alamil,
defense then moved that the cases be deemed submitted for
Gaza, Avgoustis, TSMIs incorporators, another manning agency, for
decision and asked leave of court to file a DEMURRER to evidence.
syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment.
The RTC dismissed the charge of rape with homicide based on
The 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the filing of
demurrer to evidence filed by private respondents/accused.
an information for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment
against the respondents. The City Prosecutor approved his
ISSUE: Was the public prosecutor guilty of serious nonfeasance?
recommendation and filed the corresponding criminal information
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City.
RULING: YES. The trial court required the public prosecutor to
Subsequently, in a resolution, the City Prosecutor
present evidence to justify Nuadas discharge as state witness but it
reconsidered the resolution and filed a motion with the RTC to
insisted there was no need to do so because Nuada was already
withdraw the information. Respondent Alamil moved for
under the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. Due to this refusal
reconsideration.
to present the required evidence it prompted the trial court to deny
The petitioner filed an opposition with a motion to expunge,
the motion to discharge Nuada. Again, the trial court the directed
reiterating that respondent Alamil had no standing to seek relief from
public prosecutor to present Atty. Caabay, the NBI agent who took
the RTC.
Nuadas extrajudicial confession but the prosecutor declared that he
was resting the prosecutions case, knowing fully well that the
Issue: Whether the petitioner has legal personality to assail the
evidence he previously presented was not sufficient to convict the
dismissal of the criminal case
accused. And due to that, a demurrer to evidence was filed by the
Ruling: NO. It is well-settled that every action must be prosecuted
accused and was granted by the trial court. It was then clear that the
or defended in the name of the real party in interest[,] who stands to
public prosecutor was guilty of serious nonfeasance. It was his duty
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party
to take all steps to protect the rights of the people in trial. He should
entitled to the avails of the suit. Interest means material interest or
have exhausted all available proof to establish the guilt of the
an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the
accused. Hence, it was very apparent that the public prosecutor
case, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. By
violated the due process rights of the private complainant owing to its
real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished
blatant disregard of procedural rules and the failure to present
from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or
available crucial evidence, which would tend to prove the guilt or
consequential interest. When the plaintiff or the defendant is not a
innocence of the accused therein. Therefore, when there is a finding
real party in interest, the suit is dismissible.
that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court
Procedural law basically mandates that [a]ll criminal actions
in dismissing the criminal case by granting the accuseds demurrer to
commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
evidence, the judgment of the trial court is considered VOID.
under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of
criminal cases before the CA and before this Court, the OSG is the
11. People v. Sandiganbayan
appellate counsel of the People, pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter
FACTS: The relevant case for this topic is G.R. No. 189063. Where
12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. The People is
upon Sandiganbayans finding that theOffice of the Ombudsman had
the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can
incurred inordinate delay in resolving the complaint Cong. Jimenez
represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in
had brought against the respondents, it dismissed Criminal Case No.
this Court. This ruling has been repeatedly stressed in several cases
SB-08-CRM-0266 (involves robbery) mainly to uphold their
and continues to be the controlling doctrine.
constitutional right to the speedy disposition of their case. The
Statecontended that the delay in the resolution of the case against
the respondents was neither inordinatenor solely attributable to the
10. MERCIALES vs CA, G.R. 124171, March 18, 2002
Office of the Ombudsman. Citing Mendoza-Ong v .Sandiganbayan,
wherein the Court held that the speedy disposition of cases was also
FACTS: Criminal cases for rape with homicide in connection of the
consistent with reasonabledelays, the State supported its contention
death of Maritess Merciales were filed against private
by listing the various incidents that had caused the delay in the
respondents/accused. During the trial, the public prosecutor filed a
investigation, and then laying part of the blame on the respondents
motion for the discharge of accused Nuada so that he could be a
themselves.
state witness but the prosecution contended that it was not required
to present evidence to warrant the discharge of Nuada because he
was already under the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ but
ISSUE: Is the Ombudsman empowered to file an appeal or certiorari accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations
from, the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court? If so, does a against them have been violated by the inadequacy of the
prosecutor has a power of control over the ombudsmans power? information; and (4) the prosecution failed to determine the individual
participation of all the accused in the information in disobedience with
RULING: YES. THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ONLY THE the Resolution dated 27 March 2005. On 2 March 2007, the
SOLICITOR GENERAL COULD FILE PETITIONS IN THE Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed resolution denying
SUPREME COURT PURSUANT TO THE ADMINSTRATIVE CODE. petitioners motion to quash.
BUT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS: CASES ELEVATED TO THE
SANDIGANBAYAN AND FROM THE SANDIGANBAYAN TO THE Issue: Was the Information filed before the Sandiganbayan
SUPREME COURT. insufficiently averred the essential elements of the crime charged as
it failed to specify the individual participation of all the accused?
That only the Solicitor General may represent the People on appeal
or certiorari in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all Ruling: No. The Court finds that the Information in this case alleges
criminal proceedings is the general rule, but the rule admits the the essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. The
exception concerning all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and essential elements for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are
from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the as follows: 1. The accused is a public officer or private person
Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the charged in conspiracy with him; 2. Said public officer commits the
People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive prohibited acts during the performance of his official duties or in
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. relation to his public position; 3. He causes undue injury to any party,
whether the government or private party; 4. Such undue injury is
xx xx The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to
as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated such parties; and 5. The public officer has acted with manifest
and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review partiality, evident bad faith or gross
to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for inexcusable negligence. Section 6 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the states that:
Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information: A complaint or
the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the
represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions
pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended
xx xx party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the
place wherein the offense was committed. When an offense is
Consequently, the filing of the petitions in these cases by the Office committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in
of the Ombudsman, through the OSP, was authorized by law. the complaint or information.

The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as

SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT/INFORMATION is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
12. Lazarte vs Sandiganbayan what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to know
the proper judgment. The Information must allege clearly and
Facts: Petitioner, as manager of the Regional Projects Department accurately the elements of the crime charged. What facts and
and Chairman of the Inventory and Acceptance Committee, and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
other NHA officials were charged for violation of Section 3 (e) of Rep. determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific
Act No. 3019. The Information specifically alleges that petitioner, crimes. The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms
Espinosa and Lobrido are public officers being then the Department with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable
Manager, Project Management Officer A and Supervising Engineer certainty, of the offense charged. The raison detre of the rule is to
of the NHA respectively; in such capacity and committing the offense enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. Another purpose
in relation to the office and while in the performance of their official is to enable accused, if found guilty, to plead his conviction in a
functions, connived, confederated and mutually helped each other subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The use of derivatives
and with accused Arceo C. Cruz, with deliberate intent through or synonyms or allegations of basic facts constituting the offense
manifest partiality and evident bad faith gave unwarranted benefits to charged is sufficient. On the contention that the Information did not
the latter, A.C. Cruz Construction and to themselves, to the damage detail the individual participation of the accused in the allegation of
and prejudice of the government. The felonious act consisted of conspiracy in the Information, the Court underscores the fact that
causing to be paid to A.C. Cruz Construction public funds in the under Philippine law, conspiracy should be understood on two levels.
amount of P232,628.35 supposedly for excavation and road filling Conspiracy can be a mode of committing a crime or it may be
works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City constitutive of the crime itself. Generally, conspiracy is not a crime in
despite the fact that no such works were undertaken by said our jurisdiction. It is punished as a crime only when the law fixes a
construction company as revealed by the Special Audit conducted by penalty for its commission such as in conspiracy to commit treason,
COA. rebellion and sedition. When conspiracy is charged as a crime, the
act of conspiring and all the elements of said crime must be set forth
Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion to quash the Information raising in the complaint or information. But when conspiracy is not charged
the following grounds: (1) the facts charged in the information do not as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime as in
constitute an offense; (2) the information does not conform the case at bar, there is less necessity of reciting its particularities in
substantially to the prescribed form; (3) the constitutional rights of the the Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the
offense charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it crime under paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. The
changes the criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy and false or fraudulent representation by a seller that what he offers for
makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of sale is brand new (when, in fact, it is not) is one of those deceitful
their participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is acts envisaged in paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal
collective and each participant will be equally responsible for the acts Code. The provision reads:
of others, for the act of one is the act of all. Art. 318. Other deceits. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of
not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than
13. Guinhawa v. People twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall
Facts: Jaime Guinhawa was convicted of the crime of Other Deceits defraud or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the
defined and penalized under Art. 318(1) of the Revised Penal Code. preceding articles of this chapter.
The Information filed against the petitioner reads: For one to be liable for "other deceits" under the law, it is required
That on or about October 11, 1995, in the City of Naga, Philippines, that the prosecution must prove the following essential elements: (a)
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in the
being a motor vehicle dealer using the trade name of Guinhawa preceding articles;
Motor Sales at Panganiban Avenue, Naga City, and dealer of brand (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or
new cars, by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts, did then executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud private and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice.
complainant, JOSEPHINE P. SILO, as follows: said accused by It is essential that such false statement or fraudulent representation
means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations, sold to constitutes the very cause or the only motive for the private
said private complainant, as brand new, an automobile with trade complainant to part with her property. The provision includes any
name L-300 Versa Van colored beige and the latter paid for the same kind of conceivable deceit other than those enumerated in Articles
in the amount of 591,000.00, when, in truth and in fact, the same 315 to 317 of the Revised Penal Code.41 It is intended as the
was not brand new because it was discovered less than a month catchall provision for that purpose with its broad scope and
after it was sold to said Josephine P. Silo that said L-300 Versa Van intendment.42 Thus, the petitioners reliance on paragraph 2(a),
had defects in the underchassis and stepboard and repairs have Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is misplaced.
already been done thereat even before said sale, as was found upon
check-up by an auto mechanic; that private complainant returned 14. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LTSG. DOMINADOR
said L-300 Versa Van to the accused and demanded its replacement BAYABOS,
with a new one or the return of its purchase price from said accused et al. G.R. Nos. 171222 & 174786, 18 February 2015, FIRST
but despite follow-up demands no replacement was made nor was DIVISION,
the purchase price returned to private complainant up to the present
to her damage and prejudice in the amount of 591,000.00, FACTS: Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. was admitted as a probationary
Philippine Currency, plus other damages that may be proven in midshipman at the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA). In
court. The petitioner asserts that based on the allegations in the order to reach active status, all new entrants were required to
Information, he was charged with estafa through false pretenses successfully complete the mandatory Indoctrination and Orientation
under paragraph 2, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Period, which was set from 2 May to 1 June 2001. Balidoy died on 3
Considering the allegation that the private complainant was May 2001. PMMA were criminally charged before the
defrauded of 591,000.00, it is the RTC, not the MTC, which has Sandiganbayan as accomplices to hazing under the Anti-Hazing
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The petitioner maintains that he Law. Before they were arraigned, the Sandiganbayan quashed the
is not estopped from assailing this matter because the trial courts Information against them on the basis of the dismissal of the criminal
lack of jurisdiction can be assailed at any time, even on appeal, case against the principal accused and, the failure to include in the
which defect cannot even be cured by the evidence adduced during Information the material averments required by the Anti-Hazing Law.
the trial. The petitioner further avers that he was convicted of other Consequently, this petition was filed before this Court questioning the
deceits under paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, a Sandiganbayans quashal of the Information.
crime for which he was not charged; hence, he was deprived of his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge against ISSUE: WON the accused can assail the information at any time
him. before entering a plea?

Issue: Whether, under the Information, the petitioner was charged of RULING: Yes. At any time before entering a plea, an accused may
other deceits under paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal assail the information filed with the court based on the grounds
Code. enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, one of
which is the claim that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
Ruling: He was charged under paragraph 1, Article 318 of the In assessing whether an information must be quashed on that
Revised Penal Code. Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal ground, the basic test is to determine if the facts averred would
Procedure requires that the information must allege the acts or establish the presence of the essential elements of the crime as
omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The real nature defined in the law. The information is examined without consideration
of the offense charged is to be ascertained by the facts alleged in the of the truth or veracity of the claims therein, as these are more
body of the Information and the punishment provided by law, not by properly proven or controverted during the trial. In the appraisal of
the designation or title or caption given by the Prosecutor in the the information, matters aliunde are not taken into account.
Information. The Information must allege clearly and accurately the
elements of the crime charged. As can be gleaned from its 15. People vs Molero
averments, the Information alleged the essential elements of the
Facts: The original complaint of Pacita Molero, dated March 22, FACTS: Appellant Vicente Lualhati was charged with Rape by his
1977, charged her father with the crime of rape allegedly committed common-law wife's 11-year-old daughter, Josephine Dimaunahan, in
"on or about the 13th day of February, 1976." Except for the date a complaint filed in the Municipal Court of Candelaria, Quezon. After
which is "on or about the 5th day of February, 1976" in the March 30, the preliminary investigation, the case was forwarded to the Court of
1978 complaint, the facts alleged in the two complaints were exactly First Instance of Quezon, where the Provincial Fiscal filed an
the same. The appellant was originally arraigned under the March information against the appellant. After trial, the court a quo,
22, 1977 criminal complaint. He pleaded "Not Guilty." During the trial, convicted the accused of rape, and imposed upon him the penalty of
Pacita Molero, the complaining witness testified that she was raped reclusion perpetua. Hence, this appeal. Appellant contends that the
by her father on February 5, 1976. In view of Pacita's testimony, the complaint is void because it charges at least three (3) crimes of rape,
assistant provincial fiscal filed a motion for leave to amend the namely: (1) that which was committed "on or about the month of
complaint. The motion was granted. Accordingly, the corrected June, 1978;" (2) that which was committed "sometime prior to said
criminal complaint dated March 30, 1978 was filed. The appellant period;" and (3) that which was committed "subsequent thereto."
filed a motion to quash the criminal complaint on the ground that the
appellant had been previously in jeopardy of being convicted of the ISSUE: Was there a valid complaint against the appellant?
offense charged citing Section 1(h), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Court. The motion was denied. Arraignment followed. The appellant RULING: YES. Attached to Josephine's complaint was her sworn
pleaded "Not Guilty." Thereafter, hearings were conducted resulting statement wherein, she categorically affirmed that Vicente abused
in the conviction of the appellant. The appellant now contends that he her before the start of classes in June 1978. That affidavit, which
was placed in double jeopardy when the instant case was filed and may be considered part of the complaint required by law, cures any
he was brought to trial to answer for the crime of rape allegedly ambiguity in the complaint regarding the number of offenses
committed on February 5, 1976. He argues that the dismissal of committed by the accused (People vs. Babasa, 97 SCRA 672).
Criminal Case No. 2148 on ground of variance between allegation Discrepancies between the accusation and the complaint as to time
and proof amounted to his acquittal, of occurrence of the carnal copulations in rape do not affect any
citing People v. Opemia (98 Phil. 698). He points to the fact that the essential right of the accused, where the acts occurred within the
criminal complaint alleged that he committed the crime of rape on period of time alleged in both writings and the difference noted in
February 13, 1976 and yet the prosecution's evidence shows that the other respects was of a formal, rather than a substantial, character.
alleged crime was committed on February 5, 1976.
17. ROCABERTE V. PEOPLE, 193 SCRA 152 (1991)
Issue: After arraignment and where the appellant has pleaded "not FACTS: The case at bar treats of the sufficiency of the averment in
guilty"it is still proper to amend the date of the commission of the the information of the time of the commission of the felony of theft
crime? ascribed to petitioner Felicisimo Rocaberte and two (2) others. The
information, filed in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, City of
Tagbilaran,Judge Andres S. Santos, presiding.
Ruling: Yes. The applicable rules are Sections 10 and 13, Rule 110 The accused, thru counsel de oficio, Atty. Lilio L. Amora, moved to
of the Revised Rules of Court. These quash the information, alleging that the statement of the time of
rules provide: commission of the felony charged, from 1977 to December, 1983, xx
"Time of the commission of the offense - It is not necessary to state a period of seven years, or about 2,551 days, was fatally defective:
in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense there was so great a gap as to defy approximation in the
was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the commission of one and the same offense (citing Peo. v. Reyes, 108
offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any SCRA 203); the variance is certainly unfair to the accused for it
time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed violates their constitutional right to be informed before the trial of the
as the information or complaint will permit." specific charge against them and deprives them of the opportunity to
xxxxxxxxx defend themselves xx (invoking Peo. v. Openia, 98 Phil. 698).
The motion was denied as was, too, the defendants motion for
"Amendment - The information or complaint may be amended, in reconsideration.
substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the
defendant pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters ISSUE: WON the information is defective
of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same
can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant." RULING: YES. The information against petitioner Rocaberte is
indeed seriously defective. It places on him and his co-accused the
unfair and unreasonable burden of having to recall their activities
Applying the rules, the amendment sought by the Prosecution should over a span of more than 2,500 days.
have been granted. The precise time of the commission of the crime The rules of criminal procedure declare6 that
is not an essential element of the offense of rape. The amendment of xx A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
the complaint changing the date of the commission of the crime of defendant; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or
rape from February 13, 1976 to February 5, 1976, a difference of omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
eight (8) days was only a matter of form under the facts of this case offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the
and did not prejudice the rights of the appellant. offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.

16. PEOPLE vs LUALHATI andas regards the time of the commission of the offense,
G.R. No. L-66038, March 16, 1989 particularlythat:7
xx It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the effect on December 1, 2000, requires that every complaint or
precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is information should state not only the qualifying but also the
a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to aggravating circumstances. This rule may be given retroactive effect
have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which in the light of the settled doctrine that statutes regulating the
the offense was committed as the information or complaint will procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions
permit. pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural
In line with this last mentioned rule, a variance of a few months laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. Hence, following
between the time set out in the indictment and that established by the this new rule, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstances of
evidence during the trial has been held not to constitute an error so dwelling and unlawful entry, since they were not alleged in the
serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score. information.
Hence, where the information sets the date of commission of a
robbery at March 25, 1900, evidence was allowed to show that the 19. PEOPLE V AMADORE
offense was actually perpetrated on the 5th or 6th of March; and an
amendment of an information so as to change the year therein stated Facts: Amadore, stepfather, was convicted of five counts of rape
to that following it, was allowed it appearing that the alteration against Maria Fe Oquindo, 15 years old. Also, he was likewise
impaired none of the defendants rights.8 indicted in three other informations. 1st, for violation of Sec.5 RA
Where, however, there was a variance of several years between the 7610 in relation to Art. 336 of RPC; 2nd, for attempted rape in an
time stated in the information, 1947, and the proof of its actual information; and 3rd, for rape in an Information. Accused plead not
commission adduced at the trial, 1952, the dismissal of the case by guilty. The cases were consolidated and jointly filed.
the Trial Court was sustained by this Court, since to allow
amendment of the indictment to conform to the evidence would be Issue: Whether the Court gravely erred in imposing the death
violative of defendants constitutional right to be informed of the penalty for each of the five counts of rape.
nature and cause of the accusation against him.9
Ruling: Yes. The relationship between accused-appellant and his
Again, the statement of the time of the commission of the offense victim and the latters minority are qualifying circumstances that must
which is so general as to span a number of years, i.e., between be correctly alleged and proved in order to warrant the imposition of
October, 1910 to August, 1912, has been held to be fatally defective the death penalty. Apparently, the victim is not the stepdaughter of
because it deprives the accused an opportunity to prepare his accused-appellant as has been so stated in the informations but is
defense.10 the daughter of his common-law spouse by the latters marital relation
with another. A stepdaughter is a daughter of ones legal spouse by a
A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the previous marriage. Except for the information in one of the criminal
crime charged is not, however, a ground for a motion to quash under cases, the minority of the victim has, too, not been alleged. The
Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. Even if it were, a motion for quashal Court has successively ruled that the circumstances under the
on that account will be denied since the defect is one that can be provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, the attendance of
cured by amendment; instead, the court shall order the amendment any of which mandates the penalty of death, are in the nature of
to be made by stating the time with particularity.1 qualifying circumstances and the absence of the proper averment
thereof in the complaint negates the imposition of that extreme
penalty.
DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE
18. People vs. Avedano- ortiz In Criminal Case No. 96-0473, where accused-appellant fondled the
breast of private complainant and repeatedly kissed her but he did no
FACTS: further and there was no showing that he at the time intended to
RTC found Willerie Avendao guilty of murder and accordingly have sex with the victim, the crime for which he should have been
sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. held guilty was the offense of acts of lasciviousness, not attempted
The information charged with two counts of murder allegedly rape, punishable under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code by
committed as follows: prision correccional.
That on or about the 29th day of July, 1997 at night time (sic) in
Purok Bagong Silang, Barangay Aguas, Municipality of Rizal, In Criminal Case No. 96-0474, accused-appellant may only be
Province of Occidental Mindoro, Philippines and within the convicted of attempted rape, despite what appears to be the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused being then armed consummation of the act, as the information has merely charged
with a jungle knife, with intent to kill, with treachery, did then and accused-appellant with attempted rape. Simple rape is punishable by
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and stab reclusion perpetua, and two degrees below that is prision mayor.
with the said weapon Remedios Castillo and Melvin Castillo inflicting
upon the victims serious wounds which caused their untimely death. 20. People vs Feliciano, G.R. 196735, May 5, 2014
The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of FACTS: On December 8, 1994, while seven (7) members of the
nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful entry. Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch near the Main Library of the
University of the Philippines, Diliman, they were suddenly attacked
ISSUE: Was the RTC correct in appreciating the aggravating with baseball bats and lead pipes by men believed to be members of
circumstances of dwelling, and unlawful entry? Scintilla Juris Fraternity. The assailants heads were covered with
either handkerchiefs or shirts. Dennis Venturina, one of the victims,
RULING: NO. Of the three, only nighttime was properly alleged in the died of traumatic head injuries. An information for murder was filed
information. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took against twelve members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity with the RTC
of Quezon City. Separate informations were also filed against them 2.YES. The Court held that the accused were sufficiently identified by
for the attempted murder of 3 Sigma Rho fraternity members, and the the witnesses for the prosecution. It was held that the trial court, in
frustrated murder of 2 Sigma Rho fraternity members. Only 11 of the weighing all the evidence on hand, found the testimonies of the
accused stood trial since one of the accused remained at large. In witnesses for the prosecution to be credible. Slight inconsistencies in
2002, the trial court rendered its decision with the findings that only 5 their statements were immaterial considering the swiftness of the
of the twelve accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of incident. Evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible but
murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among other have little persuasive value in this case. According to the testimony
penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The case against one of U.P. Police Officer Salvador, when he arrived at the scene, he
accused was ordered archived by the court until his apprehension. interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they could not
On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First recognize the attackers since they were all masked. This, it is
Division of Five, affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, argued, could be evidence that could be given as part of the res
but downgraded the attempted murder case to slight physical gestae. There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully
injuries. The decision of the Court of Appeals was then brought to the eating lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence.
SC for review. It is the argument of appellants that the information Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made
filed against them violates their constitutional right to be informed of immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact,
the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They argue admissible as evidence given in res gestae. The statements made by
that the prosecution should not have included the phrase wearing the bystanders, although admissible, have little persuasive value
masks and/or other forms of disguise in the information since they since the bystanders could have seen the events transpiring at
were presenting testimonial evidence that not all the accused were different vantage points and at different points in time. Even Frisco
wearing masks or that their masks fell off. Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that
the attackers had their masks on at first, but later on, some remained
ISSUE/S: masked and some were unmasked. When the bystanders
1. Whether accused-appellants constitutional rights were testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who witnessed
violated when the information against them contained the the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the
aggravating circumstance of the use of masks despite the former become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack
prosecution presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell off occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore, must be given
2. Whether or not the RTC and CA correctly ruled, on the basis considerably less weight than that of the victims.
of the evidence, that accused-appellants were sufficiently identified.
CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
RULING:
1. NO. Every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be 21 People v. Tampos
stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating
circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as FACTS: An information for Statutory Rape was filed against the
such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the accused and was guilty of the crime charged in the information. The
aggravating circumstance of wearing masks and/or other forms of OSG contends that the trial court erred in imposing on appellant the
disguise in the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to penalty of reclusion perpetua. The OSG argues that the offense
that effect, to be admissible by the trial court. In criminal cases, committed is the heinous offense of child-rape, where the victim is
disguise is an aggravating circumstance because it allows the less than seven years old. Hence, the OSG recommends that the
accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out penalty should be death.
his crimes. The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial ISSUE: Should the accused be convicted of the offense of child-
evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the rape?
masks fell off does not prevent them from including disguise as an RULING: No. The Information first and foremost refers to the crime
aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as of rape defined in Paragraph 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal
an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment of Code, now Article 266-A, where the woman is under twelve years of
identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information age, which is statutory rape. It is this specific provision of the Code,
was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in the favorable in this context to the appellant that we should apply. To
commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to convict an accused of a higher or more serious offense than that
conceal their identity. The appellate court, however, incorrectly ruled specifically charged in the complaint or information on which he is
out the presence of treachery in the commission of the offense. The tried would be an outright violation of his basic rights. It is well settled
victims were eating lunch on campus and were not at a place where that an accused may only be convicted of a crime charged against
they would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden him in the information or those necessarily included therein. The
attack by rival fraternity men. The swiftness and the suddenness of information herein charging STATUTORY RAPE could not be validly
the attack using lead pipes and baseball bats gave no opportunity for converted to a charge of CHILD-RAPE. The latter charge constitutes
the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery, a greater offense punishable by death, quite distinct from statutory
therefore, was present in this case. Further, the information charges rape. Having been specifically arraigned on the charge of
conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy presupposes that the STATUTORY RAPE, appellant could not after trial be held to answer
act of one is the act of all. This would mean all the accused had for child-rape. To do so would raise infractions of due process and
been one in their plan to conceal their identity even if there was other guarantees in favor of appellant, particularly his right to be
evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have done informed, and not misinformed, of the offense charged. Moreover,
so. the severity of death penalty, especially its irreversible and final
nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in
capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure
and evidence. The OSGs prayer to increase appellants culpability to of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the
a capital offense cannot, in our view, be granted now without also gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and
fracturing our present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. For now, intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has
in Rule 110 made effective on December 1, 2000, we find strict no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time
requirements for the State Prosecutor to observe faithfully, thus: need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at
state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.
acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the
offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the 23. People v. Flores, Jr. GR No. 128823-24
statute punishing it. Facts: After trial, the court found accused-appellant PEDRO
Sec. 9. Cause of accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as FLORES, JR. Y FLORES ALIAS PESIONG guilty of Statutory Rape
constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating and sentenced him to death in both cases. The complaints against
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and accused-appellant filed on February 3, 1997 read as follows:
not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms Criminal Case No. U-9184:
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating The undersigned, FILIPINA FLORES Y LAZO, 11 years old, grade
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. The three pupil and a resident of Sitio Buenlag, Brgy Nancamaliran West,
prosecution must avoid ambiguity, vagueness or uncertainty as to Urdaneta, Pangasinan, under oath, hereby accuses PEDRO
what offense is being charged. The allegation in the information FLORES, JR., Y FLORES for the crime of "RAPE", committed as
states that the appellant is being charged with the crime of follows:
STATUTORY RAPE, under Art. 335, Par. 3 of the Revised Penal That on the 9th day of December 1996, in the morning at Sitio
Code. Mention of its relation to R.A. 7610, R.A. 7659 and R.A. 8313 Buenlag, Brgy. Nancamaliran West, Municipality of Urdaneta,
it being a heinous offense... need not confuse us. It should not now Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
appear that alternative offenses are charged, which could void the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and
information. To forestall that eventuality, the charge should be read intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and
as referring to statutory rape and no other kind. Given that charge, feloniously sexually abuse the herein complaining witness FILIPINA
we agree with the trial courts imposition of reclusion perpetua as the FLORES Y LAZO, 11 years old, all against her will.
appropriate penalty on appellant. Prudence counsels us to avoid Criminal Case No. U-9185:
pronouncing a sentence of death where law and the evidence do not CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
clearly and indubitably call for it. The undersigned, FILIPINA FLORES Y LAZO, 11 years old, grade
22. PEOPLE vs CANTOMAYOR three pupil and a resident of Sitio Buenlag, Brgy. Nancamaliran
G.R. No. 145522, December 5, 2002 West, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, under oath, hereby accuses PEDRO
FLORES, JR., Y FLORES, ALIAS "PESYONG", committed as
FACTS: Accused-appellant Zosimo Cantomayor y Tahum was found follows:
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his 9 year old daughter. That on the 28th day of December 1996, in the evening at Sitio
The Information charging accused-appellant of the crime of rape, Buenlag, Brgy Nancamaliran West, Municipality of Urdaneta,
states That on or about the year 1990, accused-appellant Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
committed the crime. Accused-appellant invokes the case of People Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent
v. Ladrillo, contending that his conviction should be set aside and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully,
because the information, charging him with rape allegedly committed unlawfully, criminally and feloniously sexually abuse the herein
on or about the year 1990, failed to specifically allege the exact date complaining witness FILIPINA FLORES, an 11 years old and
of the commission of the crime, thus depriving him of the opportunity daughter of the herein accused with the use of sharp pointed bladed
to fully defend himself. weapon and all against her will.
Issue: Whether or not the informations are null and void for being
ISSUE: Does the failure to specify the exact date or time when the violative of the constitutional right of accused-appellant Pedro Flores,
crime was committed make the information defective? Jr. y Flores alias "Pesiong," for Rape, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.
RULING: NO.The time of the commission of the crime assumes Ruling: The Court declared the informations in both criminal cases
importance only when it creates serious doubt as to the commission null and void. It is at once apparent, from a reading of the above-
of the rape or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of quoted complaints, that accused-appellant was denied the
conviction. The date of the commission of the rape becomes relevant constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainants accusation against him. This right has the following objectives:
narration practically hinge on the date of the commission of the 1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge
crime. This case is evidently one of those instances where the Court against him as will enable him to make the defense;
properly held that the failure to specify the exact date or time when 2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against
rape was committed does not ipso facto make the information further prosecution for the same cause;
defective on its face. Thus, in People v. Espejon where the Court 3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
convicted the appellant for rape under an information charging him whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction if one
with rape perpetrated sometime in the year 1982 and dates should be had.
subsequent thereto and sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent It is readily apparent that the facts charged in said information do not
thereto, the Court explained that the date or time of the commission constitute an offense. The information does not cite which among the
numerous sections or subsections of R.A. No. 7610 has been FACTS: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner
violated by accused-appellant. Moreover, it does not state the acts Jason Ivler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig
and omissions constituting the offense, or any special or aggravating City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) reckless imprudence
circumstances attending the same, as required under the rules of resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by
criminal procedure. Section 8, Rule 110 thereof provides: respondent Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2) reckless imprudence
Designation of the offense.The complaint or information shall state resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of
the designation of the offense given by the statue, aver the acts or respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and spouses Ponces vehicle. On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, to the charge in reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking
punishing it. this conviction, Ivler moved to quash the Information of reckless
The allegation in the information that accused-appellant "willfully, imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for placing
unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of
[Jeannie Ann] either by raping her or committing acts of reckless imprudence.
lasciviousness on her" is not a sufficient averment of the acts MeTC: denied the motion to quash
constituting the offense as required under Section 8, for these are RTC: denied Ivlers Petition for Certiorari in dismissing his Motion to
conclusions of law, not facts. The information in Criminal Case No. Quash
15368-R is therefore void for being violative of the accused-
appellants constitutionally-guaranteed right to be informed of the ISSUE: Whether or not Ivlers constitutional right under the Double
nature and cause of the accusation against him. Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in the information charging
As held by this Court in People v. Cruz, the allegation in the him with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to
information that the therein accused-appellant sexually abused the property
therein private complainant by either raping or committing acts of
lasciviousness on her "is not a sufficient averment of the acts RULING: YES. The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article
constituting the offense as required under Section 8 of Rule 110, for 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to
these are conclusions of law, not facts." Nothing less can be said of commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
the criminal complaints in the cases at bar. They are void for being offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
violative of the accused-appellants constitutional right to be informed regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this Courts
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. unbroken
chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365
DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE starting with People v. Diaz, decided in 1954. There, a full Court,
24. People v Avendano |g.r. no. 137407| January 28, 2003| speaking through Mr. Justice Montemayor, ordered the dismissal of a
case for damage to property thru reckless imprudence because a
FACTS: On July 29, 1997, the accused being then armed with a prior case against the same accused for reckless driving, arising
jungle knife, with intent to kill, with treachery, did then and there from the same act upon which the first prosecution was based, had
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and stab with the been dismissed earlier. Since then, whenever the same legal
said weapon Remedios Castillo and Melvin Castillo inflicting upon the question was brought before the Court, that is, whether prior
victims serious wounds which caused their untimely death. The trial conviction or acquittal of reckless imprudence bars subsequent
court only filed one information for the two deaths prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of the
consequences alleged for both charges, the Court unfailingly and
ISSUE: WON failure to timely question the defect in the information consistently answered in the affirmative in People v. Belga, Yap v.
is deemed a waiver of his objection thereto Lutero, People v. Narvas, People v. Silva, People v. Macabuhay,
People v. Buan, Buerano v. Court of Appeals, and People v. City
RULING: Yes. As held in People vs. Ramon: Regrettably for the Court of Manila. These cases uniformly barred the second
accused-appellant, however, he has failed to timely question the prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the Double
above defect, and he may thus be deemed to have waived his Jeopardy Clause. The reason for this consistent stance of extending
objection to the multiplicity of charges. In People vs. Conte, this the constitutional protection under the Double Jeopardy Clause to
Court has ruled: . . . Under Sections 1 and 3(e) of Rule 117, the quasi-offenses was best articulated by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in
appellant, before entering his plea, should have moved to quash the Buan, where, in barring a subsequent prosecution for serious
complaint for being duplicitous. For his failure to do so, he is deemed physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence
to have waived the defect. Hence, pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 120, because of the accuseds prior acquittal of slight physical injuries
the court could convict him of as many offenses as are charged and thru reckless imprudence, with both charges grounded on the same
proved, and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of act, the Court explained: Reason and precedent both coincide in that
them. once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence,
the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the
In addition, Section 13 of Rule 110 states that a complaint or essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under article 365
information must charge only one offense, except when the law of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a
felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the
25. Ivler vs Judge San Pedro result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of
the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious
result should affect one person or several persons, the offense that the evidence of guilt is strong. Petitioners could not be better off
(criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split with amended informations than with the subsequent ones. It really
into different crimes and prosecutions. x x x. made no difference considering that where a capital offense is
We hold that prosecutions under Article 365should proceed from a charged and the evidence of guilt is strong, bail becomes a matter of
single charge regardless of the number or severity of the discretion under either an amended or a new information. Contrary to
consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than petitioners submission, the absence of notice and hearing does not
apply the penalties under Article 365 for each consequence alleged divest a trial court of authority to pass on the merits of the motion. It
and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting of charges under has been held thatThe order of the court granting the motion to
Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first dismiss despite absence of a notice of hearing, or proof of service
level court. thereof, is merely an irregularity in the proceedings. It cannot deprive
a competent court of jurisdiction over the case. The court still retains
AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION its authority to pass on the merits of the motion. The remedy of the
26. GALVEZ vs COURT OF APPEALS aggrieved party in such cases is either to have the order set aside or
G.R. No. 114046, October 24, 1994 the irregularity otherwise cured by the court which dismissed the
complaint or to appeal from the dismissal and not certiorari.
FACTS: On November 12, 1993, petitioners Honorato Galvez, the
incumbent Mayor of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and one Godofredo 27. TEEHANKEE JR. V. MADAYAG, ET. AL
Diego were charged in three separate informations with homicide
and two counts of frustrated homicide for allegedly shooting to death Facts: On July 19, 1991 an information for the crime of frustrated
Alvin Calma Vinculado and seriously wounding Levi Calma Vinculado murder was filed against Claudio Teehankee Jr. allegedly committed
and Miguel Reyes Vinculado, Jr. On December 15, 1993, before to Maureen Navarro Hultman.
petitioners could be arraigned, respondent prosecutor filed an Ex
Parte Motion to Withdraw Informations of the original informations. After the prosecution had rested its case, the petitioner moved for
This motion was granted by Judge Villajuan also on December 15, leave to file a demurrer to evidence, but before the motion was filed,
1993 and the cases were considered withdrawn from the docket of the victim died. So, the private prosecutor filed an omnibus motion for
the court. On the same day, Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio filed four new leave of court to file the amended information. The amended
informations against herein petitioners for murder, two counts of information filed on October 31, 1991 charges Teehankee of murder.
frustrated murder, and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for
illegal possession of firearms. Thereafter, a Motion to Quash the new The trial court admitted the amended information. During the
informations for lack of jurisdiction was filed by petitioners before arraignment, the petitioner refused to be arraigned on the amended
Judge Pornillos on January 3, 1994. At the court session set for the information contending the lack of a preliminary investigation
arraignment of petitioners on January 24, 1994, Judge Pornillos thereon. The judge, then, ordered the plea of "not guilty" be entered
issued an order denying the motion to quash. In the meantime, and for petitioner. The prosecution was ordered to present its evidence.
prior to the arraignment of herein petitioners before Judge Pornillos, The petitioner's counsel manifested that he did not want to take part
an order was issued on January 20, 1994 by Judge Villajuan granting in the proceedings because of the legal issue raised. So, the trial
the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners, ordering the court appointed a counsel de officio to represent the petitioner. The
reinstatementof the original informations, and setting the arraignment petitioner now seeks, among other things, for the SC to nullify the
of the accused therein for February 8, 1994. On said date, however, respondent judge's admittance of the amended information, and to
the arraignment was suspended and, in the meanwhile, petitioners compel the judge to order preliminary investigation of the crime
filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with charged in the amended information.
respondent Court of Appeals, assailing the order dated January 24,
1994 issued by Judge Pornillos which denied petitioners motion to Issue: Whether or not an amended information involving a
quash filed for the new informations. As earlier stated, respondent substantial amendment, without preliminary investigation, after the
court dismissed the petition in its questioned resolution of February prosecution has rested on the original information, may legally and
18, 1994, hence this petition. validly be admitted.

ISSUE: Was the ex parte motion to withdraw the original informations Held: Yes. Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
null and void on the ground that there was no notice and hearing as Procedure provides:
required by Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court?
Sec. 14. Amendment. The information or complaint may be
RULING: NO. Considering that in the original cases before Branch amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time
14 of the trial court petitioners had not yet been placed in jeopardy, before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to
and the ex parte motion to withdraw was filed and granted before all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when
they could be arraigned, there would be no imperative need for the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.
notice and hearing thereof. If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the
Petitioners contention that the dismissal of the original informations original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
and the consequent filing of the new ones substantially affected their charging the proper offense in accordance with Rule 119, Section 11,
right to bail is too strained and tenuous an argument. They would provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double
want to ignore the fact that had the original informations been jeopardy and may also require the witnesses to give bail for their
amended so as to charge the capital offense of murder, they still appearance at the trial. A substantial amendment consists of the
stood to likewise be deprived of their right to bail once it was shown recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of
the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. 11 October 5, 2005
Thus, the following have been held to be merely formal amendments,
viz: (1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty Facts: The prominent Public relations practitioner, Salvador Dacer,
that the court might impose in the event of conviction; 12 (2) an together with his driver was abducted along Zobel Roxas St. Manila.
amendment which does not charge another offense different or They were killed by strangulation and their charred remains were
distinct from that charged in the original one; 13 (3) additional later found in Cavite.
allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so An information was filed by the prosecutors charging a number of
as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he accused some of whom are public officers of double murder.
has or will assume; and (4) an amendment which does not adversely The prosecution filed a motion to admit amended information which
affect any substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke was granted and admitted by the trial court.
prescription. Going now to the case at bar, it is evident that frustrated The Amended information read:
murder is but a stage in the execution of the crime of murder, hence xxx ,abduct SALVADOR (Bubby) DACER and EMMANUEL
the former is necessarily included in the latter. It is indispensable that CORBITO at the corner of Osmea Highway (formerly South Super
the essential element of intent to kill, as well as qualifying Highway) and Zobel Roxas Street in Manila, and later brought them
circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation, be to Indang, Cavite
alleged in both an information for frustrated murder and for murder, Meanwhile, Villanueva filed a motion for reinvestigation asserting that
thereby meaning and proving that the same material allegations are he was mistakenly identified as a participant in the double murder.
essential to the sufficiency of the informations filed for both. This is This was granted.
because, except for the death of the victim, the essential elements of A Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information dated 17
consummated murder likewise constitute the essential ingredients to September 2001 was filed by the prosecution. The Amended
convict herein petitioner for the offense of frustrated murder. In the Information ---
present case, therefore, there is an identity of offenses charged in (1) discharged accused Jimmy L. Lopez, Alex B. Diloy, William L.
both the original and the amended information. What is involved here Lopez and Glen Dumlao as they are now witnesses for the State;
is not a variance in the nature of different offenses charged, but only (2) substituted SPO3 Allan Villanueva for P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva;
a change in the stage of execution of the same offense from and
frustrated to consummated murder. This is being the case, we hold (3) charged as additional accused P/Supt. Michael Ray Aquino,
that an amendment of the original information will suffice and, P/Supt. Cezar Mancao II and P/Sr. Supt. Teofilo Via.
consequent thereto, the filing of the amended information for murder Issue: the fundamental issue that must be resolved concerns the
is proper. duty of a trial court judge when confronted with a motion to admit
amended information excluding some of the accused named in the
original information for utilization as witnesses for the State
28. Matalam v. The Second Division of Sandiganbayan
FACTS: An information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Ruling: The key lies in the correct interpretation of two pertinent
petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., Section
amended, for their alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the 14 of Rule 110 on amendment of information and Section 17 of Rule
monetary claims. After the reinvestigation, the public prosecutor filed 119 on the discharge of an accused as state witness.Section 14,
a Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information. In his Rule 110 states
Motion to Dismiss, petitioner alleged that the amended information Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or
charges an entirely new cause of action. That the corpus delicti of the information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave
amended information is no longer his alleged refusal to pay the of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the
backwages ordered by the Civil Service Commission, but the alleged plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with
willful, unlawful and illegal dismissal from the service of the leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to
complaining witnesses. He claims he is entitled to a preliminary the rights of the accused
investigation since he was not informed that he is being charged for However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature
the alleged dismissal of the complaining witnesses and that he was of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the
not given the opportunity to explain. complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the
ISSUE: Was the amendment substantial needing a new preliminary prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.
investigation? The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of
RULING: YES. In the case at bar, the amendment was indeed its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
substantial. The recital of facts constituting the offense charged was Section 14, Rule 110 does not qualify the grounds for the exclusion
definitely altered. In the original information, the prohibited act of the accused. Thus, said provision applies in equal force when the
allegedly committed by petitioner was the illegal and unjustifiable exclusion is sought on the usual ground of lack of probable cause, or
refusal to pay the monetary claims of the private complainants, while when it is for utilization of the accused as state witness, as in this
in the amended information, it is the illegal dismissal from the service case, or on some other ground.
of the private complainants. If petitioner is not to be given a new
preliminary investigation for the amended charge, his right will 30. BRAZA vs SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R.195032, February 20, 2013
definitely be prejudiced because he will be denied his right to present
evidence to show or rebut evidence regarding the element of evident FACTS: After the 12th ASEAN Leaders Summit hosted by the
bad faith and manifest partiality on the alleged dismissal. He will be Philippines, a letter-complaint was filed before the PACPO,
denied due process. Ombudsman Visayas, alleging that the ASEAN Summit street lighting
projects were overpriced. Braza, being the president of FABMIK, was
29. Soberano v. People G.R. No. 154629 one of the respondents. Eventually, the OMB-Visayas filed before the
Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019. On August 14, 31. Union Bank of the Philippines v. People
2008, the motions for reinvestigation filed by Arturo Radaza, the
Mayor of Lapu-lapu City, and the DPWH officials were denied by the Facts: Union bank filed two complaints for sum of money with prayer
Sandiganbayan for lack of merit. Consequently, they moved for the for a writ of replevin against spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong
reconsideration of said resolution. The Sandiganbayan reconsidered and a John Doe. The first complaint was filed before the RTC,
its August 14, 2008 resolution and directed a reinvestigation of the Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The second complaint was
case. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Braza would not be placed in filed on March 15, 2000 and was raffled in the MeTC, Branch 47,
double jeopardy should he be arraigned a new under the second Pasay City. The Certification was notarized in Makati City but was
information because his previous arraignment was conditional. It submitted and used in Pasay City, while the Information against
continued that even if he was regularly arraigned, double jeopardy Union Bank and Tomas was filed in Makati. Tomas filed a Motion to
would still not set in because the second information charged an Quash on the grounds that the venue was improperly laid and that
offense different from, and which did not include or was necessarily the facts do not constitute an offense. On the first ground, Tomas
included in, the original offense charged. On November 6, 2009, argued that since it is the Pasay City Court where the Certificate was
Braza moved for reconsideration with alternative motion to quash the submitted and used, it should have the jurisdiction over the case
information. The Sandiganbayan held that the specifics sought to be against her. The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash,
alleged in the Amended Information were evidentiary in nature which ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the Certificate was
could be properly presented during the trial on the merits. Braza was notarized there and the allegations in the Information sufficiently
effectively discharged from the first Information upon the filing of the charged Tomas with perjury. Her subsequent Motion for
second Information but said discharge was without prejudice to his Reconsideration was denied.
prosecution for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The
Sandiganbayan, however, deemed it proper that a new preliminary Issue: Where is the proper venue of the case?
investigation be conducted under the new charge. Ruling: The place where the Certificate was notarized, the MeTC-
ISSUE: Whether or not double jeopardy has already set in basis of Makati City, is the proper venue for the criminal action. The criminal
Braza "not guilty" plea in the first Information and, thus, he can no act charged was for the execution of an affidavit that contained a
longer be prosecuted under the second Information. falsity. Art. 183 of the RPC is the applicable provision for this case;
RULING: NO. A careful perusal of the record in the case at bench and following so, the jurisdiction and venue should be determined on
would reveal that the arraignment of Braza under the first information the basis of this article which penalizes one who makes an affidavit
was conditional in nature as it was a mere accommodation in his upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to
favor to enable him to travel abroad without the Sandiganbayan administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. The
losing its ability to conduct trial in absentia in case he would abscond. constitutive act of the offense is the making of an affidavit, so, the
TheSandiganbayan's June 6, 2008 Order clearly and unequivocally criminal act is consummated when the statement containing a falsity
states that the conditions for Braza'sarraignment as well as his travel is subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized person.'
abroad, that is, that if the Information would be amended, he shall If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a
waive his constitutional right to be protected against double jeopardy proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sown statement
and shall allow himself to be arraigned on the amended information is submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn
without losing his right to question the same. It appeared that these statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of
conditions were duly explained to Braza and his lawyer by the anti- the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the
graft court. He was afforded time to confer and consult his lawyer. crime committed. In all cases, the determination of venue shall be
Thereafter, he voluntarily submitted himself to such conditional based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the
arraignment and entered a plea of "not guilty" to the offense of crime committed.
violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. Verily, the relinquishment of
his right to invoke double jeopardy had been convincingly laid out. 32. PEOPLE VS GREY
Such waiver was clear, categorical and intelligent. It may not be FACTS: Mayor Jojo Grey, his son Francis Grey and teo others were
amiss to state that on the day of said arraignment, one of the charge of the crime Murder which resulted in a filing of a counter-
incidents pending for the consideration of the Sandiganbayan was an charge of Perjury for the death of Rolando Diocton. Judge Band was
omnibus motion for determination of probable cause and for quashal thrn the presiding judge who denied the motion for issuance of
of information or for reinvestigation filed by accused Radaza. warrant of arrest due to insufficiency but later on inhibit herself and
Accordingly, there was a real possibility that the first information denied the motion for reconsideration. Respondent then filed his own
would be amended if said motion was granted. Although the omnibus petition for the change of venue alleging that the one who took over
motion was initially denied, it was subsequently granted upon motion the case was a pawn. Judge Natividad who was then the presiding
for reconsideration, and a reinvestigation was ordered to be judge proceeded with the preliminary investigation and issued
conducted in the criminal case. Having given his conformity and warrant of arrest against the respondent. Consequently, respondent
accepted the conditional arraignment and its legal consequences, filed a petition alleging that petitioner gravely abuse his discretion for
Braza is now estopped from assailing its conditional nature just to issuing order and for seeking a TRO. CA then issued a permanent
conveniently avoid being arraigned and prosecuted of the new TRO, ordering warrant of arrest but it was set aside and dismissed
charge under the second information. There is simply no double the case. Petitioner argued that respondent committed forum
jeopardy when the subsequent information charges another and shopping which would warrant the outright dismissal of their petition.
different offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts.
Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is ISSUE: WON respondents was guilty of forum shopping.
the prosecution for the same offense.
RULING: NO. Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an
VENUE IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS: adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of
seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum,
other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also
involve the institution of two or more actions or proceedings INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY
grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other 33. Alonte v. Savellano, Jr.; GR No. 131652
court would make a favorable disposition.
Facts: An information for rape was filed against petitioners Bayani M.
Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are Alonte, an incumbent Mayor of Bian, Laguna, and Buenaventura
present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res Concepcion predicated on a complaint filed by Juvie-lyn
judicata in the other. The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity Punongbayan. The information stated that Alonte, after giving
of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same complainant-child drinking water which made her dizzy and weak, did
interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) knowledge with her against her will and consent, to her damage and
identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment prejudice. The accused Buenaventura "Wella" Concepcion without
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is having participated as principal or accessory assisted in the
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. commission of the offense brought her to the rest house of Alonte
The elements of res judicata are: (a) the former judgment must be and after receiving the amount of P1,000.00 left her alone with him,
final; (b) the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction over the who subsequently raped her.
parties and the subject matter; (c) it must be a judgment on the During the pendency of the petition for change of venue, or on 25
merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, June 1997, Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, assisted by her parents and
identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. counsel, executed an affidavit of desistance. It would appear that
immediately following the arraignment, the prosecution presented
A reexamination of the two actions in this case, in light of the private complainant Juvielyn Punongbayan followed by her parents.
foregoing jurisprudence, is in order. During this hearing, Punongbayan affirmed the validity and
voluntariness of her affidavit of desistance. She stated that she had
In the petition for change of venue filed on February 19, 2007, no intention of giving positive testimony in support of the charges
respondents prayed for the transfer of the criminal case to any court against Alonte and had no interest in further prosecuting the action.
in Metro Manila,alleging that the prosecution was politically motivated Punongbayan confirmed: (i) That she was compelled to desist
and designed to hamper the plan of respondent Joseph Grey to run because of the harassment she was experiencing from the media, (ii)
for a congressional seat in the May 2007 elections. They contended that no pressures nor influence were exerted upon her to sign the
that it would be extremely pernicious to the interest of justice if trial affidavit of desistance, and (iii) that neither she nor her parents
of this case and (of) the other two cases are held in Samar, received a single centavo from anybody to secure the affidavit of
especially in the City of Calbayog, where the said (Congressman) desistance.
Reynaldo Uy is a resident and absolutely wields power. They also Issue: Whether or not the submission of the Affidavit of Desistance
asked the Court to hold the proceedings in abeyance until after the by the offended party warrants the dismissal of the criminal case
May 14, 2007 elections. against the accused.
In its August 22, 2007 Resolution, the Court denied the petition for Ruling: No, the submission of the Affidavit of Desistance does not
transfer of venue for lack of merit. It also directed Judge Navidad to warrant the dismissal of the case. Firstly, the affidavit of desistance
hear the case with dispatch. of Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan, does not contain any statement that
On March 5, 2007, while their petition for change of venue was disavows the veracity of her complaint against petitioners but merely
pending before this Court, respondents filed a petition for certiorari seeks to "be allowed to withdraw" her complaint and to discontinue
before the CA. They prayed, first, for the issuance of a TRO and/or a with the case for varied other reasons. As explained in People v.
writ of preliminary injunction to prohibit Judge Navidad from Junio:
proceeding with Criminal Case No. 4916 and from causing the Thus, we have declared that at most the retraction is an
implementation of the warrants of arrest against respondents; and afterthought which should not be given probative value. It would be a
second, for the Court to set aside Judge Navidads February 20, dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of
2007 Order and the corresponding warrants he issued. The TRO was justice simply because the witness who has given it later on changed
granted on March 13, 2007, and the CA Decision making the same his mind for one reason or another. Such a rule will make a solemn
injunction permanent and setting aside the warrants of arrest was trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of
promulgated on May 8, 2007, a few days before the May 14, 2007 unscrupulous witnesses. Because affidavits of retraction can easily
elections. be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for monetary
The CA correctly ruled that respondents were not guilty of forum consideration, the Court has invariably regarded such affidavits as
shopping when they filed the two actions. Respondents raised exceedingly unreliable
different issues and sought different reliefs in the two actions, Secondly, an affidavit of desistance by itself, even when construed
although both were grounded on the same set of facts. The issue in as a pardon in the so-called "private crimes," is not a ground for the
the petition for change of venue is whether the trial of the case was dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been instituted.
to be moved to another court in light of respondents allegations that The affidavit, nevertheless, may, as so earlier intimated, possibly
the same was being used as a tool for their political persecution. On constitute evidence whose weight or probative value, like any other
the other hand, the issue in the petition for certiorari before the CA piece of evidence, would be up to the court for proper evaluation.
was whether Judge Navidad gravely abused his discretion in issuing
the February 20, 2007 Order and the warrants for respondents 34. Tan Jr. V Gallardo |g.r no. L-41213-14 | October 5, 1976
arrest. Thus, this Courts Resolution would not have amounted to res
judicata that would bar the petition for certiorari before the CA.
FACTS: Petitioners seek the annulment of respondent Judge's
Orders in the Criminal Case People of the Philippines v Jorge Tan, Issue: Should private prosecutors be allowed to actively participate
Jr, et al for frustrated murder and Double Murder of the son and in the trial of Criminal Case No. 285721?
uncle of Mayor Inigo Larazzabal. Judge Pedro Gallardo made the
two life sentences to death penalty allegedly after meeting with Ruling: Yes. Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is
Mayor Larazzabal and receipt of other paraphernalia such as whisky the fundamental postulate that every man criminally liable is also
and wine according to the court stenographer. The Solicitor General civilly liable. When a person commits a crime he offends two entities
submitted his comment to the petition. They are persuaded that there namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity called
are bases for stating that the rendition of respondent Judge's the State whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member
decision and his resolution on the motion for new trial were not free of the society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property has
from suspicion of bias and prejudice therefore, they interpose no been actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable
objection to the remand of the aforementioned criminal cases "for the act or omission. An act or omission is felonious because it is
rendition of a new decision by another trial judge. The petitioners punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it
moved to strike out the "Motion to Admit Attacked Comment" and the is a crime but because it caused damage to another. Additionally,
"Comment" of the private prosecutor on the ground that the latter has what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and the
"absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings before this moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused
Honorable Court and, hence, without any personality to have any to
paper of his entertained by this Tribunal. Private prosecutors now another by reason of his own act or omission, whether done
contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court, to take part intentionally or negligently. The indemnity which a person
in the proceedings, and to adapt a position in contravention to that of is sentenced to pay forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by
the Solicitor General. law for the commission of the crime. The civil
action involves the civil liability arising from the offense charged
ISSUE: WON an offended party can intervene in criminal action? which includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and
indemnification for consequential damages. Under the Rules, where
RULING: Yes. Intervention of offended party, personally or by the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal
attorney, for the sole purpose of enforcing civil liability for criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by
action and not of demanding punishment of accused; Exceptions.The counsel in the prosecution of the offense. Rule 111(a) of the Rules
role of the private prosecutors is to represent the offended party with of Criminal Procedure provides that, [w]hen a criminal action is
respect to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising instituted, the civil action arising from the offense charged shall be
from the offense. This civil action is deemed instituted with the deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
criminal action, unless the offended party either expressly waives the waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or
civil action or reserves to institute it separately. Thus, an offended institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
party may intervene in the proceedings, personally or by attorney,
specially in case of offenses which cannot be prosecuted except at Private respondent did not waive the civil action, nor did she reserve
the instance of the offended party. The only exceptions to this are the right to institute it separately, nor institute the civil action for
when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly damages arising from the offense charged. Thus, we find that the
reserves his right to institute it after the termination of the case, in private prosecutors can intervene in the trial of the criminal action.
which case he loses his right to intervene upon the theory that he is
deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution. Intervention of 36. LIONG vs LEE G.R. No. 181658, August 7, 2013
offended party subject to control and direction of prosecuting
officer.Whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of FACTS: Lee Pue Liong, a.k.a. Paul Lee, President of Centillion
a criminal action, his intervention must always be subject to the Holdings, Inc. by virtue of a Secretarys Certificate issued by Virginia
direction and control of the prosecuting official. Lee, for and in behalf of CHI, filed a petition for issuance of an
owners duplicate certificate of title of TCT No. 232238, covering a
35. Chua vs Court of Appeals property owned by CHI. Despite opposition by Chua Pue Chin Lee,
her sister, who alleged that as Corporate Treasurer of Chi, she has
Facts: On February 28, 1996, private respondent Lydia Hao, possession of important documents of the Corporation, including the
treasurer of Siena Realty Corporation, filed a complaint-affidavit with duplicate copy of TCT No. 232238, the RTC of Manila granted the
the City Prosecutor of Manila charging Francis Chua and his wife, petition and directed the Registrar of Deeds of Manila to issue a new
Elsa Chua, of four counts of falsification of public documents TCT. Chula filed an Omnibus motion to recall the order granting the
pursuant to Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised petition, alleging that she has possession of TCT No. 232238;
Penal Code. Thereafter, the City Prosecutor filed the Information because of this the RTC recalled the order. Chua Lee also filed a
docketed as Criminal Case No. 285721 for falsification of public case for perjury against Paul Lee because of the alleged perjurious
document, before the MeTC of Manila, against Francis Chua but statements made in the Petition as well as his testimony in court
dismissed the accusation against Elsa Chua. Herein petitioner, regarding the loss of TCT 232238, which she alleged Paul Lee did to
Francis Chua, was arraigned and trial ensued thereafter. During the mortgage the property to Planters Bank, even though there is an
trial in the MeTC, private prosecutors Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho and Atty. intra-corporate controversy between him and his siblings, including
Ariel Bruno Rivera appeared as private prosecutors and presented Chua. The Office of the City Prosecutor then filed an Information for
Hao as their first witness. After Haos testimony, Chua moved to perjury against Paul Lee before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
exclude complainants counsels as private prosecutors in the case on Manila. After Atty. Augusto Macam, private prosecutor under the
the ground that Hao failed to allege and prove any civil liability in the control of the public prosecutor, presented the first witness, Atty.
case. Roland Viesca Jr of the Registry of Deeds, Manila, the accused thru
counsel, moved in open court that Atty. Macam be excluded from at Php 700,000.00, belonging to complainant, ELVIRA O. ONG, to
participating in the case since perjury is a public offence, to which the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforementioned
Atty. Macam vehemently objected. After allowing the parties to file amount of Php 700,000.00.
their respective written memoranda in support of their positions, the
MeTC denied the Omnibus Motion filed by the accused, where he Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Probable
principally raised his objection on the appearance of the private Cause Pursuant to Sec. 6(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and, in
prosecutor on the ground that perjury is a crime against public View of Compelling Grounds for the Dismissal of the Case to Hold in
interest; since there being no allegation of damage to private interest, Abeyance the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest (Motion to Dismiss).
hence on private prosecutor is needed. According to the MeTC, citing Petitioner filed an Opposition to respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
that the rules do not distinguish between public and private crimes RTC of Makati City dismissed the case because the other elements
when it comes to participation of private prosecutors; since the of the crime of Robbery, specifically the elements of intent to gain,
private offended party did not waive her civil action or reserved her and either violence against or intimidation of any person or force
right to institute a separate civil action, then the private prosecutor upon things, were not specifically alleged in the Information filed
may participate, under the direction and control of the public against respondent.
prosecutor. His motion for reconsideration denied, Paul Lee elevated Despite the dismissal of the case, respondent filed a Partial Motion
the case to the Court of Appeals, which also denied it, citing such for Reconsideration, reiterating that the Information should be
right to intervene exists even when no civil liability attaches to a dismissed in its entirety for lack of probable cause. Petitioner filed her
crime. Hence, Paul Lee went right up to the Supreme Court to Opposition to this motion.
question the propriety of allowing a private prosecutor to intervene in RTC granted respondents Partial Motion for Reconsideration and
a case for perjury, a crime against public interest. dismissed the case for lack of probable cause pursuant to Section
6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
ISSUE: May a private prosecutor participate in the proceedings of a Petitioner filed her MR, claiming that the RTC erred in relying on
criminal case even if no civil liability attaches to the crime? Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
since the said provision relates to the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
HELD: YES.Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery of and it does not cover the determination of probable cause for the
civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, filing of the Information against respondent, which is executive in
the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the nature, a power primarily vested in the Public Prosecutor.
offense. Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides RTC denied petitioners MR, holding that the provision authorizes the
that, [w]hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action arising from RTC to evaluate not only the resolution of the prosecutor who
the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal conducted the preliminary investigation and eventually filed the
action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the Information in court, but also the evidence upon which the resolution
right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the was based. In the event that the evidence on record clearly fails to
criminal action. Private respondent did not waive the civil action, nor establish probable cause, the RTC may dismiss the case.
did she reserve the right to institute it separately, nor institute the civil Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
action for damages arising from the offense charged. Thus, we find before the CA. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition,
that the private prosecutors can intervene in the trial of the criminal raising the issue of lack of personality of petitioner to appeal the
action. Even assuming that no civil liability was alleged or proved in dismissal of the criminal case, because the authority to do so lies
the perjury case being tried in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), it is exclusively with the State as represented by the OSG. CA observed
nonetheless erroneous for the trial court to consider the intervention that the People of the Philippines was impleaded as petitioner
of the offended party by counsel as merely a matter of tolerance. without showing, however, the OSG's participation. Thus, the CA
Thus, where the private prosecution has asserted its right to ordered petitioner to furnish the OSG with a copy of the Petition, and
intervene in the proceedings, that right must be respected. The right the latter to comment thereon.
reserved by the Rules to the offended party is that of intervening for OSG filed its Comment, taking the stand of respondent that only the
the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability born of the criminal act Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the People
and not of demanding punishment of the accused. Such intervention, of the Philippines filed before the CA or the Supreme Court. The
moreover, is always subject to the direction and control of the public OSG submitted that, for being fatally defective, the said Petition
prosecutor. In the light of the foregoing, the MTC committed no grave should be dismissed insofar as the criminal aspect was concerned,
abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners motion to exclude Atty. without prejudice to the right of petitioner to pursue the civil aspect of
Macam as private prosecutor. the case.
CA rendered its Resolution, dismissing the case without prejudice to
PROSECUTORS the filing of a petition on the civil aspect thereof on the basis of the
arguments raised by both respondent and the OSG. Petitioner filed
37. ONG V. GENIO an MR which the CA denied.
Facts: Ong filed a criminal complaint against Genio for Robbery
which was dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Makati City. However, Issue: WHETHER THE PETITIONER AS THE PRIVATE
pursuant to the Resolutions of the Department of Justice, respondent OFFENDED PARTY IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAS NO
was charged with the crime of Robbery in an Information which PERSONALITY TO ELEVATE THE CASE TO THE COURT OF
reads: APPEALS WITHOUT THE COMFORMITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE
That in or about and sometime the month of January, 2003, in the SOLICITOR GENERAL EVEN BEFORE THE ACCUSED IS
City of Makati, the above-named accused, did then and there ARRAIGNED
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, divest and carry away WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO
kitchen and canteen equipment as well as her personal things valued DISMISS THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF
PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN IT HAS PREVIOUSLY CONCLUDED establish probable cause. This, the RTC judge clearly complied with
THAT THE SAME INFORMATION IS DEFECTIVE in this case.

Held: Yes to both. 38. People v. Montesa

Ratio: FACTS: An information was filed with the RTC of Bulacan charging
Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative private respondents with the crime of falsification of public document.
Code states that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Private respondents filed with the trial court a petition for
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and reinvestigation premised on the ground that after the information was
agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring filed, material and relevant evidence was discovered and was
the services of lawyers. Likewise, the Solicitor General shall granted. At the reinvestigation conducted by Assistant Provincial
represent the Government in this Court and the CA in all criminal Prosecutor Rutor, his resolution recommended the dismissal of the
proceedings. case however Provincial Prosecutor Liberato Reyes disapproved the
While there may be rare occasions when the offended party may be recommendation. Nonetheless, in obvious disregard thereof, Rutor
allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own behalf, as when submitted his resolution to the trial court and the trial court issued an
there is a denial of due process, this exceptional circumstance does order dismissing criminal Case.
not obtain in the instant case. ISSUE: Did the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of
Before this Court, petitioner failed to advance any justification or discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the case on
excuse why she failed to seek the assistance of the OSG when she the basis of the resolution of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
sought relief from the CA, other than the personal belief that the OSG recommending the dismissal of the case despite the disapproval of
was burdened with so many cases. Thus, we find no reversible error such resolution by the Provincial Prosecutor?
to disturb the CA's ruling. RULING: YES. Section 1(d) of R.A. No. 5180,17 as amended by
Petitioner, however, is not without any recourse. In Rodriguez v. P.D. No. 77 and P.D. No. 911 provides that "No assistant fiscal or
Gadiane, we held: state prosecutor may file an information or dismiss a case except
It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the with the prior authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or
State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended Chief State Prosecutor". The Rutor resolution was rendered
party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the valueless because of the Provincial Prosecutor's disapproval thereof.
offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the In submitting it nonetheless to the court and moving for the dismissal
prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if of the case, Rutor showed outright disregard of the aforementioned
there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may provisions and ruling. So did the respondent Judge when he
be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only dismissed the case on the basis of that resolution. Their disregard of
the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on the said provisions and ruling is condemnable, for it carries with it a
appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such whimsical and capricious bent that taints the exercise of discretion
appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal with grave abuse, thereby rendering the whole act infirmed and void.
the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused. A few words from the SC:
In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Secretary of the
the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed Department of Justice for him to take such appropriate action as may
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction the rules be necessary against Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Edsel M. Rutor.
state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such
case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended 39. People v. Piccio August 6, 2014 GR. 193681
party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil
aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning Facts: Gimenez, President of Phil. Integrated Advertising Agency,
the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional advertising arm of Yuchengco Group of Companies, filed an affidavit
grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the for libel before Office of City Prosecutor against Parents Enabling
name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for posting Back to the Trenches: A
in name of said complainant. Call to Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the War Dance w/ Coalition. As
On this ground alone, the instant Petition fails. Even on the issue of alleged in the complaint, was highly defamatory and libelous. The
the RTC's dismissal of the case, the Petition ought to be denied. Office of City Prosecution of Makati City found probable cause to
Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure indict 16 trustees, officers, and/or member of PEPCI.
clearly provides:
Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the RTC judge, upon the Issue: Whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants,
filing of an Information, has the following options: (1) dismiss the may appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case even
case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable without the OSGs conformity.
cause; (2) if he or she finds probable cause, issue a warrant of
arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to the existence of probable Ruling: No. It is well-settled that the authority to represent the State
cause, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested
days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court within thirty solely in the OSG which is the law office of the Government whose
days from the filing of the information. 1avvphi1 specific powers and functions include that of representing the
It bears stressing that the judge is required to personally evaluate the Republic and/or the people before any court in any action which
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to Here, it is clear that petitioners did not file their appeal merely to
preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case.1wphi1 Rather,
by seeking the reversal of the RTCs quashal of the information in through Sulit (Special Prosector) and her prosecutorial staff, entered
Criminal Case No. 06-875 and thereby seeking that the said court be into a plea bargaining agreement with Garcia. However, the apparent
directed to set the case for arraignment and to proceed with trial, it is one-sidedness of the Agreement drew public outrage and prompted
sufficiently clear that they sought the reinstatement of the criminal the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives to
prosecution of respondents for libel. Being an obvious attempt to conduct an investigation. After public hearings, the Committee found
meddle in to the criminal aspect of the case without the conformity of that Sulit, her deputies and assistants committed culpable violations
the OSG, their recourse, in view of the above discussed principles, of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust grounds for removal
must necessarily fail. To repeat, the right to prosecute criminal cases under Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770. The Committee recommended to
pertains exclusively to the People, which is therefore the proper party the President the dismissal from the service of Sulit and the filing of
to bring the appeal through the representation of the OSG. appropriate charges against her deputies and assistants before the
appropriate government office. Accordingly, the OP initiated an
41. COMELEC v. Court of Appeals administrative disciplinary proceeding against Sulit.
FACTS: An information was filed by the Commission on Elections Sulit filed her Written Explanation, questioning the OPs jurisdiction.
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Baybay, Leyte, charging ISSUE: Is RA No. 6770 unconstitutional for granting the power to the
respondent Locsin with violation of Section 261 (f) of the Omnibus president to discipline the Special Prosecutor?
Election Code of the Philippines (B.P. Blg. 881). Respondent Locsin RULING: NO. by another of vote of 8-7, the Court resolved to
was accused of intimidating the members of the Municipal Board of maintain the validity of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 insofar as Sulit is
Canvassers of Albuera, Leyte during the canvassing of election concerned. The Court did not consider the Office of the Special
returns in said province and preventing them from performing their Prosecutor to be constitutionally within the Office of the Ombudsman
functions and duties. When arraigned, respondent Locsin entered a and is, hence, not entitled to the independence the latter enjoys
plea of not guilty and trial commenced accordingly. After the under the Constitution.
prosecution had rested its case, respondent Locsin filed a Demurrer ADDITIONAL NOTE:
to Evidence, claiming that the prosecution failed to adduce the The SC declared that Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 is unconstitutional
sufficient evidence to prove his guilt. The prosecution filed its insofar as it grant disciplinary jurisdiction to the President over a
Comment and Opposition thereto. The demurer was denied. the Deputy Ombudsman, in violation of the independence of the Office of
Solicitor general recommended that the criminal case against the Ombudsman.
respondent Locsin be dismissed since the prosecution "utterly failed
to come up with even a single iota of evidence which would positively 40. PEOPLE vs DOGAOJO, G.R. Nos. 137834-40, December 3,
or remotely link petitioner to any coercive act charged under the 2001
Information". Case dismissed.
FACTS: Accused-appellant Domingo Dogaojo was charged before
ISSUE: Does the COMELEC has the power to prosecute? Can the RTC of Malolos Bulacan with seven counts of rape allegedly
Provincial and City Prosecutors act on behalf of the COMELEC? committed against his minor daughter Melinda Dogaojo. The trial
RULING: Yes. This is so, for it is not only entrusted with the duty to court found accused-appellant guilty of all charges and sentenced
enforce the said law but also to prosecute all election offenses. him to suffer seven death penalties. In this appeal, accused raised
Under the Constitution, the COMELEC has the power to "prosecute that the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of seven counts
cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions of rape as he contends that Melindas testimony should not be given
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices" (Art. IX [C], credence as it is not corroborate by physical evidence. He harps on
Sec. 2 [6]), and under the Omnibus Election Code, (BP Blg. 881), it the medico-legal report indicating that the hymen of the alleged
may avail of the assistance of other prosecution arms of the victim is still intact. Meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General,
government (Sec. 265). Thus, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure instead of filing an appellees brief, filed a manifestation and motion
gave the Chief State, Provincial and City Prosecutors a continuing in lieu thereof. It is the position of the Solicitor General that the crime
authority "as deputies" to prosecute offenses punishable under the committed was merely attempted rape. It argues that although it was
election laws (COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Part 12, Rule 34, Sec. shown that accused-appellant has done several acts leading to
2). consummation of crime, the prosecution failed to prove the element
of carnal knowledge.
Additional note: After the prosecution has rested its case in a criminal ISSUE: Was the assertion of the Solicitor-General valid?
action, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the accused with prior RULING: NO. On the contrary, the Court rejects the theory of
leave of court, may dismiss the case against the accused on the Solicitor General that the crime committed was merely attempted and
ground of insufficiency of evidence. If the accused moves for the not consummated rape. Melinda categorically stated that her father
dismissal with prior leave of court, and the court denies the same, the inserted his organ into her vagina on all seven occasions of rape.
accused may present evidence to substantiate his defense. If he, She was certain that her father was able to penetrate her because
however, fails to secure leave of court and the demurrer to evidence she felt pain in her genitalia. This refutes the theory of the Solicitor
is denied, he is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence General that there was no penetration but merely a touching of its
and consequently submits the case for judgment on the basis of the outer surface. In an attempted crime, the offender commences the
evidence for the prosecution. commission of a felony directly by overt acts, but does not perform all
the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than
42.) Gonzales III vs. Office of the President his own spontaneous desistance. Rape under the first paragraph of
Art. 335 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659, is consummated when
FACTS:The Office of the Ombudsman charged Major General there is penetration, no matter how slight, of the vaginas genitalia
Garcia and several others, before the Sandiganbayan, with plunder under any of the circumstance enumerated therein. The prosecution
and money laundering. Subsequently, the Office of the Ombudsman,
in this case has proven the consummation of the offense through the law, mere issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the
testimony of the victim which the Court find credible. presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued
the same without sufficient funds and hence punishable which is not
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION so under the Penal Code. Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an
43. Rimando v. (Spouses Winston and Elenita) Aldaba; GR No. estafa case may be rooted from an identical set of facts, they
203583 nevertheless present different causes of action, which, under the law,
are considered "separate, distinct, and independent" from each
Facts: An Information was filed before the RTC charging Rimando other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final adjudication
of the crime of estafa through the use of false manifestations and both as to their criminal and civil aspects subject to the prohibition
fraudulent representations (estafa case). According to the on double recovery. Perforce, a ruling in a BP 22 case concerning
prosecution, Rimando enticed the Spouses Aldaba to invest in her the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused cannot be given any
business under the assurance that it is stable and that their money bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related
would earn 8% monthly interest. Convinced, Aldaba gave Rimando a estafa case, as in this instance.
check in the amount of 500,000.00 as investment in her business.
In turn, Rimando gave Sps. Aldaba three (3) postdated checks, one 44. Abellana v People |g.r. no. 174654
for 500,000.00 and the other two (2) for 40,000.00 each, and
made them sign an investment contract with Multitel International FACTS:
Holding Corporation (Multitel). Upon maturity of the checks, Sps.
Aldaba attempted to encash the same but were dishonored for being An Information was filed charging petitioner with Estafa through
drawn against insufficient funds. Meanwhile, Sps. Aldaba also filed a Falsification of Public Document in connection with a Deed of Sale
criminal case against Rimando for violation of BP 22 before the over a certain parcel of land owned by the spouses Alonto. After trial
MeTC of Manila (BP 22 cases). Rimando was acquitted in the BP 22 in the RTC, the trial court found that petitioner had no intention to
cases on the ground of reasonable doubt, with a declaration that the defraud and that the spouses Alonto actually signed the document
act or omission from which liability may arise does not exist. The although they did not personally appear before the notary public for
RTC acquitted Rimando of the crime of estafa, but found her civilly its notarization. Hence, the RTC instead convicted petitioner of
liable to Sps. Aldaba in the amount of 500,000.00. Affirming the falsification of public document. The trial court sentenced petitioner
RTCs ruling, the Court of Appeals held that a prosecution for with imprisonment, ordered him to restore full ownership and
violation of BP 22 is distinct, separate, and independent from a possession of the land to Sps. Alonto, and in case of his failure to do
prosecution for estafa, albeit they may both involve the same parties so, he shall pay Sps. Alonto the value of the properties. He was
and transaction; and as such, Rimandos acquittal and subsequent further adjudged to pay damages and costs of suit to Sps. Alonto. On
exoneration from civil liability in the BP 22 cases does not appeal, CA acquitted petitioner as it opined that the conviction for an
automatically absolve her from civil liability in the estafa case. offense not alleged in the Information or one not necessarily included
in the offense charged violated petitioners constitutional right to be
Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Rimandos civil liability informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
in the estafa case despite her acquittal and exoneration from civil Nevertheless, the imposition of the civil liability was sustained.
liability in the BP 22 cases. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was
Ruling: At the outset, the Court notes that Rimandos acquittal in the denied. Hence, a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court.
estafa case does not necessarily absolve her from any civil liability to
private complainants, Sps. Aldaba. It is well-settled that "the acquittal ISSUE: WON petitioner could still be held civilly liable
of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against notwithstanding his acquittal by the trial court and the CA?
him on the civil aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the RULING: No. It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of judgment of acquittal shall state whether the evidence of the
evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or
accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either
arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which
acquitted. However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed the civil liability might arise did not exist. When the exoneration is
extinguished if there isa finding on the final judgment in the criminal merely due to the failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise reasonable doubt, the court should award the civil liability in favor of
did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or the offended party in the same criminal action. In other words, the
omission imputed to him." (Dayap v. Sendiong) In this case, extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of
Rimandos civil liability did not arise from any purported act civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a
constituting the crime of estafa as the RTC clearly found that final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did
Rimando never employed any deceit on Sps. Aldaba to induce them not exist. In case of exoneration of the accused, the civil liability may
to invest money in Multitel. Rather, her civil liability was correctly still arise when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done
traced from being an accommodation party to one of the checks she intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for
issued to Sps. Aldaba on behalf of Multitel. In lending her name to petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that
Multitel, she, in effect, acted as a surety to the latter, and as such, the acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses. Based on
she may be held directly liable for the value of the issued check. the records of the case, Court found that the acts allegedly
What petitioner failed to mention in his argument is the fact that committed by the petitioner did not cause any damage to spouses
deceit and damage are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) Alonto. Moreover, the defective notarization does not ipso facto
Revised Penal Code, but are not required in BP 22. Under the latter invalidate the Deed of Absolute Sale, the transfer of said properties
from spouses Alonto to petitioner remains valid. Hence, when on the Under the immediately-quoted rule, a trial court, in case of acquittal
basis of said Deed of Absolute Sale, petitioner caused the of an accused, is to state whether the prosecution absolutely failed to
cancellation of spouses Alontos title and the issuance of new ones prove his guilt or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
under his name, and thereafter sold the same to third persons, no doubt, and in either case, it shall determine if the act or omission
damage resulted to the spouses Alonto. from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. From the earlier-
quoted portion of the decision of the trial court, however, particularly
45. Garces vs Hernandez the following portions: In the case at bar, there is clearly no moral
certainty that can be arrived at by the Court in convicting the
Facts: The RTC-Batangas acquitted the respondent of murder. After accused. Physical and testimonial evidence presented by the
the promulgation of judgment, Atty. Florentino H. Garces entered his Prosecution have failed to elicit in the mind of the Court the
appearance as counsel for the father of the victim, Roman Garces conclusion that the herein accused should and must be held
(petitioner), and filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial courts criminally liable for the heinous death of Rustico Garces. As a matter
decision respecting respondents civil liability. The trial court
dismissed the motion and ruled that: As regards the manifestation on of fact, the physical evidence in his case instead of
the right of the private Prosecution to claim civil damages where the strengthening only weakened its case.
acquittal of the accused was based on grounds of reasonable doubt,
suffice it to state that while such right subsists in favor of the Private x x x These actuations of the accused eloquently speak of their
Prosecution, the matter should be properly prosecuted in an innocence in the face of unreliable evidence presented by the
appropriate separate civil action and not in the same criminal case Prosecution (emphasis and underscoring supplied), the Court finds
which gave rise to such right.
that the acts or omissions from which the civil liability of respondents
might arise did not exist.
Issue: Whether respondents who were charged with but acquitted of
murder are civilly liable to the heirs of Rustico Garces (the victim)? 46. CRISOLOGO vs PEOPLE
G.R. No. 199481, December 3, 2012
Ruling: No. Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides: FACTS:Petitioner is the President of Novachemical Industries, Inc.
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a (Novachem). He applied for commercial letters of credit from private
criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil respondent China Banking Corporation (Chinabank) to finance the
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted purchase of amoxicillin trihydrate micronized from Hyundai Chemical
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil Company based in Seoul, South Korea and glass containers from
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil San Miguel Corporation (SMC). Subsequently, Chinabank issued
action prior to the criminal action. Letters of Credit. After petitioner received the goods, he executed for
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall and in behalf of Novachem the corresponding trust receipt
be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence under agreements dated May 24, 1989 and August 31, 1989 in favor of
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity Chinabank. Chinabank, through its Staff Assistant, Ms. Maria Rosario
to make such reservation. De Mesa (Ms. De Mesa), filed before the City Prosecutor's Office of
In his Petition for Certiorari before the appellate court, petitioner Manila a Complaint-Affidavit charging petitioner for violation of P.D.
admitted that he did not waive the civil action or reserve the right to No. 115 in relation to Article 315 1(b) of the RPC for his purported
institute it separately nor did he institute the civil action prior to the failure to turn-over the goods or the proceeds from the sale, despite
criminal action Petitioners remedy then was, as correctly ruled by the repeated demands. It averred that the latter, with intent to defraud,
appellate court, to appeal within the reglementary period the trial and with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, misapplied,
courts decision, which was silent on the civil aspect of the case. misappropriated and converted the goods subject of the trust
agreements, to its damage and prejudice. The RTC Decision
acquitted petitioner Ildefonso S. Crisologo (petitioner) of the charges
Technicality aside, on the merits, the petition just the same fails. Rule for violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 115 (Trust Receipts
120, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides: Law) in relation to Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
but adjudged him civilly liable under the subject letters of credit. The
SEC. 2. Contents of the judgment. If the judgment is of conviction, it
Court of Appeals (CA) in affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial
shall state (1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the
Court. Hence this petition. Petitioner contends that the CA erred in
acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating
declaring him civilly liable under the subject L/Cs which are corporate
circumstances which attended its commission,; (2) the participation
obligations of Novachem, and that the adjudged amounts were
of the accused in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or
without factual basis because the obligations had already been
accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the accused;
settled.
and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or
ISSUE: Is Crisologo civilly liable under the Trust Receipts Law?
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if
there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate
RULING:The Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the petition.
civil action has been reserved or waived. In case the judgment is of
Crisologo is only liable for only one trust receipt that he signed his
acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution
personal capacity in as much as the guarantee clauses therein is
absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to
concerned. Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law explicitly provides
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment
that if the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, as in this
shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability
case, the penalty provided for under the law shall be imposed upon
might arise did not exist.
the directors, officers, employees or other officials or person
responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities
arising from the criminal offense. In this case, petitioner was FACTS: Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses.
acquitted of the charge for violation of the Trust Receipts Law in One of his buses figured in a vehicular accident and as a result of the
relation to Article 315 1(b) of the RPC. As such, he is relieved of the accident, a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in
corporate criminal liability as well as the corresponding civil liability damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against
arising therefrom. However, as correctly found by the RTC and the petitioners` driver. A month later, a civil case for damages was filed
CA, he may still be held liable for the trust receipts and L/C against petitioner himself, though offended party in the criminal case,
transactions he had entered into in behalf of Novachem. Settled is did not reserve the right to bring a separate civil action. Petitioner
the rule that debts incurred by directors, officers, and employees moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against
acting as corporate agents are not their direct liability but of the him, citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. But
corporation they represent, except if they contractually the trial court denied petitioner`s motion on the ground that pursuant
agree/stipulate or assume to be personally liable for the corporations to the Civil Code, the action could proceed independently of the
debts, as in this case. criminal action and the Court of Appeals likewise dismissed his
petition.
ISSUE:
47. PEOPLE V. YANSON
Despite the absence of such reservation, can private respondent
FACTS: Angelino Yason murdered Carlito Mangan via stabbing. The may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner
RTC, CA and SC found Yason guilty of murder with the qualifying under the provisions of the Civil Code?
circumstance of treachery. The court discussed the awarding of RULING: NO. Rule 111 Section 1, clearly requires that a reservation
damages when death occurs due to a crime. must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery
Award by RTC: Accused Angelino anson is also directed to pay the of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to have been instituted
heirs of Carlito Magan the amount of One Hundred Thirty Three with the criminal case. Such civil actions are not limited to those
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty (P133,650) Pesos, broken down as which arise from the offense charged. In other words the right of the
follows:P13,650 as actual expenses;P50,000 as indemnity for the injured party to sue separately for the recovery of the civil liability
death of Carlito Magan;P50,000 as moral damages; andP20,000 whether arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from quasi delict under
Art. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be
as attorneys fees.
deemed instituted with the criminal action.
CA: Affirmed with modificationsActual damages deleted, replaced
by temperate damages = P25,000
49. Casupanan v. Laroya
ISSUE/S & RATIO: WoN the award of damages was correct
NOT ENTIRELY
Facts: Two vehicles, one driven by Laroya and the other owned by
Moral damages correct - Moral damages are awarded
Capitulo, driven by Casupanan, got into an accident. As a result, two
despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of cases were filed with the MCTC of Capas, Tarlac, a criminal case
the victims heirs against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
Civil indemnity must be increased to P75,000 (in line with property. On the other hand, a civil case against Laroya for quasi-
prevailing jurisprudence)- Civil indemnity is granted to the heirs of delict. When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its
the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the preliminary investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case,
crime filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum-
Actual damages correctly deleted and replaced by temperate shopping considering the pendency of the criminal case. The MCTC
damages - The victims mother, Aquilina Magan, who was presented granted the motion and dismissed the civil case. On MR, they
to prove the civil liability of the appellant acknowledged having lost insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which can
the receipts. - Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate proceed independently of the criminal case. The MCTC denied the
damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of motion for reconsideration so they filed a petition for certiorari under
the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not Rule 65 before Capas RTC assailing the MCTCs Order of dismissal.
proved Issue: Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless
Heirs of victim also entitled to exemplary damages of imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a
P30,000 (under current jurisprudence) - An aggravating separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the in the criminal case
offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the Ruling: Yes. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple
unbridled meaning of Article of the Civil Code. suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
Attorneys fees sustained simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.
Current policy: imposition on all monetary awards for Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending,
damages at the legal rate of 6% from date of finality of this Decision there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.
until fully paid However, there is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the
law and the rules expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action
which can proceed independently of the criminal action. Laroya filed
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
48. Maniago v. CA property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and
Capitulo filed the civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of
the Civil Code. Although these two actions arose from the same act
or omission, they have different causes of action. The criminal case but, nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by
is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised Penal Code specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code ("in cases of
while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under defamation, fraud and physical injuries"). The filing of the collection
Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. Under Section 1 of the case after the dismissal of the estafa cases against the offender did
present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 not amount to forum-shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the
and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause
action but may be filed separately by the offended party even without of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable
reservation. The commencement of the criminal action does not judgment. Although the cases filed by [the offended party] arose from
suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these the same act or omission of [the offender], they are, however, based
articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present on different causes of action. The criminal cases for estafa are based
Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on
civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the culpa contractual. Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the
criminal action. instant case because the law expressly allows the filing of a separate
civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action.
50. Lim vs. Kou Co Ping, GR No. 175256, August 23, 2012
EFFECT OF DEATH OF ACCUSED
Facts:FR Cement Corporation (FRCC) issued several withdrawal 51. De Guzman v. People
authorities1 for the account of cement dealers and traders, Fil- Facts: Accused was found guilty of theft. CA affirmed the conviction.
Cement and Tigerbilt (FCCT). FCCT then sold the withdrawal Hence, this petition filed raising the same issues in the CA that the
authorities covering 50,000 bags of cement to respondent Co for the decision of the trial court was tried and decided by a biased judge;
amount of P3.15 million or P63.00 per bag. Co then sold the same and that the judgment of conviction was not proven beyond
withdrawal authorities to petitioner Lily Lim for the alleged amount of reasonable doubt. The Court required the Office of the Solicitor
P3.2 million or P64.00 per bag. Lim, using the withdrawal authorities, General (OSG) to comment. However, a year after, counsel for the
withdrew 2,800 bags of cement from FRCC. He then sold some of petitioner filed a Manifestation informing the Court that the petitioner
the withdrawal authorities covering 10,000 bags back to respondent passed away. The death of the petitioner resulted from a vehicular
Co. Sometime within the same year, FRCC no longer allowed Lim to accident, as indicated in the Certificate of Death attached thereto.
withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags covered by the withdrawal Issue: What is the effect of petitioners death on the instant petition?
authorities. According to Co and the manager of FCCT, the plant
implemented a price increase and would only release the goods once Whether an action on the civil liability can survive and proceed
Lim paid for the price difference or agreed to receive a lesser against the estate of the deceased.
quantity of cement. Lim objected and maintained that the withdrawal Ruling: Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code clearly provides
authorities were not subject to price fluctuations. Because of this, Lim that:
filed an information for Estafa through Misappropriation or Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. -Criminal liability
Conversion before the RTC of Pasig City. The criminal case was is totally extinguished;
dismissed. The civil liability was subsequently dismissed as well after
the reception of the evidence. Lim appealed the dismissal of the civil 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
liability before the CA. While the appeal before the CA was pending, pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the
she filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
the RTC of Manila. The complaint asserted two causes of action: 2nd issue: The issue was settled in the case of People v. Bayotas
breach of contract and abuse of rights. In his defense, Co maintained where it was held that:
that the two causes of action raise the same issue, which was Cos
Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the
liability to Lim for her inability to withdraw the bags of cement, and
criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a
SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS OF LIS PENDENS
defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein
AND FORUM SHOPPING.
for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on the criminal.
Issue: Whether or not Lim committed forum shopping in filing the
civil case for specific performance and damages during the pendency
52. PEOPLE VS BAYOTAS
of her appeal on the civil aspect of Estafa.
Facts:
Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova, accused-appellant, was charged
Held: NO. A single act or omission that causes damage to an
with rape before Branch 16, RTC Roxas City (Criminal Case No. C-
offended party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the
3217).
part of the offender: (1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability
arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised He was convicted on June 19, 1991. Pending appeal of his
Penal Code, and (2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992, at the National Bilibid
that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic
independent civil liability may be based on "an obligation not arising encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering.
from the act or omission complained of as a felony," as provided in Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal
Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort). aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file
It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony
its comment with regard to the civil liability of Bayotas arising from his The petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals
commission of the offense charged. (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE: Philtranco's Liability
Issue: Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of RULING: Philtranco's liability is subsidiary.
his conviction extinguishes his civil liability. Calang was charged criminally before the RTC hence, Philtranco
was not a direct party in this case. Since the cause of action against
Held: Calang was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in
holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang, based on
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code which
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that
solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, the an employee has committed. Such provision of law does not apply to
death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal civil liability arising from delict.
liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely
on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil
strictiore. liabilities of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishments, as follows:
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding
the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers,
source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulations
shall have been committed by them or their employees...
o Law
The foregoing subsidiary liability applies to employers, according to
o Contracts Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
o Quasi-contracts The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
o xxxx also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
o Quasi-delicts engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 discharge of their duties.
above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by
way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 Nonetheless, before the employers subsidiary liability is enforced,
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate adequate evidence must exist establishing that (1) they are indeed
civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator the employers of the convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in
or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the employees
upon which the same is based as explained above. in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the
latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The determination of
Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of these conditions may be done in the same criminal action in which
his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases the employees liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced, in a
where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer,
extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment.
civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability
is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that 54. People v Paras |g.r. no. 192912| October 22, 2014
should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of FACTS: Democrito Paras was charged with one count of rape. The
right by prescription. Regional TrialCourt (RTC) found Paras guilty as charged which was
affirmed by the Court ofAppeals (CA). Paras appealed the decision of
53. CALANG vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CA before the Supreme Court. TheCourt affirmed the judgment of
conviction against Paras. However, Police Superintendent Roberto
FACTS: Rolito Calang was driving a bus owned by Philtranco, when R. Rabo, Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison,informed the
its rear left side hit the front left portion of a Sarao jeep coming from Court that Paras had died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital.
the opposite direction. The jeeps driver, lost control of the vehicle,
and bumped and killed a bystander who was standing along the
highways shoulder. The jeep turned turtle three (3) times before ISSUE: Is the civil liability of Paras extinguished together with his
finally stopping at about 25 meters from the point of impact. Two of criminal liability in case of death pending appeal?
the jeeps passengers, were instantly killed, while the other
passengers sustained serious physical injuries.
RULING: Yes. Under Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Calang was charged with multiple homicide, multiple serious physical Code, as amended, the death of an accused pending his appeal
injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence before the extinguishes both his criminal and civil liability ex delicto. Said
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbayog City. The RTC found Calang provision reads: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally
guilty beyond reasonable for the same. The RTC ordered Calang extinguished.Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the
and Philtranco, jointly and severally liable. death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is
deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action. What is deemed
instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from
55. Respicio vs People the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto), but not those
Facts: On October 13, 2006, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses of violation of Sec. Petitioner argues that, as an employer, it is considered a party to the
3(e) of RA No. 3019 and falsification of official document under criminal case and is conclusively bound by the outcome thereof.
Article 171, par.4 of the RPC for having signed the self-deportation Consequently, petitioner must be accorded the right to pursue the
order involving the 11 Indian nationals who had been charged with case to its logical conclusion -- including the appeal. The argument
the unlawful manufacture of regulated drugs. During the pendency of has no merit. To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a
the appeal, petitioner died. criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a final
judgment rendered by a competent court. The subsidiary liability of
petitioner is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability
Issue: WON the death of the petitioner extinguished his criminal of the accused-employee. Since the civil liability of the latter has
liability? become final and enforceable by reason of his flight, then the
formers subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately
enforceable. Respondent is correct in arguing that the concept of
Ruling: Yes. Considering that the death of petitioner occurred during
subsidiary liability is highly contingent on the imposition of the
the pendency of the appeal, albeit at any stage of the deliberation of
primary civil liability.
his motion for reconsideration of the decision affirming his conviction,
his criminal liability in two criminal cases was thereby extinguished
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
pursuant to Article 89, RPC which provides:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal 57. ARTHUR TE V CA, LILIANA CHOA
liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse the
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is Decision of the Court of Appeals denying Te's motion for
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs reconsideration.
before final judgment. Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in Sept 1988. They do not
live together but meet regularly until after Liliana gave birth that
56. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS vs PEOPLE Arthur stopped visiting her.
G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004
On May 20, 1990, while their marriage was still subsisting, Arthur
FACTS: Napoleon Roman was found guilty and convicted of the contracted a second marriage with Julieta Santella.
crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple homicide, multiple
physical injuries and damage to property and was sentenced to On August 1990, Liliana filed an information charging Arthur with
suffer imprisonment and to pay damages. The court further ruled that bigamy.
in the event of the insolvency of accused, petitioner shall be liable for
the civil liabilities of the accused. Evidently, the judgment against Meanwhile, in July 1990, Arthur Te filed an action for annulment on
accused had become final and executory. the ground that he was forced to marry her, that she concealed her
Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large. The CA pregnancy by another man at the time of their marriage and
ruled that the institution of a criminal case implied the institution also psychologically incapacity.
of the civil action arising from the offense. Thus, once determined in
the criminal case against the accused-employee, the employers On November 8, 1990, Liliana also filed with the Professional
subsidiary civil liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Regulation Commission (PRC) an administrative case against
Code becomes conclusive and enforceable. petitioner and Santella for the revocation of their respective
engineering licenses on the ground that they committed acts of
ISSUE: Can an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of immorality and an act of falsification against Arthur when he stated in
its accused-employee, appeal the judgment of conviction his 2nd marriage contract that he was still single.
independently of the accused?
After the prosecution or criminal case, petitoner filed demurrer to
RULING: NO. Appeal by the Accused Who Jumps Bail. The accused evidence and motion to inhibit the judge were filed but were
cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they voluntarily submit eventually denied by the court. Thus:
to the jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise arrested within 15
days from notice of the judgment against them. While at large, they <A.> petitioner filed a petition for certiorari filed with the CA alleging
cannot seek relief from the court, as they are deemed to have waived grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge, Judge
the appeal. The accused-employee has escaped and refused to Cezar C. Peralejo, for
surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is deemed to have (1) exhibiting antagonism and animosity towards his counsel;
abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him has (2) violating the due process by denying his motion for
become final and executory. reconsideration and demurrer to evidence
(3) x x x
Civil Liability Deemed Instituted in the Criminal Prosecution
(4) ruling that in a criminal case only prima facie evidence is that a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed
sufficient for conviction of an accused. valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding,

<B.>Petitioner filed with the Board of Civil Engineering of the PRC a 2. Civil case for annulment does NOT pose a prejudicial question to
motion to suspend the proceedings therein in view of the pendency suspend an administrative proceeding.
of the case for annulment of his 1st marriage and case for bigamy, There is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative
but it was subsequently denied. Thus, he filed with the CA another and the other is civil. The concept of prejudicial question involves a
petition for certiorari against Board for grave abuse of discretion: civil and a criminal case.
(1) NOT holding that the annulment case is prejudicial to the
outcome of the administrative case; Furthermore, Section 32 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the
(2) X X X Regulation and Practice of Professionals of the PRC Board expressly
(3) making an overly-sweeping interpretation that Section 32 of the provides that the administrative proceedings before it shall not be
Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of suspended notwithstanding the existence of a criminal and/or civil
Professionals does not allow the suspension of the administrative case against the respondent involving the same facts as the
proceeding before the PRC Board despite the pendency of criminal administrative case.
and/or administrative proceedings against the same respondent
involving the same set of facts. The Board shall proceed independently with the investigation of the
case and shall render therein its decision without awaiting for the
CA rendered ff decision: final decision of the courts or quasi-judicial body.
1. upheld the RTCs denial of the motion to inhibit due to petitioners
failure to show any concrete evidence that the trial court judge 3. Court of Appeals did not find any grave abuse of discretion on the
exhibited partiality and had prejudged the case. part of the trial court, which based its denial of the demurrer on two
2. denial of motion to suspend the proceedings on the ground of grounds: first, the prosecution established a prima facie case for
prejudicial question was in accord with law bigamy against the petitioner; and second, petitioners allegations in
3. affirmed the RTCs denial of the demurrer to evidence filed by the demurrer were insufficient to justify the grant of the same.
petitioner for his failure to set forth persuasive grounds to support the The denial for the motion to inhibit was also correct. Mere suspicion
same that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and
4. no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Board convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.
5. no prejudicial question existed since the action sought to be
suspended is administrative in nature, and the other action involved 58. Ty-de Zuzuarregui v. Villarosa- ortiz
is a civil case (prejudicial question)

ISSUES: FACTS: Rosemary and her neice (petitioner), reached an amicable

1. WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of settlement and entered into a compromise agreement which they
annulment and criminal case of bigamy. submitted to the RTC for approval on the administration of the estate
2. WON there is a prejudicial question between the civil case of of her mother, Bella and was approved.
annulment and administrative case. Subsequently, 2 of Rosemary`s alleged siblings, filed with the Court
3. WON there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of CA and of Appeals a Petition to Annul Judgment Approving Compromise
Board. Agreement, and claimed that they are also biological children of the
late Bella, and are entitled to participate in the settlement of the
HELD: No, No, No latters estate. Later, Fannie, who likewise claimed to be a biological
* Prejudicial Question - one based on a fact distinct and separate child, filed a petition-in-intervention in the action for annulment of
from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines judgment.
the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the While the action was pending, Fannie filed a complaint for
criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts falsification and perjury against petitioner and Rosemary and alleged
intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would that they falsely and maliciously stated in the pertinent pleadings that
be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised the late Bella had only 2 of them as heirs. Petitioner and Rosemary
in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would forthwith filed a joint motion to suspend the preliminary investigation
necessarily be determined. on the ground of a pending prejudicial question before the Court of
Appeals.
1. Civil case for annulment did NOT pose a prejudicial question to the
criminal case of bigamy. ISSUE: Was there a prejudicial question that warrant the suspension
of the criminal proceedings?
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioners marriage RULING: YES. (Rule 111 Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
to private respondent had no bearing upon the determination of Procedure) In this case, It is evident that the result of the civil case
petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, will determine the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal
because all that is required for bigamy to prosper is that the 1st cases for falsification of public documents. The criminal cases arose
marriage be subsisting at the time the 2nd marriage is contracted. out of the claim of Peter, Catherine, and Fannie that they are also the
legal heirs of Bella. If it is finally adjudged in the civil case that they
Even a declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would NOT are not biological children of the late Bella and consequently not
necessarily absolve him from criminal liability. Art. 40 of Family Code entitled to a share in her estate as heirs, there is no more basis to
is already in effect at the time of their marriage (Sept 1988) stating proceed with the criminal cases against petitioner who could not
have committed falsification in her pleadings, the truth of her thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial
statements regarding the filiation of Peter, Catherine and Fannie declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that
having been judicially settled. it was celebrated without a marriage license.
Additional note: (prejudicial question) ISSUE: Whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration
following requisites must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a
intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would criminal case for bigamy.
be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil RULING: NO. He who contracts a second marriage before the
action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of
determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in being prosecuted for bigamy, and in such a case the criminal case
another tribunal. may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case
for declaration of nullity. In a recent case for concubinage, it was held
59. Gidwani v. People that the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage
is not a prejudicial question. This ruling applies here by analogy since
Facts: Gidwani, president of GSMC, engaged in the export of ready- both crimes presuppose the subsistence of a marriage. The burden
to-wear clothes secured the embroidery services of El Grande and of proof to show the dissolution of the first marriage before the
issued a total of 10 Banco de Oro (BDO) checks as payment for the second marriage was contracted rests upon the defense, but that is a
latters services. Upon presentment, these checks were dishonored matter that can be raised in the trial of the bigamy case. In the
by the drawee bank for having been drawn against a closed account. meantime, it should be stressed that not every defense raised in the
Thus, El Grande, through counsel, sent three demand letters civil action may be used as a prejudicial question to obtain the
regarding 8 of the 10 issued checks. suspension of the criminal action. The lower court, therefore, erred in
Petitioner wrote to El Grandes counsel acknowledging receipt of the suspending the criminal case for bigamy. Moreover, when
demand letter and informing the latter that GSMC had filed a Petition respondent was indicted for bigamy, the fact that he entered into two
with SEC for the Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments, marriage ceremonies appeared indubitable. It was only after he was
for the Approval of a Rehabilitation Plan and Appointment of a sued by petitioner for bigamy that he thought of seeking a judicial
Management Committee. Acting on the Petition, the SEC issued an declaration of nullity of his first marriage. The obvious intent,
Order ordering the suspension of all actions, claims, and proceeding. therefore, is that respondent merely resorted to the civil action as a
In short, GSMC did not pay El Grande. Despite its receipt of GSMCs potential prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating or delaying
letter and explanation, El Grande still presented to the drawee bank his criminal prosecution.
for payment BDO Checks. Thereafter, El Grande filed a Complaint
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila charging petitioner 61. Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. Abrogar, et al.,
with eight counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) for
the check. FACTS: Ark Travel Express, Inc. filed with the City Prosecutor of
Makati a criminal complaint for False Testimony in a Civil Case under
Issue: whether the order for the suspension of payment issued by Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code against Violeta Baguio and
the SEC is not a valid reason to stop payment of a check even if Lorelei Ira and in thereafter a resolution by the City Prosecutor was
such order was issued prior to the presentment of the subject checks released stating that probable cause was found to indict private
for payment respondents for violation of said law and accordingly filed the
respective Informations against each of them before the Metropolitan
Ruling: No. Considering that there was a lawful Order from the SEC, Trial Court (MTC). Respondents filed a petition for review of the City
the contract is deemed suspended. When a contract is suspended, it Prosecutors resolution with the DOJ which was granted and the
temporarily ceases to be operative; and it again becomes operative prosecution office of Makati then filed with the MTC a Motion to
when a condition occursor a situation ariseswarranting the Withdraw Information. However, Ark Travel filed an "Urgent Petition
termination of the suspension of the contract. In other words, the for Automatic Review" with the DOJ and its previous decision was
SEC Order also created a suspensive condition. Thus, at the time reversed and directed the City Prosecutor to proceed with the
private respondent presented the September and October 1997 prosecution of which caused the MTC to issue an Order denying the
checks for encashment, it had no right to do so, as there was yet no aforesaid Motion to Withdraw Information filed by the prosecution.
obligation due from petitioner. Consequently, because there was a Private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
suspension of GSMC s obligations, petitioner may not be held liable resolution by the DOJ which was approved and consequently filed
for the civil obligations of the corporation covered by the bank checks with the MTC a Motion for Reconsideration of its Order alleging that
at the time this case arose. However, it must be emphasized that her there is no longer any obstacle, legal or otherwise, to the granting of
non-liability should not prejudice the right of El Grande to pursue its the Motion to Withdraw Information previously filed by the
claim through remedies available to it, subject to the SEC prosecution to which MTC denied. Private respondents questioned
proceedings regarding the application for corporate rehabilitation. the MTC Orders by filing petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
respondent RTC of Makati which was granted by said court. Ark
60. Marella-Bobis vs Bobis, 336 SCRA 742, 2000 Travel filed a Motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
FACTS: On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first respondent court. Hence, the present petition for certiorari filed in the
marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said marriage Supreme Court.
having been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent
contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis ISSUE: Pending determination of the falsity of the subject
on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with a certain testimonies in the civil case, should the criminal action for false
Julia Sally Hernandez. Based on petitioners complaint-affidavit, an testimony must perforce be suspended?
information for bigamy was filed against respondent. Sometime
RULING: Yes. The falsity of the subject testimonies of private Issue: Whether or not the pendency of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759
respondents is yet to be established. It is noted that at the time of the and 99-95381, for Injunctive Relief and for Damages and
filing of the criminal complaints, the civil case filed by Ark Travel is Attachment, is a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of the
still pending decision. Ark Travel has yet to prove the validity of its proceedings in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of
monetary claims and damages against NFMAI. It is only after trial public document, filed against the respondent.
that the RTC can assess the veracity or falsity of the testimony and Ruling: No. A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a
correspondingly render a decision. Thus, the civil case is so case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
intimately connected with the subject crime that it is determinative of involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
the guilt or innocence of the respondents in the criminal cases. In tribunal. If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the
other words, whether or not the testimonies of private respondents in issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other,
the civil cases are false is a prejudicial question. It is clear that the then a prejudicial question would likely exist, provided the other
elements of a prejudicial question are present as provided in Section element or characteristic is satisfied. It must appear not only that the
7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal
SEC. 7 Elements of Prejudicial question. The elements of a prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution of the issues
prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of the issue in the
the subsequent criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no
Section 6, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the
provides: criminal case, therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial
SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for question.
suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a In the case at bar, we find no prejudicial question that would justify
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case. The issue in
prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. Civil Case No. SCA 1759 for Injunctive Relief is whether or not
When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition respondent merely acted as an agent of his mother, Cecilia de la
to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time Cruz; while in Civil Case No. 99-95381, for Damages and
before the prosecution rests. Attachment, the question is whether respondent and his mother are
As such, under the attendant circumstances, although there is no liable to pay damages and to return the amount paid by PBI for the
motion to suspend proceedings on the part of the private purchase of the disputed lot. Even if respondent is declared merely
respondents, orderly administration of justice dictates that the an agent of his mother in the transaction involving the sale of the
criminal cases should be suspended. questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability. An
agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public
62. People v. Consing; GR No. 148193 documents. Hence, the determination of the issue involved in Civil
Facts: Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz, Case No. SCA 1759 for Injunctive Relief is irrelevant to the guilt or
represented to Plus Builders, Inc. (PBI) that they are the true and innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for estafa through
lawful owners of a lot situated in Imus, Cavite and covered by falsification of public document.
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 687599 in the name of Cecilia de la Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the
Cruz. They further represented that they acquired said lot from criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each
Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu. Relying on the representations of other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
respondent and his mother, PBI purchased the lot. PBI discovered Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
that respondent and his mother did not have a valid title over the the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the
subject lot. PBI came to know that Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action
Yu never sold said lot to respondent and his mother and that TCT and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In the instant
No. 191408 upon which TCT No. 687599 was based is not on file case, Civil Case No. 99-95381, for Damages and Attachment on
with the Register of Deeds. PBI was ousted from the possession of account of the alleged fraud committed by respondent and his
the disputed lot by Tan Teng and Yu. Despite written and verbal mother in selling the disputed lot to PBI is an independent civil action
demands, respondent and his mother refused to return the amount under Article 33 of the Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a
initially paid by PBI. Respondent filed with the RTC of Pasig City, an prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of the criminal
action for "Injunctive Relief" docketed as Civil Case No. SCA 1759, case at bar.
against PBI, Unicapital Inc, Unicapital Realty Inc., Jaime Martires,
Mariano D. Martinez, Cecilia de la Cruz and 20 other John Does. PBI
filed against respondent and his mother a complaint for "Damages
and Attachment," docketed as Civil Case No. 99-95381 with the RTC
of Manila. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
forum shopping and pendency of Civil Case No. SCA 1759. A
criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document was
filed against respondent Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. and his mother
with the RTC of Imus, Cavite. Respondent filed a motion to defer
arraignment on the ground of prejudicial question, i. e., the pendency
of Civil Case Nos. SCA 1759 and 99-95381. The trial court denied
respondent's motion.