Case 1: Bonifacio v. RTC 8.

RTC Makati quashed the information since it lacked the

Facts: allegation that accused resides in Makati. In fact, they
1. Bonifacio et. al (petitioners and accused), previously resided in Binondo.
bought from Yuchengco family (private respondents) 9. Private respondent filed an MR claiming that Information
pre-need educational plans from PPI (Pacific Plans, need not allege verbatim that libel was "printed and first
Inc.) owned by the Yuchengcos. published" in the chosen venue and that information only
2. They were unable to avail of the benefits due to liquidity needed an amendment. MR was granted.
problems. 10. Information was then amended to read: “...a website
3. So, they then formed PEPCI (Parents Enabling Parents accessible in Makati City, … which was first published
Coalition, Inc.) and made a website and a blog where and accessed by the private complainant in Makati.”
they can air out their disappointment with the 11. Accused claims that “first accessed” does not mean
Yuchengcos. Both were easily accesible by anyone in “printed and first published" so the amended information
the internet. was still insufficient.
4. In said website, petioners published several articles
found to be derogatory. “Talagang naisahan na naman Issue:
tayo ng mga Yuchengcos. ... For sure may tactics pa 1. W/N Amended Information is sufficient to charge the
silang nakabasta sa atin. Let us be ready for it because accused in accordance with the amendment by RA 4363
they had successfully lull us and the next time they will of the requirements of venue in Art. 360, RPC
try to kill us na.”
5. In response, Gimenez filed for the Yuchengcos (private Ruling: No. RTC of Makati committed GADALEJ in accepting
respondent) 13 counts of libel against Bonifacio and the Amended Information and was directed to dismiss the case.
company. 1. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. So, the
6. Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause. Case was place where the crime was committed is not only needed
raffled to RTC of Makati Branch 149. to determine the venue of the action, but is also an
7. Accused appealed to the Secretary of Justice to reverse essential element of jurisdiction.
the finding of the Makati Prosecutor because: 2. Before Art. 360 was amended, action for libel may be
a. Acts in the information did not constitute libel instituted in any jurisdiction where the article was
b. Information did not allege a particular place published or circulated, regardless of where it was
within the RTC’s jurisdiction where article was written or printed. Under that rule, the criminal action is
printed and first published or that the offended transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue.
parties resided in Makati 3. But after the amendment, action for libel may only be
filed in either:
 a. where the complainant actually resides at the ABSENCE OF A DEMAND MADE ON THE SURETY
time of the commission TO PAY THE AMOUNT.
b. where the defamatory article was printed and 8. They appealed to CA without raising the issue on
first published lack of jurisdiction. So they raised issues like the
4. In other words, information must specifically allege lack of a summary hearing, but forgot the lack of
where the article was printed and first published, as this jurisdiction part.
will not only determine venue but also jurisdiction. 9. CA affirmed the appealed decision.
10. Surety then filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground
Notes: of lack of jurisdiction against CFI Cebu in view of
1. Ratio for amendment of Art. 360: Before, people abused the effectivity of Judiciary Act of 1948 a month
how they can choose the venue of the complaint for libel before the filing of the petition for recovery. This is
by choosing one that is far and remote only to harass 15 years after the institution of the case.
the supposed accused. 11. So a month prior to the filing of the petition there
was a law that was passed that affected the
Case 2: TIjam v. Sibonghanoy jurisdiction of the CFI Cebu.
FACTS: 12. Act placed original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior
courts ( MTC, MCTC ) all civil actions for demands
not exceeding 2,000 exclusive of interest.
1. Tijam ( T ) filed for recovery of P1,908 + legal 13. CA set aside its earlier decision and referred the
interest AGAINST Sibongahanoy ( S ) . case to SC since it has exclusive jurisdiction over
2. S filed a counter bond with Manila Surety and "all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior
Fidelity Co (Surety). court is in issue.
3. In other words, S secured the bond of the Surety
with another bond.
4. Judgement was in favor of the T, a writ of ISSUE: WON Surety is estopped from questioning the
execution was issued against the S. jurisdiction of the CFI Cebu for the first time upon appeal?
5. S moved for writ of execution against surety which YES
was granted.
6. So that the surety would pay for amount to be RATIO:
recovered.
7. Surety moved to quash the writ but was denied. On
the grounds of FAILURE TO PROSECUTE and THE
 1. SC believes that that the Surety is now barred by 1. Antiporda, Rubiaco, Gascon, and Talla were accused of
laches from invoking this plea after almost fifteen kidnapping Elmer Ramos. It was filed in the First Div. of
years before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss the Sandiganbayan by Prosecutor Agcaoili.
raising the question of lack of jurisdiction for the 2. Later, Agcaoili requested to amend the information due
first time to some inadequacies in the allegation. The court also
2. A party may be estopped or barred from raising a said that it was not made clear whether the charge was
question in different ways and for different office related.
reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or 3. Request was granted and Agcaoili was given 30 days to
estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by make the amendment.
laches. Laches, in a general sense is failure or 4. The amended information now indicates the public
neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained offices held by the some of the accused. Antiporda as
length of time, to do that which, by exercising due Mayor took advanatge of his position.
diligence, could or should have been done earlier 5. Accused requested that another Preliminary
3. Furthermore, it has also been held that after investigation be conducted because of the amended
voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an information.
adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the 6. The court denied this request this there was nothing
loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the added to the amended information and merely stated
court -"undesirable practice" of a party submitting the publilc positions. Also, since the accused did not
his case for decision and then accepting the submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, they
judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack are not in a position to be heard
of jurisdiction, when adverse. 7. Accused filed a Motion to Quash but was denied for
4. In other words, the fact that the surety voluntarily failing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the
submitted itself to the court, giving a bond and court.
actively participating constitutes a waiver of the 8. Accused then filed an MR claiming that filing of the
right to question the jurisdiction of the court. Motion to Quash and the appearance of their counsel
amounts to their voluntary appearance giving the court
jurisdiction over their persons. MR was denied.

Issue:
Case 3: Antiporda v. Gartichochena 1. W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense
Facts: 2. W/N a new Preliminary Investigation is necessary
Ruling: No, SB does not have jurisdiction but the accused are amendments made merely describe the public positions
estopped from asserting the same. Also, there is no need for held.
another Preliminary Investigation
1. Jurisdiction is the power conferred by law in courts for Notes:
administering justice, that is, for hearing and deciding Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides thus:
cases. Sec. 14. Amendment. — The information or complaint may be
2. For the court to have jurisdiction, it must acquire amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, the time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the
territory, and the persons of the accused. trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of
3. SB only has jurisdiction over territory and of the persons the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the
of the accused thru the previously submitted Motion to rights of the accused.
Quash and appearance of counsel (see fact #8)
4. Sec. 4(a), PD 1606 says the SB shall have jurisdiction Case 4: MIRANDA ET AL. V. TULIAO
over offenses by public officers and employees in
reation to their office, where the penalty prescribed is
higher than PC (6 years or P6000 fine). If it does not Facts:
exceed, jurisdiction is with the proper RTC, MeTC, MTC,
or MCTC.
5. However, since the original Information failed to 1. In 1996 2 cadavers where found by 2 people.
stipulate Antiporda’s position as mayor and that he used 2. One of them was the son of Virgilio Tuliao, whose
such potition to perpetrate the crime, the SB did not name is Elizer tuliao
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. Lacking this, 3. Virgilio Tuliao filed an information against 6 police
the SB cannot order for the amendment of the officers.
Information. 4. SPO2 MADERAL was one of them.
6. Despite this, accused is estopped from assailing the lack 5. Venue was transferred to manila RTC.
of jurisdiction as it was them who, in their MR, 6. the RTC of Manila convicted all of the accused and
challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC and stated in their sentenced them to two counts of reclusion
that the said crime is work connected and must be with perpetua except SPO2 Maderal because he souls
the SB, only to contest it again in the SB. not be found and arraigned.
7. On new Prelim Investigation: It is only necessary if the 7. The SC on automatic appeal dismissed the case on
accused's substantial rights will be impaired. The reasonable doubt.
 8. After 3 year or in 1999, SPO2 MADERAL was
arrested.
9. In 2001 he made a sworn confession that 1. No, one who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to
petitioners in this case( MIRANDA et al ) were the have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court. So
ones responsible for the 2 deaths. it is as if he already submitted.
10. Virgilio Tuliao filed a complaint against the 2. Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of
petitioners. Judge Tumaliuan ( JT ) was the arrest requires neither jurisdiction over the person
presiding judge. of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of
11. JT issued a warrant of arrest for the petitioners the accused.
and SPO2 MADERAL
12. Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete
preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to
recall and/or quash the warrants of arrest.
13. Since Miranda et al and Maderal did not show up Case 5: Reodica v. CA
JT, in a joint motion denied their motions. Facts:
14. On the ground that, since the court did not acquire 1. sabelita Reodica was allegedly recklessly driving a van
jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot and hit Norberto Bonsol causing him physical injuries
be properly heard by the court and damage to property amounting to P 8,542.00.
2. Three days after the accident a complaint was filed. She
was charged of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Issue: Damage to Property with Slight Physical Injury." After
pleading not guilty trial ensued. RTC of Makati rendered
the decision convicting petitioner of "quasi offense of
1. Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief reckless imprudence, resulting in damage to property
if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction with slight physical injuries" witharresto mayor of 6
of the court. months imprisonment and a fine of P 13,542.00.
2. Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of Petitioner made an appeal before the CA which re-
arrest requires jurisdiction over the person of the affirmed the lower court’s decision. In its motion for
accused. reconsideration, petitioner now assails that
3.
4.
Ruling
Case 6: when the complaint was filed. So it is still within
the 2 month period for the filing of a complaint for
6. FRANCISCO V. CA the simple slander.
122 SCRA 538 (1983)

FACTS:
ISSUES:

1. Dr. Angeles filed a case of or intriguing against (1) Whether or not the crime of simple slander found by the
honor against Dr. Emiliano and Atty. Bernardino. CA to be the offense committed by the petitioners has
2. But, the Fiscal filed the information, in the CFI in prescribed.
Rizal for grave oral defamation. (2) Whether or not the filing of a complaint in the Fiscal's
3. LATER ON THE INFORMATION WAS amended office interrupts the prescription of an offense.
which added statement that would constitute
slander. HELD: The conviction is sustained
4. The court found Dr. Emiliano and Atty. Bernardino
guilty of grave oral defamation.
5. The punishment was the penalty of arresto mayor 1. Yes. An accused cannot be convicted for the lesser
and was made to pay the complainant P10,000. offense necessarily included in the crime charged
6. The appealed it to the CA, and they modified the if at the time of the filing of the information, the
decision by making them guilty of only SIMPLE lesser offense has already prescribed. To hold
SLANDER. otherwise, according to the Court, would be to
7. Atty. Bernardino Died during this case’s appeal to cause a circumvention of the law on prescription
the SC. by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant
8. Dr. Emiliano stated that since they were only of the graver offense.
found guilty of Simple slander and simple slander
prescribes in 2 months, the criminal action should
not have prospered because the case was filed 4 MO: In other words, if the lesser offense forms part or is an
months after its alleged commission. element in of the great offense charged has already
9. But the SOLGEN, stated that the filing of the case prescribed then the accused cannot be convicted of that
with the prosecutors office, interrupted the lesser offense because it has already prescribed. You
prescriptive period, and only 39 days had passed cannot convict a person for a part that is missing
 have stripped off authority to conduct preliminary
investigation unless duly authorized by the Ombudsman
(2) Yes. Prescription is interrupted with the filing of the in Feb 1987.
case even if the court does not have jurisdiction yet, even 7. Motion to Quash was still denied.
if THE PURPOSE is to conduct a preliminary examination
or investigation. Thus, the filing of the complaint in the Issue:
Fiscal's office interrupts the period of prescription. 1. W/N the offense has prescribed

Ruling:
1. To determine wether an offense has presicribedd, the ff
Case 7: Domingo v. SB must be identified:
Facts: a. the period of prescription for the offense charged
1. PNB filed with the Tanodbayan on Mar 1987, a b. the time the period of prescription starts to run
complaint against Pres. Marcos, Domingo( President of c. time the prescriptive period was interrupted.
PNB), and private individual Cuenca, (then president of 2. Sec. 11, RA 3019 provides its own prescriptive period.
the Construction and Development Corporation of the "All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in
Philippines/CDCP) was charged for violation of Section 10 years." This was later amended by BP 195, which
3(e), RA 3019. increased the prescriptive period of the crime from 10 to
2. Allegedly, Domingo used his close relationship to 15 years.
Marcos to grant unwarranted benefits to CDCP such as 3. Since RA 3019 is a special law, applicable rule in the
loans whose collateral requirements was later set aside. computation of the prescriptive period is Sec. 2 of Act
3. CDCP defaulted in payment amounting to $29M. No. 3326, which says:
4. Charges against Marcos was later on dropped because
of his death. SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of
5. Accused filed a Motion to Quash alleging that 1) criminal the commission of the violation of the law, and if the
liability has prescribed and 2) the facts charge do not same be not known at the time, from the discovery
constitute an offense under the said law. thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
6. Accused claims the prescription started when the crime investigation and punishment.
was committed in July 1980, and was only interrupted
on on Feb 1992 when he was impleaded. He said filing The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings
of the complaint with the Tanodbayan in Mar 1987 (see are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin
fact #1) did not interrupt the prescription period as they
 to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for
reasons not constituting jeopardy.

4. Here, the commission of the offense cannot be said to

have been the basis for prescription as their corrupt
practices were only discovered after the EDSA
Revolution in May 26, 1987.