00 Crimpro Bail Compiled Digest

1
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash)

AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin | Vien
FELICIANO VS. PASICOLAN

2 SCRA 888 (1961)
There is no question as to the detention or restraint by
This is a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the respondent soundness of the rule invoked the officers of the law, he
Judge to decide on the merits of a motion filed by the petitioner in by petitioner. Such is the law can claim this guarantee of
which he asks that the Court fix at P10,000.000 the amount of the bail in this jurisdiction. But, the the Bill of Rights, and this
for his liberty pending trial. rule is subject to the right he
limitation that the person
applying for admission to bail retains unless and until he
Heres what happened: should be in the custody of the is charged with a capital
law, or otherwise deprived of offense and evidence of his
his liberty. guilt is strong.
Petitioner was charged with the crime of kidnapping. When he found
out that an Information had been filed and that a warrant of arrest had In the case of Herras And in the case of Manigbas
been issued against him, he went into hiding. His lawyer, at the Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. vs. Luna, 52 O.G. 1405, it was
instance of his wife, fined a motion asking that the 634, this Court held: held:
Court fix the amount of the bond at P10K for the petitioners release xxx According to this xxx the right to bail only
pending trial, but the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga opposed the provision, the general rule is accrues when a person is
motion on the ground that the filing was premature because the that any person, before being arrested or deprived of his
petitioner had been arrested. The respondent Judge dismissed the convicted of any criminal liberty. The purpose of bail
motion on the ground that the petitioner does not have the right to offense, shall be bailable, is to secure one's release
ask for the court to admit him to bail pending his arrest or except when he is charged and it would be
surrender. with a capital offense and the incongruous to grant bail to
evidence of his guilt is strong. one who is free. Thus, `bail is
The petitioner contends that as, under the Constitution, "all persons Of course, only those the security required and
shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those persons who have been given for the release of a
charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong," Article either arrested, detained or person who is in the custody
III, Section 1, paragraph (16), Constitution of the Philippines, and that otherwise deprived of their of the law.'
the words "all persons" used in said constitutional provision have liberty will ever have
been interpreted to mean "all persons, without distinction, whether occasion to seek the Without surrendering himself,
formally charged or not yet so charged with any criminal offense". benefits of said provision.
But in order that a person can he filed the motion in which
invoke the constitutional he asks that the court fix the
ISSUE: WON the judge erred in not granting the petition for admission amount of the bail bond for
precept, it is not necessary
to bail. his release pending trial. It is,
that he should wait until a
formal complaint or therefore, clear that the
HELD/RATIO: No. information is filed against petitioner is a free man and is
him. From the moment he is under the jurisprudence not
placed under arrest, entitled to admission to bail.
2
MIRANDA VS. TULIAO 486 SCRA 377 (2006)

and issued a Joint Order
(I am allowing you to hate me for this digest. Sobrang gulong-gulo reversing the Joint Order of Court: A]n accused cannot
ako. Ill just attach the original. The issue raised by the petitioners Judge Tumaliuan. seek any judicial relief if he
kasi is not about bail, but the court discussed it in such a way that Consequently, he ordered the does not submit his person to
bail got included. They contrasted. Basically, it just says the court cancellation of the warrant of the jurisdiction of the court.
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he/she arrest issued against Jurisdiction over the person of
submits motions, etc even if hes not detained. But the exception is petitioner Miranda. He the accused may be acquired
the petition for admission to bail likewise applied this Order to either through compulsory
petitioners Ocon and process, such as warrant of
Dalmacio. arrest, or through his
the accused has to be held in detention in such case. Since were
in a hurry, I think thats the only thing we need, or so I make myself voluntary appearance, such as
believe.) On 12 November 2001, this when he surrenders to the
Court issued a Resolution police or to the court. It is only
resolving to grant the prayer when the court has already
Facts: for a temporary restraining acquired jurisdiction over his
order against Judge Anghad person that an accused may
two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon, from further proceeding with invoke the processes of the
Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente the criminal cases. Shortly court (Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso
Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio Tuliao after the aforesaid resolution, V. Combing, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-
who is now under the witness protection program. Judge Anghad issued a Joint 91-764, November 6, 1992).
Order dated 14 November Thus, an accused must first be
Two informations for murder were filed against SPO1 Wilfredo Lean o, 2001 dismissing the two placed in the custody of the
SPO1 Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Informations for murder law before the court may
Micu, SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez in the Regional against petitioners. On 19 validly act on his petition for
Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, but the venue was later transferred November 2001, this Court 3
judicial reliefs. X
to the RTC of Manila which convicted all of the accused and sentenced took note of respondents
them to two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who cash bond evidenced by O.R. Proceeding from this premise,
was yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. The case was No. 15924532 dated 15
November 2001, and issued the Court of Appeals ruled
appealed to the Supreme Court on automatic review where we that petitioners Miranda,
accused therein was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. the temporary restraining
order while referring the Ocon and Dalmacio cannot
petition to the Court of seek any judicial relief since
Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On 27 they were not yet arrested or
Appeals for adjudication on
April 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners otherwise deprived of their
the merits.
Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio, a liberty at the time they filed
certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible their "Urgent Motion to
for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF complete preliminary
ERROR investigation; to reinvestigate;
Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against to recall and/or quash
petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz, and Amado Doe, and submitted the With all due respect, the warrants of arrest." X
4
sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal. Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Honorable Court of Appeals
Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 gravely erred in reversing and
setting aside the Joint Order of Petitioners counter the
Maderal.
Judge Anastacio D. Anghad finding of the Court of
dated August 17, 2001, Appeals by arguing that
Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary jurisdiction over the person
September 21, 2001, October
investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the warrants of the accused is required
16, 2001 and November 14,
of arrest. only in applications for bail.
2001 issued in criminal cases
numbered 36-3523 and 36- Furthermore, petitioners
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint 3524; and, erred in upholding, argue, assuming that such
Order denying said urgent motion on the ground that, since the court affirming and reinstating the jurisdiction over their person
did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be Order dated July 6, 2001 is required before the court
properly heard by the court. In the meantime, petitioners appealed issued by then Acting can act on their motion to
the resolution of State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Presiding Judge Wilfredo quash the warrant for their
Justice. Tumaliuan, on the alleged rule arrest, such jurisdiction over
that an accused cannot seek their person was already
any judicial relief if he does acquired by the court by their
the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case
not submit his person to the filing of the above Urgent
jurisdiction of the court. Motion.
3
12
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) obedient to the will of the law. Custody of the
law is literally custody over the body of the
accused. It includes, but is not limited to,
detention.
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires
jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to
the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings Therefore, in narrow cases involving special
requiring the exercise of the courts jurisdiction thereover, appearing appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of
for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, the court even though there is neither jurisdiction
since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a
accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court
accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the
arrest or voluntary surrender. custody of the law.
Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between . If we allow the granting of bail to persons not in the
custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the custody of the law, it is foreseeable that many persons
law is required before the court can act upon the application for who can afford the bail will remain at large, and could
bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs elude being held to answer for the commission of the
sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor offense if ever he is proven guilty. On the other hand,
constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the if we allow the quashal of warrants of arrest to
8 persons not in the custody of the law, it would be very
person of the accused. Custody of the law is accomplished either rare that a person not genuinely entitled to liberty
9
by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the would remain scot-free. This is because it is the same
person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary judge who issued the warrant of arrest who will
10 decide whether or not he followed the Constitution in
appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet
subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as his determination of probable cause, and he can
when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion easily deny the motion to quash if he really did find
before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one probable cause after personally examining the
can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and records of the case.
yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused
11
escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the
custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become
| Vien
4
CORTES VS CATRAL 279 SCRA 1 (1997)
FACTS: Cortes filed a complaint against Judge Catral for granting bail ISSUE: WON the allegations of In a crime of murder. The
without hearing. the complainant would provincial prosecutor
warrant the imposition of recommended the sum of
Catral allegedly granted bail in two murder cases, a crime that is administrative sanction P200,000.00 as bailbond for
supposedly not bailable) without hearing. Catral says:In one of them, against respondent judge. each accused. The records do
the case was frustrated homicide, and the prosecutor recommended not reveal whether a hearing
bail of 200K, plus the circumstantial evidence were weak. HELD/RATIO: YES. was actually conducted on the
application for bail although
respondent judge implies that
In the case of People v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal Case 08-866 for Bail should be fixed according there was one, stating that
murder, the inquest judge issued a warrant of arrest for the accused to the circumstances of each acting on this
with no bail recommended. When the case was elevated to the case. The amount fixed should recommendation of the
Regional Trial Court upon information filed by the provincial be sufficient to ensure the provincial prosecutor and
prosecutor, the information made no mention of a bailbond. In the presence of the accused at the taking into account the
hearing of the petition to determine whether or not the evidence of trial yet reasonable enough to guidelines prescribed in
guilt is strong, the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and comply with the Section 9 of Administrative
recommended bail in the sum of P200,000.00 instead. constitutional provision that Circular 12-94, the court
bail should not be excessive. issued a warrant of arrest and
Respondent judge acting on the said recommendation and again Therefore, whether bail is a fixed the amount of
guided by the provision of Section 9, Administrative Circular 12-94 in matter of right or of P200,000.00 for the
conjunction with the evidence extant on the record approved the discretion, reasonable notice provisional liberty of each of
recommendation of Prosecutor Apolinar Carrao. A duplicate copy of of hearing is required to be the accused.
trial prosecutor Apolinar Carraos letter dated September 3, 1996 given to the prosecutor or
addressed to the provincial prosecutor Romeo Sacquing was fiscal or at least he must be
asked for his recommendation Subsequently, counsel for
presented by the respondent to disprove the accusation that he accused Ahmed Duerme filed
granted bail to the accused without conducting any hearing. because in fixing the amount
of bail, the judge is required to a motion for reduction of bail.
take into account a number of The hearing of the motion
Catral allegedly reduced bailbond for an illegal possession of firearms factors such as the applicants was conducted on August 21,
case from 180K (recommended by prosecutor) to 30K without character and reputation, 1995 with the prosecution,
hearing. forfeiture of other bonds or not having interposed any
whether he is a fugitive from opposition, and submitting
Catral says: bailbond recommended was 180K. accused filed for justice. the resolution of the motion to
reduction and there was no opposition from prosecutor. the sound discretion of the
court instead. Respondent
When the accused is charged judge then issued an order
Barangay Captain Nilo de Rivera with a homicide case was granted with an offense punishable by granting a reduced bailbond
with a bailbond of P14,800.00 by Judge Segundo Catral. The amount is death, reclusion perpetua or
of P50,000.00 for accused
too low. It is because this Nilo de Rivera is another goon of Julio Bong life imprisonment, the judge is
Ahmed Duerme inasmuch as
Decierto. mandated to conduct a the evidence was not so
hearing, whether summary or strong to warrant the fixation
Catral says: he was acting on the recommendation of the OIC provincial otherwise in the discretion of of said amount. The order
prosecutor and mindful of the guidelines in fixing a reasonable amount of the court, not only to take into granting the reduced
bailbond coupled by the fact that the evidence on record is merely account the guidelines set bailbond, however, did not
forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of contain a summary of the
circumstantial and there was no eyewitness to the commission of the Rules of Court, but evidence for the prosecution.
crime granted bailbond in the sum of P14,800.00. primarily to determine the
existence of strong evidence
of guilt or lack of it, against In another murder case, after
4. . Jimmy Siriban the right hand man of Julio Bong the accused. conducting a preliminary
investigation, the inquest
Dicierto was sued for concubinage and convicted by Judge Herminio Respondent judge, in two judge issued a warrant of the
del Castillo in MTC. Jimmy Siriban appealed and it was elevated to the instances, granted bail to an arrest for the accused with no
RTC Branch 08, the sala of Judge Segundo Catral. Judge Segundo Catral accused charged with murder, bail recommended. When the
acquitted Jimmy Siriban, rumors in Aparri spread that the wife of case was elevated to the
without having conducted any Regional Trial Court, the
Judge Segundo Catral went to Jimmy hearing as to whether the information made no mention
evidence of guilt against the of a bailbond. Consequently,
Siribans house to get the envelop accused is strong. accused through counsel
5

filed a petition for bail. In the hearing of the petition to determine
whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused was strong, ask searching questions from which it may infer the strength of
the fiscal opted not to introduce evidence and recommended the sum the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it against the accused.
of P200,000.00 instead. Respondent judge, acting on said
recommendation and again guided by the provision of Section 9,
The reason for this is plain. Inasmuch as the determination of
Administrative Circular 12-94 in conjunction with the evidence extant
whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong
on record, issued an order granting bail to the accused in the sum of
is a matter of judicial discretion, It may rightly be exercised only
P200,000.00. Unable to post the said bond, accused through counsel
after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since
filed a motion to reduce bail. In the course of the hearing of the
the discretion is directed to the weight of evidence and since
petition, the public prosecutor manifested that he had no objection to
evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or
the sum of P50,000.00 as bail for the accused. Respondent judge, then
produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of
judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be
guided by the factual setting and the supporting evidence extant on submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross
record reduced the bail bond from P200,000.00 to P50,000.00 as examination and to introduce evidence in his own rebuttal.
recommended by the prosecutor. Once again, the order granting the
bail of P200,000.00, as well as the reduced bail bond of P50,000.00, did
The procedural lapse of respondent judge is aggravated by the
not contain a summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
fact that even though the accused in Criminal Case No. 07-874,
People v. Ahmed Duerme, have yet to be arrested, respondent
the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the already fixed bail in the sum of P200,000.00. Respondent
prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the application of evidently knew that the accused were still at large as he even had
bail to the sound discretion of the court. A hearing is likewise required to direct their arrest in the same order where he simultaneously
if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the granted them bail. At this juncture, there is a need to reiterate the
application to grant and fix bail. The importance of a hearing has been basic principle that the right to bail can only be availed of by a
emphasized in not a few cases wherein the court ruled that, even if the person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his
prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file
objection to the motion for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to a petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet to be curtailed.
conduct a hearing or
6
PEOPLE VS. MANALLO 400 SCRA 129 (2003)

additional examination unless
FACTS: Spouses Romeo Nabor and Liliosa Napay and their nine-year the prosecutions evidence but the witness is dead, outside of
old daughter Rosaldiza Nabor tenanted and lived in a coconut rather on the weakness of the the Philippines or otherwise
plantation located in Barangay Salugan, Camilig, Albay. evidence for the defense unable to testify.
Rosaldiza helped in the household chores by washing the familys HELD/RATIO: NO. Even a (please see previous case for
dirty laundry every Saturday at the barangay reservoir. The route to cursory reading of the the duties of the trial court in
the reservoir was uninhabited. Going there was quite a long trek. It decision of the trial court will resolving a motion or petition
usually took Rosaldiza fifteen minutes to negotiate the grassy path readily show that it convicted for bail)
from the reservoir to their house. appellant of the crime charged
in light of the testimony of In this case, the appellant filed
In 1989, Romeo engaged the services of Alex Manallo, as coconut Rosaldiza and Dr. Loria- his motion for bail on May 8,
gatherer. Alex helped the Nabor couple gather coconut produce once a Florece and the physical 1992. There was no specific
week. evidence adduced by the date and time for the hearing
prosecution. of said motion. And yet, on
the same day that the
One day, in 1992, Rosaldiza went to the reservoir to wash her clothes motion was filed, the trial
and to take a bath. On her way back home, Manallo suddenly appeared The trial court considered court granted the said
from the bushes, grabbed her and raped her. Alex dressed up and appellants flight from the
motion and fixed the bail
warned her not to tell her parents, brothers and sisters of the incident, scene of the crime, his having bond for the provisional
otherwise, he would kill them all. Rosaldiza put on her clothes and ran jumped bail and for eluding liberty of the appellant in
home. Rosaldiza related to her mother what had happened to her. arrest for six long years as
evidence of his guilt for the the amount of P50,000.00
crime charged without any factual basis
Medico-Legal. Then Rosaldiza and Liliosa went back to the police therefore stated in the
station and executed their respective sworn statements. An order. Even when the public
information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, BAIL-RELATED (copy-paste): prosecutor prayed the court
charging Alex with rape. on June 17, 1992, for the
The Court cannot write finis to cancellation of the property
No bail was recommended for the provisional liberty of Alex. He this case without making of bond of the appellant on the
filed, on May 8, 1992, a motion for bail with no specific date and time record its concern and ground that the trial court
for the hearing thereof. Upon the filing of said motion, the Executive displeasure at the egregious granted his motion for bail
Judge issued an order granting the motion and fixing his bail bond procedural lapse of the trial without even affording the
at P50,000.00. On the same day, Alex posted a property bond court in granting bail to prosecution a chance to be
which was immediately approved by the court. Alex was forthwith appellant. It bears stressing heard thereon and adduce
released from detention. that he was charged with rape its evidence in opposition
punishable by reclusion thereto, the trial court held in
perpetua to death. Section 5, abeyance resolution thereof
At his arraignment on June 17, 1992, Alex, duly assisted by counsel de Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules of
and even allowed the
oficio, pleaded not guilty. Trial was set on June 18, 1992. The Criminal Procedure reads: appellant to remain free on
prosecution prayed the trial court to cancel the bond of Alex
his bond in the amount of only
considering that his petition for bail was granted without due hearing.
SEC. 5. Burden of proof in Bail P50,000.00. Patently, the
However, the trial court held in abeyance resolution of the motion
prosecution was deprived of
until after the prosecutor shall have presented its witnesses on June application. At the hearing of
its right to due process.
18, 1992. The trial court stated that the evidence to be adduced by the an application for admission
prosecution would be its evidence in Alexs petition for bail and trial to bail filed by any person
on the merits. On June 18, 1992, the trial court issued an order that who is in custody for the A bail application does not
Alex would remain free on his bond until June 22, 1992, the date set commission of an offense only involve the right of the
for the hearing on his petition for bail. However, Alex failed to attend punishable by reclusion accused to temporary liberty,
the trial on said date. The trial court issued and order for his arrest. perpetua to death, the but likewise the right of the
However, Alex could no longer be found at his address. It was only six prosecution has the burden of State to protect the people
years thereafter, or on January 22, 1998, that he was arrested. showing that evidence of guilt and the peace of the
is strong. The evidence community from dangerous
presented during the bail elements. These two rights
He denied raping Rosaldiza and claimed that they were lovers. He was hearings shall be considered
must be balanced by a
found guilty. (short story version.) automatically reproduced at magistrate in the scale of
the trial, but upon motion of justice, hence, the necessity
ISSUE (in the case): WON the trial court gravely erred in convicting either party, the court may for hearing to guide his
accused-appellant not on the basis of the strength of recall any witness for exercise of jurisdiction.
7
LAVIDES VS CA
G.R. 129670
February 1, 2000
his bail bonds. His contention
FACTS: Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse d) Approval of the bail is that this condition is void
under R.A. No. 7610 (an act providing for stronger deterrence and bonds shall be made only and that his arraignment was
special protection against child abuse, exploitation and after the arraignment to also invalid because it was
discrimination, providing penalties for its violation, and other enable this Court to held pursuant to such invalid
purposes). His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an immediately acquire condition.
entrapment conducted by the police. It appears that on April 3, 1997, jurisdiction over the
the parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police accused; ISSUE: WON the condition is
that their daughter, then 16 years old, had been contacted by void and the arraignment
petitioner for an assignation that night at petitioners room at the Petitioner filed a motion to invalid.
Metropolitan Hotel in quash the informations
against him. Pending HELD: CONDITION IS VOID.
Diliman, Quezon City. Apparently, this was not the first time the police resolution of his motion, he
received reports of petitioners activities. asked the trial court to bail should be granted before
suspend the arraignment arraignment, otherwise the
When petitioner opened the door, the police saw him with Lorelie, scheduled on May 23, 1997. accused may be precluded
who was wearing only a t-shirt and an underwear, whereupon they He filed a motion in which he from filing a motion to quash.
arrested him. Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the prayed that the amounts of For if the information is
affidavits of the arresting officers, which were submitted at the bail bonds be reduced to quashed and the case is
inquest, an information for violation of Art. III, 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 P40,000.00 for each case and dismissed, there would then
was filed against petitioner. that the same be done prior to be no need for the
his arraignment. arraignment of the accused. In
petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of the second place, the trial
Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused the trial court, in separate court could ensure the
Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) In orders, denied petitioners presence of petitioner at the
the Event of Adverse Resolution of the motions to reduce bail bonds, arraignment precisely by
to quash the informations, granting bail and ordering his
and to suspend arraignment. presence at any stage of the
Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Accordingly, petitioner was proceedings, such as
Right under the Law on Which He is Charged. arraigned during which he arraignment. Under Rule 114,
pleaded not guilty to the 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal
nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner charges against him and then Procedure, one of the
by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by three other ordered him released upon conditions of bail is that "the
minor children posting bail bonds in the total accused shall appear before
amount of P800,000.00, the proper court whenever so
No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed separate subject to the conditions in required by the court or these
applications for bail in the nine cases. the May 16, 1997 order and Rules," while under Rule 116,
the "hold-departure" order of 1(b) the presence of the
April 10, 1997. The pre-trial accused at the arraignment is
TRIAL COURT: 2. The accused is entitled to bail in all the above-
conference was set on June 7, required
entitled case. He is hereby granted the right to post bail in the amount
1997.
of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of P800,000.00 for all the cases
under the following conditions: to condition the grant of bail
The Court of Appeals declared to an accused on his
conditions (a) and (b) invalid arraignment would be to
The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the
but declined to pass upon the place him in a position where
trial of these cases. He shall and must always be present at the
validity of condition (d) on the he has to choose between (1)
hearings of these cases;
ground that the issue had filing a motion to quash and
become moot and academic. thus delay his release on bail
In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall Petitioner takes issue with the because until his motion to
be automatically cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his arrest Court of Appeals with respect quash can be resolved, his
shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in to its treatment of condition arraignment cannot be held,
absentia; (d) of the May 16, 1997 order and (2) foregoing the filing of
of the trial court which makes a motion to quash so that he
The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10, 1997 stands; petitioners arraignment a can be arraigned at once and
and prerequisite to the approval of thereafter be released on bail.
These scenarios certainly
8 or of guilt, (b) during trial whenever necessary for
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) identification purposes, and (c) at the promulgation
of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which
case the accused may appear by counsel or
representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his
undermine the accuseds constitutional right not to be put on trial presence is required and cannot be waived.
except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him
with a crime and his right to bail. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT OF
PETITIONER ON MAY 23, 1997 WAS ALSO INVALID.
The condition imposed in the trial courts order of May 16, 1997 that Contrary to petitioners contention, the arraignment
the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that he must did not emanate from the invalid condition that
be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in accordance with "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after
Rule 114. For another condition of bail under Rule 114, 2(c) is that the arraignment." Even without such a condition, the
"The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In
despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express sum, although the condition for the grant of bail to
waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. In petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the
such case, trial shall proceed in absentia." Jjsc subsequent proceedings against him are valid.
Art. III, 14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentia allows

the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the
proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
| Vien
9
SERAPIO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

396 SCRA 443 (2003)
the case in the manner it petitioners motion to quash
determines best conducive to the amended Information. The
orderly proceedings and motion to fix bail filed by Jose
speedy termination of the Jinggoy Estrada was also
(YOU MAY HATE ME FOR THIS, TOO.) case, directed the other denied by the
accused to participate in the
Before the Court are two petitions for certiorari filed by petitioner said bail hearing considering Sandiganbayan.
Edward Serapio, assailing the resolutions of the Third Division of the that under Section 8, Rule 114
Sandiganbayan denying his petition for bail, motion for a of the Revised Rules of Court,
Jose Jinggoy Estrada filed a
reinvestigation and motion to quash, and a petition for habeas corpus, whatever evidence is adduced petition for certiorari for the
all in relation to Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder wherein during the bail
nullification of a resolution of
petitioner is one of the accused together with former President Joseph the Sandiganbayan denying
E. Estrada, Jose Jinggoy P. Estrada and several others. hearing shall be considered his motion to fix bail.
automatically reproduced at
Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal the trial.
(I will not include the issues
Counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, a non-stock, non-profit regarding the charging of
foundation established in February 2000 ostensibly for the purpose of The bail hearing did not more than one offense, etc.
providing educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged proceed because petitioner anymore. Bail na lang tayo)
but deserving Muslim youth and students, and support to research filed with the Sandiganbayan
and advance studies of young Muslim educators and scientists. a motion to quash the
amended Information on the ISSUES:
Petitioner, as trustee of the Foundation, received on its behalf a grounds that as against him,
donation in the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200 the amended Information Whether or not petitioner
does not allege a combination should first be arraigned
or series of overt or criminal before hearings of his petition
Million) from Ilocos Sur Governor Luis Chavit Singson. for bail may be conducted;
acts constitutive of plunder;
as against him, the amended
Accused by Singson. Informations filed. Information does not allege a Whether petitioner may file a
pattern of criminal acts motion to quash the amended
The Sandiganbayan set the arraignment of the accused, including indicative of an overall Information during the
petitioner. In the meantime, on April 27, 2001, petitioner filed with unlawful scheme or pendency of his petition for
the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Petition for Bail which was set for conspiracy. By way of riposte, bail;
hearing on May 4, 2001. For his part, petitioners co-accused Jose the prosecution objected to
Jinggoy Estrada filed on April 20, 2001 a Very the holding of bail hearing
Whether a joint hearing of the
until petitioner agreed to
petition for bail of petitioner
withdraw his motion to quash.
Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that he was entitled to bail as a and those of the other accused
The prosecution contended
matter of right. is mandatory;
that petitioners motion to
quash the amended
During the hearing on May 4, 2001 on petitioners Urgent Information was (4) Whether the People
antithetical to his petition waived their right to adduce
Petition for Bail, the prosecution moved for the resetting of the for bail. evidence in opposition to the
arraignment of the accused earlier than the June 27, 2001 petition for bail of petitioner
schedule. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion of the He also filed a petition for and failed to adduce strong
prosecution and issued an order declaring that the petition for Habeas Corpus. (Andaming evidence of guilt of petitioner
bail can and should be heard before petitioners arraignment on nyang finile. Ang hirap tuloy for the crime charged
June 27, 2001 and even before the other accused filed their isummarize)
respective petitions for bail. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan set the HELD/RATIO:
hearing for the reception of evidence on petitioners petition for bail
Meanwhile, Jose Jinggoy
on May 21 to 25, NO. The arraignment of an
Estrada filed with the
Sandiganbayan a motion accused is not a prerequisite
2001. praying that said court resolve to the conduct of hearings on
his motion to fix his bail. his petition for bail. A person
The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution requiring the attendance of is allowed to petition for bail
petitioner as well as all the other accused during the hearings on the the Sandiganbayan issued a as soon as he is deprived of
petitions for bail under pain of waiver of cross-examination. The his liberty by virtue of his
Resolution denying
Sandiganbayan, citing its inherent powers to proceed with the trial of arrest or
10 CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash)
the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a
voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his arraignment criminal complaint or Information filed against him for
before filing a petition for bail. insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which
are apparent in the face of the Information. An accused may
file a motion to quash the Information, as a general rule,
in cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before before arraignment.
arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a
motion to quash.
These two reliefs have objectives which are not necessarily
antithetical to each other. Certainly, the right of an accused
However, the foregoing pronouncement should not be taken to mean right to seek provisional liberty when charged with an
that the hearing on a petition for bail should at all times precede offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
arraignment, because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by imprisonment, or when charged with an offense punishable
virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for bail as soon as by such penalties but after due hearing, evidence of his guilt
he is deprived of his liberty, even before a complaint or information is is found not to be strong, does not preclude his right to assail
filed against him. The the validity of the Information charging him with such
offense. It must be conceded, however, that if a motion to
Courts pronouncement in Lavides should be understood in light of the quash a criminal complaint or Information on the ground
fact that the accused in said case filed a petition for bail as well as a that the same does not charge any offense is granted and the
motion to quash the informations filed against him. Hence, we case is dismissed and the accused is ordered released, the
explained therein that to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his petition for bail of an accused may become moot and
arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose academic.
between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail
because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment No. There is no provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal
cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that Procedure or the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan
he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. This governing the hearings of two or more petitions for bail filed
would undermine his constitutional right not to be put on trial except by different accused or that a petition for bail of an accused
upon a valid complaint or Information sufficient to charge him with a be heard simultaneously with the trial of the case against the
crime and his right to bail. other accused. The matter of whether or not to conduct a
joint hearing of two or more petitions for bail filed by two
It is therefore not necessary that an accused be first arraigned before different accused or to conduct a hearing of said petition
the conduct of hearings on his application for bail. For when bail is a jointly with the trial against another accused is addressed to
matter of right, an accused may apply for and be granted bail even prior the sound discretion of the trial court. Unless grave abuse of
to arraignment. The ruling in Lavides also implies that an application discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is
for bail in a case involving an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shown, the Court will not interfere with the exercise by the
to death may also be heard even before an accused is arraigned. Sandiganbayan of its discretion.
Further, if the court finds in such case that the accused is entitled to bail
because the evidence against him is not strong, he may be granted It may be underscored that in the exercise of its discretion,
provisional liberty even prior to arraignment; for in such a situation, the Sandiganbayan must take into account not only the
bail would be convenience of the State, including the prosecution, but also
that of the accused and the witnesses of both the prosecution
authorized under the circumstances. In fine, the Sandiganbayan and the accused and the right of accused to a speedy trial.
committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess of The Sandiganbayan must also consider the complexities of
jurisdiction in ordering the arraignment of petitioner before the cases and of the factual and legal issues involving
proceeding with the hearing of his petition for bail. petitioner and the other accused. After all, if this Court may
echo the observation of the United States Supreme Court, the
YES. The Court finds that no such inconsistency exists between an State has a stake, with every citizen, in his being afforded our
application of an accused for bail and his filing of a motion to quash. historic individual protections, including those surrounding
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in the custody of the criminal prosecutions. About them, this Court dares not
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance become careless or complacent when that fashion has
before any court as required under the conditions set forth under the become rampant over the earth.
Rules of Court. Its purpose is to obtain the provisional liberty of a
person charged with an offense until his conviction while at the same No. Petitioners claim that the prosecution had refused to
time securing his appearance at the trial. As stated earlier, a person may present evidence to prove his guilt for purposes of his bail
apply for bail from the moment that he is deprived of his liberty by application and that the Sandiganbayan has refused to grant
virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. a hearing thereon is not borne by the records. The
prosecution did not waive, expressly or even impliedly, its
On the other hand, a motion to quash an Information is right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail
of petitioner. It must be noted that the Sandiganbayan had
already scheduled the hearing dates for petitioners
application for bail but the same were reset due to pending
AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin | Vien incidents raised in several
11 motions filed by the parties, which incidents had to
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) be resolved by the court prior to the bail hearings.
The bail hearing was eventually scheduled by the
Sandiganbayan on July 10, 2001 but the hearing did
not push through due to the filing of this petition on
June 29, 2001. discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be
submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right
The delay in the conduct of hearings on petitioners application for bail of cross-examination and to introduce his own
is therefore not imputable solely to the Sandiganbayan or to the evidence in rebuttal.
prosecution. Petitioner is also partly to blame therefor, as is evident
from the following list of motions filed by him and by the prosecution. Accordingly, petitioner cannot be released from
detention until the Sandiganbayan conducts a hearing
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of his application for bail and resolve the same in his
of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. favor. Even then, there must first be a finding that the
However, the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is evidence against petitioner is not strong before he
strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge. may be granted bail.
This discretion by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised
only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since
the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since
evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced
AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial | Vien
12
PEOPLE V SAN DIEGO

CAPISTRANO, J.:
VOID be exercised in the light of a
In criminal case No. Q-8711, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon summary of the evidence
City Branch, the information charged the defendants, Mario Henson, We are of the considered presented by the prosecution;
Rafael Gonzales, Angel Mendoza, Rogelio Lazaro and Bienvenido opinion that whether the otherwise, it would be
Wijangco, as principals of the murder of Jesus Lapid with the motion for bail of a defendant uncontrolled and might be
qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and who is in custody for a capital capricious or whimsical.
abuse of superior strength and with the aggravating circumstances of offense be resolved in a Hence, the court's order
nocturnity, aid of armed men and craft or fraud. summary proceeding or in the granting or refusing bail must
course of a regular trial, the contain a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution
The prosecution and the defense agreed that the motions for bail of prosecution must be given an followed by its conclusion
the defendants would be considered in the course of the regular trial opportunity to present, within whether or not the evidence
instead of in a summary proceeding. a reasonable time, all the
evidence that it may desire to of guilt is strong.
introduce before the court
In the course of the regular trial, after the prosecution had presented should resolve the motion for The orders of October 7, 9 and
eight witnesses, the trial court resolved the motions for bail granting bail. 12, 1968, granting bail to the
the same despite the objection of the prosecution on the ground that it five defendants are defective
still had material witnesses to present. in form and substance
If, as in the criminal case
involved in the instant special because they do not contain a
The orders granting bail in the amount of P50,000 for each defendant civil action, the prosecution summary of the evidence
on the ground that the evidence of guilt was not strong must have should be denied such an presented by the
made Fiscal Oscar Inocentes very angry because in his motion for opportunity, there would be a
reconsideration of the orders granting bail he used contumacious violation of procedural due prosecution. They only
language for which he was forthwith cited for contempt. Fortunately, process, and the order of the contain the court's conclusion
after the fiscal had submitted his answer and explanation, the trial court granting bail should be that the evidence of guilt is
judge, in a forgiving mood, did not punish him for contempt on considered void on that not strong. Being thus
condition that the contumacious words be deleted from his motion for ground. defective in form and
reconsideration. substance, the orders
The court's discretion to grant complained of cannot, also on
ISSUE: WON the prosecution was deprived of procedural due bail in capital offenses must this ground, be allowed to
process- YES, HENCE THE QUESTIONED ORDERS ARE NULL AND stand.
13
OCAMPO V BERNABE
MORAN, C.J.:
discretion, by the very in section 34 b(2) (b)the
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Eduardo Ocampo to set aside an nature of things, may determination as to
order issued by the Fourth Division of the People's court denying his rightly be exercise only whether the proof is
application for bail.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law after the evidence is evident or the presumption
library submitted to the court at great must, on an original
the hearing. Since application, be determined
from the evidence adduced
The petitioner was arrested by the Counter Intelligence Coprs of the on the application no
Armed Forces of the United States and confined in Muntinglupa Prisons the discretion is directed to matter which side bears
since July 30, 1945, and pursuant to Executive Order No. 6555 he was the weight of evidence the burden of proof. Where
turned over to the Commonwealth of the Philippines and later on filed cannot properly be accused under a capital
with the Peoples Court his application for bail under Act No. 682. weighed if not duly
exhibited or produced indictment bears the
before the court (Ramos vs. burden of proof he should
At the hearing of the application, the special prosecutor stated that Ramos, 45 Phil., 362), it is offer the witnesses whose
petitioner with having pointed out Placido Trinidad as a guerilla to the obvious that a proper names are endorsed on the
Japanese and for that reason Placido Trinidad was shot to death. exercise of judicial indictment, although he is
discretion requires that the not limited to such
No evidence, however, was presented by the special prosecutor and all evidence of guilt be witnesses.
that he did at the hearing was to recite the contents of an affidavit submitted to the court, the
which has no referrence to count No. 4, and to state further that he had petitioner having the right o The court should hear
27 more affidavits. of cross-examination and all material and relevant
to introduce his own evidence offered by either
Petitioner made an objection stating that a mere recital is not a evidence in rebuttal. party, such as the grand
evidence and that evidence cannot be considered strong which has not jury minutes, and should
been subjected to the test of cross-examination. Mere affidavits or recital of consider the evidence as a
their contents are not whole. (8 C.J.S., section 46
He testified in his own behalf in denying all the charges preferred sufficient since they are [b], p. 94.).
against him and stated that said charges are mere intrigues of his mere hearsay evidence,
political enemy Marcelo Trinidad. unless the petitioner fails Upon the hearing it is
to object thereto. proper to require the
Under all these circumstances, the Fourth division of the People's Court prisoner to begin the
composed of Judges Jose Bernabe, Emilio Rilloraza and Angel Gamboa, And this is the prevailing evidence, although it
issued an order dated February 23, 1946, denying the application for doctrine in the United imposes upon him the
bail. States. In some states of necessity of producing
the American union, the evidence upon which the
burden of showing that state intended to rely for
Hence, this petition for certiorari. his conviction on the final
proof is evident or the
presumption great, lies on trial. But the accused will
ISSUE: WON no proof was presented by the special prosecutor to the prosecution while in not by this procedure be
show that the evidence of guilt is strong, thus, the People's Court others on the petitioner, denied the opportunity of
committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the application but the rule seems to be cross-examining the
for bail -YES. uniform to the effect that people's witnesses. (Ex
no matter which side bears parte Heffren, 27 Ind., 87.
We have held in Herras Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons the burden of proof, the To the same effect, Rigdon
evidence of guilt should be vs. State, 41 Fla., 308; 26
adduced before the court So., 711; ex parte
(76 Phil., 756), that all persons shall before conviction be bailable Nathan[Fla.]; 50 so., 38."
for a proper determination
except when charge is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is (39 L. R. A., New Series, pp.
of its probative force
strong. the general rule, therefore, is that all persons, whether charged 752, 774, 775.).
or not yet charges, are, before their conviction, entitled to provisional
release on bail, the only exception being where the charge is a capital In corpus Juris Secundum
offense and the evidence of guilt is found to be strong. the rule is summarized as The evidence for the state,
follows: as well as that for the
accused, should be
At the hearing of the application for bail, the burden of showing that the presented (1) by the
case falls within the exception is on the prosecution, according to Rule o Unless the presumption petitioner in an application
110, section 7. from an indictment for a
for bail. (Ex parte Tully
capital offense is [Fla.], 66 S., 296; Rigdon vs.
The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is, conclusive against accused State, 41 Fla., 308; 26 S.,
as stated in Herras Teehankee case, a matter of judicial discretion. This which has been considered 711; Ex parte Heffren, 27
Ind., 87. (2) But the petitioner, by proper procedure, may test the Heffren, supra. (6 C.J., p. library chanrobles virtual
probative force of the testimony for the state in order to fully present 984, fn. 50 [a], section law library
his case for the purposes of the hearing. Ex parte Tully, supra; Ex parte 214.).chanroblesvirtuallaw
14
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) The course of the inquiry may be left to the discretion
of the court which may confine itself to receiving such
evidence as has reference to substantial matters
avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the
Where on a motion to admit to bail after the indictment, the evidence of examination and cross-examination of witnesses and
the witnesses who testified before the grand jury does not make a reducing to a reasonable minimum the amount of
prima facie case against the accused, he is entitled to bail, and it is an corroboration particularly on details that are not
error to refuse bail upon the statement of the district attorney that he essential to the purpose of the hearing.
has other evidence which he will not disclose for fear of weakening the
state's case. (In ex parte Reynald, 37 Texas, 1.)
Objection has been made long ago to this method of
hearing wherein the regular trial is anticipated
And this is in conformity with the former rulings of this Court. though to a limited extent at least. but the objection
(MARCOS V. CRUZ AND HERRAS CASE) was dismissed.
True that in the same case of Herras Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons, It appearing in the instant case that on the hearing of
supra, we said that the hearing of an application for bail should be the application for bail filed by the petitioner no
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court. By "summary proof was offered by the prosecution to show that the
hearing" we meant such brief and speedy method of receiving and evidence of guilt is strong, the Fourth Division of the
considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with People's Court committed a grave abuse of discretion
the purpose of the hearing which is merely to determine the weight of in denying the bail applied for.
the evidence for purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court "does not
sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight
that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against accused, nor will
it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
be therein offered and admitted." (8 C. J. S., 93,94.)
| Vien
15
SIAZON V JUDGE
MAKALINTAL, J.:
into any nice inquiry as to the circumstances which tend to
At the outset it should be mentioned that the instant petition is weight that ought to be connect the two accused with
formally defective in that the petitioner appears to be the State allowed to the evidence for or thecrimes and who
Prosecutor handling the case below instead of the People of the against accused, nor will it presumably will also be called
Philippines, who should properly be represented in this proceeding by speculate on the to testify, and whose
the Solicitor General. (BUT FOR SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, willingness to do so may
THIS INFIRMITY IS OVERLOOKED. SC PROCEEDS). outcome of the trial or on thereby be adversely
what further evidence may be influenced by such revelation,
does not appear to be
At the outset, let it be stated that after the arraignment of the accused therein offered and admitted.' convincing, since the record of
and before the commencement of the trial, the applications for bail, (8 C.J.S. 93, 94.) T the cases already contains the
were heard testimony which Najar gave at
The course of the inquiry may the preliminary investigation,
The Court ruled and ordered a joint hearing of the cases on the merits be left to the discretion of the aside from his three sworn
and of the applications for bail. On this same occasion the Court also court which may confine itself statements consisting of 16
considered the motion filed by the prosecution to discharge the to receiving such evidence as pages typed single-space in
defendant Angelico Najar. Without any objection on the part of the has reference to substantial question and answer form.
defense, said motion to discharge was granted and accused Najar was matters, avoiding unnecessary (TANGGAPIN NA KASI NILA
discharged to become state witness pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 119 of thoroughness in the NA INSUFFICIENT NGA DAW)
the Rules of Court. examination and cross-
examination of witnesses and
reducing to a reasonable The proviso that any witness
As the trial progressed, with the prosecution presenting several minimum at the amount of may be recalled at the trial for
witnesses whose testimonies have not established evidence directly corroboration particularly on additional examination
linking the accused Escribano and Padilla to the conspiracy alleged in details that are not essential underscores, if anything, the
the informations in these cases, the defense on August 2, 1971 filed an to the purposes of the difference between the
urgent motion for the reconsideration of the order given in open Court hearing." hearing for purposes of the
ordering a joint hearing of the cases on the merits and of the petition for bail and the trial
applications for bail, to which the prosecution also filed its opposition. on the merits. This is as it
We do not see that the should be, because one has for
addition of the provision Sec. its purpose, from the endpoint
The Court reconsidered its previous order and ordered that the 7, Rule 114 has materially
applications for bail be first heard to which the prosecution gave its changed the nature of the of the prosecution, to show
assent. that strong evidence of guilt
hearing on a petition for bail exists while the contemplates
to the extent of depriving the proof beyond reasonable
ISSUE: whether or not a proceeding in an application for bail is Court of its discretion to doubt.
still summary in nature as it was under the old rule - YES confine the evidence to the
extent necessary for the
proper determination of the The right of the prosecution to
As a general proposition, all persons shall before conviction be
control the quantum of
bailable except when the charge is a capital offense and the evidence question of whether or not
the evidence of guilt is strong. evidence and the order of
of guilt is strong.
The only change that has been presentation of the witness
introduced is that such while not to be disregarded,
At the hearing of the application for bail the burden of showing that must nevertheless be equated
evidence shall be considered
the case falls within the exception is on the prosecution, according to with the purpose of the
automatically reproduced at
Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. T hearing, which is to determine
the trial in order to avoid
unnecessary repetition. whether the accused falls
he determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong is a within the exception to the
matter of judicial discretion, which in the very nature of things may general rule that he is
The prosecution had had constitutionally entitled to
rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at
three months since the bail before conviction.
the hearing. Neither under the old nor under the new Rules is there
hearing started until the
any specific provision defining what kind of hearing it should be, but
questioned order was issued
in the two cases cited at the footnote hereof it was stated that the To allow the prosecution to
and had called 27 witnesses
hearing should be summary or otherwise in the discretion of the conduct the hearing as if it
just to lay a sufficient
court. were a full-dress trial on the
corroborative basis for the
testimony of its principal merits who defeat the
"By 'summary hearing,' this Court added, "we mean such brief and witness, Angelico Najar. The purpose of the proceeding.
speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is plea that this witness will
practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is reveal the names of persons DISPOSITIVE: the petition is
merely to determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail. who have some knowledge of dismissed and the temporary
On such hearing, the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter
restraining order issued by this Court is lifted, with instructions to the prejudice to said Court's such other prosecution as it
respondent Court to resume the hearing forthwith for the allowing, in the exercise of its may deem advisable, in the
presentation of Angelico Najar as witness for the prosecution, without discretion, the presentation of interest of justice.
16
MAMOLO V NARISIMA
BELLOSILLO, J.:
where the prosecutor
On 16 May 1994 a criminal complaint for murder was filed against It is worthy to note that in refuses to adduce evidence
Antonio Balagot and Ariel Acha for the murder of Daniel Mamolo,Jr., son the resumption of the in opposition to the
of complainant hearing in the afternoon of application to grant and fix
25 May 1994 the bail, the court may ask the
prosecution prefaced its prosecution such questions
After Judge Rogelio R. Narisma conducted the requisite preliminary as would ascertain the
examination he issued the corresponding warrants of arrest against the submission with a strength of the states
accused. Respondent Judge recommended no bail since murder is a statement of its serious
vehement objection to the evidence or judge the
capital offense and the evidence of guilt was strong. Acha was later adequacy of the amount of
arrested while Balagot surrendered to the PC Provincial Command in petition for bail. bail x x
Cotabato.
Such manifestation ought

Subsequently, Balagot through counsel filed a Petition For Admission to to have alerted respondent
Bail and set the same for hearing. At the scheduled hearing defense of the next appropriate
counsel informed the court that Balagot was ill and asked the court to steps in resolving the The failure of respondent
dispense with the submission of his petition and, instead, to allow petition. In Borinaga v. Judge to adhere to a basic,
Balagot to be treated at the hospital (SPECIAL TREATMENT???). Tamin we delineated a fundamental procedure
clear guideline on the cannot be lightly
exercise of judicial overlooked. As correctly
MAMOLO:claims that despite the fact that respondent Judge discretion in hearing perceived by OCA, this
recommended no bail for both accused he nevertheless allowed Balagot petitions omission by respondent
to put a bail of P150,000.00 without giving the prosecution the constitutes gross ignorance
opportunity to present its evidence to prove that the evidence of guilt of the law since it resulted
against the accused was strong. for bail -x x x (w)hile the
determination of whether in depriving the
or not evidence of guilt is prosecution the time-
MAMOLO: also avers that on several occasions he saw respondent strong is a matter of tested and enduring
Judge and counsel for accused Balagot together and engaged in a series judicial discretion, this procedural due process.
of private talks at a nearby restaurant. discretion by the nature of
things may rightly be It is an oft-repeated dictum
In his Memorandum of 21 July 1995, approved by Court Administrator exercised only after the that a judge should exhibit
Ernani Cruz Pan o, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez evidence is submitted to more than just a cursory
found that respondent Judge disregarded procedural due process in the court at such hearing. acquaintance with the
granting bail to the accused. He opined that the prosecutions waiver to Whether the motion for statutes and procedural
present evidence ought to have prompted respondent Judge to ask the bail of an accused who is in rules. For the role of judges
prosecution to present its witnesses at another date set for the purpose custody in a summary in the administration of
(of asking) clarificatory questions from which he may infer the strength proceeding or in the course justice requires a
of the evidence of guilt of the accused.. of a regular trial the continuous study of the law
prosecution must be given and jurisprudence.
ISSUE: WON JUDGE NARISIMA ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY IN an opportunity to present, Indubitably, the industry of
RECOMMENDING THE BAIL FOR BALAGOT?-YES within a reasonable time, a judge in keeping abreast
all the evidence that it may with the law and court
desire to introduce before rulings will enhance the
The procedure of conducting a hearing on the application for admission
the court may resolve the faith of our people in the
to bail should provide the basis for judges to determine whether the
motion for bail. If the administration of justice
prosecutions evidence is weak or strong. In the case at bench, while
prosecution should be since litigants will be
respondent conducted a hearing on Balagots petition for bail such
denied of such an confidently and invariably
proceeding did not elicit evidence from the prosecution to guide
opportunity, there would assured that the occupants
respondent in the proper determination of the petition.
be a violation of procedural of the bench cannot justly
due process, and the order be accused of a deficiency
The deferential attitude of the prosecution cannot excuse respondents of the court granting bail in their grasp of legal
disregard of his peremptory duty. should be considered void principles.
on that ground x x x (E)ven
17
PEOPLE V. TUPPAL
QUISUMBING, J.:
among the accused was
On appeal is the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of It is settled that the established- YES
Ilagan, Isabela, finding appellant Saturnino Tuppal guilty of robbery assessment of the
with homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. prosecution evidence After accused Ben Tuppal
presented during bail announced the hold-up, co-
Appellants conviction stemmed from four charges filed on August 21, hearings in capital offenses accused Danilo Tuppal took
1992, by the Provincial Prosecutor of Isabela is preliminary and Florfinas handbag
intended only for the containing P2,500.00.
purpose of granting or Appellant Saturnino
Appellant remained at large for almost nine (9) years after the filing of denying applications for Tuppal then shot Florfina
the aforesaid cases. It was only on March 5, 1998 that appellant was the provisional release of with a handgun, hitting her
arrested in Cainta, Rizal and in connection with another case for the accused. on the left side of her
robbery. abdomen.
OTHER ISSUES
Appellant was arraigned. Assisted by counsel, he pleaded not guilty to Their concerted action
the charges. The cases were then consolidated and trial ensued. shows their unity of
WON the evidence now on
record is sufficient to hold purpose to rob the victim,
The prosecutions evidence established that: appellant Saturnino at all cost. These concerted
Tuppal guilty beyond acts of appellant and his
On the evening of December 22, 1989, the spouses Bonifacio and reasonable doubt of the co-accused manifestly
Florfina Solito and their four-year-old child, Efren, attended the crime of robbery with disclose concurrence of
wedding of Florfinas younger sister, Loida Atuan, at Barangay Banguro, homicide- YES wills, unity of action, joint
Reina Mercedes, Isabela. At about 11:30 P.M., the Solitos accompanied purpose and common
by Bartolo Atuan, Jr., Florfinas 26-year-old brother, left the wedding design. Hence, although
The court a quo found the appellant did not himself
reception. They had barely traveled some 300 meters away and were in prosecutions evidence
front of the house of Felix Sacang, when they were waylaid by appellant credible. It disbelieved shoot Bartolo Atuan, Jr., he
and his four companions, now the co-accused.After Ben Tuppal is still liable for
appellants bare denials.
announced a heist, Danilo Eyewitness Florfina Solitos
testimony on the hold-up Bartolos death as principal
Tuppal immediately ran off with Florfinas handbag containing incident was replete with because the existence of
P2,500.00 in cash. Appellant then shot Florfina with a short firearm, material details. She conspiracy makes the act of
hitting her in the abdomen. Bartolo Atuan, Jr., tried to shield Florfina testified that after being one the act of all.
from further harm but Marcelo Tuppal then shot Bartolo, killing him on shot in the abdomen, she
the spot. grappled with appellant for The charges against
possession of the gun. appellant and his co-
Florfina took advantage of the situation and scurried towards a nearby Meanwhile, co-accused accused, constitute only
banana plantation. The malefactors gave pursuit and continued to fire Danilo Tuppal dashed off one special indivisible or
at her hitting her further at the buttocks and in the arm. She pretended with her bag and its composite crime as defined
to be dead and fell to the ground. The ploy worked because she heard contents, according to her. in Article 294 (1) of the
accused Pedro Tuppal say, Let us go, she is already dead. She also described the Revised Penal Code.
firearm used in shooting
her and killing her brother. the prosecution amply
In the meantime, upon hearing the gunshots, Bonifacio Solito and his
These details could not established the following
son Efren scampered towards the house of Felix Sacang. Co-accused
have sprung from her elements of robbery with
Ben Tuppal ran after both father and son. He aimed the gun at them,
imagination, but only from homicide: (a) the taking of
but the gun jammed and did not fire.
her vivid recollection of the personal property is
fatal incident implicating perpetrated by means of
In the present cases, appellant raised the defense of denial and alibi. the appellant and his violence or intimidation
brothers as the against a person, (b) the
CRIMPRO ISSUE: malefactors. property taken belongs to
another, (c) the taking is
WON the fact that the trial court had held during the bail hearing Appellants defense of alibi characterized by intent to
that the prosecution evidence was weak, it is estopped from is untenable. gain or animus lucrandi,
rendering a contrary ruling after the trial.- NO and (d) on the occasion of
the robbery or by reason
thereof, the crime of
Said findings should not be construed as an immutable evaluation of
homicide, in its generic
the prosecutions evidence.
WON the conspiracy sense, is committed.
18
DE LA CAMARA V ENAGE
FERNANDO, J.:
other incidents of the case, person is bailable except if
An order of respondent Judge Manuel Lopez Enage, fixing the bail of which, to his mind would charged with capital
petitioner, Ricardo de la Camara, in the sum of P1,195,200.00 is disprove any charge that he offenses when the evidence
assailed in this petition for certiorari as repugnant to the constitutional was guilty of grave abuse of of guilt is strong. Such a
mandate prohibiting excessive bail. discretion. It stressed, right flows from the
moreover, that the presumption of innocence
challenged order would in favor of every accused
The merit of the petition on its face is thus apparent. Nonetheless, relief find support in circulars who should not be
sought setting aside the above order by reducing the amount of bail to of the Department of subjected to the loss of
P40,000.00 cannot be granted, as in the meanwhile, petitioner had Justice given sanction by freedom as thereafter he
escaped from the provincial jail, thus rendering this case moot and this Court. He sought the would be entitled to
academic. dismissal of the petition for acquittal, unless his guilt
lack of merit. be proved beyond
It is deemed advisable, however, for the guidance of lower court judges, reasonable doubt. Thereby
to set forth anew the controlling and authoritative doctrines that Respondent Judge a regime of liberty is
should be observed in fixing the amount of the bail sought in order that submitted a supplemental honored in the observance
full respect be accorded to such a constitutional right. (I.E., answer wherein he alleged and not in the breach. It is
MASYADONG MAGANDA ANG PONENCIA KO PARA LANG MASAYANG! that petitioner escaped not beyondthe realm of
DI KO NAMAN KASALANAN NA NAKATAKAS SILA EH!- FERNANDO, from the provincial jail on probability, however, that a
HAHAHA) April 28, 1971 and had person charged with a
since then remained at crime, especially so where
Ricardo, de la Camara, Municipal Mayor of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental, large. There was a his defense is weak, would
was arrested on November 7, 1968 and detained at the Provincial Jail of reiteration then of the just simply make himself
Agusan, for his alleged participation in the killing of fourteen and the dismissal of this petition scarce and thus frustrate
wounding of twelve other laborers of the Tirador Logging Co for lack of merit, to which the hearing of his case. A
petitioner countered in a bail is intended as a
guarantee that such an
Thereafter, the Provincial Fiscal of Agusan filed with the Court of First pleading, and filed with
intent would be thwarted
Instance a case for multiple frustrated murder and another for multiple this Court the next day
murder against petitioner, his co-accused Nambinalot Tagunan and with this plea: "The
Fortunato Galgo, resulting from the aforesaid occurrence. undersigned counsel, Nor is there, anything
therefore, vehemently unreasonable in denying
interpose opposition, on this right to one charged
Then on January 14, 1969, came an application for bail filed by
behalf of petitioner, to with a capital offense when
petitioner with the lower court, premised on the assertion that there
respondent's prayer for evidence of guilt is strong,
was no evidence to link him with such fatal incident of August 21, 1968.
dismissal of the present as the likelihood is, rather
He likewise mantained his innocence. Respondent Judge started the
petition for lack of merit. than await the outcome of
trial of petitioner on February 24, 1969, the prosecution resting its case
For, the issue in this case is the proceeding against him
on July 10, 1969. As of the time of the filing ofthe petition, the defense
not alone the fate of with a death sentence, an
had not presented its evidence.
petitioner Ricardo de la ever-present threat,
Camara. The issue in the temptation to flee the
Respondent Judge issued an order granting petitioner's application for present petition that calls jurisdiction would be too
bail, admitting that there was a failure on the part of the prosecution to for the resolution of this great to be resisted.
prove that petitioner would flee even if he had the opportunity, but Honorable Tribunal is the
fixed the amount of the bail bond at the excessive amount of fate of countless other Where, however, the right
Ricardo de la Camaras who to bail exists, it should not
P1,195,200.00,the sum of P840,000.00 for the information maybe awaiting the clear- be rendered nugatory by
charging multiple murder and P355,200.00 for the offense of cut definition and requiring a sum that is
multiple frustrated murder. declaration of the power of excessive. So the
trial courts in regard to the Constitution commands. It
fixing of bail." (HOW is understandable why. If
Then came the allegation that on August 12, 1970, the Secretary of
TOUCHING. BLEH) there were no such
Justice, Vicente Abad Santos, upon being informed of such order, sent a
telegram to respondent Judgestating that the bond required "is prohibition, the right to
excessive" and suggesting that a P40,000.00bond, either in cash or ISSUE: WON THE BAIL bail becomes meaningless.
property, would be reasonable. There was likewise a motion for RECOMMENDED WAS It would have been more
reconsideration to reduce the amount. Respondent Judge however EXCESSIVE AND forthright if no mention of
remained adamant. Hence this petition. VIOLATIVE OF THE such a guarantee were
CONSTITUTION-YES found in the fundamental
law.
The answer filed by respondent Judge on March 5, 1971 set forth the
circumstances concerning the issuance of the above order and the Before conviction, every
19 CrimPro (Bail, Motion to
Quash) constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate to
exercise our supervisory powers to provide the
required remedy."
It is not to be lost sight of that the United States Constitution limits No attempt at rationalization can therefore give a
itself to a prohibition against excessive bail. color of validity to the challenged order. There is grim
irony in an accused being told that he has a right to
Nothing can be clearer, therefore, than that the challenged order of bail but at the same time being required to post such
August 10, 1970 fixing the amount of P1,195,200.00 as the bail that an exorbitant sum.
should be posted by petitioner, the sum of P840,000.00 for the
information charging multiple murder, there being fourteen victims, It is no wonder that the resulting frustration left
and the sum of P355,200 for the other offense of multiple frustrated resentment and bitterness in its wake. Petitioner's
murder, there being twelve victims, is clearly violative of constitutional subsequent escape cannot be condoned. That is why
provision he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. What
respondent Judge did, however, does call for
.Under the circumstances, there being only two offenses charged, the repudiation from this Court.
amount required as bail could not possibly exceed P50,000.00 for the
information for murder and P25,000.00 for the other information for Nor is there any justification then for imputing his
frustrated murder. Nor should it be ignored in this case that the inability to fix a lesser amount by virtue of an alleged
Department of Justice did recommend the total sum of P40,000.00 for reliance on a decision of this Tribunal. Even if one
the two offenses. were charitably inclined, the mildest characterization
of such a result is that there was a clear reading of the
Villaseor v. Abano: The guidelines in the fixing of bail was there Abano opinion when such a meaning was ascribed to
summarized, in the opinion of Justice Sanchez, as follows: "(1) ability of it. No doctrine refinement may elicit approval if to do
the accused to give bail; (2) nature of the offense; (3) penalty for the so would be to reduce the right to bail to a barren
offense charged; (4) character and reputation of the accused; (5) health form of words. Not only is the order complained of
of the accused; (6) character and strength of the evidence; (7) absolutely bereft of support in law, but it flies in the
probability of the accused appearing in trial; (8) forfeiture of other face of common sense. It is not too much to say that it
bonds; (9) whether the accused wasa fugitive from justice when is at war with the command of reason.
arrested; and (10) if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial
in other cases." Respondent Judge, however, did ignore this decisive
consideration appearing at the end of the above opinion: "Discretion,
indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on the question of bail. We AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
must stress, however, that where conditions imposed upon a defendant | Vien
seeking bail would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the
20
VILLASENOR v. ABANO
21 SCRA 321 (1967)
Sanchez, J; Sept. 29, 1967

HELD/RATIO the complaint or information
FACTS in the court in which it is filed
NO. The court has the power or to which it may be
to grant bail in bailable transferred for trial, and after
Reynaldo Villasenor was charged with murder of Police Sergeant conviction, if the case is
Madla before the CFI of Marinduque. He was admitted to a P60,000- cases and the discretion to
fix the amount thereof. In appealed to the Court of First
bail which was reduced to P40,000. He posted a property bond and Instance upon application
was set at provisional liberty. the instant case, there is no
abuse of discretion. supported by an undertaking
or bail, that he will, surrender
Before arraignment, Prov. Fiscal amended the information, charging the himself in execution of such
1
accused with Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Sec. 9. Qualification of judgment as the appellate
Murder. sureties. The necessary court may render, or that, in
qualifications of sureties to a case cause, is to be tried anew
Aug. 7 - Judge Abano sua ponte cancelled Villasenors bond and ordered his bail bond shall be as follows: or remanded for a new trial,
immediate arrest. he will appear in the court to
Sept. 9 - After hearing on Villasenors motion to reconsider,
which it may be remanded
Judge Abano resolved to admit him to bail provided he puts ups a cash (a) Each of them must be a and submit himself to the
bond of P60,000. resident householder or
freeholder within the orders and processes thereof.
Philippines.
The following principles
Sept. 15 - Villasenor asked the court that the original bond previously Villasenor - he is a mere gov. should be considered in fixing
given be reinstated. Judge Abano resolved to fix "the bond anew in real employee, earning a salary of the amount of bail:
property in the amount of P60,000.00, but to be posted only by P210 a month and the sole
residents of the province of Marinduque actually staying therein" with breadwinner of a family of five. the amount should be high
properties which "must be in the possession and ownership of said enough to assure the presence
residents for five years." Sec. 12, Rule 114 provides of defendant when required
that "the court may, upon but no higher than is
Villasenor filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary good cause shown, either reasonably calculated to fulfill
injunction seeking to set aside Judge Abanos orders of Aug. 7, Sept. 9 increase or reduce the this purpose
and Sept. 15 and to reinstate the bail previously approved by Judbe amount" of the bail, and that
Abano. He charges Judge Abano having acted without any or in excess "defendant may be committed the good of the public as well
of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the to custody unless he gives bail
as the rights of the accused
disputed orders. in the increased amount he is
called upon to furnish."
the need for a tie to the
ISSUES: jurisdiction and the right to
We are not to consider solely
the inability of a defendant to
freedom from unnecessary
WON the P60k-bond fixed by Judge Abano transgress the restraint before conviction
secure bail in a certain amount.
constitutional injunction that excessive bail shall not be required. This circumstance by itself does under the circumstances
not make the amount excessive. surrounding each particular
WON the requirement that the property bond be posted only by accused
residents of the province of Marinduque actually staying therein Guidelines used by the courts in
1 Certain guidelines in bail
collides with Sec. 9, Rule 114 . determining the amount of bail
The purpose of bail as fixing, which may be
provided in the definition summarized as follows: (1)
WON it is beyond the power of Judge Abano to require that properties
under Sec. 1, Rule 114 - the ability of the accused to give
be offered as bond must be in possession and ownership of the
security required and given bail; (2) nature of the offense;
sureties for at least five years.
for the release of a person (3) Penalty for the offense
who is in the custody of the charged; (4) character and
Note: law, that he will appear before reputation of the accused; (5)
any court in which his health of the accused; (6)
*Since the two orders of Aug. 7 and Sept. 9 was replaced with the order appearance may be required character and strength of the
of Sept. 15, they became functus officio (retains no legal authority as stipulated in the bail bond evidence; (7) probability of
because his or its duties and functions have been completed) or recognizance. the accused appearing in trial;
(8) forfeiture of other bonds;
(9) whether the accused was a
**This is a 1967 case hence the reference to a different ROC. The condition of bail as
fugitive from justice when
provided under Sec. 2, Rule
arrested; and (10) if the
114 - defendant shall answer
accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases the possible penalty that may capital offense, direct assault
be meted upon an agent of a person in
authority with murder. A
The principal factor considered, to the determination of which most
complex crime, it may call for
other factors are directed, is the probability of the appearance of the the imposition of the capital
accused, or of his flight to avoid punishment." Of importance then is Villasenor is charged with a
21 the constitutional mandate of speedy trial. If notice to sureties is
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) not served, no trial can be had.
Furthermore, reading of his petition fails of an averment that the

requisite exacted that bondsmen be residents of and actually staying
punishment. Then, Circular 47 dated July 5, 1946 of the Department of in Marinduque would cause him prejudice.
Justice, reiterated in Circular 48 of July 18, 1963, directed prosecuting
attorney's to recommend bail at the rate of P2,000.00 per year of
NO
imprisonment, corresponding to the medium period of the penalty
prescribed for the offense charged, unless circumstances warrant a
higher penalty Judge Abano - he relied on Circular 2, dated January 23, 1964, of
the Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, addressed, among others,
to Judges of First Instance. That circular recites that it had been
NO. The posture taken by respondent judge does not offend the
brought to the attention of the Department of Justice that in
good sense of justice.
certain provinces, unscrupulous persons who are spurious
landowners, have been accepted as sureties. The Secretary then
Judge Abano - it has been his experience that "it is hard to send notices suggested that it may be a good policy not to accept as bail bonds
to people outside the province." He explains that the usual procedure of real properties not covered by certificate of title unless they have
his clerk of court is to send notices by registered mail accompanied by been declared for taxation purposes in favor of the person
return cards; that when trial comes, the return cards in many instances offering them as bond for at least five (5) years.
have not yet been received in court; that when the parties fail to appear;
there is no way of knowing whether the notices have been duly
Its purpose is to prevent the commission of frauds in connection
received; that he cannot order the confiscation of the bond and the
with the posting of personal bail bonds and to protect the
arrest of the accused, because he is not sure whether the bondsmen
interests of the Government. If the bondsman is not the owner,
have been duly notified; that sending telegrams to people outside the
bail fails of its purpose, prejudice to the government sets in.
province is costly, and the court cannot afford to incur much expenses.
We note that the order of September 15, 1964 spoke of properties

We read Sec. 9, Rule 114 to mean that the directive that bondsmen be
in general. Failure of specificness on the part of Judge Abana then
resident householders or freeholders in the Philippines is but a
could have been a case of oversight. To obviate
minimum requirement. Reason for this is that bondsmen in criminal
cases, residing outside of the Philippines, are not within the reach of the
processes of its courts.
It is not intended to tie up the hands of a judge to approve bail so long
as it is offered by a resident householder or freeholder within the
misunderstanding, we take it upon ourselves to clarify that order.
Philippines. For a court has broad powers essential to its judicial
We do say now that the order of September 15, 1964 is to be
function.
understood as excluding properties covered by Torrens titles
from the requirement that properties to be offered as bond must
Judge Abano only wanted to make sure that when the proper time be "in the possession and ownership of the sureties for at least
comes for the court to order the sureties to produce the person of five years."
defendant, no undue delay will be incurred. If bondsmen reside in far
away places, even if within the Philippines, the purpose of bail may be
DISPOSITION we vote to dismiss the petition for certiorari, and
frustrated. There is the insufficiency of the mails as an effective means
to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction issued herein.
of communication. And then, there is the problem of complying with
22
PEOPLE v. ASUNCION
161 SCRA 490
Padilla, J; May 24, 1988

It may be true that there is (1) the use of unlicensed
nothing in Executive Orders firearm or ammunition, or (2)
FACTS
Nos. 107 and 222 that expressly the carrying of such firearm
legalizes the unlicensed or ammunition on the person,
Rolando Abadina (former colonel of AFP) was charged before the RTC possession of firearms and except to surrender them. The
with the offense of Violation of PD 1866 [Illegal Possession of ammunition, but this Court had Court said:
Firearms and Ammunitions] The information read that he wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously had in possession and under his custody 2
2 Sterling Assault Rifle, Feliciano ruling was reiterated
firearms , ammunitions and magazines without first securing the Armalite Rifle, Carbine, Cal in People vs. Tabunares: RA
necessary license and/or permit from the lawful authority. 357 Revolver and Cal 45, No. 482, in effect legalized
Pistol mere unlicensed on within
Upon Abanias motion, Judge Asuncion dismissed the Information on one year from said date, and
the ground that it did not allege sufficient facts to constitute an ruled that a criminal liability punished only (1) the use of a
offense, since the possession of loose firearms and explosives is not was temporarily LIFTED for or ammunition or (2) the
illegal per se, in view of Executive Order No. 107 which gives holders mere possession' of carriage thereof on the person
or possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition a period of six unlicensed firearms and except for purpose of
(6) months from its effectivity, extended to 31 December 1987 by ammunition during the period surrender. Appellant's
Executive Order No. 222, within which to surrender the same to the covered, although such person conviction cannot stand, since
proper authorities, without incurring any criminal liability therefor, is not exempt from criminal it is rested solely on
except if the unlicensed firearm or ammunition is carried outside of liability filing within the unlicensed possession on or
one's residence, not for the purpose of surrendering the same, or used period provided, he carries about November 6, 1950.
in the commission of any other offense, and there is no allegation in the firearm and ammunition
said information that the firearms and ammunition enumerated (unless it is for the purpose of NO. It is necessary for the
therein were carried outside the accused's residence or used in the surrendering the same) or he prosecution to allege in the
commission of some other crime. commits any other offense information that the
with the use of such firearms and ammunition,
ISSUES unlicensed firearm and subject matter of this case,
ammunition. were brought out of the
WON judge erred in hooding that the possession of loose firearms and residence of the accused or
explosives is not illegal per se during the period covered by Executive People vs. Lopez - It will be were used by him in the
Orders Nos. 107 and 222. seen that sec 2 (of RA NO 4) commission or another
excluded from the operation offense
WON it was not necessary for the prosecution to allege in the of sec 1 up to August 31, 1946,
information that the firearms and ammunition, subject matter of this possession of firearms and Prosecution - these
case, were brought out of the residence of the accused or were used by ammunition so long as they circumstances are not essential
were not used for any purpose ingredients of the crime of
him in the commission or another offense
other than self-defense or illegal possession of firearms
carried for any purpose other and ammunition.
WON under the allegation in the information, prosecution may prove than of surrendering them to
that the accused earned the firearms and ammunition outside of his the proper authorities. The
People v. Lopez Under RA No.
residence Government does not dispute 4, the use or the carrying of
this interpretation. Although firearms and/or ammunition
HELD/RATIO: the law does not categorically was an ingredient, if not the
state that criminal liability sole ingredient, of the offense;
NO. EO No. 107, as amended by EO No. 222, is similar to RA Nos. 4 was temporarily lifted for i.e. the very acts which were
and 482. We will not give it a different meaning because there is mere possession of filing punished, subject to certain
no basis for such a difference. firegems and ammunition, conditions, and hence, should
that is the only construction be alleged and proved.
compatible with the spirit and
Prosecution - nothing is contained in said executive orders which
purposes of the enactment as People v. Austria - in order
legalizes the possession of firearms and ammunition without a
revealed by its context. that an information charging
permit; that said executive orders merely authorized holders or
possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition to surrender the illegal possession of firearm
same within a specified filing period without incurring criminal People vs. Feliciano - SC ruled and ammunition, under
liability; and that illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is still that RA No. 482 legalized Republic Act No. 482, may be
penalized under Pres. Decree No. 1866 which was not repealed by mere unlicensed possession of deemed sufficient, it must
said Executive Order Nos. 107 and 222. firearms and ammunition for allege that the accused was
the limited period specified in using the unlicensed firearm
said law, and punished only or carrying it in his person at
the time he was apprehended by the authorities with said firearm. NO. The information is
fatally defective.
23 identified with the violent arm of the past regime. To
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) many, he is regarded with unusual ease and facility as
the "hit man" of that regime. The Court, however, is
not swayed by appellations or approbriums.
People v. Austria - the presentation of evidence cannot have the effect of DISPOSITION the petition is DENIED. The orders
validating a void information, or proving an offense which does not appealed from are hereby AFFIRMED.
legally exist. The information was not merely defective but it does not
charge any offense at all. Technically speaking, that information does
not exist in contemplation of law.
The Court is not unaware that accuse- Abadilla, rightly or wrongly, is | Vien
24
GARCIA v. CA
266 SCRA 678
Davide, Jr., J; January 27, 1997

RPC of the terms "offended years after the discovery of
FACTS party," "authorities," and the offence, then the 15-year
"their agents" supports prescriptive period had
certainly lapsed. It further
Jose Garcia filed with the QC Pros. Office an Affidavit of Complaint charging
his view that the State is the held that the quash of an
his wife, Adela Santos alias Delia
Sanots with Bigamy, violation of CA No. 142, as amended by R.A. No. offended party in public information based on
6085, and Falsification of Public Documents. Later, Santos informed offenses. prescription of the offense
Ass. City Pros. Cabanilla that he would limit his action to bigamy. could be invoked before or
after arraignment and even on
People v. Alagao - that in appeal, for under Art. 89(5) of
resolving the motion to quash RPC, the criminal liability of a
Ass. Pros. Cabanilla filed with the RTC of QC an information charging a criminal complaint or person is totally extinguished
Adela Santos with Bigamy allegedly committed as follows : the above- information, the facts alleged by the prescription of the
named accused, being previously united in lawful marriage with in the complaint or crime, which is a mode of
REYNALDO QUIROCA, and without the said marriage having been information should be taken extinguishing criminal
dissolved, (or before the absent spouse has been declared as they are. The information liability. Thus, prescription is
presumptively dead by a judgment rendered in the proper in this case mentioned that not deemed waived even if not
proceedings), did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously the bigamy was discovered in pleaded as a defese.
contract a second marriage with JOSE G. GARCIA, which marriage has 1989.
[sic] discovered in 1989, to the damage and prejudice of the said The factual bases of the
motion to quash, viz., the ISSUE
offended party in such amount as may be awarded under the
provisions of the Civil Code.
Garcias testimony in Civil WON the prescription for
Case and his complaint filed Bigamy should have been
Adela Santos filed a Motion to Quash alleging prescription of the counted from the time the
offense as ground. She contended that by Garcias admission in his with the CSC are not
State discovered its
testimony in civil case and in his complaint filed with the Civil Service conclusive because the commission.
commission, Garcia discovered the commission of the offense as early testimony is hearsay evidence,
as 1974. Since the penalty prescribed under Art. 329 of the RPC for hence inadmissible, while the
the offense of bigamy is prision mayor, which is classified as an complaint is vague. WON a Motion to Quash
afflictive penalty under Art. 25 of the same Code, then said offense cannot go beyond what is
should prescribe in 15 years as provided in Art. 92 of the Code. The prescriptive period was stated in the information
interrupted several times by
TC granted the motion to quash and dismissed the criminal case. The the Adela's numerous trips WON the factual bases of the
complainant having discovered the first marriage of the accused to abroad. Motion to Quash are not
one Reynaldo Quiroca in 1974 when he was informed of it by one conclusive.
Eugenia Balingit, the offense charged has already prescribed when the Counsel for Adela is barred
information was filed in this case on November 15, 1991 from filing the motion to WON, assuming the
quash the information prescriptive period started in
Garcia moved for reconsideration arguing that Adelas many trips 1974, said period was
abroad suspended the running of the prescriptive period. These trips Counsel for Adela has already interrupted several times.
were enumerated in the certification issued by Ass. Commissioner stated that he represent only
Morals of BID. Delia Garcia and not Adela HELD/RATIO
Santos. Consequently, her
TC disallowed reconsideration of its order, finding no urgent or counsel could not ask for the NO. The prescription should
justifiable reason to set it aside. The trial court held that trips of are quash of the information in have been counted from the
not the kind of absence from the Philippines which will interrupt the favour of Adela Santos alias time the offended party
period of prescription of the offense charged. Delia Santos. The counsel (first or second innocent
should have sought a spouse) discovered its
dismissal of the case in favour commission.
Garcia appealed to CA. He contended that:
of Delia Garcia alone.
TC erred in quashing the information on the ground of prescription
It is true that Bigamy is a
Bigamy was a public offense; the offended party is not the first or public offense. However, Art.
second (innocent) spouse but the State whose law was transgressed. CA concluded that Garcia 91 of RPC makes no
Thus, the prescriptive period of Bigamy should commence from the discovered Adelas first distinction between a public
day the State, being the offended party, discovered the offense, which marriage in 1974. Since the crime and a private crime. In
in this case was on Aug. 28, 1991 when he filed his complain before information was filed in court both cases then, the discovery
the Pros. Office. He added that the interchanging use in Art. 91 of the only on Jan. 8, 1992 or 18 may be by the offended party,
the authorities, or their agents. Art. 91 does not define the term "the person against whom or
offended party. We find its against whose property, the
definition in Sec. 12, Rule 110 as offense was committed."
25
It is reasonable to assume that the offended party in the commission of Neither may the petitioner be heard to cast doubt on the meaning
a crime, public or private, is the party to whom the offender is civilly 3
of his statements in his sworn complaint filed before the CSC. We
liable, in light of Art. 100 of the RPC, which expressly provides that
"every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." The find no hint of vagueness in them. In any event, he has not denied
private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is the offended that he in fact discovered in 1974 that the private respondent had
party. been previously married.
Garcia even admits that he is the offended party in the criminal case NO
because the information therein describes him as the offended party who
suffered damage and prejudice. We agree with the Court of Appeals that these trips abroad did
not constitute the "absence" contemplated in Article 91. These
NO trips were brief, and in every case Adela returned to the
Philippines. Besides, these were made long after the Garcia
discovered the offense and even if the aggregate number of days
Even People v. Alagao, which he cites, mentions the exceptions to the
of these trips are considered, still the information was filed well
rule as provided in par. (f) and (h) of Sec. 2, and Sec. 4 and 5 of the old
beyond the prescriptive period.
Rule 117 viz., (a) extinction of criminal liability, and (b) double
jeopardy. His claim that the exception of extinction can no longer be
raised due to the implied repeal of the former Section 4, Rule 117 of the DISPOSTION the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit and
Rules of Court occasioned by its non-reproduction after its revision, is the challenged decision of 13 February 1995 of the Court of
equally without merit. No repeal, express or implied, of the said Section Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.14324 is AFFIRMED.
4 ever took place. While there is no provision in the new Rule 117 that
prescribes the contents of a motion to quash based on extinction of
criminal liability, Section 2 thereof encapsulizes the former Sections
3,4, and 5 of the old Rule 117.
Sec. 2, Rule 117 - Form and contents. - The motion to quash shall be in
writing signed by the accused or his counsel. It shall specify distinctly
the factual and legal grounds therefor and the court shall consider no
grounds other than those stated therein, except lack of jurisdiction over
the offense charged.
It is clear from this Section that a motion to quash may be based on

factual and legal grounds, and since extinction of criminal liability and
double jeopardy are retained as among the grounds for a motion to
quash in Section 3 of the new Rule 117, it necessarily follows that facts
outside the information itself may be introduced to prove such grounds.
As a matter of fact, inquiry into such facts may be allowed where the
ground invoked is that the allegations in the information do not
constitute the offense charged.
As a general proposition the court held in People v. De la Rosa that a

motion to quash on the ground that the allegations of the information
do not constitute the offense charged, or any offense for that matter,
should be resolved on the basis alone of said allegations whose truth
and veracity are hypothetically admitted. However, as held in People v.
Navarro, additional facts not alleged in the information, but admitted or
not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of the motion
to quash.
NO
Garcia cannot be allowed to disown statements he made under oath

and in open court when it serves his purpose. Besides, he never denied
having given the pertinent testimony. He did, however, term it vague in
that it was not clear whether the prior marriage which Eugenia Balingit
disclosed to him was that entered into by the private respondent with
Reynaldo Quiroca. It is immaterial to whom the private respondent was
first married; what is relevant in this case is that the petitioner was
informed of a prior marriage contracted by the private respondent.
3
These facts were discovered only by the herein complainant in
the year 1974 where they separated from each other because of
her illicit relations with several men continued use of her alias
name "DELIA", without proper authority from the Courts; and
committing a series of fraudulent acts; her previous marriage to a
certain "Reynaldo Quiroca" is evidenced by a certification issued
by the Local Civil Registrar of Manila
26
LOPEZ v. CITY JUDGE

18 SCRA 616
Dizon, J; Oct. 29, 1966

criminal case for alleged US v. Infante - that the crime of
FACTS falsification of a private falsification of a private
document allegedly done by document defined and
the parties named in the info penalized by Art. 304 of the
Petitioners Angelina Lopez, Aurora Villasor (heirs of Sps. Manuel Mejia
even if the acts of falsification Penal Code (now par 2, Article
and Gloria Lazatin) and Roy Villasor (administrator of the intestate estate
was allegedly done in Makati 172 of the RPC) is
of the said Sps.)
and QC, and thus outside the consummated when such
jurisdiction of said court document is actually falsified
Petitioners, together with the other heirs of Sps. Mejia, entered into a with the intent to prejudice a
contract with Trinidad Lazatin for the development and subdivision of third person, whether such
WON the motion to quash was
3 parcels of land belong to said intestate estate. Lazatin transferred his falsified document is or is not
improper, and should not be
rights under the contract to the Terra Development Corporation. thereafter put to the illegal
allowed since by filing the
said motion, the petitioners use for which it was intended.
Months later, petitioners and other co-heirs filed an action in CFI QC for necessarily assumes the truth
the recission of said contract for alleged gross and wilful violation of its of the allegation of the The act of falsification the
terms.
Lazatin and TDC filed with the Fiscals Office of the City of
signing of the document and
Angeles a complaint against petitioners for an alleged violation Art. information to the effect that the coetaneous intent to cause
172 in relation to those of Art. 171, par. 4, of the RPC. the offense was committed damage was committed
within the territorial and consummated outside the
jurisdiction of Angeles City territorial jurisdiction of the
City of Angeles, and that
After conducting a preliminary examination, City Fiscal filed an whether the falsified private
information charging petitioners with the crime of falsification of a WON the prayer for writs of document was thereafter put
private document upon the allegation that they made it appear in the certiorari and prohibition is or not put to the illegal use for
contract mentioned that Aurora proper which it was intended, or was
Villasor was the guardian of the minor George Mejia and that signed by the other
Angelina Lopez was similarly the guardian of the minor Alexander HELD/RATIO contracting party within the
Mejia, when in truth and in fact they knew that they were not the territorial jurisdiction of the
guardians of said minors on the date of the execution of the document. NO. It is settled law in City of Angeles is not essential
criminal actions that the element of the crime of
place where the criminal falsification of the private
offense was committed not document, nor could it in any
Upon petition of the parties thus charged, the City Fiscal of Angeles way change the fact that the
reinvestigated the case to give them an opportunity to present only determines the venue
act of falsification charged
exculpatory evidence, and after the conclusion of the reinvestigation of the action but is an was committed outside the
the petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case mainly on the essential element of territorial jurisdiction of
ground that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the jurisdiction. The City Court Angeles City.
offense because the private document that contained the alleged of Angeles has no
false statement of fact was signed by them outside the territorial jurisdiction over the offense
limits of said city. (Makati and QC) charged. NO. The argument of the
respondents refers to the
Under the provisions of now obsolete demurrer to
Resolution of this motion to was delayed. The City Court had set the an information.
criminal case for arraignment; petitioners secured from said court Section 86 of the Judiciary Act
several postponements of the arraignment. In view of the City Fiscal's of 1948, municipal courts
continued failure to act on the motion to dismiss the case, petitioners have original jurisdiction only The motion to quash now
with the City Court a motion to quash upon the ground that said court over criminal offenses provided for in Rule 117 of
had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. committed within their the Rules of Court is
respective territorial manifestly broader in scope
jurisdiction. than the demurrer, as it is not
The complainants with the conformity of the City Fiscal filed an limited to defects apparent
opposition thereto. City Judge denied said motion to quash and reset upon the face of the complaint
the arraignment of all the defendants on March 5 of the same year. Petitioners are not charged
with having used a falsified or information but extends to
document, in violation of the issues arising out of
Petitioners filed the present action for certiorari and prohibition. extraneous facts, as shown by
last paragraph of Art. 172 of
the RPC. The charge against the circumstance that, among
ISSUE them is that of having the grounds for a motion to
falsified a private. quash, Section 2 of said Rule
WON City Court of Angeles City had jurisdiction to try and decide the provides for former jeopardy
or acquittal, extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of the connection with the Angeles City.
accused etc., which necessarily involve questions of fact in the resolution of the motion to
determination of which a preliminary trial is required. quash shows beyond question YES
that the offense charged was
In the present case, the portion of the record of the reinvestigation committed far beyond the
which was submitted to the respondent judge for consideration in territorial jurisdiction of
27 proceedings; to prevent the unlawful and oppressive
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair
and orderly administration of justice.
DISPOSITION judgment is hereby rendered declaring

As a general rule, a court of equity will not issue a writ of certiorari to that the offense charged in the information filed in
annul an order of a lower court denying a motion to quash, nor issue a Criminal Case No. C-2268 of the City Court of Angeles
writ of prohibition to prevent said court from proceeding with the case City is not within the jurisdiction of said court and
after such denial, it being the rule that upon such denial the defendant that, therefore, said court is hereby restrained and
should enter his plea of not guilty and go to trial and, if convicted, raise prohibited from further proceedings therein.
on appeal the same legal questions covered by his motion to quash. In
this as well as in other jurisdictions however, this is no longer the hard
and fast rule.
The writs of certiorari and prohibition, as extra-ordinary legal | Vien
remedies, are, in the ultimate analysis, intended to annul void
28
UY v. CA
276 SCRA 371
Bellosillo, J; Jan. 28, 1997

maker or drawer of the check Checks Law are 2 different
FACTS of the insufficiency of his offenses having different
funds is by itself a continuing elements and, necessarily, for
eventuality whether the a court to acquire jurisdiction
Rosa Uy was employed as an accountant in Don Tim Shipping Company owned
accused be within one each of the essential
by the husband of Consolacion
Leong. During Rosas employment, she was regarded by the territory or another (3) ingredients of each crime has
respondent relies on the to be satisfied.
doctrine of jurisdiction by
Leongs as an efficient and hardworking employee. A few months estoppel- it took some 5 years
before she was to give birth, Rosa resigned. She helped her husband of trial before petitioner In the crime of estafa, deceit
manage their lumber business. The friendly relations between Rosa raised the issue of and damage are essential
and Consolacion continued. The two later agreed to form a elements of the offense and
jurisdiction. have to be established with
partnership with Consolacion to contribute additional capital for the
expansion of Rosas lumber business and the latter as industrial satisfactory proof to warrant
partner. Various sums of money amounting to P500k were claimed to ISSUES conviction. For violation of
have given by Consolacion for the business; however because of the the Bouncing Checks Law,
trust they had for each other, no receipt was ever issued.Thereafter a Whether the RTC of Manila the elements of deceit and
lumber store with warehouse was constructed in Bulacan, Bulacan, acquired jurisdiction over the damage are neither essential
with the funds contributed by Consolacion evidenced by various violations of the Bouncing nor required. Rather, the
receipts. But, unfortunately, the friendship between Consolacion and Checks Law elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are (a)
Rosa turned sour when the partnership documents were never the making, drawing and
processed. As a result, Consolacion asked for the return of her issuance of any check to apply
HELD/RATIO: NO to account or for value; (b) the
investment but the checks issued by Rosa for the purpose were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. maker, drawer or issuer
It is a fundamental rule that knows at the time of issuance
for jurisdiction to be acquired that he does not have
by courts in criminal cases the sufficient funds in or credit
Consolacion filed a complaint for estafa and for violation of the Bouncing offense should have been with the drawee bank for the
Checks Law before the RTC of Manila. committed or any one of its payment of such check in full
essential ingredients took upon its presentment; and, (c)
Dec. 10 an Information for and several other informations for violation place within the territorial the check is subsequently
of BP blg. 22 were filed against Rosa. The offenses were subsequently jurisdiction of the court. dishonored by the drawee
consolidated and tried jointly. Territorial jurisdiction in bank for insufficiency of funds
criminal cases is the territory or credit or would have been
RTC acquitted Rosa of estafa but convicted her of the charges under BP Blg. 22. where the court has dishonored for the same
jurisdiction to take cognizance reason had not the drawer,
CA affirmed the decision
or to try the offense allegedly without valid reason, ordered
committed therein by the the bank to stop payment.
accused. Furthermore, the
Rosa - trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the offenses under jurisdiction of a court over the
B.P. Blg. 22. None of the essential elements constitutive of violation of criminal case is determined The records clearly indicate
B.P. Blg. 22 was shown to have been committed in the City of Manila. by the allegations in the that business dealings were
The evidence presented established that (a) complainant was a conducted in a restaurant in
complaint or information. And Manila where sums of money
resident of Makati; (b) petitioner was a resident of Caloocan City; (c) once it is so shown, the court
the place of business of the alleged partnership was located in were given to Rosar; hence,
may validly take cognizance of the acquisition of jurisdiction
Malabon; (d) the drawee bank was located in Malabon; and, the case. However, if the
the checks were all deposited for collection in Makati. by the lower court over the
evidence adduced during the estafa case. The various
trial show that the offense charges for violation of B.P.
Taken altogether, petitioner concludes that the said evidence would was committed somewhere
Blg. 22 however are on a
only show that none of the essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22 occurred else, the court should dismiss
different plain.
in Manila the action for want of There is no scintilla of
jurisdiction. evidence to show that
jurisdiction over the
People (1) Even if there is no showing of any evidence that the The crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Bldg. 22 had
essential ingredients took place or the offense was committed in violation of B.P. Blg. 22 have to been acquired. No proof has
Manila, what is critical is the fact that the court acquired jurisdiction be treated as separate offenses been offered that the checks
over the estafa case because the same is the principal or main case were issued, delivered,
and that the cases for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law are The crimes of estafa and dishonored or knowledge of
merely incidental to the estafa case. (2)Knowledge on the part of the violation of the Bouncing insufficiency of funds
occurred in Manila, which are essential elements necessary for the It may be true that B.P. Blg. 22 validly tried in any
Manila Court to acquire jurisdiction over the offense. is a transitory or continuing jurisdiction where the offense
offense and such being the was in part committed.
Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a continuing offense however case the theory is that a However that knowledge by
person indicted with a the maker or drawer of the
transitory offense may be fact
29 subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be

CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of
jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by
recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the
that he has no sufficient funds to cover the check or of having sufficient ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted,
funds is simultaneous to the issuance of the instrument. We again find however, that the holding in said case had been applied to
no iota of proof on the records that at the time of issue, petitioner or situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The
complainant was in Manila. exceptional circumstance involved in Sibonghanoy which justified
the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of
Doctrine of Estoppel not applicable objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket
doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed
ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general
Sec. 3, Rule 117provides that the accused may move to quash the
rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored
complaint or information on any of the following grounds: (b) that the
principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by
court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or
estoppel.
over the person of the accused. Moreover, under Sec. 8, Rule 113 it is
provided that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, Instant case different from Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the
same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a
motion to quash, except the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the
offense charged as provided for in par. b Sec. 3, Rule 117.
4
It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the
Rosa timely questioned the jurisdiction of the court in a memorandum first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost 15 years after the
before the Regional Trial Court and thereafter in succeeding pleadings. questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer be
Even if a party fails to file a motion to quash, he may still question the raised for being barred by laches.
jurisdiction of the court later on. Moreover, these objections may be
raised or considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or on appeal.
4
Calimlim v. Ramirez Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is an exception to the
general rule No judgment has yet been rendered by the trial court in the
present case. As soon as the accused discovered the jurisdictional
defect, she did not fail or neglect to file the appropriate motion to
In Calimlim v. Ramirez, the Court held that the ruling in the dismiss. They questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court in a
Sibonghanoy case is an exception to the general rule that the lack of memorandum before the lower court.
jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal. The Court stated further that Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is
an exceptional case because of the presence of laches. The Court said: A DISPOSITION REVERSED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to
rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in the filling of appropriate charges against petitioner with the court
decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the of competent jurisdiction when warranted.
30
PEOPLE v. NAVARRO
279 SCRA 393
Panganiban, J
FACTS Judge Navarro denied both Petitioner filed the petition

motions for reconsideration and seeking the annulment of the
reiterated its previous order to assailed order of Judge Navarro.
T/Sgt. Sanchez, PC Investigator filed a complaint for qualified theft directly
Pros. Llaguno to comply with
with the RTC of Naga City against minor Carlos Barbosa.
the order of the court, granting ISSUE May a regional trial
her 15 days to conduct the court judge name or designate
PAO, as counsel for Barbosa, filed a Motion to Quash the Complaint on the
ground that Sgt. Sanchez is not authorized to file a complaint or
a particular assistant
information in Court. preliminary investigation prosecutor to conduct the
from receipt of the copy of the preliminary investigation of
Order. the case?
Judge Manio, Jr., as presiding judge of RTC and the pairing judge of
Judge Navarro, issued an order remanding the case for preliminary
investigation and assigned the adjudication to Prosecutor Cajot. Prov. Pros. filed a motion to HELD/RATIO: NO
set aside the orders issued by
Judge Navarro stating (1) that In setting aside the order of
Before Pros. Cajot could conduct the required preliminary investigation, she has no authority to
Sgt. Sanchez filed a motion to withdraw the complaint with the Pros. Cajot which granted the
designate a particular withdrawal of the complaint,
Prosecution Office.
prosecutor to handle the case; and subsequently ordering
(2) that the court will be Pros. Llaguno to conduct the
Pros. Cajot issued an order and approved by the Prov. Pros., granting acting without or with grave
required preliminary
the motion to withdraw the complaint and ordering the release of the abuse of discretion should it
investigation, Judge Navarro
accused from detention. A copy of said order was furnished the RTC. insists on Pros. Llaguno to
clearly encroached on an
conduct the preliminary executive function.
Judge Navarro ordered the Prov. Pros. and Pros. Cajot to explain why they investigation; and (3) that the
encroached on the jurisdiction of the court over the case. record of said case be
forwarded to the Prov. Pros. Preliminary investigation is
Office for it conduct the an executive, not a judicial,
Pros. Cajot explained asserting the jurisdiction of the prosecutors function. As the officer
office in the conduct of preliminary investigation and that when the preliminary investigation. A authorized to direct and
court ordered the records of case be remanded to the Office of the Supplemental Motion to
withdraw the case was also control the prosecution of all
Prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation, the court criminal actions, a prosecutor
divested itself of its control and jurisdiction over the case. filed so that the same may not
remain pending with the is primarily responsible for
court while the case is under ascertaining whether there is
Judge Navarro issued an order setting aside the order of Pros. Cajot preliminary investigation. sufficient ground to engender
and ordered Ass. Pros. Llaguno, who was appearing in her sala, to a well-founded belief that an
conduct the required preliminary investigation. offense has been committed
Judge Navarro denied both and that the accused is
motions on the grounds that: probably guilty thereof.
Pros. Llaguno file a motion for reconsideration taking exception to the (1) the case of Abugotal v. Tiro
order on the ground that any resolution she may issue might run which prohibits the courts
counter with the previous order of her superiors and thus render from appointing a particular An RTC judge has no authority
office policies disorganized, procedures disorderly and chaotic, fiscal to conduct the required to conduct a preliminary
resulting to the embarrassment of the administration of Justice. preliminary investigation, is investigation. This means that
not in point as the said case he cannot directly order an
Pros. Cajot filed a motion for reconsideration alleging: (a) that he did refers to reinvestigation while assistant prosecutor,
not issue an order of dismissal but an order granting the motion to the instant case refers to particularly over the
withdraw. Therefore, there is no more complaint to speak of before preliminary investigation; and objections of the latters
the court; (b) the prosecutor, in conducting the preliminary (2) the court is apprehensive superiors, to conduct a
investigation, has the exclusive power and authority to dismiss the that if the Motion to Amend preliminary investigation. To
complaint immediately if he finds no grounds to continue with the Orders are granted, there is allow him to do so is to
inquiry, otherwise he files the Information if he finds cause to hold the nothing that will prevent the authorize him to meddle in
respondent for trial; (c) the finding/recommendation of the Prov. Pros. from implementing the executive and
investigating prosecutor is subject to review only by the Prov. Pros the orders issued by Pros. administrative functions of
and the action of the latter, by the Secretary of Justice; (d) when the Cajot and the latter will just the provincial or city
Court remanded the case to the Pros. Office for the required act in conformity with his prosecutor. There is a
preliminary investigation; the Court divested itself of its control and previous action. hierarchy of officials in the
jurisdiction over the case; and (e) the filing of information is within prosecutory arm of the
the discretionary authority of the fiscal. executive branch headed by
Prov. Pros. motion reconsideration
was denied. the Secretary of Justice and
his team of prosecutors. Mere suspicion or belief that the said officials Presidential Decree No. 77, the
will not adequately perform their official duties is no reason for the Abugotal v. Tiro - Under authority to conduct the
judges interference in or disregard of such hierarchy. preliminary investigation of the
31 power to dismiss a criminal action without the
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) consent of the court. In the case at bench, however,
the RTC had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the
complaint filed directly before it by Sgt. Sanchez
who was not a prosecutor. Neither was he
murder charge filed against private respondents is vested in the authorized by the Provincial Prosecutor to file
petitioner or his assistants. As chief of the office, petitioner has the such case directly with the respondent court.
right to designate as in fact he did the assistant fiscal who conducted
the investigation. While it is true that an assistant fiscal or state We are not persuaded by Judge Navarros contention that
prosecutor may file an information only in a case in which he himself Abugotal applies only to reinvestigations, and not to
conducted the preliminary investigation, he may furthermore do so preliminary investigations. This distinction is
only with the prior authority or approval of the city of provincial fiscal insubstantial and even tenuous. Both the preliminary
or chief state prosecutor. These provisions of law show in bold relief the investigation and reinvestigation are conducted in the
degree of control over his assistants that petitioner exercises as chief of same manner and for the same objective, that is, to
the office. Where, however, the interest of justice so requires and the determine whether there exists
court orders a reinvestigation of a criminal case pending before it, the
court cannot at the same time choose the fiscal who will conduct the
sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief
reinvestigation. This is a prerogative vested in the city fiscal as head of
that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court
office, and certainly beyond the powers of the court to do
has been committed and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is an
investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the filing
DISPOSITION the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
of the information or it is an investigation for the determination of a
assailed Orders of Respondent Judge Gloriosa S.
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first kind of
Navarro are SET ASIDE and ANNULLED.
preliminary investigation is executive in nature. It is a part of the
prosecutions job. The second kind of preliminary investigation which is
more properly called preliminary examination is judicial in nature and
is lodged with the judge. AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
| Vien
It is true that after a case has already been filed in court and the court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over it, fiscals as a rule are divested of the
32
People v. Moran
January 27, 1923
Araullo, C.J.
Offenses resulting from State has no right to prosecute
Facts: violations of this Act shall the offender, or to punish him,
prescribe one year after their and if he has already been
commission. punished, it has no right to
March 31, 1922
continue holding him subject
to its action by the imposition
SC affirmed judgment of CFI of Pangasinan convicting the accused Meaning, there is no need for
herein for violation of the Election Law an allegation by the accused of the penalty. The plain
as to the prescription of the precept contained in article
crime, the Court may by itself 22 of the Penal Code,
declaring the retroactivity of
May 2, 1922 accused filed a special motion, alleging that the crime render a
5 penal laws in so far as they are
has prescribed under the provision of Section 71 of Act 3030 favorable to persons accused
(enacted March 9, 1922), thus praying for absolution Therefore, as on March 9th of of a felony or misdemeanor,
this year, 1922, when Act No. even if they may be serving
Issue # 1: Whether or not the prescription provided in section 71 of 3030 went into effect, sentence, would be useless
Act 3030 refers only to that act and not to any other. providing in its section 71 and nugatory if the courts of
that offense resulting from the justice were not under
violations thereof shall obligation to fulfill such duty,
Held/Ratio: NO. prescribe one year after their irrespective of whether or not
commission, the accused and the accused has applied for it,
Said act was amendatory to several provisions of the Election law, as the Attorney-General had
just as would also all
such Act 3030 rather than being an integral part of the former election already filed their respective
provisions relating to the
law is in conjunction with the latter the only Election Law in force briefs in this court for the prescription of the crime and
prosecution of the appeal the penalty.
While it is true that Sec.72 provided that the act shall take effect on taken from the judgment of
the date of its approval (March 9, 1922), the meaning of such the court below, and the
hearing of the case had
expression (effectivity) in connection with prescription is that Article 22 of the Penal Code
prescription can be invoked from that date, as was done by the already been held, this court can only be invoked when the
accused, and not that such provision may have a retroactive effect itself, without the necessity of provisions of some other penal
from that same date. any motion of the accused, or law than the provisions of the
of the Attorney-General, Penal Code are under
should have declared the consideration. In other words,
Issue #2 (more crimpro relevant): Whether or not such
crime in question to have the provisions of article 22 can
provisions may be applied retroactively in favor of the accused.
prescribed, in view of the only be invoked with reference
provision of said section. to some other penal law. It has
Held/Ratio: YES. Consequently, as this court no application to the
had not up to that time made
While it is a rule of general application that unless the defense of such pronouncement, the provisions of the Penal Code
prescription is pleaded in the trial court, it will be deemed to have accused are perfectly justified except in relation with some
been waived and cannot later be raised, yet this rule is not of absolute in asking, as they have done in other law. It is not believed,
application in criminal cases, for if the prescription of the crime, as their motion of May 2d of this therefore, that the Legislature
well as of the penalty whereby criminal responsibility is extinguished, year, that the offense having in enacting article 7 of the
may, as is the case here with regard to the former, be provided by prescribed, they be absolved Penal Code intended to
statute after the termination of all the proceedings in the trial court, as from the complaint. This duty provide that article 22 should
well as in the appellate court, and when the case has already been is imperative upon the courts not be applicable to special
submitted for discussion and is awaiting only the final judgment; and of justice at any moment that laws.
if the prescription of the crime is but the extinguishment of the right the offense appears to have
of the State to prosecute and punish the culprit, it is beyond question prescribed under the
It cannot be maintained
that, once the State has lost or waived such right, the accused may, at provision of the law. With
that said article 22 of the
any stage of the proceeding, ask and move that the same be dismissed particular reference to the
Penal Code refers only to
and that he be absolved from the complaint. And not only that, the present case, this conclusion
is necessarily reached from penalties and is not
right to prosecute and punish the criminal having been lost by the
the letter as well as the spirit applicable to appeals and
prescription of
of the provisions of the Penal proceedings, because the
Code relative to prescription, prescription of the crime is
the crime expressly provided by the statute, the State itself, the intimately connected with
and from that of section 71 of
Government through the proper court, is in duty bound to make a that of the penalty, for the
6 the aforesaid Act No. 3030, for
pronouncement to that effect. once the offense or the length of time fixed by the
penalty has prescribed, the law for the prescription
depends upon the gravity of
the offense, as may be seen from Title VI of Book I of the Penal Code, without distinguishing decision absolving a
containing, as its heading indicates, "General Provisions Regarding between the penalties and the defendant because of
Felonies and Misdemeanors, the Persons Liable and the Penalties," prescription. (US v. Rama)
33
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) With regard to the question whether prescription must
be considered as a matter of procedural or formal law,
or as a substantive law for the purpose of the
retroactivity of laws, we must state, with reference to
extinguishing of the criminal responsibility dealt with in said Title VI of the present case, that the prescription provided in
said Book, which title comes next to Title V, treating of the penalties section 71 of Act No. 3030 is of the nature both of a
incurred by those who evade service of sentence and those who, while substantive law, in so far as it gives a person accused of
serving sentence, or after having been convicted by a final judgment not any of the crimes therein referred to, the right not to
yet served, commit some other crime. be prosecuted nor punished after the lapse of the
period of one year from the commission of said crimes,
And aside from this intimate connection between the prescription of within which the criminal action must be commenced,
the crime and that of the penalty, a statute declaring the prescription and of a procedural or adjective law in so far as it fixes
of the crime has no other object and purpose than to prevent or the time within which such action must necessarily be
annul the prosecution of the offender and, in the last analysis, the commenced in order that the prosecution may be legal
imposition of the penalty. and the proper penalty may lawfully be imposed. but
however said provision may be considered, the same
Moreover, if the provisions relative to the prescription of ownership must have a retroactive effect, as will be seen later on.
and to the prescription of actions in civil matters are part of the civil
law, it cannot be denied that the provisions relative to the prescription
of crimes and of penalties are penal laws or form part thereof.
SO, IS PRESCRIPTION SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL?
| Vien
34
People v. Salico
October 13, 1949
Feria, J.
offense charged, or for any for further proceeding. The
Facts: attempt to commit the same fact that the lower court has
or frustration thereof, or for to proceed to the trial of the
any offense which necessarily case against the defendant on
CFI of Occidental Negros dismissed the complaint for homicide against includes or is necessarily the merits and may after the
defendant on the ground that it was not able to prove that the offense included in the offense trial either acquit or convict
7
was committed within its territorial jurisdiction charged in the complaint or him, would not place the
information. defendant in double jeopardy,
Issue: Whether this appeal would place the defendant in double because the further
jeopardy. Besides, under section 2, Rule proceeding by the court below
118 of the Rules of Court the is not a new trial of a case
prosecution may appeal against the defendant, but a
Held/Ratio: NO.
because the defendant would mere continuation of the
not be placed in double former trial in order that the
By the dismissal of the case by the court below upon motion of the lower court may decide the
jeopardy, not only when the
defendant, the latter has not been in jeopardy case on the merits or the guilt
defendant has not yet been
placed in jeopardy in the court or innocence of the defendant.
8 below, but also when,
Section 9, Rule 113 basically states that when a defendant when a
defendant has been convicted or acquitted or the case against him is although a defendant had Assuming arguendo that the
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent, upon a already been in former defendant had been already in
valid complaint or information by a court of competent jurisdiction jeopardy, the appeal by the jeopardy in the court below
and after he has pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of prosecution would no place and would be placed in the
the defendant or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another him in danger again of being double jeopardy by the
prosecution for the same offense. convicted by the appellate appeal, the defendant has
court by the same offense, waived his constitutional right
because the question for the not to be put in danger of
But when the case id dismissed with the express consent of the
appellate court to decide is being convicted twice for the
defendant, the dismissal will not be a bar to another prosecution for
not the guilt or innocence of same offense.
the same offense; because, his action in having the case dismissed
the defendant.
constitutes a waiver of his constitutional rights or privilege, for the
reason that he thereby prevents the court from proceeding to the trial Assuming, arguendo, that the
on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him. o For example, when after a defendant had been already in
judgment of conviction jeopardy in the court below
and that appeal would put
Court cited: Ruling Case Law and American Jurisprudence; Carrol v. rendered by the lower court
had become final the court him in double jeopardy, it is
State; Craig v. US
reconsiders its decision and well settled in this jurisdiction
renders another acquitting that the right of the defendant
The appeal by the prosecution in the present case would not place the the defendant, in which the not to be put twice in
defendant in double jeopardy. question raised in the appeal jeopardy is deemed waived if
is not the guilt or innocence of not set up in time as a defense
As a necessary corollary of the above conclusion that the defendant the appellee, but the or ground for a motion to
not been in jeopardy in the court below, because the case was jurisdiction of the court to dismiss. As the defendant has
dismissed upon the defendant's own motion, this appeal by the render the second judgment. not set up said right or
prosecution would not place the defendant in double jeopardy, since a Or, as in the present case, objected on that ground to the
person who has not been once, cannot be put twice in jeopardy. when the question involved appeal by the prosecution,
in the appeal is whether or this court can not motu
not the lower court erred in proprio dismiss the appeal, in
As in, literally, they didnt know whether the municipality of
dismissing the case on the the same way that if the
Victorias is within Negros Occ. stupid, much?
ground that the evidence defendant appeals from a
for the prosecution does not judgment of conviction,
show that the place where waiving his right not to be put
Former conviction or acquittal or former jeopardy. - When a defendant the offense was committed twice in jeopardy, the
shall have been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him was within the territorial appellate court can not motu
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of a jurisdiction of the court. proprio dismiss the appeal.
defendant, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid This court by reversing the The provision of section 2,
complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and appealed decision in such Rule 118, can not be
substance to sustain a conviction, and after the defendant had pleaded cases cannot convict the construed to mean that this
to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the defendant or the appellee, but only remand Court can not entertain an
dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the the case to the lower court appeal by the prosecution
even if the
35 defendant by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) valid complaint or information . . . and after the
defendant has pleaded to the charge, the conviction
or acquittal of the defendant or the dismissal of the
case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same
defendant has waived his right to object to the appeal on the ground offense, etc." It does not say that it shall be a bar if the
that it would place him in double jeopardy; because the Congress has defendant sets up the defense of double jeopardy in
no power to make the judgment of the Court of First Instance the same way that section 2 of Rule 118 does not
unappealable by the mere fact that the defendant had already been in provide that the prosecution cannot appeal if the
jeopardy, inasmuch as section 2, Article VIII, of the Constitution defendant set up the defense of double jeopardy; and
provides that the Congress may not deprive the Supreme Court of its yet the defendant shall have to set up that defense if
appellate jurisdiction to review on appeal all final decisions and orders prosecuted again for the offense, for otherwise it is
of the inferior courts in all cases in which an error or question of law is deemed waived and the defendant may be prosecuted
involved, as in the present case. and convicted for the same offense.
Besides, section 9, Rule 113, of the Rules of Court provides that "when a
defendant shall been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
| Vien
36
People v. City Court of Manila Br. VI

September 24. 1987
Padilla, J.
Those who in theaters, fairs, Board, its public showing
Facts: cinematographs, or any other constitutes a criminal offense.
place open to public view, 3
On the other hand, the
shall exhibit indecent or offense punished in Article
2 informations were filed against Agapito Gonzales and Roberto immoral plays, scenes, acts, or
9 201 (3) of the Revised Penal
Pangilinan: the first for violation of Section 7 , in relation to Section shows; Code is the public showing of
10 nd 11
11 , of RA 3060, the 2 for violation of Art 201(3) of RPC indecent or immoral plays,
jeopardy must have attached scenes, acts, or shows, not just
Judge, upon motion of accused to quash information, dismissed the prior to the second; (2) the motion pictures.
nd first jeopardy must have been
2 information on the ground of double jeopardy.
validly terminated; and (3) o The nature of both offenses
the second jeopardy must be also shows their essential
Issue: Whether or not the 2 information causes double jeopardy. for the same offense, or the
difference. The crime
Peoples contention: The accused could not invoke the constitutional second offense includes or is
punished in Rep. Act No. 3060
guarantee against double jeopardy, when there had been no necessarily included in the
is a malum prohibitum in
conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination of criminal proceedings offense charged in the first
which criminal intent need
in another case for the information, or is an attempt
not be proved because it is
to commit the same or a
presumed, while the offense
1 frustration thereof
same offense. The respondent, on the other hand, argues that punished in Article 201 (3) of
conviction or acquittal in, or dismissal or termination of a first case is the Revised Penal Code is
not necessary, so long as he had been put in jeopardy of being All these requisites do not malum in se, in which criminal
convicted or acquitted in the first case of the same offense. exist in this case. intent is an indispensable
ingredient.
Held/Ratio: NO. The two (2) informations with
which the accused was It is a cardinal rule that the
charged, do not make out only protection against double
It is a settled rule that to raise the defense of double one offense, contrary to jeopardy may be invoked
jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first private respondent's only for the same offense or
allegations. In other words, Identical offense. A single
the offense defined in section act may offend against two
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to exhibit or cause to be 7 of Rep. Act No. 3060 (or more) entirely distinct
exhibited in any motion picture theater or public place, or by punishing the exhibition of and unrelated provisions of
television within the Philippines any motion picture, including motion pictures not duly law, and if one provision
trailers, stills, and other pictorial advertisements in connection with passed by the Board of requires proof of an
motion pictures, not duly passed by the Board; or to print or cause to Censors for Motion Pictures additional fact or element
be printed on any motion picture to be exhibited in any theater, or does not include or is not which the other does not, an
public place or by television, a label or notice showing the same to included in the offense acquittal or conviction or a
have been previously passed by the said Board when the same has not defined in Article 201 (3) of dismissal of the information
been previously authorized, except motion pictures imprinted or the Revised Penal Code under one does not bar
exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departments and punishing the exhibition of prosecution under the
agencies, and newsreels. indecent and immoral motion other. (People v. Bacolod, 89
pictures. The two (2) Phil. 621; People v. Alvarez,
offenses do not constitute a 45 Phil. 24). Phrased
Any violation of Section seven of this Act shall be punished by
jeopardy to each other. elsewhere, where two
imprisonment of not less than six months but not more than two
years, or by a fine of not less than six hundred nor more than two different laws (or articles of
thousand pesos, or both at the discretion of the court. If the offender is o the elements of the two (2) the same code) define two
an alien he shall be deported immediately. The license to operate the offenses are different. The crimes, prior jeopardy as to
movie theater or television shall also be revoked. Any other kind of gravamen of the offense one of them is no obstacle
violation shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one defined in Rep. Act No. 3060 is to a prosecution of the
month nor more than three months or a fine of not less than one the public exhibition of any other, although both
hundred pesos nor more than three hundred pesos, or both at the motion picture which has not offenses arise from the
discretion of the court. In case the violation is committed by a been previously passed by the same facts, if each crime
corporation, partnership or association, the liability shall devolve Board of Censors for Motion involves some important act
upon the president, manager, administrator, or any office thereof Pictures. The motion picture which is not an essential
responsible for the violation. may not be indecent or element of the other.
immoral but if it has not been (People v. Alvarez, 45 Phil.
previously approved by the 472).
37
People v. Pineda
February 16, 1993
Melo, J.
2(h) Rule 117 of the Old Rules consent of the accused
Facts: as suggested in the motion to (People vs. Miraflores, 115
quash, because this plea is SCRA 586 [1982]; Nierras vs.
understood to presuppose Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 8 [1990])
Basically: Consolacion Naval sold the subject realty on August 12, that the other case against
1969 to Edilberto Ilano who made a partial payment of P130,850.00. private respondent has
About two years later, or on August 17, 1971, an application for Justice Oscar Herrera, in his
been book "Remedial Law"
registration under the Land Registration Act was submitted by
Consolacion wherein she stated that she owned the same lot and that enumerates the elements
it was unencumbered. For those reasons, the corresponding title was dismissed or otherwise constitutive of first jeopardy,
issued in her name but she allegedly disposed of the half portion of terminated without her to wit:
the property to nine other persons. express consent, by a court
of competent jurisdiction, Court of competent
upon a valid complaint or jurisdiction;
Hence she was charged with estafa and falsification of public information, and after the
documents on 2 separate informations defendant had pleaded to
the charge Valid complaint or
She moved to quash the information for falsification on the ground information;
that such was a necessary means to commit estafa, and a separate Arraignment
(People of the Philippines 4. Valid plea (People vs.
conviction would constitute double jeopardy. versus Hon. Maximiano C. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851; 853)
Asuncion, et al., G.R. Nos.
Judge Pineda granted said petition. 83837-42, April 22, 1992;
Section 7, Rule 117, 1985 The defendant was acquitted
or convicted or the case was
Issue: Whether or not quashing the information was correct (whether Rules on Criminal Procedure, dismissed or otherwise
or not there would be double jeopardy) as amended). In the Asuncion
case, Justice Nocon said that: terminated without the
express consent of the
Held/Ratio: NO. accused (People vs. Declaro,
. . . according to a long line of G.R. No. 64362, February 9,
cases, in order that a 1989, 170 SCRA 142; See also
Assuming in gratia argumenti that falsification was indeed necessary
defendant may successfully People vs. Santiago, 174 SCRA
to commit estafa, which ordinarily constitutes a complex crime under
allege former jeopardy, it is 143; People vs. Gines, G.R. No.
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code and thus susceptible to challenge
necessary that he had 83463, May 27, 1991, 197
via a motion to quash under Section 2 (e), Rule 117 vis-a-vis Section
previously been (1) convicted SCRA 481; Que vs. Cosico, 177
12, Rule 110 (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 4, 1980 Ed., p. 42; 230), still,
or (2) acquitted, or (3) in SCRA 410 [1989]; Caes vs.
it was serious error on the part of the magistrate below to have
jeopardy of being convicted of Intermediate Appellate Court,
appreciated this discourse in favor of private respondent since this
the offense charged, that is, 179 SCRA 54; Lamera vs.
matter was not specifically raised in the motion to quash filed on
that the former case against Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA
October 28, 1975 (p. 16, Record). It was only in the motion for
him for the same offense has 186 [1991]). (Herrera,
reconsideration where private respondent pleaded this additional
been dismissed or otherwise Remedial Law, 1992 Ed.,
ground after her motion to quash was denied
terminated without his Volume 4, p. 417).
express consent, by a court of
At any rate, it is virtually unacceptable to suppose that private competent jurisdiction, upon
respondent concocted the sinister scheme of falsification in 1971 a valid complaint or Citing cases, both old and of
precisely to facilitate the commission of estafa in 1973 such that both information, and after the recent vintage, Justice Herrera
crimes emanated from a single criminal impulse. Otherwise, an defendant had pleaded to the continues to submit the idea
unfounded verisimilitude of this nature will run afoul with what this charge. that:
Court already observed in People vs. Penas (68 Phil. 533 [1939]; 1
Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed., p. 574) to the effect that the The first jeopardy is said to
Withal, the mere filing of
eleven estafas through falsification which the same accused therein have validly terminated upon
two informations charging
committed between November 24, 1936 and January 3, 1937 conviction, acquittal or
the same offense is not an
including the falsification which he committed on January 8, 1937 dismissal of the case or
appropriate basis for the
were considered distinct offenses, not one complex crime, because otherwise terminated without
invocation of double
they were committed on different dates, not to mention the the express consent of
jeopardy since the first
discrepancy in places where they were accomplished. defendant (People vs. Garcia,
jeopardy has not yet set in
by a previous conviction, 30 SCRA 150; People vs.
It was similarly fallacious for the lower court to have shared the acquittal or termination of Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77; People
notion that private respondent is in danger of being convicted twice the case without the vs. Pilpa, 79 SCRA 81;
for the same criminal act, a circumstance recognized under Section Buscayno vs. Military
38
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) Court of Manila, a 1983 case, can now be
considered modified in that a prior conviction, or
acquittal, or termination of the case without the
express acquiescence of the accused is still
Commission, 109 SCRA 273; People vs. Cuevo, 104 SCRA 319; Galman, required before the first jeopardy can be pleaded
et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1987.) (Vide, at to abate a second prosecution.
page 423).
At any rate, and inasmuch as this Court has spoken quite recently
in People vs. Asuncion, (G.R. Nos. 83837-42, April 22, 1992), the
ambiguity stirred by the imprecise observation in People vs. City | Vien
39
People v. Mogol
Aguust 24, 1984
Guerrero, J.
be legally erroneous. Held/Ratio: NO.
Facts:
The proceedings in the case, In the case of Jaca vs. Blanco,
An information for serious physical injuries was filed against accused however, may not be 86 Phil. 452 (1950), this Court
Edgardo Caballas considered to have been held that:
rendered useless because by it
more than by a mere ... the dismissal contemplated
After arraignment (on which Caballas pled not guilty), prosecution
preliminary investigation, the in the above-quoted section of
motioned to amend the information from serious PI to frustrated murder
court has arrived at a better the rule (referring to Section
supported finding that the
Naturally, court denied 9. Rule 113 of the old Rules of
proper complaint should have Court, now Section 9, Rule
been for frustrated murder; 117 of the Revised Rules of
However, after the submission of evidence by both prosecution and that the crime of frustrated
defense, no decision on the merits was rendered, basically because the murder has been committed Court) is a definite or
court thought now that the crime was indeed frustrated murder and and that there is reason to unconditional dismissal which
not serious PI, to wit: terminates the case, and not a
believe that the accused dismissal without prejudice as
Edgardo Caballas might have in the present case. In the
While considering the evidence of this case the court realized that the been the one who had absence of any statutory
evidence on the injuries sustained by the accused and the circumstances committed the same. provision to the contrary, we
surrounding the infliction thereof overwhelmingly point to the find no reason why the court
conclusion that the intention of the assailant was to inflict more than IN VIEW OF ALL THE may not, in the interest of
just injuries. Hence, the court is restricted by what it considers a legal FOREGOING, this case is justice, dismiss a criminal
obstacle to the validity of whatever judgement it renders, because hereby dismissed to give case provisionally, i.e., without
whether it be one of acquittal or conviction - it shall have so ordered on way to the filing of a prejudice to reinstating it
a case outside its jurisdiction. complaint for frustrated before the order become final
murder. Since the proceedings or to the subsequent filing of a
The evidence is positive and uncontradicted that the person who from the preliminary new information for the same
inflicted the stab wounds on Ernesto Sandoval had evidently not by examination up to the offense. (Page 454.)
accident but by design, walked with the victim from a certain point on conclusion of the trial hereof
Real Street up to some 400 meters therefrom which is another spot on a has amounted to a compliance The Jaca ruling was reiterated
quite unfrequented side street; that it was in that spot where the victim with the requirements of a in People vs. Manlapas et al., L-
was stabbed four times, two of which hit the victim - one, on the preliminary investigation first 17993, August 24, 1962, 5
abdominal region and another "penetrating and perforating the and second stage, let the SCRA 883, 887; Republic vs.
posterior abdominal wall cutting the terminal portion of the 10th rib"; records hereof be forwarded to Agoncillo, et al., L-27257,
that this was at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of December 1971, at the Court of First Instance at August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA
which time it must have been dark already; that the victim was alone, Calauag, Quezon, under the 579, 587; and People vs. Hon.
and that the attack was sudden and treacherous. jurisdiction of which court the Surtida, et al., L-24420,
case for frustrated murder January 26, 1972, 43 SCRA 29,
It has also been shown that the knife used by the assonant measures pertains, through the office of 37. Moreover, as stated in the
about 6 inches in length; that the victim was not able to walk by himself the Provincial Fiscal so that aforementioned case of
after having been stabbed but that he had to be carried to the hospital the latter may act on this case Republic vs. Agoncillo, et al.
and that while there, the victim almost lost consciousness. By the and file the corresponding (supra, p. 588):
medical certificate issued by a physician of the hospital (Magsaysay complaint as above-
Memorial Hospital, Lopez, Quezon) the duration of treatment has been recommended. ... the authoritative
placed at 30 days. pronouncement in the ... case
So, a new info/complaint for of People vs. Obsania (L-
The Court believes that the foregoing evidence would support prima frustrated murder was filed 24447, June 29, 1968, 23
facie a complaint for the crime of frustrated murder and, as stated, Issue: W/N the new info SCRA 1249), with Justice
prevents it from rendering judgment in this case. It cannot even rule constitutes double jeopardy Castro as ponente, had made
that the parties have waived the question of jurisdiction having clear beyond doubt that
proceeded with the trial of the case up to its termination as this would
40 it must have the effect of an acquittal Thus: "The
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) appealed order of dismissal in this case now under
consideration did not terminate the action on the
merits, whereas in Cloribel and in the other related
cases the dismissal amounted to an acquittal because
for dismissal to be a bar under the jeopardy clause of the Constitution, the failure to prosecute presupposed that the
Government did not have a case against the accused, who in the first victim. The Judge committed grave abuse of
place, is presumed innocent." discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction thereby
rendering his Order of
There can be no question, as indeed it is quite clear, that in the
case at bar, the Order of dismissal issued by the Municipal Court November 29, 1972 null and void.
did not actually terminate or put an end to the prosecution against
herein private respondent for the felonious act he was alleged to o Since the order of dismissal was without
have committed. On the contrary, the dispositive portion of said authority and, therefore, null and void, the
Order expressly directed that the records of the case be forwarded
proceedings before the Municipal Court have not
to the Court of First Instance so that the Office of the Provincial
been lawfully terminated, Accordingly, there is no
Fiscal could file a complaint for frustrated murder.
second proceeding to speak of and no double
jeopardy. A continuation of the proceedings
In any case, the dismissal Order was NOT legal and valid. o We against the accused for serious physical injuries is
hold and rule that respondent Judge erred in dismissing the case for in order.
serious physical injuries "to give way to the filing of a complaint for
frustrated murder." For it is the duty of the respondent Judge to render
the decision as the evidence presented warrant under the information
as filed for serious physical injuries, and not dismiss the case on his AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin
Idea or belief that there was evidence of intent to kill the intended | Vien
41
Esmea v. Pogoy
February 20, 1981
Aquino, J.
was not in court. Respondent
Facts: 12 judge on his own volition
Original date: 10.04.1978 provisionally dismissed the
case. The petitioners did not
A grave coercion case was filed agains Esmen a, et. al. for having Reason # 1: priest requested expressly manifest their
allegedly forced Rev.Fr. Thomas Tibudan to withdraw P5,000 because reset on 12.13.78 Reason # 2: conformity to the provisional
the priest lost it in a game of cards. accused not duly notified dismissal. Hence, the
Arraigned on 01.23.79 dismissal placed them in
12 NO TRIAL priest absent jeopardy.
Because of many different reasons , the hearing was reset many
times, until the respondent judge (siguro napikon) issued an order BEST REASON OF ALL:
setting the trial for the last time on FISCAL LOST RECORD OF Even if the petitioners, after
CASE invoking their right to a
August 16, 1973 speedy trial, moved for the
*applause* -- hearing on dismissal of the case and,
06.19.79 moved again. <kaya therefore, consented to it, the
However, on said date, priest was allegedly sick, and again motioned to ayun, napikon na si judge.> dismissal would still place
reset the date. Counsel for accused opposed and invoked the right of
them in jeopardy. The use of
the accused to have a speedy trial
not have place the the word "provisional" would
petitioners in jeopardy if not change the legal effect of
Respondent judge provisionally dismissed the case as to the four respondent judge had taken the dismissal (Esguerra vs. De
accused who were present because it "has been dragging all along and the precaution of making la Costa, 66 Phil. 134;
the accused are ready for the hearing" but the fiscal was not ready sure that the dismissal was Gandicela vs. Lutero, 88 Phil.
with his witness. The court noted that there was no medical certificate with their consent. In this 299)
indicating that the complainant was really sick. case, it is not very clear that
the petitioners consented to If the defendant wants to
wenty-seven days later, or on September 12, 1979, the fiscal filed a the dismissal of the case. exercise his constitutional
motion for the revival of the case. He attached to his motion a medical right to
certificate under oath attesting to the fact that Father Tibudan was It is the practice of some
sick of influenza on August 16, 1979 judges before issuing an order speedy trial, he should ask,
of provisional dismissal in a not for the dismissal, but for
Issue: W/N the revival of the case would place the accused in double case wherein the accused had the trial of the case. After the
jeopardy already been arraigned to prosecution's motion for
require the accused and his postponement of the trial is
Held/Ratio: YES. counsel to sign the minutes of denied and upon order of the
the session or any available court the fiscal does not or
part of the record to show the cannot produce his evidence
In order that legal jeopardy may exist, there should be (a) a valid
conformity of the accused or and, consequently, fails to
complaint or information (b) before a court of competent jurisdiction
his lack of objection to the prove the defendant's guilt,
and (c) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the
provisional the court upon defendant's
complaint or information.
motion shall dismiss the case,
dismissal. such dismissal amounting to
When these three conditions are present, the acquittal or conviction of an acquittal of the defendant"
the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case without his (4 Moran's Comments on the
express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another The judge specifies in the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed., p.
prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the order of provisional dismissal 202, citing Gandicela vs.
same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily that the accused and his Lutero, 88 Phil. 299, 307 and
includes or is included therein (4 Moran's Comments on the Rules of counsel signified their assent People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714-
Court, 1980 Ed., p. 240). thereto. That procedure 717).
leaves no room for doubt as to
the consent of the accused
Previous acquittal (autrefois acquit), previous conviction (autrefois The dismissal of a criminal
and precludes jeopardy from
convict) or the dismissal or termination of the case without his consent case upon motion of the
attaching to the dismissal.
precludes his subsequent indictment for the same offense as defined accused because the
in section 9 prosecution was not prepared
The petitioners were insisting
for trial since the complainant
on a trial. They relied on their
In the instant case, we hold that the petitioners were placed in and his witnesses did not
constitutional right to have a
jeopardy by the provisional dismissal of the grave coercion case. appear at the trial is a
speedy trial. The fiscal was
That provisional dismissal would dismissal equivalent to an
not ready because his witness
acquittal that would bar
further prosecution of the defendant for the same offense (Salcedo vs. Sarmiento, L-28025, SCRA 437; People vs. Cloribel,
Mendoza, L-49375, February 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 811; Lagunilia vs. December 16, 1970, 36 SCRA 120 Phil. 775; People vs.
Hon. Reyes, etc. and Motas, 111 Phil. 1020 citing People vs. Tacneng, 247; Baesa vs. Provincial Aban o 97 Phil. 28; People vs.
105 Phil. 1298 and People vs. Robles, 105 Phil. 1016. See Taladua vs. Fiscal of Camarines Sur, L- Labatete, 107 Phil. 697)
Ochotorena, L-25595, February 15, 1974, 55 SCRA 528; Acebedo vs. 30363, January 30, 1971, 37
42
People v. Villalon
December 21, 1990
Regalado, J.
Facts:
Federico de Guzman was charged with estafa through falsification of public documents for allegedly forging the signature of Carrera to make
it appear that the former was made the latters attorney-in-fact, and subsequently mortgaging the parcel of land which Carrera owns.
De Guzman raised the issue of prescription he claims that the crime has prescribed since more than 10 years has elapsed from the time the
crime was committed.
Judge Villalon dismissed the complaint on basis of prescription
Issue: W/N this appeal by the people would constitute double jeopardy.
Held/Ratio: NO. PP v. City Court of Manila
As a general rule, the dismissal or termination of a case after arraignment and plea of the defendant to a valid information shall be a bar to
another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the complaint or information (Sec. 9, Rule 113). However, an appeal by the prosecution from the order of
dismissal (of the criminal case) by the trial court shall not constitute double jeopardy if (1) the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the
express consent, of the defendant, and (2) the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the
case; and (3) the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would
have to be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Irrele on issue of whether the charge of estafa thru falsification of a public document has sufficient basis to exist in fact and in law COURT:
YES
The falsification of a public document may be a means of committing estaga bacuase before the falsified document is actually utilized to
defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the
crime of the falsification of public, official or commercial documents. The damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the
falsification of the public, official or commercial document, hence, the falsification of said document is only a necessary meanse to commit
the estafa.
43
People vs. Lagui 171 SCRA 305
Hizon lent money to Sorriano who in turn issued a post dated check to answer for the debt.
When they tried to encash the check, the account was already closed.
He was charged with a violation under BP 22 and estafa
The RTC dismissed the BP 22 charge because the information was fatally defective and convicted him of the estafa charge
Upon appeal of the accused, the CA reversed the estafa conviction
The people now is appealing the other case (BP 22) saying that the info was not fatally defective.
W/N info was fatally defective? NO
3 Elements of BP 22
Issuance of check for account or for value
At time of issue, maker does not have sufficient funds or credit
Subsequently dishonored.
The judge said that the information failed to allege that the accused knew when he issued the check that the then did not have sufficient funds in the
bank; the information should have allege that the accused knew that he would not have sufficient funds in the bank to pay the check in full upon its
presentment. ---
Wrong
st rd
The presence of the 1 and 3 elements of the offense constitutes prima facie evidene that the second element exists. (Look at Sec 2 of Law.)
W/N if it wasnt, can he still be convicted? NO
Decision cannot be annulled or set aside because it amounted to a judgment of acquittal. It became final and executory upon its
promulgation. The state may not appeal that decision for it would place the accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for the offense in
violation of his constitutional rights against double jeopardy.
Soriano had been arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was tried upon a valid and sufficient information and case was dismissed by trial court
(without his consent), he has been placed in jeopardy for the offense charged so re-assesing the evidence against him pursuant to the appeal
of the govt would put him in double jeopardy.
44
Galvez vs. CA
Oct. 24, 1994
petitioners were given by
Galvez, the incumbent mayor of San Ildefonso, Bulacan was charged Judge Villajuan the
with 3 infos for homicide and 2 infos for frustrated homicide. opportunity to file a
considering that in the motion for
original cases before Branch reconsideration, even
The prosecution filled a motion to defer arraingment to review the 14 of the trial court assuming the alleged
evidence to determine the proper charges as well as change of venue petitioners had not yet been procedural infirmity in his
because complainants fear for their safety and to prevent miscarriage placed in jeopardy, and the issuance of the order of
of justice. ex parte motion to withdraw dismissal, the same was
was filed and granted before thereby deemed cured.
Before their arraignment, petitioners filed a motion to withdraw they could be arraigned,
informations, and subsequently filed informations for murder and there would be no
imperative need for notice Sec 11 rule 119 governs
illegal possession of firearms. the trial stage vs sec 10
and hearing thereof. In
actuality, the real grievance rule 114 governs
They filed a motion to quash saying the court never acquired of herein accused is not the procedural governance
jurisdiction, which was denied and judge set arraignment. Assailed dismissal of the original for prosecution of
resolution. three informations but the offenses, from the filing of
filing of four new info to just before the
informations, three of which trial.
st
Which set of informations should Galvez be tried with? The 1 or 2nd?
charge graver offenses and
the fourth, an additional Sec 10 rule 114- The first
Corollary issues: offense. Had these new paragraph provides the
informations not been filed, rule for amendment of the
Whether the ex parte motion to withdraw the original informations is there would obviously have information or complaint,
null and void on the ground that (a) there was no notice and hearing been no cause for the instant while the second
as required by Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court; and petition. Accordingly, their paragraph refers to the
(b) the appropriate remedy which should have been adopted by the complaint about the substitution of the
prosecution was to amend the informations by charging the proper supposed procedural lapses information or complaint.
offenses pursuant to Section involved in the motion to Under the second
dismiss filed and granted in paragraph, the court can
Criminal Cases order the filing of another
of Rule 110;
information to charge the
Nos. 3642-M-93 to 3644-M- proper offense, provided
Whether the order granting the withdrawal of the original the accused would not be
93 does not impress us as a
informations was immediately final and executory; placed thereby in double
candid presentation of their
real position. jeopardy and that could
Whether Judge Pornillos was correct in denying the motion to quash only be true if the offense
and thereby acquired jurisdiction over the new informations proved does not
the absence of notice and necessarily include or is
considering that (a) the designated public prosecutor allegedly had no hearing does not divest a
authority to file the second set of informations; and (b) the filing not necessarily included
trial court of authority to in the offense charged in
thereof constituted forum shopping; and pass on the merits of the the original information.
motion. It is only an
Whether the arraignment proceeding held on January 24, 1994 in irregularity.Besides, when
Criminal Cases Nos. 4004-M-93 to 4007-M-93 was valid. Petition dismissed.
45
People v. Pilpa 79 SCRA 82

or frustration thereof,or for carry bound by his
Was charged with frustrated murder and pleaded not guilty offense which necessarily counsel's assent to
includes or is included therein. the dismissal
The prosecution filed a motion to dismiss because intent to kill was not
alleged in the information which initially was not objected to by the here is former jeopardy when in Later, the cases
accuseds lawyer but subsequently changed his mind. the first case there was a valid were revived. The
COMPLAINT of information filed accused contended
in a court of competent that the revival of
A second information was then filed and a motion to quash from the defense jurisdiction and, after the the cases would
claiming double jeopardy. defendant had pleaded to the place her in double
charge, he was acquitted or jeopardy. That
Judge granted the motion and prosecution now appeals. convicted or the case against him contention was
was terminated without his rejected because the
Whether the second information would place the accused twice in jeopardy express consent provisional
of being punished for the crime of frustrated murder? NO dismissal did not
We hold that the oral place the in
jeopardy. There was
Under section 9 of Rule 117 the protection against double jeopardy may be manifestation at the hearing
made by the counsel of the no jeopardy in such
invoked in cases of (a) previous acquittal (autrefois acquit), (b) conviction
accused that he had no dismissal because
(autrefois convict) of the same offense, or (c) when the case against the
objection to the dismissal of the words "No
accused has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
the case was equivalent to a objection" conveyed
consent.
declaration of conformity to its the Idea of full
dismissal or to an express concurrence with
In any of these three cases, in order that there be former kill jeopardy, it is in the dismissal and
consent to its termination
the first case that (a) there was a valid competent or information (b) before a was equivalent to
within the meaning of section 9
court of competent jurisdiction, (c) and that the had been and had entered saying "I agree."
of Rule 117. He could not
his plea. When these conditions or requotes are present, the acquittal or
thereafter revoke that
conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of the case without
conformity since the court had Petition Granted,
his express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another
already acted upon it by assailed order set
prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same
dismissing the case. He was aside.
46
W/N lewd designs should be alledged in complaint?

People v. Obsania NO
On November 22, 1964, barely a day after the occurence of the alleged Rape does not require that specific allegation.Lascivious
crime, Erlinda Dollente, the 14-year old victim, and her parents, Ciriaco intent inheres in rape and the unchaste design is
Dollente and Carmelita Lureta, filed in the municipal court of Balungao, manifest in the very act itself the carnal knowledge of
Pangasinan a complaint for rape with robbery a woman through force or intimidation, or when the
woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious,
After the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of or when the woman is under twelve years of age.
Pangasinan for further proceedings, the assistant provincial fiscal filed
an information for rape against the accused, embodying the allegations
of the above complaint, with an additional averment that the offense
was committed "with lewd designs".
W/N there is double jeopardy? NO
The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and forthwith his
counsel moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that the In order that the protection against double jeopardy
complaint was fatally defective for failure to allege "lewd designs" and may inure in favor of an accused, the following
that the subsequent information filed by the fiscal which averred "lewd requisites must have obtained in the original
designs" did not cure the jurisdictional infirmity. The court a quo prosecution: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a
granted the motion and ordered dismissal of the action, ruling that "the competent court; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the
failure of the complaint filed by the offended party to allege that the charge; and (d) the defendant was acquitted, or
acts committed by the accused were with 'lewd designs' does not give convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or
this Court jurisdiction to try the case." From this order, the fiscal otherwise terminated without his express consent.
brought the instant appeal
The court then discusses a long history of jurisprudence
and somewhat seemingly conflicting rulings that is too long to put in
the digest. In the end through the accused can be estopped or can waive and second, such dismissal must not be on the merits
double jeopardy. and must not necessarily amount to an acquittal.
Indubitably, the case at bar falls squarely within the
The application of the sister doctrines of waiver and estoppel requires periphery of the said doctrines which have been
two sine qua non conditions: first, the dismissal must be sought or preserved unimpaired in the corpus of our
induced by the defendant personally or through his counsel; jurisprudence.
Petition granted, order set aside.

47
Ada v. Virola 172 SCRA 336
Ada was initially charged under BP 22 for issuing 3 checks that bounced
Before prosecution rested its case, he was also charged with estafa, which Ada tried to object to but was arraigned nevertheless.
After prosecution rested its case, he filed a motion to dismiss the later cases saying it was violation is Double jeopardy right.
W/N there is double jeopardy? NO
It is a settled rule that to raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior
to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the
second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or a
frustration thereof.
These requisites do not exist in the case at bar. The prohibition is against a second jeopardy for the same offense. The plea of double jeopardy
applies where the offenses in the two informations are the same in law and in fact. It is not necessarily decisive that the two offenses may
have material facts in common, or that they are similar, where they are not in fact the same. The test is not whether the defendant has already
been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense. A single act may offend against two (or more)
entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision of law requires proof of an additional fact or element while the other
does not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does not bar prosecution under the other. In other words,
where two different laws (or articles of the same Code) define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of
the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the
other.
The 2 laws are distinct from each other. There is no identity of offenses charged.
48
People v. Relova 148 SCRA 304

Put a little differently, where subsequent prosecution for
The Police, armed with a search warrant, conducted a search on the offenses charged are the same offense is not to be
private respondents properties and found out he was using devices to penalized either by different understood with absolute
lower his electric bill. sections of the same statute or literalness. The Identity of
by different statutes, the offenses that must be shown
important inquiry relates to need not be absolute Identity:
He was charged in violation of ordinance 1 and pleaded not guilty. the identity of offenses charge: the first and second offenses
the constitutional protection may be regarded as the "same
He filed a motion to dismiss saying the offense has already prescribed against double jeopardy is offense" where the second
which was granted. available only where an offense necessarily includes
Identity is shown to exist the first offense or is
After 14 days, he was charged now under the RPC 309, theft of between the earlier and the necessarily included in such
electrical power. subsequent offenses charged. first offense or where the
In contrast, where one offense second
is charged under a municipal
He filed a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. This was
ordinance while the other is offense is an attempt to
granted by the trial court.
penalized by a statute, the commit the first or a
critical inquiry is to the frustration thereof. 14 Thus,
W/N Doulbe Jeopardy bars the RPC information? YES identity of the acts which the for the constitutional plea of
accused is said to have double jeopardy to be
The basic difficulty with the petitioner's position is that it must be committed and which are available, not all the technical
examined, not under the terms of the first sentence of Article IV (22) alleged to have given rise to elements constituting the first
of the 1973 Constitution, but rather under the second sentence of the the two offenses: the offense need be present in the
same section. The first sentence of Article IV (22) sets forth the general constitutional protection technical definition of the
rule: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not against double jeopardy is second offense. The law here
available where the second prosecution is for an offense that is available so long as the acts seeks to prevent harrassment
different from the offense charged in the first or prior prosecution, which constitute or have given of an accused person by
although both the first and second offenses may be based upon the rise to the first offense under multiple prosecutions for
same act or set of acts. The second sentence of Article IV (22) a municipal ordinance are the offenses which though
embodies an exception to the general proposition: the constitutional same acts which constitute or different from one another are
protection, against double jeopardy is available although the prior have given rise to the offense nonetheless each constituted
offense charged under an ordinance be different from the offense charged under a statute. by a common set or
charged subsequently under a national statute such as the Revised overlapping sets of technical
Penal Code, provided that both offenses spring from the same act or It is perhaps important to elements.
set of acts. note that the rule limiting the
constitutional protection Petition denied.
against double jeopardy to a
49
THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES v. MARIA DEL CARMEN et al.

PARAS J.
The defendants were prosecuted in the municipal court of Manila for the crime of malicious mischief.
After presentation of evidence for the prosecution, the municipal court dismissed the case on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove
that the removal or destruction of the property in question had been inspired by resentment, rancor, or desires for revenge.
Subsequently, the same fiscal who filed the information in the municipal court, filed the following information of coercion in the court of First
Instance of Manila against the defendants.
Issue: Whether or not there is double jeopardy? Yes, the rule against double jeopardy prohibits prosecution for the same offense it
seems basic that an accused should be shielded against being prosecuted for several offenses made out from a single act.
Counsel for defendants filed a motion to nullify the second information on the grounds of double jeopardy.
Contented for the appellant there is no double jeopardy since the second information charges an offense different from that included in the
information filed in the municipal court.
The rule against double jeopardy protecting the accused not against the second punishment for the same act but against being tried for the same
offense.
A brief comparison of the two informations, the act complained of in the case for coercion is the same act which formed the basis of the information
for malicious mischief.
The rule against double jeopardy prohibits prosecution for the same offense it seems basic that an accused should be shielded against being
prosecuted for several offenses made out from a single act. Otherwise, an unlawful act or omission, may give rise to several prosecutions
depending upon the ability of prosecuting officer to imagine as many offenses as can be justified by said act or omission, by simply adding or
subtracting essential elements.
The case at bar is an occasion for reminding prosecuting officers to be careful and comprehensive in criminal investigations with the view to
determining definitely, before filing the necessary information, the offenses in fact and in law committed, in order to avoid situations
smacking of persecutions.
50
CONRADO MELO v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF THE FIRST
INSTANCE OF RIZAL
MORAN, C. J.
same or identical offense. offenses are identical.
Petitioner Conrado Melo was charged on December 27, 1949, with
frustrated homicide, for having allegedly inflicted upon Benjamin No person shall be twice put There is identity between two
Obillo, with a kitchen knife and with intent to kill at the Court of First in jeopardy of punishment for offenses when the evidence to
Instance of Rizal. the same offense. Meaning support a conviction for one
when a person is charged offense would be sufficient to
with an offense and the case is warrant a conviction for the
On December 29, 1949, at 8 a.m., the accused pleaded not guilty to the
other.
offense charged and at 10:15 p.m. of the same day, Benjamin Obillo died terminated either by acquittal
from his wounds. or conviction or in any
manner without the consent On the other hand, the rule of
of the accused, the latter identity does not apply, when
Evidence of death was available to the prosecution only on January 3,
cannot be charged with the the second offense was not in
1950 and January 4, 1950 and amended information was filed
same or identical offense. existence at the time of the
charging the accused with consummated homicide.
first prosecution, for the
It is noticed that the simple reason that in such
The accused then filed a motion to nullify the amended information claiming case there is no possibility for
double jeopardy. protection of the
constitutional inhibition is the accused, during the first
against a second jeopardy for prosecution, to be convicted
Motion was denied by the respondent court; hence, instant petition for for an offense that was in
the same offense, the only
prohibition to enjoin the respondent court from further entertaining the existent.
amended information exception, that if an act is
punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or The rule is that where after
Issue: Whether or not an accused who pleaded guilty to the acquittal under either shall the first prosecution a new
offense of frustrated homicide, upon death of the offended party, constitute a bar to another fact supervenes for which the
could not rely on a plea of double jeopardy, if the information prosecution for the same act. defendant is responsible,
amended is to charge him with homicide? No, because the which changes the character
petition is denied, and the respondent court may proceed to the of the offense and, together
trial of the criminal case under the amended information. Same offense, under the
general rule, has always been with the facts existing at the
interpreted to mean not only time constitutes a new and
Rule 106, section 13, 2d paragraph, under this provision, it was proper that the second offense distinct offense. The accused
for the court to dismiss the information and order the filing of a new charged is exactly the same as cannot be said to be in second
one for the reason that the proper offense was not charged in the the one alleged in the first jeopardy if indicted for the
former and it did not place the accused in a second jeopardy for the information, but also the two new offense.
51
THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO YORAC

FERNANDO, J.
same act committed against The Same offense, means
another prosecution for the
A constitutional right not to be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense the same person? No,
offense charged after a defendant
was the basis for a motion to nullify by the accused, now appellee, Rodrigo because there is no shall have been convicted
Yorac. supervening fact that had
occurred which justifies the
application, for which or acquitted or the case
He was prosecuted for frustrated murder arising allegedly from
reason we are constrained against him terminated
having assaulted, attacked, and hit with a piece of wood the offended
to apply the general rule of without his express consent,
party, for which he was previously tried and sentenced for slight
double jeopardy. By this, the or any attempt to commit the
physical injuries, his plea being one of guilt.
motion to quash was same or frustration thereof or
granted and ordered the for; any offense which
The information for frustrated murder was based on the second dismissal of the case and necessarily includes or is
medical certificate given by the same physician which was much more immediate release of the necessarily included in the
thorough the second time, to the effect that the victim did suffer a appellee. offense charged in the former
greater injury than was at first ascertained. complaint or information.
For double jeopardy not to
The lower court, presided by Honorable Judge Nestor B. Alampay, exist, there is then the It follows that after the first
considering that there was no supervening fact that would negate the indispensable requirement of prosecution a new fact
defense double jeopardy, sustained the motion to quash in an order of the existence of a new fact supervenes on which
June 21, 1968. The people appealed. which supervenes for which defendant may be held liable,
the defendant is responsible resulting in altering the
The accused Yorac was charged with slight physical injuries before the changing the character of the character of the crime and
City Court of Bacolod. The accused plead guilty on April 16, 1968 crime imputed to him and giving rise to a new and
resulting in his being penalized to suffer ten days of arresto menor. together with the facts distinct offense, the accused
existing previously cannot be said to be in second
jeopardy if indicted for the
On April 18, 1968, the provincial fiscal filed information at the Court constituting a new and
new offense.
of First Instance of Negros Occidental, charging the same defendant distinct offense.
with frustrated murder arising from the act upon another medical
certificate dated April 17, 1968. No person shall be twice put in Although there is the
jeopardy of punishment for the indispensable requirement of
same offense. the existence of a new fact
A motion to nullify was filed by the accused on June 10, 1968 on the
which supervenes for which
ground that, having been previously convicted of slight physical
the defendant is responsible
injuries and having already served the penalty imposed on him for the A defendant in a criminal case
changing the character of the
same offense, the prosecution for frustrated murder arising out of the should therefore, be judged
either guilty or not guilty and crime imputed to him and
same act committed against the same offended party, he would be
thereafter left alone in peace, together with the existing
placed in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.
in the latter case the State facts previously constituting a
being precluded from taking new and distinct offense.
Issue: Whether or not the defendant, who had already been an appeal.
convicted of slight physical injuries and had served sentence
therefore, may be prosecuted anew for frustrated murder for the
52
THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, v. CITY COURT of MANILA, BRANCH XI and FRANCISCO
GAPAY y MALLARES,
RELOVA J.
accordingly. Thus, jeopardy the former.
This is a petition to review the order, dated November 17, 1972, of the had attached and no new
City Court of Manila, Branch XI, dismissing the information for fact supervened after the However, it must be pointed
homicide thru reckless imprudence filed against respondent Francisco arraignment and conviction that, the rule of identity does
Gapa y Mallares on the ground of double jeopardy. of the accused. not apply when the second
offense was not in existence at
Respondent court held that the private respondent having been It follows that after the first the time of the first
previously tried and convicted of serious physical injuries thru prosecution a new fact prosecution, for the reason
reckless imprudence for the death of the victim would place the supervenes on which that in such case there is no
accused in double jeopardy. defendant may be held liable, possibility for the accused,
resulting in altering the during the first
character of the crime and
The case at bar, the incident occurred on October 17, 1972. On the giving rise to a new and
following day, October 18, information was filed against respondent prosecution, to be convicted
distinct offense, the accused for an offense that was then in
for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. On the same cannot be said to be in second
day, the victim Diolito de la Cruz died. existent.
jeopardy if indicted for the
new offense.
On October 20, 1972, private respondent was arraigned on the charge Accordingly, where the
of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. He pleaded accused was charged with
However, article 365 of the Penal
guilty and was sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor, Code punishes the negligent state physical injuries and after
and commenced serving sentence. of mind and not the resulting
conviction, the injured person
injury. dies, the charge for homicide
against the same accused does
On October 24, 1972, information for homicide thru reckless imprudence was
filed against respondent.
not put him twice in jeopardy.
The trial court concluded that
once prosecuted for and
On November 17, 1972, the City Court of Manila, upon motion of convicted of negligence, the As stated, the victim Diolito de
respondent, issued and order dismissing the homicide thru reckless accused cannot again be la Cruz died on the day the
imprudence case on the ground of double jeopardy. prosecuted for the same information was filed, and the
negligence although for a accused was arraigned two
different resulting injury. days after, or on October 20,
Issue: Whether or not a person who has been prosecuted for 1972. When the information
serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and convicted for homicide thru reckless
thereof may be prosecuted subsequently for homicide thru Well-settled is the rule that
imprudence was filed on
reckless imprudence if the offended party dies as a result of the one who has been charged October 24, 1972, the
same injuries he had suffered? No, the fact remains that the with an offense cannot be
accused- private respondent
victim Diolito de la Cruz died on October 18 one day after the charge again with the same or
was already in jeopardy.
accident and arrest of the respondent Gapay and that on October identical offense though the
20 the accused was arraigned, pleaded guilty and sentenced latter be lesser or greater than
53
GEORGE MANANTAN, v. THE COURT of APPEALS, SPOUSES MARCELINO NICOLAS and

MARIA NICOLAS
QUISIMBING J.
discharge.
June 1, 1983, thee Provincial Fiscal of Isabela filed information charging Our law recognizes two kinds
petitioner Manantan with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. of acquittal, with different
On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. effects on the civil liability of However, it found that a
the accused. First is an hypothesis inconsistent with the
Petitioner was acquitted by the trial court of homicide through reckless acquittal on the ground that negligence of the accused
imprudence without ruling on his civil liability. the accused is not the author presented itself before the court.
of the act of omission
On appeal from the civil aspect of the judgement in Criminal Case no. complained of. This closes the The foregoing clearly shows
066, the appellate court found the petitioner Manantan civilly liable door to civil liability. Second is that petitioners acquittal based
and ordered him to indemnify private respondents Marcelino Nicolas an acquittal based on on reasonable doubt and a suit
and Maria Nicolas for a total of 174,400.00 for the death of their son, reasonable doubt on the guilt to enforce civil liability for the
Ruben Nicolas. of the accused, in this case if same act or omission lies.
the guilt of the accused has
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the appellate court in its resolution
not been satisfactorily Furthermore, petitioner
of August 24, 1992 denied the motion. established, he is not argues that the Court of
exempted from civil liability Appeals made a mistake in
which may be proved by the awarding damages and
Issues: Did the acquittal of petitioner foreclose any further
preponderance of evidence indemnity, since private
inquiry by the Court of Appeals as to his negligence or reckless
only. respondents did not pay the
imprudence? Did the court a quo err in finding that petitioners
acquittal did not extinguish his civil liability? corresponding filing fees for
Hence, petitioners acquittal was their claims for damages
not precluded from looking into when civil case was instituted
Did the appellate court commit a reversible error in failing to the question of petitioners with the criminal action.
apply the Manchester Doctrine to CA-G.R. CV No. 19240? negligence.
Private respondents argue that

Petitioner argues that the trial courts finding that he was neither In line with this, the petitioner under the rules of court, the
imprudent nor negligent was the basis of his acquittal and not insists that he was acquitted on filing fees for the damages
reasonable doubt. Hence, upon finding him liable for indemnity and a finding that he was neither awarded are a first lien on the
damages, the appellate court not only placed his acquittal in suspicion, criminally negligent nor judgement.
but also put him in double jeopardy. recklessly imprudent.
At the time of the filing of
Preliminary, petitioners claim that the decision of the appellate court He argues that when the latter information, the implied
awarding indemnity placed him in double jeopardy is misplaced. is not proved, civil liability institution of civil actions with
cannot be demanded and criminal actions was governed
concludes that his acquittal bars by Rule 111, section 1 of the
The constitution provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the any civil action.
same offense. 1964, Rules of Court.
Respondents counter that the As pointed out by the

For double jeopardy to exist elements are established. First is a
trial courts judgement shows respondents, under the said
jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. The first jeopardy
the judgement of acquittal did rule, it was not required that
must have been terminated. Lastly, the second jeopardy must be for
not clearly declare the non- the damages sought by the
the same offense as the first.
existence of petitioners offended party be stated in the
negligence or imprudence. complaint or information.
In the instant case, petitioner had once been placed in jeopardy by the They argue that his acquittal
filing of Criminal Case No. 066 and the jeopardy was terminated by his must be deemed based on Thus, the civil action is
discharge. reasonable doubt. impliedly instituted together
with the criminal action, the
However, petitioner was not charged anew in CA-G.R. No. 19240 with a Inquiry by the lower courts decision in actual damages claimed by
second criminal offense identical to the first offense. Criminal Case No.
the offended parties, as in this
066 supports the conclusion case, are not included in the
Records clearly show that no second criminal offense was being of the appellate court that the computation of the filing fees.
imputed to petitioner on appeal therefore there was no second acquittal was based on
jeopardy to speak of. Petitioners claim of having been placed in reasonable doubt hence
petitioners civil liability was Filing fees are to be paid only
double jeopardy is incorrect. if other items of damages such
not extinguished by his
as moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages are alleged in enforcement of said lien must the filing fees were not paid or
the complaint or information, or if they are not so alleged, shall retro act to the institution of improperly paid and that the
constitute a first lien on the judgement. the criminal action. appellate court acquired no
jurisdiction. The instant
The rules of criminal procedure guarantee that filing fees for the Therefore, we find no basis for petition is dismissed for lack
award of damages are first lien on the judgement, the effect of the petitioners allegations that of merit.
54
SAMSON V. CA
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
since they we personally includes the offense proved, the
Rufino T. Samson was jointly charged with Amado L. Cruz and unknown to him. The mere defendant shall be convicted of
Bonifacio Vergara and two others whose names are unknown in two assurance of a former class, mate the offense proved included in
separate informations with the complex crime of estafa through would certainly not be a that which is charged, or of the
falsification of two checks of the Philippine National Bank satisfactory identification to offense charged included in that
justify disbursement of such a which is proved" (Section 4, Rule
large amount if the funds 116. Rules of Court).
The trio appealed from the decision and the Court of Appeals belonged to appellant.
affirmed the same but with a reduced penalty with regard to
appellants Cruz and Vergara. Appellant Samson was only found guilty As a complement we have also
of committing the crime through gross imprudence and was Under the facts found by the the following rule: "An offense
accordingly sentenced to 4 months of arresto mayor in each of the Court of Appeals, the acts of charged necessarily includes that
two cases. appellant constitute in each case which is proved, when some of
the crime of estafa through the essential elements or
falsification of a mercantile ingredients of the former, as this
Dissatisfied with his conviction, Samson sued out the present document by reckless is alleged in the complaint or
petition for review contending (1) that the acts done by him, as found imprudence, because in so far as information, constitute the latter.
by the Court of Appeals, do not constitute gross imprudence; (2) that the falsification is concerned, his And the offense charged is
there is no such offense as estafa through (falsification by) acts of endorsing the respective necessarily included in the
negligence; and (3) that the Court of Appeals erred in denying his checks by way of identification of offense proves, when the
motion for new trial. the signatures of the payees essential ingredients of the
entitled to said checks and their former constitute or form a part
Espiridion Lascan o, father of the late Felipe Lascan o, a lieutenant of of those constituting the latter"
the USAFFE, who died during the last World War, and his widow proceeds, constituted a written (Section 5, Rule 116, Idem.).
Rosanna Paras, are Felipe Lascano's only legitimate surviving heirs, representation that the true
payees participated in the While a criminal negligent act is
They filed their claim papers with the Red Cross Chapter in the indorsement and cashing of the not a simple modality of a willful
Province of Sorsogon in the early part of 1946. checks aforesaid, when in truth crime, as we held in Quizon vs.
and in fact the true payees had Justice of the Peace of Bacolor,
*
On October 2, 1948 Amado L. Cruz asked the help of his former no direct intervention in the G.R. No. L-6641, July 28, 1955,
classmate Rufino T. Samson in getting the checks of the two claimants proceedings (Art. 171, Revised but a distinct crime in itself,
who were with him at Camp Murphy . Penal Code). designated as a quasi offense in
our Penal Code, it may however
They were successful in having the checks of the two claimants. They Even if such indorsement and be said that conviction for the
went to Aristocrat restaurant and Samson went on to watch a movie identification were extraneous to former can be had under an
that night ( I know. Weird.). the official duties of appellant, he information exclusively charging
would be nevertheless liable as a the commission of a willful
private person under Article 172 offense, upon the theory that the
Just two days after cashing the checks, while at Camp Murphy
of the Revised Penal Code. greater includes the lesser
Samson was informed by Severino Anda, one of those who were with
Decisions of this Court and of the offense. This is the situation that
the party which cashed the checks, thus said cheeks were delivered
Supreme Court of Spain assert obtains in the present case.
to the wrong parties. Worried by such news he left for Sorsogon the
the juridical standing of the
following day to locate the real claimants.
crime of falsification by The fact that the information
imprudence since in falsifying does not allege that the
He found Espiridion too weak and too old to get out of the house and public or mercantile document,
falsification was committed with
saw Rosalina (I think this should be Rosanna) in the school where of intent to cause damage is not imprudence is of no moment for
she was teaching and confirmed that the old mans check was never required because what the law,
here this deficiency appears
claimed by them. seeks to repress is the prejudice supplied by the evidence
to the public confidence in these submitted by appellant himself
ISSUE (CRIMPRO): WON Samson can be convicted of the crime of documents. and the result has proven
estafa through falsification by imprudence despite the fact that beneficial to him. Certainly,
the information filed against him charges only a willful act of The rule regarding variance having alleged that the
falsification and contains no reference to any act of imprudence between allegation and proof in a falsification has been willful, it
on his part- YES criminal case, is: "When there is would be incongrous to allege at
variance between the offense the same time that it was
Appellant was, or must have been aware that the claim was for a charged in the complaint or committed with imprudence for
sizeable amount, totalling over twelve thousand pesos, and ordinary information, and that proved or a charge of criminal intent is
prudence required that he should satisfy himself by all proper and established by the evidence, and incompatible with the concept of
adequate means of the identity of the persons claiming said amounts, the offense as charged, is negligence.
included in or necessarily
55
STA. RITA V. CA
FELICIANO, J.:
requirement for perfecting an legislative authority Under
Petitioner Sta. Rita was charged in the RTC with violating Section appeal within the reglementary Section 4 (a) of R.A. No.
2(a) in relation to Sections 22(d) and 28(e) of Republic Act No. 1161, period laid down by law, must be
as amended, otherwise known as the Social Security Law. strictly followed as they are 1161, as amended, which reads
considered indispensable as follows:
interdictions against needless
The Information alleged that petitioner, "as President/General delays and for orderly discharge
Manager of B. Sta. Rita Co., Inc. a compulsorily (sic) covered employer 5 Sec. 4. Powers and Duties of the
under the Social Security Law, as amended, did then and there of judicial business. Petitioner's Commission. For the
willfully and unlawfully fail, neglect and refuse and still fails, neglects failure to seasonably file the attainment of its main objectives
and refuses to remit to the Social Security System contributions for Petition and its failure to comply as set forth in section two hereof,
SSS, Medicare and Employees Compensation for its covered with the aforequoted Circulars of the Commission shall have the
employees." the Court necessitate the denial following powers and duties:
of the Petition.
Petitioner Sta. Rita moved to dismiss said criminal case To adopt, amend and rescind,
Besides, even if the Petition had subject to the approval of the
been filed on time and had President, such rules and
The RTC sustained petitioner's motion and dismissed the criminal complied with the Circulars, it
case filed against him. It ruled that the Memorandum of Agreement would still have to be denied as regulations as may be necessary
entered into between the Department of Labor and Employment to carry out the provisions and
petitioner has failed to show that purposes of this Act.
("DOLE") and the Social Security System ("SSS") extending the respondent appellate court
coverage of Social Security, Medical Care and Employment committed any reversible error
Compensation laws to Filipino seafarers on board foreign vessels was in rendering the assailed What the Memorandum of
null and void as it was entered into by the Administrator of the SSS decision. Agreement did was to record the
without the sanction of the Commission and approval of the understanding between the SSS
President of the Philippines, in contravention of Section 4 (a) of R.A. on the one hand and the DOLE on
No. 1161, as amended. WON THE INFORMATION the other hand that the latter
AGAINST PETITIONER IS would include among the
SUFFICIENT- YES provisions of the Standard
The People, through the Solicitor General, filed in the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing Contract of Employment
the order of dismissal issued by the trial court. The Court agrees with the CA required in case of overseas
that the Information filed against employment, a stipulation
petitioner was sufficient as it providing for coverage of the
Respondent appellate court granted the petition. clearly stated the designation of Filipino seafarer by the SSS.
the offense by the statute, i.e.
Thereafter, petitioner filed in this Court a motion for extension of violation of the Social Security The Memorandum of Agreement
thirty (30) days from the expiration of reglementary period within Law, and the acts or omissions is not an implementing rule or
which to file a petition for review on certiorari. The Court granted the complained of as constituting the regulation of the Social Security
motion and gave petitioner until 9 June 1995 to file the petition with offense, i.e., petitioner's failure to Commission which, under
warning that no further extension will be given. remit his contributions to the Section 4 (a) abovequoted, is
SSS. The CA found that there is subject to the approval of the
Despite the warning, the petition was filed only on 13 June 1995 or prima facie evidence to support President. Indeed, as a matter of
four (4) days after the due date. Moreover, it failed to comply with the allegations in the Information strict law, the participation of the
requirement no. 2 of Circular No. 1-88, as amended and Circular No. and to warrant the prosecution SSS in the establishment by the
19-91 of the Court as it did not contain an affidavit of service of of petitioner. DOLE of a uniform stipulation in
copies thereof to respondents. It was only on 14 July 1995, through the Standard Contract of
an ex-parte manifestation, that the affidavit of service was belatedly WON THE QUESTIONED Employment for Filipino
submitted to this Court. MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT seafarers was not necessary; the
(DOLE-SSS) IS VALID- YES Memorandum of Agreement
In the Petition for Review, petitioner Sta. Rita contends that the related simply to the
Filipino seafarers recruited by B. Sta. Rita Co. and deployed on board Contrary to the trial court's administrative convenience of
foreign vessels outside the Philippines are exempt from the coverage finding, the Memorandum of the two (2) agencies of
of R.A. No. 1161 under Section 8 (j) (5) thereof Agreement was approved by the government.
Social Security Commission per
WON THE PETITION MUST FAIL DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH the Commission's Resolution No. The Standard Contract of
THE PROCEDURAL RULES YES 437, dated 14 July 1988. Upon Employment to be entered into
the other hand, the between foreign shipowners and
Memorandum of Agreement is Filipino seafarers is the
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the right to appeal is a
not a rule or regulation enacted instrument by which the former
statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must
4
by the Commission in the express their assent to the
comply with the rules. These rules, particularly the statutory exercise of the latter's quasi- inclusion of the latter in the
coverage of the Social Security Act. In other words, the extension of generally expressed their It is, finally, worthy of special
the coverage of the Social Security System to Filipino seafarers arises conformity to the inclusion of note that by extending the
by virtue of the assent given in the contract of employment signed by Filipino seafarers within the benefits of the Social Security Act
employer and seafarer; that same contract binds petitioner Sta. Rita coverage of the Social Security to Filipino seafarers on board
or B. Sta. Rita Company, who is solidarily liable with the foreign Act even prior to the signing of foreign vessels, the individual
shipowners/employers. the DOLE-SSS Memorandum of employment agreements entered
Agreement. into with the stipulation for such
It may be noted that foreign shipowners and manning agencies had coverage contemplated in the
DOLE-SSS
56
Memorandum of Agreement, merely give effect to the constitutional mandate to the State to afford protection to labor whether "local or overseas."
(CRIMPRO) WON THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST STA. RITA CONSTITUTES DOUBLE JEOPARDY-NO
The Court of Appeals properly held that the reinstatement of the criminal case against petitioner did not violate his right against double jeopardy
10
since the dismissal of the information by the trial court had been effected at his own instance. There are only two (2) instances where double
jeopardy will attach notwithstanding the fact that the case was dismissed with the express consent of the accused. The first is where the ground
for dismissal is insufficiency of evidence for the prosecution; and the second is where the criminal proceedings have been unreasonably
11
prolonged in violation of the accused's right to speedy trial. Neither situation exists in the case at bar. There is no legal impediment to the
reinstatement of Criminal Case No. Q-92-35426 against petitioner Sta. Rita. (AS IN ITO LANG ANG DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, ARGH.)
57
ANAMER SALAZAR V. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.:
opportunity to make such while in the civil aspect of the
On June 11, 1997, an Information for estafa was filed against herein reservation. action, the quantum of evidence
petitioner Anamer D. Salazar and co-accused Nena Jaucian Timario is preponderance of evidence.
with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City. (b) The criminal action for Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 1997 Rules of Criminal
22 shall be deemed to include Procedure, the said rules shall
petitioner Anamer Salazar purchased 300 cavans of rice from J.Y. govern the procedure to be
Brothers Marketing Corporation, through Mr. Jerson Yao. As payment the corresponding civil action. observed in action, civil or
for these cavans of rice, the petitioner gave the private complainant No reservation to file such civil criminal.
Check No. 067481 drawn against the Prudential Bank, Legazpi City action separately shall be
Branch, dated October 15, 1996, by one Nena Jaucian Timario in the allowed.
amount of P214,000. The prosecution presents its
The criminal action has a dual evidence not only to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond
Jerson Yao accepted the check upon the petitioners assurance that it purpose, namely, the punishment reasonable doubt but also to
was a good check. The cavans of rice were picked up the next day by of the offender and indemnity to prove the civil liability of the
the petitioner. Upon presentment, the check was dishonored because the offended party. The dominant accused to the offended party.
it was drawn under a closed account and primordial objective of the
criminal action is the After the prosecution has rested
punishment of the offender. The its case, the accused shall adduce
(Account Closed). civil action is merely incidental its evidence not only on the
to and consequent to the criminal but also on the civil
The petitioner was informed of such dishonor. She replaced the conviction of the accused. The aspect of the case. At the
Prudential Bank check with Check No. 365704 drawn against the reason for this is that criminal conclusion of the trial, the court
Solid Bank, Legazpi Branch, which, however, was returned with the actions are primarily intended to should render judgment not only
word DAUD (Drawn Against Uncollected Deposit). vindicate an outrage against the on the criminal aspect of the case
sovereignty of the state and to but also on the civil aspect
thereof.
After the prosecution rested its case, the petitioner filed a Demurrer impose the appropriate penalty
to Evidence with Leave of Court alleging that she could not be guilty for the vindication of the
of the crime as charged. disturbance to the social order In case the judgment is of
caused by the offender. On the acquittal, it shall state whether
the evidence of the prosecution
The prosecution filed its comment/opposition to the petitioners
other hand, the action between absolutely failed to prove the
demurrer to evidence.
the private complainant and the guilt of the accused or merely
accused is intended solely to failed to prove his guilt beyond
TC: rendered judgment acquitting the petitioner of the crime charged reasonable doubt. In either case,
indemnify the former.
but ordering her to remit to the private complainant the amount of the judgment shall determine if
the check as payment for her purchase. the act or omission from which
Unless the offended party waives the civil liability might arise did
the civil action or reserves the not exist.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Anamer D. Salazar is
right to institute it separately or
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged but is hereby held liable for
institutes the civil action prior to
the value of the 300 bags of rice. Accused Anamer D. Salazar is The acquittal of the accused does
the criminal action, there are two
therefore ordered to pay J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation the sum not prevent a judgment against
actions involved in a criminal
of P214,000.00. Costs against the accused. him on the civil aspect of the case
case. The first is the criminal
action for the punishment of the where (a) the acquittal is based
In her petition at bar, the petitioner assails the orders of the trial offender. The parties are the on reasonable doubt as only
court claiming that after her demurrer to evidence was granted by People of the Philippines as the preponderance of evidence is
the trial court, she was denied due process as she was not given the plaintiff and the accused. In a required; (b) where the court
opportunity to adduce evidence to prove that she was not civilly criminal action, the private declared that the liability of the
liable to the private respondent. The petitioner invokes the complainant is merely a witness accused is only civil; (c) where
applicability of Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in this case, for the State on the criminal the civil liability of the accused
contending that before being adjudged liable to the private offended aspect of the action. The second does not arise from or is not
party, she should have been first accorded the procedural relief is the civil action arising from the based upon the crime of which
granted in Rule 33. delict. The private complainant is the accused was acquitted. .
the plaintiff and the accused is
ISSUE: WON SALAZAR SHOULD BE GRANTED THE PROCEDURAL the defendant. There is a merger If the accused is acquitted on
RELIEF IN RULE 33- YES of the trial of the two cases to reasonable doubt but the court
avoid multiplicity of suits. renders judgment on the civil
aspect of the criminal case, the
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action
prosecution cannot appeal from
shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence The quantum of evidence on the
the judgment of acquittal as it
and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable criminal aspect of the case is
proof beyond reasonable doubt, would place the accused in
double jeopardy. However, the aggrieved party, the offended party or If the court denies the demurrer prosecution.
the accused or both may appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect to evidence filed with leave of
of the case within the period therefor. court, the accused may adduce If demurrer is granted and the
evidence in his defense. When accused is acquitted by the court,
After the prosecution has rested its case, the accused has the option the demurrer to evidence is filed the accused has the right to
either to (a) file a demurrer to evidence with or without leave of without leave of court, the adduce evidence on the civil
court under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal accused waives his right to aspect of the case unless the
Procedure, or to (b) adduce his evidence unless he waives the same present evidence and submits court also declares that the act or
the case for judgment on the omission
basis of the evidence for the
58
from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only granting the demurrer to
evidence of the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability of the accused to the private offended party, said judgment on the civil
aspect of the case would be a nullity for the reason that the constitutional right of the accused to due process is thereby violated
The principles find universal acceptance and are tersely expressed in the oft-quoted statement that procedural due process cannot possibly be
met without a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
This is so because when the accused files a demurrer to evidence, the accused has not yet adduced evidence both on the criminal and civil aspects
of the case. The only evidence on record is the evidence for the prosecution.
59
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., vs. PANFILO M. LACSON.

MAY 28, 2002
of the warrants, and (3) dismiss conducting any proceeding or
On May 18, 1995, then PNP Director-General Recaredo Sarmiento the cases should the trial court hearing in Criminal Cases Nos.
find lack of probable cause. 01-101102 to 01-101112.
announced, in a press conference, the killing of eleven (11) members
of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a shootout with police The records of the case before us On August 24, 2001, the Court of
elements near the fly-over along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon are not clear whether the private Appeals (Special Third Division),
City at about 4:00 A.M. that day. offended parties were notified of rendered the now assailed
the hearing on March 22, 1999 Decision. It characterized the
held by Judge Agnir to resolve termination of Criminal Cases
On May 22, 1995, morning papers carried the news that SPO2 the motions filed by respondent Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-
Eduardo delos Reyes had claimed that the killing of the eleven (11) Lacson and the other accused.
gang members was a rub-out or summary execution and not a
shootout. 81689 as provisional dismissal,
On March 27, 2001, PNP Director and considered Criminal Cases
Leandro R. Mendoza indorsed to
On May 26, 1995, SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz, another CIC investigator, the Department of Justice the
executed an affidavit corroborating the material allegations of delos new affidavits of P/Insp. Ysmael Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as
Reyes. Dela Cruz claimed that she was with delos Reyes from the mere revivals of the same.
time the eleven (11) KBG members were arrested up to the time they Applying Section 8, Rule 117 of
were killed in Commonwealth Avenue. Yu and P/S Insp. Abelardo Ramos the 2000 Revised Rules of
regarding the Kuratong Baleleng Criminal Procedure, it dismissed
incident for preliminary the criminal cases against the
On May 31, 1995, Armando Capili, a reporter of Remate, executed an investigation. On the strength of respondent
affidavit stating that he was present when the KBG members were this indorsement, Secretary of
arrested in Superville Subdivision. Justice Hernando B. Perez ISSUE: whether Section 8, Rule
formed a panel to investigate the 117 bars the filing of the eleven
On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job A. Mayo, PNP Director for matter.. (11) informations against the
Investigation, filed murder charges with the Office of the respondent Lacson involving
Ombudsman against ninety-seven (97) officers and personnel of On May 28, 2001, respondent the killing of some members of
ABRITFG. The next-of-kin of the slain KBG members also filed Lacson, et al., invoking, among the Kuratong Baleleng gang-
murder charges against the same officers and personnel. others, their constitutional right NO (AT LEAST NOT YET)
against double jeopardy, filed a
On November 2, 1995, the Ombudsman filed before the petition for prohibition with Like any other favorable
Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for MURDER, docketed as application for temporary procedural rule, this new rule
Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057, against respondent Panfilo M. restraining order and/or writ of can be given retroactive effect.
Lacson and twenty-five (25) other accused. preliminary injunction with the However, this Court cannot rule
Regional Trial Court of Manila, on this jugular issue due to the
Upon motion of the respondent, the criminal cases were remanded to primarily to enjoin the State lack of sufficient factual bases.
the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. On March 1, 1996, Amended prosecutors from conducting the Thus, there is need of proof of
Informations were filed against the same twenty-six (26) suspects preliminary investigation. the following facts, viz: (1)
but the participation of respondent Lacson was downgraded from whether the provisional
principal to accessory (TACKLED IN LACSON On June 6, 2001, eleven (11) dismissal of the cases had the
Informations for murder express consent of the accused;
EXEC. SEC.) involving the killing of the same (2) whether it was ordered by
members of the Kuratong the court after notice to the
Baleleng gang were filed before offended party, (3) whether the
Before the accused could be arraigned, prosecution witnesses
the Regional Trial Court of 2-year period to revive has
Eduardo de los Reyes, Corazon de la Cruz, Armando Capili and Jane
Quezon. The new Informations already lapsed, and (4) whether
Gomez recanted their affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson
charged as principals thirty-four there is any justification for the
in the murder of the KBG members.
(34) people, including filing of the cases beyond the 2-
respondent Lacson and his year period.
On the other hand, private complainants Myrna Abalora, Leonora twenty-five (25) other co-
Amora, Nenita Alap-ap, Imelda Montero, Margarita Redillas, accused. The criminal cases were There is no uncertainty with
Carmelita Elcamel and Rolando Siplon also executed their respective assigned to Judge Ma. Theresa L.
respect to the fact that the
affidavits of desistance declaring that they were no longer interested Yadao.
provisional dismissal of the cases
to prosecute these cases.
against respondent Lacson bears
The Court of Appeals issued a his express consent. It was
Due to these developments, the twenty-six (26) accused, including temporary restraining order respondent Lacson himself who
respondent Lacson, filed five separate but identical motions to (1) enjoining Judge Yadao from moved to dismiss the subject
make a judicial determination of the existence of probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest or cases for lack of probable cause
the issuance of warrants of arrest; (2) hold in abeyance the issuance
before then Judge Agnir, hence, it is beyond argument that their 8, Rule 117 was not tackled by Quezon City presided by Judge
dismissal bears his express consent. the litigants at the RTC level. Yadao. There was hardly any
proceeding conducted in the case
The records of the case, however, do not reveal with equal clarity and Nor was the fact of notice to the for respondent Lacson
conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties were given offended parties the subject of immediately filed a petition for
before the cases against the respondent Lacson were dismissed by proof after the eleven (11) certiorari in the appellate court
then Judge Agnir. informations for murder against challenging, among others, the
respondent Lacson and company authority of Judge Yadao to
The issue of whether or not the reinvestigation is barred by Section were revived in the RTC of
60 In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence on
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) the various requirements to determine the
applicability of Section 8, Rule 117, this Court is not
in a position to rule whether or not the re-filing of
the cases for multiple murder against respondent
entertain the revived informations for multiple murder against him. Lacson should be enjoined. Fundamental fairness
requires that both the prosecution and the
This is not to be wondered at. The applicability of Section 8, Rule 117 was respondent Lacson should be afforded the
never considered in the trial court. It was in the Court of Appeals where opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence on
respondent Lacson raised for the first time the argument that Section 8, the presence or absence of the predicate facts upon
Rule 117 bars the revival of the multiple murder cases against him. which the application of the new rule depends.
Indeed, the records of this case are inconclusive on the factual issue of DISPOSITIVE: case at bar is remanded to the RTC -
whether the multiple murder cases against respondent Lacson are being Quezon City, Branch 81 so that the State
revived within or beyond the 2-year bar. The reckoning date of the 2-year prosecutors and the respondent Lacson can adduce
bar has to be first determined - - - evidence and be heard on whether the
requirements of Section 8, Rule 117 have been
complied with on the basis of the evidence of which
whether it is from the date of the Order of then Judge Agnir dismissing
the trial court should make a ruling on whether the
the cases or from the dates the Order were received by the various
Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to
offended parties or from the date of the effectivity of the new rule.
01-101112 should be dismissed or not. Pending the
ruling, the trial court is restrained from issuing any
If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, the State must be given warrant of arrest against the respondent
the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with said timeline. The new
rule fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in
prosecuting cases already filed in courts. It can therefore present
compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year bar. AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |
Martin | Vien
61
PEOPLE V LACSON
APRIL 1, 2003
case may be revived only within justice to every man and to assist
Before the Court is the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the the periods provided in the new the court in dispensing that
Resolution dated May 28, 2002 rule. On the other hand, if a justice.
criminal case is provisionally
dismissed without the express In this case, the respondent has
ISSUE: WON SECTION 8, RULE 117 OF THE REVISED RULES OF consent of the accused or over
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL CASES NOS. his objection, the new rule would failed to prove that the first and
Q-99-81679 TO Q-99-81689- NO second requisites of the first
not apply. The case may be paragraph of the new rule were
revived or refiled even beyond present when Judge Agnir, Jr.
Having invoked Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal the prescribed periods subject to dismissed Criminal Cases Nos. Q-
Procedure before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and before the the right of the accused to 99-81679 to Q-99-81689.
Court of Appeals, the respondent is burdened to establish the oppose the same on the ground Irrefragably, the prosecution did
essential requisites of the first paragraph thereof, namely: of double jeopardy or that such not file any motion for the
revival or refiling is barred by the provisional dismissal of the said
the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the statute of limitations. criminal cases. For his part, the
accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; respondent merely filed a motion
or both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional The case may be revived by the for judicial determination of
dismissal of the case; State within the time-bar either probable cause and for
by the refiling of the Information examination of prosecution
the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional or by the filing of a new witnesses.
dismissal of the case;
Information for the same offense The respondent did not pray for
the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the or an offense necessarily the dismissal, provisional or
case provisionally; included therein. There would be otherwise, of Criminal Cases Nos.
no need of a new preliminary Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689.
investigation. However, in a case Neither did he ever agree,
4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of
wherein after the provisional impliedly or expressly, to a mere
provisional dismissal of the case. The foregoing requirements are
dismissal of a criminal case, the provisional dismissal of the
conditions sine qua non to the application of the time-bar in the
original witnesses of the cases.
second paragraph of the new rule.
prosecution or some of them
may have recanted their The respondents admissions
The raison d etre for the requirement of the express consent of the testimonies or may have died or
made in the course of the
accused to a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him may no longer be available and proceedings in the Court of
from subsequently asserting that the revival of the criminal case will new witnesses for the State have
Appeals are binding and
place him in double jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense emerged, a new preliminary
conclusive on him. The
necessarily included therein. investigation must be conducted respondent is barred from
before an Information is refiled repudiating his admissions
Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order or a new Information is filed. A absent evidence of palpable
of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the issuance new preliminary investigation is mistake in making such
thereof without the case having been revived, the provision should also required if aside from the admissions.
be construed to mean that the order of dismissal shall become original accused, other persons
permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal on the are charged under a new
criminal complaint for the same To apply the new rule in Criminal
public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without the
Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-
criminal case having been revived. The public prosecutor cannot be offense or necessarily included
81689 would be to add to or
expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy therein; or if under a new
criminal complaint, the original make exceptions from the new
of the order of dismissal.
charge has been upgraded; or if rule which are not expressly or
under a new criminal complaint, impliedly included therein. This
Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or the Court cannot and should not
the criminal liability of the
in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no do.
accused is upgraded from that as
inference or implication to supply its meaning. Where the accused
an accessory to that as a
writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of
principal. The accused must be The Court also agrees with the
the case No objection or With my conformity, the writing amounts to
accorded the right to submit petitioners contention that no
express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case.
counter- affidavits and evidence. notice of any motion for the
The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a motion for a
After all, the fiscal is not called provisional dismissal of Criminal
provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to object to a
by the Rules of Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-
provisional dismissal does not amount to express consent.
81689 or of the hearing thereon
Court to wait in ambush; the role was served on the heirs of the
A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a case is an victims at least three days before
of a fiscal is not mainly to
express consent to such provisional dismissal. If a criminal case is said hearing as mandated by
prosecute but essentially to do
provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused, the Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of
Court. It must be borne in mind that in crimes involving private prosecutor who in turn must proof of such service must be
interests, the new rule requires that the offended party or parties or relay the notice to the offended shown during the hearing on the
the heirs of the victims must be given adequate a priori notice of any party or the heirs of the victim to motion, otherwise, the
motion for the provisional dismissal of the criminal case. Such notice enable them to confer with him requirement of the new rule will
may be served on the offended party or the heirs of the victim before the hearing or appear in become illusory
through the private prosecutor, if there is one, or through the public court during the hearing. The
62
CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash) The Court agrees with the respondent that
procedural laws may be applied retroactively. In
Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, this Court held
Since the conditions sine qua non for the application of the new rule were that:Statutes regulating the procedure of the
not present when Judge Agnir, Jr. issued his resolution, the State is not courts will be construed as applicable to actions
barred by the time limit set forth in the second paragraph of Section 8 of pending and undetermined at the time of their
Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State can thus passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that
revive or refile Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 or file sense and to that extent. The fact that procedural
new Informations for multiple murder against the respondent. statutes may somehow affect the litigants rights
may not preclude their retroactive application to
pending actions. The retroactive application of
WON THE TIME-BAR IN SECTION 8, RULE 117 OF THE REVISED RULES procedural laws is not violative of any right of a
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY- NO person who may feel that he is adversely affected.
Nor is the retroactive application of procedural
The new rule is not a statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations are statutes constitutionally objectionable. The reason
construed as acts of grace, and a surrender by the sovereign of its right to is that as a general rule no vested right may attach
prosecute or of its right to prosecute at its discretion to, nor arise from, procedural laws. It has been held
that a person has no vested right in any particular
On the other hand, the time-bar under Section 8 of Rule 117 is akin to a remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the
special procedural limitation qualifying the right of the State to prosecute application to the trial of his case, whether civil or
making the time-bar an essence of the given right or as an inherent part criminal, of any other than the existing rules of
thereof, so that the lapse of the time-bar operates to extinguish the right procedure. X
of the State to prosecute the accused.
DISPOSITIVE: M.R. GRANTED; RTC DIRECTED TO
The time-bar under the new rule does not reduce the periods under FORTHWITH PROCEED WITH THE CRIMINAL
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, a substantive law. It is but a CASES
limitation of the right of the State to revive a criminal case against the
accused after the Information had been filed but subsequently
provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused. Upon
the lapse of the timeline under the new rule, the State is presumed, albeit AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |
disputably, to have abandoned or waived its right to revive the case and Martin | Vien
prosecute the accused.
63
PEOPLE V. LACSON
OCTOBER 7, 2003
The absence of a provision in considerably less than two years
Before the Court are the following motions of the respondent, to wit: Section 8 giving it prospective to do so.
(a) Omnibus Motion; (b) Motion for Reconsideration; (c) Supplement application only does not
to Motion for Reconsideration; (d) Motion To Set for Oral Arguments proscribe the prospective In this case, when the Court
application thereof; nor does it approved Section 8, it intended
imply that the Court intended the the new rule to be applied
RESPONDENT asserts that pursuant to a long line of jurisprudence new rule to be given retroactive
and a long-standing judicial practice in applying penal law, Section 8, and prospective effect. If the prospectively and not
Rule 117 of the RRCP should be applied prospectively and retroactively, for if the intention
statutory purpose is clear, the of the Court were otherwise, it
retroactively without reservations, only and solely on the basis of its provisions of the law should be
being favorable to the accused. He asserts that case law on the would defeat the very purpose
construed as is conducive to for which it was intended,
retroactive application of penal laws should likewise apply to fairness and justice, and in
criminal procedure, it being a branch of criminal law. namely, to give the State a period
harmony with the general spirit of two years from notice of the
and policy of the rule. It should provisional dismissal of criminal
The respondent insists that Section 8 was purposely crafted and be construed so as cases with the express consent of
included as a new provision to reinforce the constitutional right of the accused. It would be a denial
the accused to a speedy disposition of his case. Accordingly, not to defeat but to carry out of the States right to due process
prospective application thereof would in effect give the petitioners such end or purpose. A statute and a travesty of justice for the
more than two years from March 29, 1999 within which to revive the derives its vitality from the Court to apply the new rule
criminal cases, thus violating the respondents right to due process purpose for which it is approved. retroactively in the present case
and equal protection of the law. To construe it in a manner that as the respondent insists,
disregards or defeats such considering that the criminal
ISSUE: APPLICATION OF THE TIME-BAR RULE- PROSPECTIVE OR purpose is to nullify or destroy cases were provisionally
RETROACTIVE?- ONLY PROSPECTIVE. RAAR. the law. In Cometa v. Court of dismissed by Judge Agnir, Jr. on
Appeals, this Court ruled that March 29, 1999 before the new
The time-bar under the new rule was fixed by the Court to excise the "the spirit rather than the letter rule took effect on December 1,
malaise that plagued the administration of the criminal justice of the statute determines its 2000. A retroactive application of
system for the benefit of the State and the accused; not for the construction; hence, a statute the time-bar will result in
accused only. must be read according to its absurd, unjust and oppressive
spirit or intent." While we may consequences to the State and to
not read into the law a purpose the victims of crimes and their
The Court emphasized in its assailed resolution that: In the new rule
that is not there, we nevertheless heirs.
in question, it has fixed a time-bar of one year or two years for the
revival of criminal cases provisionally dismissed with the express have the right to read out of it the
consent of the accused and with a priori notice to the offended party. reason for its enactment. In DISPOSITIVE: respondent
In fixing the time-bar, the Court balanced the societal interests and doing so, we defer not to the Panfilo M. Lacsons Omnibus
those of the accused for the orderly and speedy disposition of "letter that killeth" but to the Motion and Motion to Set for
criminal cases with minimum prejudice to the State and the accused. "spirit that vivifieth, to give effect Oral Arguments are DENIED. The
It took into account the substantial rights of both the State and of theto the lawmakers will."X respondents Motion for
accused to due process. The Court believed that the time limit is a Reconsideration and its
reasonable period for the State to revive provisionally dismissed Supplement are
The Court agrees with the
cases with the consent of the accused and notice to the offended petitioners that to apply the
parties. time-bar retroactively so that the DENIED WITH FINALITY. The
two-year period commenced to Executive Judge of the Regional
The Court approved Section 8 pursuant to its power under Article run on March 31, 1999 when the Trial Court of Quezon City is
VIII, Section 5, paragraph 5 of the Constitution. This constitutional public prosecutor received his hereby DIRECTED to
grant to promulgate rules carries with it the power, inter alia, to copy of the resolution of Judge CONSOLIDATE Criminal Cases
determine whether to give the said rules prospective or retroactive Agnir, Jr. dismissing the criminal Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112
effect. Moreover, under Rule 144 of the Rules of Court, the Court may cases is inconsistent with the and to RE-RAFFLE the same with
not apply the rules to actions pending before it if in its opinion their intendment of the new rule. dispatch to one of the branches
application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which Instead of giving the State two of the Regional Trial Court of
event, the former procedure shall apply. years to revive provisionally Quezon City designated as a
dismissed cases, the State had special court, exclusively to try
and decide heinous crimes.
64
CONDRADA V. PEOPLE
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
violated by the postponements of In the present case, it is clear
Petitioner was charged with rape. When he was arraigned on the trial on several instances, but from the records that the
February 26, 1999, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge because petitioner through dismissal ordered by the trial
against him. counsel moved that the case be court on May 31, 1999 was a
dismissed at least even temporary dismissal of the case,
temporarily to which the public and not a permanent dismissal
On March 31, 1999, the date set by the trial court for the initial prosecutor interposed no on the ground that the right of
hearing, the prosecution moved that the same be postponed due to objection. The Solicitor General the accused to speedy trial had
the absence of the complainant and her witnesses. The hearing was points out that the prosecution been violated by the delay in the
reset on April 29, 1999. moved for the postponement of prosecution of the said case. The
the trial several times in good trial court apparently denied
On April 29, 1999, the prosecution again moved to postpone the faith and for valid reasons. He petitioners motion to have
hearing due to the absence of the complainant and her witnesses. likewise argues that the revival Criminal
of the case does not place the
Petitioner objected to the motion on the ground that his right to petitioner twice in jeopardy for Case No. 10770 dismissed on the
speedy trial was being violated by such postponements. The trial the same offense because the ground of his right to speedy trial
court granted the prosecutions motion and reset the hearing on dismissal of the case on May 31, when despite said motion made
1999 was made at petitioners in open court on April 29, 1999,
instance. it ordered the resetting of the
May 31, 1999. It also directed that the subpoenae to the complainant
and her witnesses be coursed through the National Bureau of hearing of the case on May 31,
Investigation which handled the investigation of the case. ISSUES: 1999. In subsequently granting
petitioners request for the
A.Whether or not the dismissal dismissal of Criminal Case No.
During the hearing on May 31, 1999, the prosecution requested for
of Criminal Case No. 10770 by 10770 on May 31, 1999, the trial
another postponement. Petitioner moved for at least a temporary
the trial court in its Order of court expressly stated that the
dismissal of the case. The prosecution manifested that it would not
June 25, 1999 is permanent in same was subject to
object to a temporary dismissal. Thus, on the same date, the trial
character so as to operate as reinstatement within thirty days
court issued an order temporarily dismissing the case.
an acquittal of the petitioner from the date of the temporary
for the crime charged- NO dismissal.
On June 22, 1999, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reinstatement
and/or Revival of Criminal Case No. 10770. Appended to said motion
Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid
was the affidavit of private complainant that the subpoenae sent to B.Whether or not the
reinstatement of Criminal Case that the dismissal of Criminal
her for the trial of the case did not reach her because in the
No. 10770 places the petitioner Case No. 10770 on May 31, 1999
meantime she had transferred her residence.
in double jeopardy.- NO was provisional or temporary,
without prejudice to the revival
The trial court set the hearing on the motion for reinstatement on thereof within thirty days from
June 25, 1999. A permanent dismissal of a the date of dismissal. Thus, the
criminal case may refer to the Court finds that the
termination of the case on the reinstatement thereof on June
Petitioner opposed the motion contending that the revival or
merits, resulting in either the 25, 1999 did not place petitioner
reinstatement of the case will place him in double jeopardy. On
conviction or acquittal of the in double jeopardy.
September 29, 1999, the Court issued a resolution reinstating the
accused; to the dismissal of the
said case and reiterating the issuance of a warrant of arrest for
case due to the prosecutions
petitioner. The proscription against double
failure to prosecute; or to the
dismissal thereof on the ground jeopardy presupposes that an
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said resolution of unreasonable delay in the accused has been previously
insisting that the reinstatement of the case will place him in double proceedings, in violation of the charged with an offense, and the
jeopardy. accuseds right to speedy case against him is terminated
disposition or trial of the case either by his acquittal or
against him. In contrast, a conviction, or dismissed in any
On January 14, 2000, the court issued a resolution denying the
other manner without his
motion for reconsideration of petitioner. Consequently, Criminal Case provisional dismissal of a
criminal case is a dismissal consent. As a general rule, the
No. 10770 is still pending before the trial court.
without prejudice to the following requisites must be
reinstatement thereof before the present for double jeopardy to
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition on February 1, 2000. attach: (1) a valid indictment,
order of dismissal becomes final
He claims that Criminal Case No. 10770 cannot be revived because
or to the subsequent filing of a
the dismissal of the case on May 31, 1999 is permanent in character,
new information for the offense before a court of competent
having been made in consideration of his right to speedy trial.
within the periods allowed under jurisdiction, (3) the arraignment
the Revised Penal Code or the of the accused, (4) a valid plea
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that the case was Revised Rules of Court. entered by him, and
dismissed not because petitioners right to speedy trial has been
the acquittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or accuseds right to speedy trial. earlier stated, said case was
termination of the case against him without his express consent. provisionally dismissed by the
However, there are two exceptions to the foregoing rule, and double Petitioner is not in danger of trial court upon his motion. Thus,
jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the case was with the being twice put in jeopardy with the requirement that the
consent of the accused: first, when there is insufficiency of evidence the reinstatement of Criminal dismissal of the case must be
to support the charge against him; and second, where there has been Case No. 10770 because as without the consent of the
an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accused is not present in
65
this case. Neither does the case fall under any of the aforecited
exceptions. The prosecution had not yet presented evidence at the time
the case was dismissed on May 31, 1999. Moreover, as previously
explained, said dismissal was temporary in nature, as the case was
subject to reinstatement within thirty days from the date of dismissal

00 Crimpro Bail Compiled Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

00 Crimpro Bail Compiled Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

00 Crimpro Bail Compiled Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

CrimPro (Bail, Motion to Quash)

FELICIANO VS. PASICOLAN

MIRANDA VS. TULIAO 486 SCRA 377 (2006)

CORTES VS CATRAL 279 SCRA 1 (1997)

AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin | Vien

PEOPLE VS. MANALLO 400 SCRA 129 (2003)

Art. III, 14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentia allows

SERAPIO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

PEOPLE V SAN DIEGO

Sanchez, J; Sept. 29, 1967

Furthermore, reading of his petition fails of an averment that the

We note that the order of September 15, 1964 spoke of properties

Padilla, J; May 24, 1988

Davide, Jr., J; January 27, 1997

It is clear from this Section that a motion to quash may be based on

As a general proposition the court held in People v. De la Rosa that a

Garcia cannot be allowed to disown statements he made under oath

LOPEZ v. CITY JUDGE

Dizon, J; Oct. 29, 1966

DISPOSITION judgment is hereby rendered declaring

Bellosillo, J; Jan. 28, 1997

29 subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be

FACTS Judge Navarro denied both Petitioner filed the petition

People v. City Court of Manila Br. VI

Judge Villalon dismissed the complaint on basis of prescription

Held/Ratio: NO. PP v. City Court of Manila

People vs. Lagui 171 SCRA 305

He was charged with a violation under BP 22 and estafa

Upon appeal of the accused, the CA reversed the estafa conviction

W/N info was fatally defective? NO

Issuance of check for account or for value

At time of issue, maker does not have sufficient funds or credit

W/N if it wasnt, can he still be convicted? NO

People v. Pilpa 79 SCRA 82

W/N lewd designs should be alledged in complaint?

Petition granted, order set aside.

Ada v. Virola 172 SCRA 336

W/N there is double jeopardy? NO

People v. Relova 148 SCRA 304

THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES v. MARIA DEL CARMEN et al.

THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO YORAC

GEORGE MANANTAN, v. THE COURT of APPEALS, SPOUSES MARCELINO NICOLAS and

Private respondents argue that

Respondents counter that the As pointed out by the

ANAMER SALAZAR V. PEOPLE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., vs. PANFILO M. LACSON.

AJ | Amin | Cha | Janz | Julio |Martin | Vien

You might also like