Case Digests For Crimpro
Case Digests For Crimpro
Case Digests For Crimpro
BURGOS, SR. VS. CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney- General
No. L-64261 GR. No. 6287, December 1, 1911 20 Phil 523
December 26, 1984
Facts: defendants, may by timely application to the court, require the venue as to
their, if one, his lands to be changed to the province where their lands lie.
The plaintiff, a railroad company, began an action in the Court of In such case, the action as to all of the defendants not objecting would
First Instance of the province of Tarlac for the condemnation of certain real continue in the province where originally begun, but would be severed as
estate in said complaint to be located in the Province of Tarlac. After the to the objecting defendants and ordered continued before the court of the
filling of the complaint, the plaintiff took possession of the lands described appropriate province or provinces. Wherefore, the case was remanded to
therein, building its line, stations and terminals and put the same in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac with discretion to proceed with the
operation. Commissioners were appointed to appraise the value of the action according to law.
lands so taken. They held several sessions, took a considerable amount of Dela Cruz vs. Moya
evidence, and finally made their report. After the said report had been G.R. No. L- 65192, April 27, 1998 160SCRA 838
made and fled with the court, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants
that on a certain date it would make a motion to the court to dismiss Facts:
action, upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject
matter, having been recently ascertained by the plaintiff that the lands On February 23, 1979, Rodolfo Dela Cruz, a member of the Armed
sought to be condemned were situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija Forces of the Philippines was assigned to the Intelligence and Operations
instead of the Province of Tarlac as alleged in the complaint. Section and together with other PC men they received an order mission to
proceed to Barangay Pangi, Maco Sto. Tomas, Davao for the purpose of
verifying and apprehending person who are allegedly engaged in the illegal
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of one province has the cockfighting. In compliance with the said mission, they caught in flagrante
power and authority to take cognizance of an action by a railroad company the operators of said illegal cockfighting but they resisted the arrest. They
for the condemnation of real estate located in another province. left the place but brought with them pieces of evidence such as gaffs and
fighting cocks. The operators of the illegal cockfighting, including the
deceased Eusebio Cabilto followed the soldier on their way to the
Held: Headquarters. Fighting ensued and in the scuffle, Dela Cruz shot Cabilto.
The condemnation of a real estate by a railroad corporation is
governed by the special acts relating thereto, and the provisions of Section As a result, on August 2, 1979, Dela Cruz was charged of homicide
377 of the Code of Civil Procedure which have to do with the venue of an in the Court of First Instance of Davao. However, while the case is pending
action in condemnation proceedings generally are not applicable to the trial, PD. Nos. 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated by the President on
proceedings by a railroad company to condemn lands. Section 377 was January 16, 1981, vesting in court – martial jurisdiction over crimes
intended to cover simply actions relating to the condemnation of real committed by the members of the Armed Forces or of the Philippine
estate where the land involved is. It was not intended to meet a situation Constabulary in the performance of their duty.
presented by an action to condemn lands extending contiguously form one
end of the country to the other.
In an action taken by a railroad company to condemn lands, while,
with the consent of defendants, express or implied, the venue may be laid
and the action tried in any province selected by the plaintiff, it being one in Issue: Whether or not civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
which the lands sought to be condemned is located, nevertheless, the
defendants who have lands lying in another province, or any one of such
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction
over the case
Held:
Dela Cruz vs. Moya The court held that PD. 1822 and PD 1822-A are inapplicable to
G.R. No. L- 65192, April 27, 1998 160SCRA 838 the case however, General Order No. 59 shall apply. Wherefore, the
petition was GRANTED.
or stipulation.
People vs. Chupeco
G.R. No. L-
19568, March 31, 1964 10 SCRA 640 CALEON V AGUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Facts: FACTS:
Agus Development Corporation is the owner of a parcel of land
On February 2, 1951 Jose Chupeco was charged in the Court of denominated at Lealtad, Sampaloc, Manila, which it leased to petitioner
First Instance of Manila for executing a Chattel Mortgage of the SAWMILL Rita Caleon for a monthly rental of P180.00. Petitioner constructed on the
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT in favor of Agricultural and Industrial Bank lot leased a 4-door apartment building. Without the consent of the private
located in Bataan whose capital, assets, accounts, contracts and chooses in respondent, the petitioner sub-leased two of the four doors of the
action were subsequently transferred to Rehabilitation Finance Corp. apartment to Rolando Guevarra and Felicisima Estrada for a monthly rental
herein complainant with principal office in Manila. of P350.00 each. Upon learning of the sub-lease, private respondent
through counsel demanded in writing that the petitioner vacate the leased
Thereafter, without having fully satisfied the mortgage and during premises.
the term without the consent of the mortgagee bank and with intent to Agus filed a complaint for ejectment MTC of Manila, against the petitioner
defraud Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, pledge and encumber the said citing as ground therefor the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, Section
property to one Mateo Pinile. Accused moved to quash the information on 5, which is the unauthorized sub-leasing of part of the leased premises to
the ground that more than one offense is charged and that the court had third persons without securing the consent of the lessor within the
no jurisdiction required sixty (60)-day period from the promulgation of the new law (B.P.
25).
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction Petitioner argued that Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 cannot be applied in this
over the case case because there is a perfected contract of lease without any express
prohibition on subleasing which had been in effect between petitioner and
Held: private respondent long before the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
Therefore, the application of said law to the case at bar is unconstitutional
An essential element common to the two acts punishable by as an impairment of the obligation of contracts.
Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code is that the property removed or ISSUE:
repledged should be the same or identical property that was mortgaged or Whether or not the Petitioner’s contention is correct?
pledged before such removal of repledging. In the instant case, evidence RULING:
fails to show that the properties mortgaged to the bank are the same ones The Supreme Court Ruled that the petitioners contention is untenable. It is
encumbered afterwards to Mateo Pinile. well settled that all presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality;
one who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its
On the evidence presented, there is no showing that properties invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, this Court does not decide
listed in the information as exhibit D (properties mortgaged to the bank) questions of a constitutional nature unless that question is properly raised
are the same properties listed in exhibit E (properties pledge to Mateo and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of
Pinile). With these findings Jose Chupeco was acquitted. However, Court of the case. In any event, it is now beyond question that the constitutional
First Instance of Manila still has jurisdiction over the case. The court held guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by and
that jurisdiction of court once vested is not lost by subsequent amendment subject to the exercise of police power of the state in the interest of public
health, safety, morals and general welfare tapes belonging to the petitioner. However, the lower court did not give
WHEREFORE, the Petition is Denied for lack of merit. much credence to his testimony in view of the fact that the master tapes of
the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the court during the
application.
20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION vs. CA Witnesses in the hearing for an application for search warrants must have
personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony as to the
FACTS: alleged commission of the offense. Also, the sear warrant must contain a
In a letter-complaint dated August 26, 1985, petitioner 20th Century Fox specific description of the articles to be seized. General warrants are
Film Corporation through counsel sought the National Bureau of constitutionally objectionable.
Investigation's (NBI) assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures in
connection with the latter's anti-film piracy campaign. Specifically, the People vs. Gano
letter-complaint alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro
Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of Facts
copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant violation of
Presidential Decree No. 49 (otherwise known as the Decree on the On December 31, 1994 at around 7:00 in the morning Sr. Inspector
Protection of Intellectual Property). Ernesto Garcia received a report of a massacre at a residence in San Mateo
Acting on the letter-complaint, the NBI conducted surveillance and Rizal. At the crime scene Garcia saw the body of Pociano Salen and was
investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently thereafter informed the identity of the suspect. The suspect in the name
filed three (3) applications for search warrants. On September 4, 1985, the of Castanito Gano a.k.a. Allan Gano or Jerry Perez or several other known
lower court issued the desired search warrants. The NBI accompanied by aliases was arrested and detained in Butuan City after having tried to
the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized the items escape from the authorities. On their way back to Manila Garcia disclosed
described therein. An inventory of the items seized was made and left with that the accused confessed to him his responsibility for the triple killing and
the private respondents. The lower court later on lifted the 3 search robbery.
warrants and ordered the NBI to return the properties that were seized. Upon arraignment, the accused Castanito Gano made a qualified
Hence this petition. admission by admitting the killing of the three (3) victims but denying the
ISSUE: charge of robbery. Considering that what is charged is a complex crime
with a single penalty, the accused with the assistance of his counsel
Whether or not the judge properly lifted the search warrants he issued entered a plea of not guilty.
earlier upon the application of the National Bureau of Investigation on the
basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Issue
RULING: WON the voluntary confession being conditional could be mitigating?
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
The NBI agents who acted as witnesses did not have personal knowledge of Ruling
the subject matter of their testimony which was the alleged commission of
the offense by the private respondents. Only the petitioner's counsel who NO. The Court ruled that if the voluntary confession is conditional or
was also a witness during the application for the issuance of the search qualified, it is NOT mitigating. The accused was merely confessing to the
warrants stated that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes crime of homicide but NOT to robbery with homicide, a considerably graver
owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken from master offence. For voluntary confession to be appreciated as an extenuating
circumstance, the same must not only be made unconditionally but the Facts
accused must admit to the offense charged, i.e. robbery with homicide and
not to either robbery or homicide only. Hence, if the voluntary confession On or about October 29, 1998 in Pasay City Virgilio Bernabe by
is conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating. means of force and intimidation employed upon Maria Esnelia Bernabe, his
daughter, a 17 year old minor, unlawfully have carnal knowledge with said
People vs. Yaoto victim against her will and consent. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded
“not guilty”.
Facts During trial accused denied having raped his own daughter. He
testified that Maria Esnelia charged him with rape because he resented her
Accused-appellant Eduardo Yaoto was charged with two (2) counts boyfriend who for sometime slept in their house. He also depicted his
of rape and pleaded “not guilty” to both counts. In her medico-genital daughter as a rebel and neglected her studies. Accused also claimed that
examination, Dr. Armie Umil certified that Angeline Yaoto, 17 years old, his two sisters assisted his daughter in filing the rape case against him
suffered genital and extragenital injuries. It was found that Angeline was because of a land dispute between them.
not only sexually abused but was also physically assaulted. Accused Yaoto
assails the credibility of Angeline and denied having raped her twice. He Issue
also assailed Angeline’s testimony that he had bolo and an ice pick with
which he threatened her considering that the prosecution failed to produce WON the testimony of witnesses in the lower court be admitted by the SC?
said items in evidence. Ruling
Yes. The Court ruled that when it comes to the issue of credibility the
Issue Supreme Court as any other appellate court, would ordinarily defer to the
assessment and evaluation given by the trial court, for only trial courts are
WON the testimony of witnesses in the lower court be admitted by the SC? in so unique a position as to be able to observe that elusive and
insurmountable evidence of the witness’ deportment on the witness stand
Ruling while testifying.
Yes. The Court ruled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of Gr no. 123340 August 29, 2002
its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor,
conduct and attitude especially under cross-examination. Ordinarily, the Lutgarda Cruz, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, et. al., respondents
Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of
the witness considering that it is in a better position to observe her candor Facts:
and behavior on the witness stand. The City Prosecutor of Manila charged Cruz with the crime of estafa
though falsification of public documents before the RTC of Manila.
Allegedly, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Self-adjucation of a parcel
of land when she knew that there were other surviving heirs. The
People vs. Bernabe offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil
action. Hence, it was tried together with the criminal case.
The RTC acquitted Cruz. On the civil aspect, the court ordered the
return of the parcel of land to the surviving heirs. complaint for murder was filed in the MTC and after preliminary
Cruz filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration. This was investigation, Judge Designate David issued warrants of arrest
denied by the trial court. A petition for certiorari and mandamus against the accused.
was filed with the CA. This was also dismissed by the appellate Only David, Mandap, Magat, and Yambao were arrested and it was
court. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. only Yambao who submitted his counter-affidavit. Judge David
Issues: then issued a resolution finding reasonable ground that the crime
Whether the CA erred in finding that the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction of murder has been committed and that the accused is probably
to render judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case, guilty thereof.
involving a property in Bulacan. Though it was not clear whether Pampanga Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores acted motu proprio, or upon
Decision: motion of the private respondents, she conducted a
reinvestigation and resolved that the Yabuts and Danny were in
Case Remanded. conspiracy, along with the other accused, and committed
homicide.
There are 3 important requisites which must be present before Before the information for homicide was filed, the Petitioner appealed
the court can acquire criminal jurisdiction. The court must have jurisdiction the resolution of Alfonso-Flores to the Secretary of Justice.
before the subject matter, the territory where the offense was committed, However, Provincial Proseutor Maranag ordered for the release of
and over the person of the accused. In this case, the court has jurisdiction David, Mandap, Magat, and Naguit. An information for homicide
over the subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the power to was also filed before the Regional Trial Court.
hear and decide cases involving estafa though falsification of public Judge Raura approved the cash bonds of the Yabuts and recalled the
document. The court also had jurisdiction over the offense charged since warrants of arrest against them.
the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The court also Private Prosecutor Amado Valdez then filed a Motion to issue hold
has acquire jurisdiction over the accused because whe voluntarily departure order and Urgent Motion to defer proceedings. Judge
submitted to the court’s authority. Roura deferred the resolution of the first Motion and denied the
second. He also set the arraignment of the accused.
Art. 100 of the RPC provides that “every person criminally liable The petitioners filed a Motion to inhibit Judge Roura for hastily setting
for a felony is also civilly liable.” Art. 104 of the same Code provides that the date for arraignment pending the appeal in the DOJ and for
“civil liability xxx includes restitution.” In this case, the civil liability is prejudging the matter. They also filed a Petition for prohibition
deemed instituted with the criminal action since the offended party did not with the Court of Appeals.
reserve the civil acton. Though Cruz was acquitted, this did not dissolve the Public Prosecutor Datu filed a Manifestation and Comment with the
civil aspect of the case. trial court and opposed the inhibition of Roura. He also stated that
he will no longer allow the private prosecutor to participate. Judge
GR no. 127107 October 12, 1998 Roura voluntarily inhibited himself and was replaced by Judge
Peter Paul Dimatulac and Veronica Dimatulac, petitioners vs. Hon. Villon.
Sensinando Villon, et. al., respondents. The Petitioners filed with the RTC a Manifestation submitting
documentary evidence to support their contention that the
Facts: offense committed was murder.
SP03 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in Pampanga. A Judge Villon ordered for the resetting of the arraignment. The Yabuts
entered a plea of not guilty. The petitioners then filed a Urgent once an information is filed.
Motion to set aside arraignment.
Secretary Guingona of the DOJ resolved the appeal in favor of the Judge Roura acted with grave abuse of discretion for deferring the
petitioners. He also ruled that treachery was present. resolution to the motion for a hold departure order. Since the accused
The Yabuts opposed the Manifestation because they have already were out on bail, the Motion should have been granted since they could
been arraigned and they would be put under double jeopardy. have easily fled. Though he is not bound to the resolution of the DOJ, he
The Secretary of Justice then set aside his order and the appeal was should have perused the documents submitted.
held not and academic due to the previous arraignment of the
accused for homicide. The DOJ was also in grave abuse of its discretion for setting aside
Judge Villon denied the Motion to set aside arraignment. The motion its order. In doing so, it has relinquished its power of control and
for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this petition for supervision of the Public Prosecutor. The state has been deprived of due
certiorari/prohibition and mandamus. process. Hence, the dismissal of the case is null and void and double
jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused.
Issues:
Whether the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor committed grave G.R. No. 104392 February 20, 1996
abuse of discretion in reinvestigating the case without having the RUBEN MANIAGO, petitioner,
respondents within the custody of the law and for filing the vs.
information pending the appeal of the resolution with the DOJ. THE COURT OF APPEALS (First Division) HON. RUBEN C. AYSON, in his
Whether Hon. Villon acted with grave abuse of discretion in capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Baguio
proceeding with the arraignment and for denying the Motions to City, and ALFREDO BOADO, respondents.
set aside the arraignment.
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion MENDOZA, J.:
in reconsidering his order. Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used
in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments, (Phils.), Inc. from
Decision: Baguio City Loakan, Baguio City.roper to its plant site
one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney
Petition is GRANTED. owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado. As a result of the accident, a
Alfonso-Reyes was guilty of having acted with grave abuse of criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and
discretion for conducting a reinvestigation despite the fact that the Yabuts multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner's driver, Herminio
were still at large. Though Sec. 5, Rule 112 states that the prosecutor is not Andaya, with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. A month later, a civil
bound by the findings of the judge who conducted the investigation, the case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner
resolution should be based on the review of the record and evidence himself. The complaint was assigned to Branch IV of the same court.
transmitted. Hence, she should have sustained the recommendation since Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case
all the accused, except Yambao, failed to file their counter-affidavits. It is against him, citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. But
impossible for Alfonso-Reyes to not have known the appeal filed with the the trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that pursuant to
DOJ. The filing of an appeal is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of the Civil Code, the action could proceed independently of the criminal
Court. There is nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of an appeal action, in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the
criminal case. liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint
Appeals, maintaining that the civil action could not proceed independently against petitioner is DISMISSED.
of the criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it SO ORDERED.
separately had been made in the criminal case.
The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition which it held allowed a civil G.R. No. L-24803 May 26, 1977
action for damages to be filed independently of the criminal action even PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as Ascendants of
though no reservation to file the same has been made. Agapito Elcano, deceased, plaintiffs-appellants,
Issue: vs.
The question is whether despite the absence of such reservation, private REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and Natural Guardian
respondent may nonetheless bring an action for damages against of said minor, defendants-appellees.
petitioner under Art. 2176, 2180, 2177 of the Civil Code:
BARREDO, J.:
Facts:
Held: Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City
The right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be dismissing, upon motion to dismiss of defendants, the complaint of
reserved as required by Rule III, §1, otherwise it should be dismissed. plaintiffs for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill, a minor,
a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the married at the time of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant
recovery of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to have been Marvin Hill, for the killing by Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs, named
instituted with the criminal case. the right of the injured party to sue Agapito Elcano, of which, when criminally prosecuted, the said accused
separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of "lack
(ex delicto) or from quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code must be of intent to kill, coupled with mistake."
reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. It appears that for the killing of the son, Agapito, of plaintiffs-appellants,
Indeed the question on whether the criminal action and the action for defendant- appellee Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally in Criminal
recovery of the civil liability must be tried in a single proceeding has always Case No. 5102 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. After due trial,
been regarded a matter of procedure and, since the rule making power has he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal because of
been conferred by the Constitution on this Court, it is in the keeping of this "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake." And so, when appellants filed
Court. their complaint against appellees Reginald and his father, Atty. Marvin Hill,
In the present case, the criminal action was filed against the employee, bus on account of the death of their son, the appellees filed the motion to
driver. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent, his employer dismiss.
would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. The rule requiring Issues:
reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double 1. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald
recovery for the same act or omission. As held in Barredo v. Garcia, the in the criminal case wherein the action for civil liability, was not reversed?
injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for Held:
damages he will bring. If he fails to reserve the filing of a separate civil The issue presents no more problem than the need for a reiteration and
action he will be deemed to have elected to recover damages from the bus further clarification of the dual character, criminal and civil, of fault or
driver on the basis of the crime. In such a case his cause of action against negligence as a source of obligation.
the employer will be limited to the recovery of the latter's subsidiary a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been
prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for Oriental, Br. 20, and ERIBERTA VILLEGAS, respondents.
which, after such a conviction, he could have been sued
for this civil liability arising from his crime.
It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court Facts:
specifically applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is On February 18, 1994, the prosecuting attorney filed with the Regional Trial
thus that although he could have been criminally Court, Misamis Oriental, an information for estafa against Carmen
prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence and not only Mandawe for alleged failure to account to respondent Eriberta Villegas the
punished but also made civilly liable because of his amount of P608,532.46. Respondent Villegas entrusted this amount to
criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court awarded Carmen Mandawe, an employee of petitioner DMPI-ECCI, for deposit with
damages in an independent civil action for fault or the teller of petitioner.
negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. respondent Eriberta Villegas filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis
acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable Oriental, a complaint against Carmen Mandawe and petitioner DMPI-ECCI
doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil for a sum of money and damages with preliminary attachment arising out
liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi- of the same transaction. In time, petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil
delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery. case on the grounds that there is a pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37,
Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal arising from the same facts, and that the complaint failed to contain a
act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or certification against forum shopping.
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually the trial court issued an order dismissing the Civil Case. Respondent filed a
charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be motion for reconsideration of the order and the trial court granted
entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming respondent's, thereby recalling the dismissal of the case.
the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of Hence, this petition.
civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively The Issues
to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas whether the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal case for
the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not estafa without having reserved the filing of the civil action.
as a crime is not estinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case Held:
that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed as a general rule, "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
by the accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, liable." This is the law governing the recovery of civil liability arising from
that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be the commission of an offense. Civil liability includes restitution, reparation
punishable by law. for damage caused, and indemnification of consequential damages.
It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case The offended party may prove the civil liability of an accused arising from
has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not the commission of the offense in the criminal case since the civil action is
a bar to the instant action against him. either deemed instituted with the criminal action or is separately
instituted.
only the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted
G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC., (DMPI-ECCI), petitioner, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior
vs. to the criminal action.
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Misamis There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the right to preliminary investigation. Hence, this petition for review on
Philippines. "The reservation and waiver referred to refers only to the civil certiorari.
action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged.
This does not include recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and ISSUE 1:
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or Where or not Go was validly arrested without a warrant.
omission which may be prosecuted separately even without a reservation."
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. HELD:
NO. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
GO VS. CA provides, among others, that a peace officer or private person may without
FEBRUARY 11, 1992 warrant, arrest a person when an offense has in fact just been committed,
FELICIANO, J. and the arresting person has personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
FACTS: In the case at bar, Go was arrested 6 days after the incident.
Maguan was driving the opposite direction of a one-way street in Hence, at the time of his arrest, the crime has not just “been committed”. It
San Juan, Metro Manila. Rolito Go’s car and Maguan nearly bumped into would have been different if Go committed a continuing crime. In addition,
each other in an intersection. Because of this, Go shot Maguan and left the the police officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that Go
scene. A security guard of a nearby restaurant saw the incident and took was he gunman. The police arrested Go by relying on the statement of the
down the plate number of Go’s car. Police investigators were able to get witness. Finally, the plate number of the car that was taken down by the
Go’s picture through the credit card that Go used when he dined in witness did not point to Go’s car but to his wife.
restaurant near the crime scene the witness positively identified Go as the
gunman. Hence, a manhunt was launched. Several days thereafter, Go
went to the police station where the witness identified him as the suspect. ISSUE 2:
The police detained Go. A complaint for frustrated homicide was filed by Whether or not Go waived his right to preliminary investigation.
the police to the Provincial prosecutor. Go was informed of his right to HELD:
demand preliminary investigation provided he waives the Article 125 of the NO. While the right to preliminary investigation is statutory and
Revised Penal Code. Go refused to execute such waiver. Meanwhile, not constitutional, it is a component of due process of criminal justice. It is
Maguan died. Hence, prosecutor filed am information of murder without a substantive right. To deprive an accused of this right is to deny due
conducting preliminary investigation. Go posted cash bond and was process. Generally, said right is invoked before entering a plea; failure to
released after approval of the same by the court. The prosecutor filed for invoke the same amounts to waiver.
leave of court to conduct preliminary investigation and to prayed for the In this case, Go insisted that a preliminary investigation be
suspension of court proceedings pending the preliminary investigation. The conducted upon the filing of the information before the court. The fact that
same was granted and arraignment of Go was suspended. The following he posted bail did not amount to waiver of said right as he asked for it
day, the court recalled its approval and cancelled the bail of Go. Hence, Go when he filed for the approval of the cash bond. The court granted his
filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the SC, prayer for preliminary investigation before the approval of the bond. Go
which was remanded to CA. Arraignment took place as scheduled and Go even filed before the CA for such relief. Hence, Go was entitled to a
refused to enter his plea. Hence, a plea of not guilty was entered for him. preliminary investigation. But since the trial had already commenced, the
Then, CA issued its decision dismissing the petition of Go on the grounds trial should be suspended and preliminary investigation should be
that Go was validly arrested without a warrant and Go already waived his conducted. Participation of Go during the trial did not amount to waiver
also as he was merely forced to do so to avail his other rights. warrants are null and void, all the seized properties must be returned to
petitioners.
KENNETH ROY SAVAGE/ K ANGELIN EXPORT TRADING VS. TAYPIN La Chemise Lacoste S.A. vs. Fernandez
331 SCRA 697 Bellosillo, J. GR. Nos. L-63796-97 May 21, 1984
FACTS: Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr.
Acting on a complaint lodged by private respondent Eric Ng
Mendoza, president and general manager of Mendco Dev’t Corp., the NBI Facts:
filed an application for search warrant with the RTC of Cebu City, to search La Chemise Lacoste SA is a foreign corporation, organized and
the premises of petitioner located in Talisay Cebu, and to seize the wrought existing under the laws of France and not doing business in the Philippines.
iropn furniture found therein which had allegedly been the object of unfair It is undeniable from the records that it is the actual owner of the
competition involving design patents, punishable by Art 189 of the RPC, as trademarks “LACOSTE,” “CHEMISE LACOSTE,” “CROCODILE DEVICE” and a
the petitioner manufactured wrought iron furniture similar to that composite mark consisting of the word “LACOSTE” and a representation of
patented by the Mendco without securing any license or patent for the a crocodile/alligator, used on clothing’s and other goods specifically
same. Seized in the premises were the said pieces of furniture. Petitioners sporting apparels sold in many parts of the world and which have been
moved to quash the warrant alleging, among others, that (a) respondent marketed in the Philippines since 1964. In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a duly
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and (b) the crime they are licensed domestic firm applied for and was issued Reg. SR-2225 (SR stands
accused of does not exist. The denial of the motion prompted petitioners for Supplemental Register) for the trademark “CHEMISE LACOSTE &
to come to this court. CROCODILE DEVICE” by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts,
ISSUE: sportswear and other garment products of the company. Two years later, it
W/N the petitioners’ contention is of merit applied for the registration of the same trademark under the Principal
HELD: Register. The Patent Office eventually issued an order dated 3 March 1977
(a) No. The Court has consistently ruled that that a search warrant is allowing the application and holding the registrant to be presumed the
merely a process issued by the court in the exercise of its ancillary owner of the mark until after the registration is declared cancelled.
jurisdiction and not a criminal action which it may entertain in pursuant to Thereafter, Hemandas & Co. assigned to Gobindram Hemandas all rights,
its original jurisdiction. The authority to issue search warrants is inherent in title, and interest in the trademark “CHEMISE LACOSTE & DEVICE”. On 21
all courts and may be effected outside their territorial jurisdiction. In the November 1980, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed its application for registration
instant case, the premises searched located in Talisay Cebu are well within of the trademark “Crocodile Device” (Application Serial 43242) and
the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent court. SC AO 113-95 merely “Lacoste” (Application Serial 43241). The former was approved for
specified which courts could ‘try and decide’ cases involving violations of publication while the latter was opposed by Games and Garments in Inter
IPR. The power to issue search warrants in violations of IPR has not been Partes Case 1658. In 1982, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed a Petition for the
exclusively vested in the courts enumerated in SC Administrative Order. Cancellation of Reg. SR-2225 docketed as Inter Partes Case 1689.
(b) Yes. The issue referred to in Art. 189 of RPC had been rendered moot On 21 March 1983, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed with the National
and academic. Said article has already been repealed by the Intellectual Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of
Property Right Code. Further, the acts complained of does not fall under unfair competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their
any of the provisions of the IPR Code. There being no crime to speak of, the assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. The NBI conducted an
search warrant does not even begin to fulfill the constitutional investigation and subsequently filed with the trial court (RTC Manila,
requirements of such, and is therefore defective on its face. Since the Branch XLIX, National Capital Judicial Region) two applications for the
issuance of search warrants which would authorize the search of the ruling in Stonehill v. Diokno, (20 SCRA 383) that probable cause
premises used and occupied by the Lacoste Sports Center and Games and “presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against
Garments both owned and operated by Hemandas. The court issued whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific
Search Warrant 83-128 and 83-129 for violation of Article 189 of the omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.” The question of
Revised Penal Code. The NBI agents executed the two search warrants and whether or not probable cause exists is one which must be decided in the
as a result of the search found and seized various goods and articles light of the conditions obtaining in given situations (Central Bank v. Morfe,
described in the warrants. Hemandas filed a motion to quash the search 20 SCRA 507). There is no general formula or fixed rule for the
warrants alleging that the trademark used by him was different from La determination of the existence of probable cause since the existence
Chemise Lacoste’s trademark and that pending the resolution of IPC 1658 depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge
before the Patent Office, any criminal or civil action on the same subject conducting the examination (Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310),. However, the
matter and between the same parties would be premature. La Chemise findings of the judge should not disregard the facts before him nor run
Lacoste filed its opposition. The State Prosecutor likewise filed his counter to the clear dictates of reason, more so it is plain that our country’s
opposition. The court was, however, convinced that there was no probable ability to abide by international commitments is at stake.
cause to justify the issuance of the search warrants. Thus, in its order dated
22 March 1983, the search warrants were recalled and set aside and the Correction of errors must be based on sound and valid grounds
NBI agents or officers in custody of the seized items were ordered to return Herein, the court complied with the constitutional and statutory
the same to Hemandas requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant when at that point
The Supreme Court granted the petition in GR 63797-97, reversing in time; it was fully convinced that there existed probable cause. But after
and setting the order dated 22 April 1983 of the RTC, and made permanent hearing the motion to quash and the oppositions thereto, the court
the Temporary Restraining Order dated 29 April 1983. The Court, on the executed a complete turnabout and declared that there was no probable
other hand, denied due course to the petition in GR 65659 for lack of cause to justify its earlier issuance of the warrants. Although the lower
merit, and thus lifting and setting aside the Temporary Restraining Order court should be given the opportunity to correct its errors, if there be any,
dated 5 December 1983. but the rectification must be based on sound and valid grounds. The
allegation that vital facts were deliberately suppressed or concealed by La
Ruling: Chemise Lacoste should have been assessed more carefully because the
Determination of probable cause mandatory for the issuance of a object of the quashal was the return of items already seized and easily
valid search warrant; Probable cause defined examined by the court. The items were alleged to be fake and quite
As a mandatory requirement for the issuance of a valid search obviously would be needed as evidence in the criminal prosecution.
warrant, the Constitution requires in no uncertain terms the determination
of probable cause by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation Application for a search warrant is heard ex parte
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce (Constitution, Art IV, An application for a search warrant is heard ex parte. It is neither a
Sec. 3). Probable cause has traditionally meant such facts and trial nor a part of the trial. Action on these applications must be expedited
circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that are in for time is of the essence. Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to
themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act the testimonies under oath of the complainant and the witnesses. Herein,
in pursuance thereof (People v. Sy Juco, 64 Phil. 667). the allegation of Hemandas that the applicant withheld information from
the court was clearly no basis to order the return of the seized items.
Determination of probable cause; No general formula or fixed rule
The concept of probable cause was amplified and modified by our
Manalili vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 113447
October 9, 1997 Mata vs. Judge Bayona et. Al.
GR No. L-50720 March 26, 1985
FACTS: Ponente: De Castro
The Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police was conducting
surveillance in front of the Kalookan City Cemetary due to reports of drug Facts:
addicts frequenting the area. They observed Alain Manalili in the area, An information was filed against Soriano Mata, petitioner, alleging
with reddish eyes and walking in a swaying manner, signs of being high on that he offered, took and arranged bets on Jai Alai game by selling illegal
drugs. They stopped Manalili and asked for the contents of his hands, tickets known as ‘Masiao tickets’ without any authority from the Philippine
which turned out to be a wallet. Inside the wallet, police officers found Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government authorities
what later on turned out to be crushed marijuana. He was charged with concerned. Thereafter, a search warrant was issued by the respondent
Illegal Possession of Marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Manalili Judge against him for violation under PD 810, as amended by PD 1306.
claimed the charges were “trumped up” and that the police officers had Petitioner claims that during the hearing of the case, he
blackmailed him. In addition, petitioner asserts that the evidence seized discovered that nowhere from the records of the said case could be found
was inadmissible against him, as fruits of an illegal seizure. On the other the search warrant and other pertinent papers connected to the issuance
hand, the Solicitor General counters that the search and seizure was valid, of the same, so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its whereabouts
but regardless of its validity, its defense had been waived by petitioner and to which inquiry respondent Judge replied, “it is with the court”. This
since it was not raised in the lower court. led petitioner to file a motion to quash and annul the search warrant and
for the return of the articles seized, citing and invoking, among others,
ISSUES: Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court.
1) Was the search of Manalili and seizure of marijuana valid? The motion was denied by respondent Judge stating that the court
2) May petitioner raise this defense for the first time on appeal? has made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of private
respondents and that the fact that documents relating to search warrant
RULING: were not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no
The General Rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a judicial moment, considering that the rule does not specify when these documents
warrant, otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional. However, are to be attached to the records.
there are exceptions to the rule: 1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, 2)
search of a moving vehicle, 3) seizure in plain view, 4) customs search and Issue:
5) waiver by the accused. The court added another exception, the stop- W/N the search warrant issued by respondent Judge were valid.
and frisk, which is the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him and pat him for weapons. This is for the safety of police Ruling:
officers and the general public. Of course, the stop-and-frisk must be The search warrant is tainted with illegality for being violative of
grounded on probable cause that the accused has committed an offense. the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
As such, the court ruled that the search and seizure was valid and Section 4 of Rule 126 provides that the judge must before issuing
admissible as evidence. In addition, Manalili had effectively waived the the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant or
defense of an invalid search since this issue was not raised during the trial. witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach
Such issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal. them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. Mere
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient.
Therefore, the search warrant is tainted with illegality by failure of affect the court’s jurisdiction. The remedy of the accused is to call the
the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions attention of the court to the lack of preliminary investigation and demand
in writing and attaching them to the record. However, illegality of search as a matter of right that one be conducted.
warrant does not call for return of things seized which are prohibited.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Eriberto Venus (Venus) was the mayor of New Washington, Aklan. Whether or not arraignment may be restrained with injunction or
The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said municipality issued a Resolution writ of prohibition.
authorizing Venus to negotiate with the Board of Liquidators in the
purchase of a lot in the municipality. Hence, Venus went to Manila and HELD:
submitted with the Board of Liquidators the resolution and a letter- YES. Generally, criminal prosecutions may no be restrained
proposal for the purchase of the lot. The proposal was rejected by the through injunction or prohibition as the determination of probable cause
board and set bidding on Sept. 19, 1988. Venus informed the SB of the for the filing of information is within the discretion of ombudsman or
denial. Then, Venus sought the opinion of the Provincial Auditor as to the prosecutor. However, in the case of Brocka vs. Enrile, the Supreme Court
requirements of bidding in order that the municipality may validly provided exceptions to the above-mentioned rule. Among those
participate. The Provincial Auditor opined that it would be impossible to enumerated is when there is clearly no prima facie case against the
participate as it would need a resolution from the SB. And that the funds accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.
In the case at bar, the Deputy Ombudsman found no ground to Villaflor. Villaflor filed a petiton for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
believe that Venus violated RA 3019 but the Ombudsman and the other
Deputy Ombudsman disagreed. In the motion for reconsideration, the Issues:
special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case. In human Can the court motu proprio order the dismissal of the case on the
relations, good faith is always presumed. He who charges bad faith has the ground of lack of preliminary investigation?
burden of proving the same. In not finding facts constituting bad faith, it Should the failure of the public prosecutor to conduct preliminary
was an error for the ombudsman to pass on the duty of finding bad faith to investigation be considered a ground to quash the informations?
Sandiganbayan. There was no bad faith in the actuations of Venus. The
resolution issued by the SB was for him to negotiate with the Board of Held:
Liquidators for the sale of the lot. Venus did as he was mandated and
returned with the denial of their offer. The municipality did not intend to The Court ruled that the absence of a preliminary investigation does
participate in the bidding as shown by the absence of a resolution to that not impair the validity of the information. In the case a bar, a
effect and the absence of the funds for the occasion. Venus faithfully preliminary investigation was for slight physical injuries was
performed his duty and this duty ended when he asked for postponement conducted by the assistant city prosecutor. But the Information
even if it was denied. Further, RA 3019 requires that bad faith must be was however amended when petitioner’s injuries turned out to be
EVIDENT. In finding no bad faith, logically there could be no evident bad more serious. However the change in the information was only a
faith. Hence, there was no prima facie case against Venus. formal amendment and did not violate the right of Vivar against
In finding the manifest innocence of Venus, the Supreme Court hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, since it still involves
ordered Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case. the same facts.
Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides the grounds on which an accused can move to quash the
Villaflor vs. Vivar complaint or information. Nowhere in the rule mention of a lack
of preliminary investigation as a ground for a motion to quash.
Facts: When accused failed to assert any ground for a motion to quash
An information for slight physical injuries was filed agaist Dindo Vivar for before arraignment, he has deemed waived his right.
beating Gian Paulo Vivar outside the Fat Tueasday Bar. On his way out, Gian
met Dindo who told that next time, I will use my gun on you. The injuries
sustained by Gian turned out to be more serious than they had appeared Washington Distillers, Inc. Vs Ca
so an Information for serious physical injuries was filed and the charge for
slight physical injuries was withdrawn. Another Information for grave Facts:
threats was filed against Vivar. Vivar, instead of filing a counter affidavit, he
filed a Motion to Quash the Information for grave threats since it was made On the basis of a search warrant issued by the Judge of the RTC of Manila,
in connection with the charge of serious physical injuries should have been 314, 289 pieces of 350cc round white flint bottles were seized by the NBI
absorbed by the latter, and because the court did not acquire jurisdiction from the premises of petitioners in San Fernando, Pampanga for alleged
over it. MTC denied the motion to quash. Vivar filed for a motion for violation of RA 623, otherwise known as An act to regulate the use of duly
reconsideration which was again denied. He was arraigned and pleaded not stamped or marked bottles, boxes, casks, kegs, barrels, and other similar
guilty. Vivar filed a petition for certiorari in the RTC RTC granted the containers, as amended by RA 5700. Petitioners filed a motion to quash on
motion to quash and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the ground that the RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction to issue a warrant to
be executed in Pampanga, which was granted. A motion for that there was a pending Petition for Review with the Department of
reconsideration was issued my private respondents but was denied. Justice. Said Motion was denied by Judge Mogul. Crespo’s Motion For
Thereafter, private respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court Reconsideration also having been denied, he filed a TRO with the CA, which
of Appeals and CA set aside the decision of RTC ruling that a search warrant granted the same. Thereafter, the CA granted Crespo’s Writ of Injucntion
may be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC of Manila and perpetually restrained Judge Mogul from having Crespo arrainged until
the Sec. of Justice finally made his decision and ordered the Fiscal to move
Issue: for dismissal of the case. The Fiscal then filed a Motion attaching the
Secretary’s Resolution calling for the dismissal of the case. Judge Mogul
Whether or not the search warrant issued against petitioners is valid. denied the Motion and set Crespo’s arraignment. Hence, his recourse to
the SC.
Held:
ISSUE:
No. The search warrant issued against petitioners lost its validity as a result
of the failure of the NBI to commence criminal prosecution and the bottles W/N the trial court may refuse to grant a Motion to Dismiss filed by the
seized from them should be returned to petitioners in the absence of any Fiscal under orders from the Secretary of Justice and instead insist on
civil action for their recovery. arraignment.
What is noticeable about this case is the that possession of the bottles was HELD:
transferred to private respondents through the expediency of a search
warrant, so that instead of merely being an ancillary writ issued either as The petition must fail. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that
an incident of criminal proceedings, the proceeding for search warrant once a complaint or information is filed in court, the ultimate disposition
have become, for all intents and purposes, the main proceedings by which thereof lies solely on its sound discretion. Therefore, the Secretary of
private respondents have been able to obtain possession of what it claims Justice should refrain from entertaining a petition for review when the
to be its property. There was neither complaint by which the petitioners complaint or information has already been filed in court.
could have been informed of the charge against them nor answer by which
they could have heard in the defense, before property claimed by them Petition dismissed.
was taken from them and given to private respondents.
Crespo vs. Mogul
FACTS: On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the
approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against
Crespo V Mogul Mario Fl. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the
151 SCRA 462 (1987) case was set for arraigment the accused filed a motion to defer
arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review
FACTS: filed with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. In an order of August 1,
An information for Estafa was filed by the Fiscal against Crespo in 1977, the presiding judge, His Honor, Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the
the Criminal Circuit Court of Lucena. When the case was set for motion. A motion for reconsideration of the order was denied in the order
arraignment, Crespo filed a Motion To Defer Arraingment on the ground of August 5, 1977 but the arraignment was deferred to August 18, 1977 to
afford nine for petitioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court. prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own
A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of independent judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or
injunction was filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals. In an order of acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing
August 17, 1977 the Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from for the People of the Philippines even under such circumstances much less
proceeding with the arraignment of the accused until further orders of the should he abandon the prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of a
Court. In a comment that was filed by the Solicitor General he private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and void.
recommended that the petition be given due course. On May 15, 1978 a The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for the
decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence to
perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control.
arraignment of the accused in the case until the Department of Justice shall
have finally resolved the petition for review. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
On March 22, 1978 then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon.Catalino Macaraig, information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or
Jr., resolving the petition for review reversed the resolution of the Office of the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of
the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the
of the information filed against the accused. A motion to dismiss for prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he
insufficiency of evidence was filed by the Provincial Fiscal dated April 10, cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole
1978 with the trial court, attaching thereto a copy of the letter of judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case
Undersecretary Macaraig, Jr. In an order of August 2, 1978 the private is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the
prosecutor was given time to file an opposition thereto. On November 24, case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the
1978 the Judge denied the motion and set the arraigniment. option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before
The accused then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a
with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or TRO reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who
in the Court of Appeals. On January 23, 1979 a restraining order was reviewed the records of the investigation.
issued by the Court of Appeals against the threatened act of arraignment
of the accused until further orders from the Court. In a decision of October In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the
25, 1979 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and lifted the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be
restraining order of January 23, 1979. A motion for reconsideration of said disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as
decision filed by the accused was denied. practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from
Hence this petition for review of said decision was filed by accused. the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the determination
criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the of the Court.
Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse Republic vs. Sunga
to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits. FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the order of the CFI of
CamSur dismissing motu proprio a criminal case as well as of the order of
HELD: The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all know is to see that the same court denying the motion for reconsideration of said earlier
justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person order.
accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is On 10 August 1964, an information for Attempted Homicide was filed by
the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur against accused-private respondents
Rafael Anadilla, Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. Trial of the case was set dismiss must be addressed to the court which has disretion over the
on 11 and 12 March 1974. The hearing set on 11 March 1974 was, disposition of the case.
however, postponed in view of the absence of one of the accused, While the Crespo doctrine has settled that the trial court is the sole judge
respondent Rafael Anadilla who had not yet been arrested by the police on whether a criminal case should be dismissed (after the complaint or
authorities. On the same date, the court a quo issued an order for the information has been filed in court), still, any move on the part of the
arrest of said accused, and at the same time set the trial of the case for 29 complainant or offended party to dismiss the criminal case, even if without
and 30 July 1974. objection of the accused, should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal
On 20 March 1974, the court a quo issued the now assailed order which for his own view on the matter. He is, after all, in control of the prosecution
dismissed the criminal case and consequently, the order of arrest issued by of the case and he may have his own reasons why the case should not be
the Court against the accused Rafael Anadilla dated March 11, 1974, is dismissed. It is only after hearing the prosecuting fiscal's view that the
hereby ordered lifted. The bail bond posted for the provisional liberty of Court should exercise its exclusive authority to continue or dismiss the
the accused is ordered cancelled. In the case of Ariston Anadilla and Jose case.
Anadilla, the Provincial Warden is ordered to release said accused from The petition is hereby DISMISSED.
their detention immediately upon receipt of the order. People vs. Mercado
The affidavit of desistance, relied upon by the aforequoted order, was FACTS: This is an appeal by the prosecution form an order of the Court of
executed by the offended party on 20 March 1974 and subscribed and First Instance of Pampanga whereby said court declared itself without
sworn to before the branch Clerk of Court. It alleged, among others, that jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decided two criminal cases pending
he was no longer interested in the further prosecution of the case and that before it, for theft of large cattle, against the appellee Francisco Mercado,
he has already forgiven the accused for their acts; that his material on the ground that, although the stolen animals were afterwards brought
witnesses could no longer be contacted and that without their testimonies, by the appellee to the municipality of Candaba, Pampanga, where they
the guilt of the accused cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and were found in his possession, said crimes had taken place and had been
that in view of those circumstances, he requests for the dismissal of the committed in the municipality of Gapan, of the Province of Nueva Ecija.
said case. On June 21, 1936, in the municipality of Candaba, Province of Pampanga,
The Provincial Fiscal moved to reconsider the order of dismissal. This was Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the accused,
denied by the court a quo in an order dated 22 April 1974. Francisco Mercado, with intent of gain, did, then and there, voluntarily,
Hence, this petition was filed. maliciously, illegally and criminally, take, steal, and carry away two male
ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the carabaos belonging to Pedro A. Ladores, worth sixty pesos (P60) each and
basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party, but to his damage and prejudice in the total amount of P120 and a male
without a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal. carabao valued at ninety pesos (P90), owned by Leon Ladores. The
commission of both having been commenced at Gapan, Nueva Ecija, and
HELD:The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal consummated at the municipality of Candaba, Pampanga, and without the
action. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for knowledge and consent of the owner.
the arrest of the accused is isued by the trial court and the accused either The informations were filed by the provincial fiscal of Pampanga in the
voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court Court of First Instance of said province after receiving the report of the
thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The Court preliminary inquiries made, upon complaint, by the justice of the peace
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear court of Candaba, Pampanga, where the case originated. The appellee
and determine the case. Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; waived his right to a preliminary investigation and asked that the two cases
complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case; the motion to be remanded to the Court of First Instance for trial and final judgment.
Lower court ruled that the cases are not triable in Pampanga.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Pampanga has jurisdiction to try and
decide the two cases in question, it being alleged in the informations by
which they were commenced that the accused stole the carabaos
described therein in Gapan, in the Province of Nueva Ecija, which is beyond
the jurisdiction of the court, in order to bring them, as he in fact did
afterwards, to Candaba, Pampanga, where they were found in his
possession.
HELD: In criminal proceedings, the rule is that one can not be held to
answer for any crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it
was committed. Said rule is based on the legal provision which prescribes
the essential requisites of a good complaint or information, one of which is
the allegation that the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the
court where the complaint or information is filed and that said court has
authority to try it.