JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE VS. HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, HON. EMMANUEL Y.

VELASCO, HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL DE LAS ALAS G.R. No. 182677 August 3, 2010 FACTS: Jose Antonio C. Leviste (petitioner) was, by Information, charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas on January 12, 2007 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Petitioner was placed under police custody while confined at the Makati Medical Center. After petitioner posted a bond which the trial court approved,he was released from detention, and his arraignment was set. The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying, inter alia, for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. ISSUE: Whether or not in cases when an accused is arrested without a warrant, the remedy of preliminary investigation belongs only to the accused. HELD: No. The Court holds that the private complainant can move for reinvestigation. All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor The private complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot, by himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the information had been filed in court, the proper party for that being the public prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of the case.Thus, in cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted the authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion for reinvestigation. In such an instance, before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor, the permission or consent of the court must be secured. If after such reinvestigation the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of action may be taken but shall likewise be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Once the trial court grants the prosecutions motion for reinvestigation, the former is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government. Having brought the case back to the drawing board, the prosecution is thus equipped with discretion wide and far reaching regarding the disposition thereof, subject to the trial courts approval of the resulting proposed course of action. MAGNO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS GR No. 171542, April 6, 2011 Brion, J. FACTS: >The Office of the Ombudsman filed an information for multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder against several accused, including MAGNO, who were public officers working under the NBI Magno, in open court, objected to the formal appearance and authority of Atty. Sitoy, who was there as private prosecutor to prosecute the case for and on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman>The RTC issued an Order, ruling that the Ombudsman is proper, legal and authorized entity to prosecute this case to the exclusion of any other entity/person other than those authorized under R.A. 6770. This prompted the respondents to file a petition for certiorari before the CA declared that the private prosecutor may appear

for the petitioner in the case, but only insofar as the prosecution of the civil aspect of the case is concerned. CA AMENDED decision : Ruling that the private prosecutor may appear for the petitioner in Criminal Case to intervene in the prosecution of the offense charged in collaboration with any lawyer deputized by the Ombudsman to prosecute the case. This amended CA decision in turn made Magno file for a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure before the SC. PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS CA did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari; the power to hear and decide that question is with the Sandiganbayan. The private prosecutor cannot be allowed to intervene for the respondents. Section 31 of RA No. 6770 does not allow the Ombudsman to deputize private practitioners to prosecute cases for and on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman. RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS >The Ombudsman did not address the contention that the Sandiganbayan, not the CA, has appellate jurisdiction over the RTC in this case. >The Ombudsman maintains that Atty. Sitoy may intervene in the case pursuant to Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court (Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has the appellate jurisdiction over the RTCc decision in not allowing Atty. Sitoy to prosecute the case on behalf of the Ombudsman NONE DECISION: The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as its Resolution is NULL AND VOID for having been issued without jurisdiction REASON: PD No. 1606 created the Sandiganbayan. Section 4 thereof establishes the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction:B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection of this section in relation to their office.>In the present case, the CA erred when it took cognizance of the petition for certiorari. The OMBUDSMAN SHOULD HAVEFILED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH THESANDIGANBAYAN, which has EXCLUSIVE APPELLATEJURISDICTION over the RTC since the accused are public officials charged of committing crimes in their capacity as Investigators of the NBI>JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW, and the CAs judgment, issued without jurisdiction, is VOID. There is no rule in procedural law as basic as the precept that jurisdiction is conferred by law and any judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void and cannot be given any effect. This rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment. YANO V. SANCHEZ G.R. No. 186640 11 February 2010 PONENTE: Carpio Morales, J. PARTIES: PETITIONERS: GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, LT. GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, Commanding General, Philippine Army, and MAJ. GEN. RALPH A. VILLANUEVA, Commander, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army RESPONDENTS: CLEOFAS SANCHEZ and MARCIANA MEDINA NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Supreme Court: Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Motion for Production and Inspection Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the Original Action for Petition of

Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued an Order which is the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. FACTS: On December 28, 2007, Cleofas Sanchez (Cleofas) filed before the Supreme Court a petition for issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Motion for Production and Inspection directed against Gen. Esperon, the then Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). On January 2, 2008, the Supreme Court resolved to issue a Writ of Amparo and ordered Gen. Esperon to make a verified return of the writ before the Court of Appeals (CA), which will hear and decide the case which was eventually re-docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00010 WR/A. Cleofas amended her petition on January 14, 2008 to include Marciana Medina (Marciana) and to implead other military officers including Lt. Sumangil and Sgt. Villalobos as therein additional respondents. In the Amended Petition, Cleofas and Marciana alleged that their respective sons Nicolas Sanchez (Nicolas) and Heherson Medina (Heherson) were catching frogs outside their home in Sitio Dalin, Barangay Bueno, Capas, Tarlac. On September 18, 2006 at around 1:00 a.m., the wives of Nicolas, namely, Lourdez and Rosalie Sanchez, who were then at home, heard gunshots and saw armed men in soldiers uniforms passing by; and that that at around 4:00 a.m. of the same day, Lourdez and Rosalie went out to check on Nicolas and Heherson but only saw their caps, slippers, pana and airgun for catching frogs, as well as bloodstains. Respondents narrated that they, together with other family members, proceeded to search at the Capas Station of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Camp Detachment of the 71st Infantry Batallion of the Philippine Army (Army) in Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac, and Camp of the Bravo Company of the Armys 71st Infantry Batallion inside Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac City, but to no avail. They likewise alleged that Josephine Galang Victoria informed them that she saw Nicolas and Heherson at the Camp of the Bravo Company sometime in 2006. Hence, on 21 December 2006, they filed a case before the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), which endorsed the same to the Ombudsman for appropriate action. In the amended petition dated January 14, 2008, the respondents prayed for the issuance of a writ of Amparo, the production of the victims bodies during the hearing on the Writ, the inspection of certain military camps, the issuance of temporary and permanent protection orders, and the rendition of judgment under Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. In their Return, the military officers mainly denied having custody of the victims and posited that the respondents herein failed to substantiate their claim. In a Decision dated 17 September 2008, the CA absolved the impleaded military officers on the ground that the petitioners have not adequately and convincingly established any direct or indirect link between the individual military officers and the disappearances of Nicolas and Heherson. Notwithstanding, it granted petitioners the following reliefs: Inspections of the following camps: Camp Servillano Aquino, San Miguel, Tarlac City, any military camp of the 7th Infantry Division located in Aqua Farm, Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac City, within reasonable working hours of any day except when the military camp is on red alert status. Thorough and Impartial Investigation for the appropriate Investigating Unit of the Philippine Army at Camp Servillano Aquino and the Philippine Army, 7th Infantry Division in Fort Magsaysay to conduct their respective investigation of all angles pertaining to the disappearances of Nicolas and Heherson and to immediately file charges against those found guilty and submit their written report to this Court within three (3) months from notice. The military officers filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration mainly arguing that since respondents failed to prove the allegations in their petition by substantial evidence, the CA

should not have granted those reliefs. This motion was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated March 3, 2009. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. PERTINENT ISSUES: Whether or not the failure of the respondents herein to present substantial evidence to prove that the public officials failed to observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duty is a ground for the grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo. Whether or not the grant of the provisional remedies provided in Section 14 of the Amparo Rule is proper in cases where the public respondents were absolved of the disappearance of the alleged victims. ANSWERS: No. No. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: 1. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AN AMPARO PETITION

Effect of failure to establish that the public official observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duty [T]he requirement for a government official or employee to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty stresses the extraordinary measures expected to be taken in safeguarding every citizens constitutional rights as well as in the investigation of cases of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances. The failure to establish that the public official observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does not result in the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her claim by substantial evidence. The omission or inaction on the part of the public official provides, however, some basis for the petitioner to move and for the court to grant certai n interim reliefs. 2. PROPRIETY OF PROVISIONAL RELIEFS IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS The interim or provisional remedies provided in Section 14 of the Amparo Rule are intended to assist the court before it arrives at a judicious determination of the amparo petition Section 14 of the Amparo Rule provides for interim or provisional reliefs that the courts may grant in order to, inter alia, protect the witnesses and the rights of the parties, and preserve all relevant evidence, viz: x x x These provisional reliefs are intended to assist the court before it arrives at a judicious determination of the amparo petition. For the appellate court to, in the present case, still order the inspection of the military camps and order the army units to conduct an investigation into the disappearance of Nicolas and Heherson after it absolved petitioners is thus not in order. The reliefs granted by the appellate court to respondents are not in sync with a finding that petitioners could not be held accountable for the disappearance of the victims. DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals insofar as it grants the following reliefs : Inspections of the following camps: Camp Servillano Aquino, San Miguel, Tarlac City, any military camp of the 7th Infantry Division located in Aqua Farm, Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac City, within reasonable working hours of any day except when the military camp is on red alert status. Thorough and Impartial Investigation for the appropriate Investigating Unit of the Philippine Army at Camp Servillano Aquino and the Philippine Army, 7th Infantry Division in Fort Magsaysay to conduct their respective investigation of all angles pertaining to the disappearances of Nicolas and Heherson and to immediately file charges against those found guilty and submit their written report to this Court within three (3) months from notice