G.R. No.

147703 April 14, 2004

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
When the accused-employee absconds or jumps bail, the judment meted out becomes !nal
and e"ecutory. #he employer cannot de$eat the !nality o$ the judment by !lin a notice o$
appeal on its o%n behal$ in the uise o$ as&in $or a revie% o$ its subsidiary civil liability. 'oth
the primary civil liability o$ the accused-employee and the subsidiary civil liability o$ the
employer are carried in one sinle decision that has become !nal and e"ecutory.
T! C"#!
'e$ore this Court is a (etition $or )evie%
*
under )ule +, o$ the )ules o$ Court, assailin the
-arch ./, .000
.
and the -arch .1, .00*
2
)esolutions o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35 in C3-6)
C7 No. ,/2/0. (etitioner8s appeal $rom the judment o$ the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ San
9ernando, :a ;nion in Criminal Case No. .,2, %as dismissed in the !rst )esolution as
$ollo%s<
=W>E)E9O)E, $or all the $oreoin, the motion to dismiss is GRANTE$ and the appeal
is ordered $IS%ISSE$.=
+
#he second )esolution denied petitioner8s -otion $or )econsideration.
,
T! F"&'#
#he $acts o$ the case are summari?ed by the C3 in this %ise<
=On @uly .1, *//+, accused ANapoleon )oman y -acadandanB %as $ound uilty and
convicted o$ the crime o$ rec&less imprudence resultin to triple homicide, multiple
physical injuries and damae to property and %as sentenced to suCer the penalty o$
$our 4+5 years, nine 4/5 months and eleven 4**5 days to si" 4D5 years, and to pay
damaes as $ollo%s<
Ea. to pay the heirs o$ @;S#INO #O))ES the sum o$ (,0,000.00 as indemnity $or
his death, plus the sum o$ (.,,2F2.00, $or $uneral e"penses, his unearned
income $or one year at (.,,00.00 a month, (,0,000.00 as indemnity $or the
support o$ )enato #orres, and the $urther sum o$ (200,000.00 as moral
damaesG
Eb. to the heirs o$ ES#)E::3 7E:E)O, the sum o$ (,0,000.00 as indemnity $or
her death, the sum o$ (.21,2.2.1, $or $uneral e"penses, her unearned income
$or three years at (+,,000.00 per annum, and the $urther sum o$ (*,000,000.00
as moral damaes and (.00,000.00 as attorney8s $eesAGB
Ec. to the heirs o$ :O)N3 3NC>E#3, the sum o$ (,0,000.00 as indemnity $or her
death, the sum o$ (..,F2F.00 as $uneral e"penses, the sum o$ (.0,,++./+ as
medical e"penses and her loss o$ income $or 20 years at (*,000.00 per month,
and the $urther sum o$ (*00,000.00 $or moral damaesG
Ed. to -3;)EEN ')ENN3N, the sum o$ (../,D,+.00 as hospital e"penses,
doctor8s $ees o$ (*10,000.00 $or the orthopedic sureon, (..,,00.00 $or the
AnBeuroloist, an additional indemnity Ao$B at least (*,0,000.00 to cover $uture
correction o$ de$ormity o$ her limbs, and moral damaes in the amount o$
(*,000,000.00G
Ee. to )OSIE '3:3@O, the sum o$ (2,,D*.+D as medical e"penses, (.,000.00 as
loss o$ income, and (.,,000.00 as moral damaesG
E$. to #E)ESI#3 #3-ONDON6, the sum o$ (*/,F00.+1 as medical e"penses,
(F00.00 $or loss o$ income, and (.,,000.00 as moral damaesG
E. to @;:I3N3 #3'#3', the amount o$ (,F0.F* as medical e"penses, (+,D00.00
as actual damaes and her loss earnins o$ (*,+00.00 as %ell as moral
damaes in the amount o$ (*0,000.00G
Eh. to -I6;E: 3)H;I#O:3, the sum o$ (*.,+12.F. as hospital e"penses,
(*+,,20.00 as doctor8s $ees, (*,000.00 $or medicines and (,0,000.00 as moral
damaesG
Ei. to C:3)I#3 C3'3N'3N, the sum o$ (*,,.00 $or medical e"penses, (F1.00 $or
medicines, (*,1*0.00 as actual damaes and (,,000.00 as moral damaesG
Ej. to -3)I3NO C3'3N'3N, the sum o$ (*,2/,.00 $or hospital bills, (,00.00 $or
medicine, (.,*00.00 as actual damaes, (*,.00.00 $or loss o$ income and
(,,000.00 as moral damaesG
E&. to :a ;nion Electric Company as the reistered o%ner o$ the #oyota >i-3ce
7an, the amount o$ (.,0,000.00 as actual damaes $or the cost o$ the totally
%rec&ed vehicleG to the o%ner o$ the jeepney, the amount o$ (..,D/F.2F as
actual damaesG8
=#he court $urther ruled that ApetitionerB, in the event o$ the insolvency o$ accused,
shall be liable $or the civil liabilities o$ the accused. Evidently, the judment aainst
accused had become !nal and e"ecutory.
=3dmittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-lare. It is %orth mentionAinB
that Section F, )ule *.+ o$ the )ules o$ Court authori?es the dismissal o$ appeal %hen
appellant jumps bail. Counsel $or accused, also admittedly hired and provided by
ApetitionerB, !led a notice o$ appeal %hich %as denied by the trial court. We aIrmed
the denial o$ the notice o$ appeal !led in behal$ o$ accused.
=Simultaneously, on 3uust D, *//+, ApetitionerB !led its notice o$ appeal $rom the
judment o$ the trial court. On 3pril ./, *//1, the trial court ave due course to
Apetitioner8sB notice o$ appeal. On December F, *//F, ApetitionerB !led its brie$. On
December /, *//F, the OIce o$ the Solicitor 6eneral received AaB copy o$
Apetitioner8sB brie$. On @anuary F, *///, the OS6 moved to be e"cused $rom !lin
Arespondents8B brie$ on the round that the OS68s authority to represent (eople is
con!ned to criminal cases on appeal. #he motion %as ho%ever denied per Our
resolution o$ -ay 2*, *///. On -arch ., *///, ArespondentBJprivate prosecutor !led
the instant motion to dismiss.=
D
4Citations omitted5
R(li)* o+ '! Co(r' o+ App!"l#
#he C3 ruled that the institution o$ a criminal case implied the institution also o$ the civil
action arisin $rom the oCense. #hus, once determined in the criminal case aainst the
accused-employee, the employer8s subsidiary civil liability as set $orth in 3rticle *02 o$ the
)evised (enal Code becomes conclusive and en$orceable.
#he appellate court $urther held that to allo% an employer to dispute independently the civil
liability !"ed in the criminal case aainst the accused-employee %ould be to amend, nulli$y
or de$eat a !nal judment. Since the notice o$ appeal !led by the accused had already been
dismissed by the C3, then the judment o$ conviction and the a%ard o$ civil liability became
!nal and e"ecutory. Included in the civil liability o$ the accused %as the employer8s
subsidiary liability.
>ence, this (etition.
1
T! I##(!#
(etitioner states the issues o$ this case as $ollo%s<
=3. Whether or not an employer, %ho duti$ully participated in the de$ense o$ its
accused-employee, may appeal the judment o$ conviction independently o$ the
accused.
='. Whether or not the doctrines o$ Alvarez v. Court of Appeals 4*,F SC)3 ,15 and
Yusay v. Adil 4*D+ SC)3 +/+5 apply to the instant case.=
F
#here is really only one issue. Item ' above is merely an adjunct to Item 3.
T! Co(r',# R(li)*
#he (etition has no merit.
%"i) I##(!:
Propriety of Appeal by the Employer
(ointin out that it had seasonably !led a notice o$ appeal $rom the )#C Decision, petitioner
contends that the judment o$ conviction aainst the accused-employee has not attained
!nality. #he $ormer insists that its appeal stayed the !nality, not%ithstandin the $act that
the latter had jumped bail. In eCect, petitioner arues that its appeal ta&es the place o$ that
o$ the accused-employee.
We are not persuaded.
Appeals in Criminal Cases
Section * o$ )ule *.. o$ the .000 )evised )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure states thus<
=3ny party may appeal $rom a judment or !nal order, unless the accused %ill be
placed in double jeopardy.=
Clearly, both the accused and the prosecution may appeal a criminal case, but the
overnment may do so only i$ the accused %ould not thereby be placed in double jeopardy.
/

9urthermore, the prosecution cannot appeal on the round that the accused should have
been iven a more severe penalty.
*0
On the other hand, the oCended parties may also
appeal the judment %ith respect to their riht to civil liability. I$ the accused has the riht to
appeal the judment o$ conviction, the oCended parties should have the same riht to
appeal as much o$ the judment as is prejudicial to them.
**
Appeal by the Accused Who Jumps Bail
Well-established in our jurisdiction is the principle that the appellate court may, upon motion
or motu proprio, dismiss an appeal durin its pendency i$ the accused jumps bail. #he
second pararaph o$ Section F o$ )ule *.+ o$ the .000 )evised )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure
provides<
=#he Court o$ 3ppeals may also, upon motion o$ the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss
the appeal i$ the appellant escapes $rom prison or con!nement, jumps bail or Kees to
a $orein country durin the pendency o$ the appeal.=
*.
#his rule is based on the rationale that appellants lose their standin in court %hen they
abscond. ;nless they surrender or submit to the court8s jurisdiction, they are deemed to
have %aived their riht to see& judicial relie$.
*2
-oreover, this doctrine applies not only to the accused %ho jumps bail durin the appeal,
but also to one %ho does so durin the trial. @ustice 9loren? D. )ealado succinctly e"plains
the principle in this %ise<
=" " ". When, as in this case, the accused escaped a$ter his arrainment and durin
the trial, but the trial in absentia proceeded resultin in the promulation o$ a
judment aainst him and his counsel appealed, since he nonetheless remained at
lare his appeal must be dismissed by analoy %ith the a$oresaid provision o$ this
)ule A)ule *.+, LF o$ the )ules on Criminal (rocedureB. " " "=
*+
#he accused cannot be accorded the riht to appeal unless they voluntarily submit to the
jurisdiction o$ the court or are other%ise arrested %ithin *, days $rom notice o$ the judment
aainst them.
*,
While at lare, they cannot see& relie$ $rom the court, as they are deemed to
have %aived the appeal.
*D
Finality of a Decision in a Criminal Case
3s to %hen a judment o$ conviction attains !nality is e"plained in Section 1 o$ )ule *.0 o$
the .000 )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure, %hich %e Muote<
=3 judment o$ conviction may, upon motion o$ the accused, be modi!ed or set aside
be$ore it becomes !nal or be$ore appeal is per$ected. E"cept %here the death penalty
is imposed, a judment becomes !nal a$ter the lapse o$ the period $or per$ectin an
appeal, or %hen the sentence has been partially or totally satis!ed or served, or %hen
the accused has %aived in %ritin his riht to appeal, or has applied $or probation.=
In the case be$ore us, the accused-employee has escaped and re$used to surrender to the
proper authoritiesG thus, he is deemed to have abandoned his appeal. ConseMuently, the
judment aainst him has become !nal and e"ecutory.
*1
Liability of an Employer in a Finding of uilt
3rticle *0. o$ the )evised (enal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities o$ inn&eepers, as
$ollo%s<
=In de$ault o$ the persons criminally liable, inn&eepers, tavern&eepers, and any other
persons or corporations shall be civilly liable $or crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases %here a violation o$ municipal ordinances or some eneral
or special police reulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
=Inn&eepers are also subsidiary liable $or restitution o$ oods ta&en by robbery or the$t
%ithin their houses $rom uests lodin therein, or $or payment o$ the value thereo$,
provided that such uests shall have noti!ed in advance the inn&eeper himsel$, or the
person representin him, o$ the deposit o$ such oods %ithin the innG and shall
$urthermore have $ollo%ed the directions %hich such inn&eeper or his representative
may have iven them %ith respect to the care and viilance over such oods. No
liability shall attach in case o$ robbery %ith violence aainst or intimidation o$ persons
unless committed by the inn&eeper8s employees.=
-oreover, the $oreoin subsidiary liability applies to employers, accordin to 3rticle *02
%hich reads<
=#he subsidiary liability established in the ne"t precedin article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations enaed in any &ind o$ industry $or
$elonies committed by their servants, pupils, %or&men, apprentices, or employees in
the dischare o$ their duties.=
>avin laid all these basic rules and principles, %e no% address the main issue raised by
petitioner.
Ci!il Liability Deemed "nstituted in the Criminal Prosecution
3t the outset, %e must e"plain that the .000 )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure has clari!ed %hat
civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution.
Section * o$ )ule *** o$ the current )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure provides<
=When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action $or the recovery o$ civil liability
arisin $rom the oCense chared shall be deemed instituted %ith the criminal action
unless the oCended party %aives the civil action, reserves the riht to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
=" " " " " " " " "=
Only the civil liability o$ the accused arisin $rom the crime chared is deemed impliedly
instituted in a criminal actionG that is, unless the oCended party %aives the civil action,
reserves the riht to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action.
*F

>ence, the subsidiary civil liability o$ the employer under 3rticle *02 o$ the )evised (enal
Code may be en$orced by e"ecution on the basis o$ the judment o$ conviction meted out to
the employee.
*/
It is clear that the .000 )ules deleted the reMuirement o$ reservin independent civil actions
and allo%ed these to proceed separately $rom criminal actions. #hus, the civil actions
re$erred to in 3rticles 2.,
.0
22,
.*
2+
..
and .*1D
.2
o$ the Civil Code shall remain =separate,
distinct and independent= o$ any criminal prosecution based on the same act. >ere are some
direct conseMuences o$ such revision and omission<
*. #he riht to brin the $oreoin actions based on the Civil Code need not be
reserved in the criminal prosecution, since they are not deemed included therein.
.. #he institution or the %aiver o$ the riht to !le a separate civil action arisin $rom
the crime chared does not e"tinuish the riht to brin such action.
2. #he only limitation is that the oCended party cannot recover more than once $or the
same act or omission.
.+
What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arisin $rom the
crime or delict per se 4civil liability ex delicto5, but not those liabilities arisin $rom Muasi-
delicts, contracts or Muasi-contracts. In $act, even i$ a civil action is !led separately, the ex
delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the oCended party may --
subject to the control o$ the prosecutor -- still intervene in the criminal action, in order to
protect the remainin civil interest therein.
.,
#his discussion is completely in accord %ith the )evised (enal Code, %hich states that
=AeBvery person criminally liable $or a $elony is also civilly liable.=
.D
(etitioner arues that, as an employer, it is considered a party to the criminal case and is
conclusively bound by the outcome thereo$. ConseMuently, petitioner must be accorded the
riht to pursue the case to its loical conclusion -- includin the appeal.
#he arument has no merit. ;ndisputedly, petitioner is not a direct party to the criminal
case, %hich %as !led solely aainst Napoleon -. )oman, its employee.
In its -emorandum, petitioner cited a comprehensive list o$ cases dealin %ith the
subsidiary liability o$ employers. #herea$ter, it noted that none can be applied to it, because
=in all thAoBse cases, the accused8s employer did not interpose an appeal.=
.1
Indeed,
petitioner cannot cite any sinle case in %hich the employer appealed, precisely because an
appeal in such circumstances is not possible.
#he cases dealin %ith the subsidiary liability o$ employers uni$ormly declare that, strictly
spea&in, they are not parties to the criminal cases instituted aainst their employees.
.F

3lthouh in substance and in eCect, they have an interest therein, this $act should be vie%ed
in the liht o$ their subsidiary liability. While they may assist their employees to the e"tent o$
supplyin the latter8s la%yers, as in the present case, the $ormer cannot act independently
on their o%n behal$, but can only de$end the accused.
Wai!er of Constitutional #afeguard Against Double Jeopardy
(etitioner8s appeal obviously aims to have the accused-employee absolved o$ his criminal
responsibility and the judment revie%ed as a %hole. #hese intentions are apparent $rom its
3ppellant8s 'rie$
./
!led %ith the C3 and $rom its (etition
20
be$ore us, both o$ %hich claim that
the trial court8s !ndin o$ uilt =is not supported by competent evidence.=
2*
3n appeal $rom the sentence o$ the trial court implies a %aiver o$ the constitutional
sa$euard aainst double jeopardy and thro%s the %hole case open to a revie% by the
appellate court. #he latter is then called upon to render judment as la% and justice dictate,
%hether $avorable or un$avorable to the appellant.
2.
#his is the ris& involved %hen the
accused decides to appeal a sentence o$ conviction.
22
Indeed, appellate courts have the
po%er to reverse, aIrm or modi$y the judment o$ the lo%er court and to increase or reduce
the penalty it imposed.
2+
I$ the present appeal is iven course, the %hole case aainst the accused-employee
becomes open to revie%. It thus $ollo%s that a penalty hiher than that %hich has already
been imposed by the trial court may be meted out to him. (etitioner8s appeal %ould thus
violate his riht aainst double jeopardy, since the judment aainst him could become
subject to modi!cation %ithout his consent.
We are not in a position to second-uess the reason %hy the accused eCectively %aived his
riht to appeal by jumpin bail. It is clear, thouh, that petitioner may not appeal %ithout
violatin his riht aainst double jeopardy.
E$ect of Absconding on the Appeal Process
-oreover, %ithin the meanin o$ the principles overnin the prevailin criminal procedure,
the accused impliedly %ithdre% his appeal by jumpin bail and thereby made the judment
o$ the court belo% !nal.
2,
>avin been a $uitive $rom justice $or a lon period o$ time, he is
deemed to have %aived his riht to appeal. #hus, his conviction is no% !nal and e"ecutory.
#he Court in People v. Ang Gioc
2D
ruled<
=#here are certain $undamental rihts %hich cannot be %aived even by the accused
himsel$, but the riht o$ appeal is not one o$ them. #his riht is ranted solely $or the
bene!t o$ the accused. >e may avail o$ it or not, as he pleases. >e may %aive it either
e"pressly or by implication. When the accused Kees a$ter the case has been
submitted to the court $or decision, he %ill be deemed to have %aived his riht to
appeal $rom the judment rendered aainst him. " " ".=
21
'y Keein, the herein accused e"hibited contempt o$ the authority o$ the court and placed
himsel$ in a position to speculate on his chances $or a reversal. In the process, he &ept
himsel$ out o$ the reach o$ justice, but hoped to render the judment nuatory at his
option.
2F
Such conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part o$ the appellate
court.
2/
ConseMuently, the judment aainst an appellant %ho escapes and %ho re$uses to surrender
to the proper authorities becomes !nal and e"ecutory.
+0
#hus $ar, %e have clari!ed that petitioner has no riht to appeal the criminal case aainst
the accused-employeeG that by jumpin bail, he has %aived his riht to appealG and that the
judment in the criminal case aainst him is no% !nal.
#ubsidiary Liability %pon Finality of Judgment
3s a matter o$ la%, the subsidiary liability o$ petitioner no% accrues. (etitioner arues that
the rulins o$ this Court in Miranda v. Malate Garage & Taxicab !nc.,
+*
Alvarez v. CA
+.
and
Yusay v. Adil
+2
do not apply to the present case, because it has $ollo%ed the Court8s directive
to the employers in these cases to ta&e part in the criminal cases aainst their employees.
'y participatin in the de$ense o$ its employee, herein petitioner tries to shield itsel$ $rom
the undisputed rulins laid do%n in these leadin cases.
Such posturin is untenable. In dissectin these cases on subsidiary liability, petitioner lost
trac& o$ the most basic tenet they have laid do%n -- that an employer8s liability in a !ndin
o$ uilt aainst its accused-employee is subsidiary.
;nder 3rticle *02 o$ the )evised (enal Code, employers are subsidiarily liable $or the
adjudicated civil liabilities o$ their employees in the event o$ the latter8s insolvency.
++
#he
provisions o$ the )evised (enal Code on subsidiary liability -- 3rticles *0. and *02 -- are
deemed %ritten into the judments in the cases to %hich they are applicable.
+,
#hus, in the
dispositive portion o$ its decision, the trial court need not e"pressly pronounce the subsidiary
liability o$ the employer.
In the absence o$ any collusion bet%een the accused-employee and the oCended party, the
judment o$ conviction should bind the person %ho is subsidiarily liable.
+D
In eCect and
implication, the stima o$ a criminal conviction surpasses mere civil liability.
+1
#o allo% employers to dispute the civil liability !"ed in a criminal case %ould enable them to
amend, nulli$y or de$eat a !nal judment rendered by a competent court.
+F
'y the same
to&en, to allo% them to appeal the !nal criminal conviction o$ their employees %ithout the
latter8s consent %ould also result in improperly amendin, nulli$yin or de$eatin the
judment.
#he decision convictin an employee in a criminal case is bindin and conclusive upon the
employer not only %ith reard to the $ormer8s civil liability, but also %ith reard to its
amount. #he liability o$ an employer cannot be separated $rom that o$ the employee.
+/
'e$ore the employers8 subsidiary liability is e"acted, ho%ever, there must be adeMuate
evidence establishin that 4*5 they are indeed the employers o$ the convicted employeesG
4.5 that the $ormer are enaed in some &ind o$ industryG 425 that the crime %as committed
by the employees in the dischare o$ their dutiesG and 4+5 that the e"ecution aainst the
latter has not been satis!ed due to insolvency.
,0
#he resolution o$ these issues need not be done in a separate civil action. 'ut the
determination must be based on the evidence that the oCended party and the employer
may $ully and $reely present. Such determination may be done in the same criminal action in
%hich the employee8s liability, criminal and civil, has been pronouncedG
,*
and in a hearin
set $or that precise purpose, %ith due notice to the employer, as part o$ the proceedins $or
the e"ecution o$ the judment.
@ust because the present petitioner participated in the de$ense o$ its accused-employee does
not mean that its liability has trans$ormed its natureG its liability remains subsidiary. Neither
%ill its participation erase its subsidiary liability. #he $act remains that since the accused-
employee8s conviction has attained !nality, then the subsidiary liability o$ the employer ipso
facto attaches.
3ccordin to the arument o$ petitioner, $airness dictates that %hile the !nality o$ conviction
could be the proper sanction to be imposed upon the accused $or jumpin bail, the same
sanction should not aCect it. In eCect, petitioner-employer splits this case into t%o< "rst $or
itsel$G and second $or its accused-employee.
#he untenability o$ this arument is clearly evident. #here is only one criminal case aainst
the accused-employee. 3 !ndin o$ uilt has both criminal and civil aspects. It is the heiht
o$ absurdity $or this sinle case to be !nal as to the accused %ho jumped bail, but not as to
an entity %hose liability is dependent upon the conviction o$ the $ormer.
#he subsidiary liability o$ petitioner is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil
liability o$ the accused-employee. Since the civil liability o$ the latter has become !nal and
en$orceable by reason o$ his Kiht, then the $ormer8s subsidiary civil liability has also become
immediately en$orceable. )espondent is correct in aruin that the concept o$ subsidiary
liability is hihly continent on the imposition o$ the primary civil liability.
&o Depri!ation of Due Process
3s to the arument that petitioner %as deprived o$ due process, %e reiterate that %hat is
souht to be en$orced is the subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon the
employee8s criminal nelience. In other %ords, the employer becomes ipso facto
subsidiarily liable upon the conviction o$ the employee and upon proo$ o$ the latter8s
insolvency, in the same %ay that acMuittal %ipes out not only his primary civil liability, but
also his employer8s subsidiary liability $or his criminal nelience.
,.
It should be stressed that the riht to appeal is neither a natural riht nor a part o$ due
process.
,2
It is merely a procedural remedy o$ statutory oriin, a remedy that may be
e"ercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions o$ la% authori?in such e"ercise.
,+

>ence, the leal reMuirements must be strictly complied %ith.
,,
It %ould be incorrect to consider the reMuirements o$ the rules on appeal as merely harmless
and trivial technicalities that can be discarded.
,D
Indeed, deviations $rom the rules cannot be
tolerated.
,1
In these times %hen court doc&ets are cloed %ith numerous litiations, such
rules have to be $ollo%ed by parties %ith reater !delity, so as to $acilitate the orderly
disposition o$ those cases.
,F
3$ter a judment has become !nal, vested rihts are acMuired by the %innin party. I$ the
proper losin party has the riht to !le an appeal %ithin the prescribed period, then the
$ormer has the correlative riht to enjoy the !nality o$ the resolution o$ the case.
,/
In $act, petitioner admits that by helpin the accused-employee, it participated in the
proceedins be$ore the )#CG thus, it cannot be said that the employer %as deprived o$ due
process. It miht have lost its riht to appeal, but it %as not denied its day in court.
D0
In $act,
it can be said that by jumpin bail, the accused-employee, not the court, deprived petitioner
o$ the riht to appeal.
3ll told, %hat is le$t to be done is to e"ecute the )#C Decision aainst the accused. It should
be clear that only a$ter proo$ o$ his insolvency may the subsidiary liability o$ petitioner be
en$orced. It has been suIciently proven that there e"ists an employer-employee
relationshipG that the employer is enaed in some &ind o$ industryG and that the employee
has been adjuded uilty o$ the %ron$ul act and $ound to have committed the oCense in the
dischare o$ his duties. #he proo$ is clear $rom the admissions o$ petitioner that =AoBn .D
3uust *//0, #$ile on its regular trip from %aoag to Manila a passenger bus o#ned by
petitioner being t$en operated by petitioner&s driver Napoleon )oman, "gured in an
accident in 'an (uan %a )nion " " ".=
D*
Neither does petitioner dispute that there %as
already a !ndin o$ uilt aainst the accused %hile he %as in the dischare o$ his duties.
W>E)E9O)E, the (etition is hereby $ENIE$, and the assailed )esolutions AFFIR%E$. Costs
aainst petitioner.
SO O)DE)ED.
NNN
%"i) I##(!: Whether the petitioner, a la% student, may appear be$ore an in$erior court as
an aent or $riend o$ a party litiant.
G.R. No. 1-4207 April 27, 2007
FER$INAN$ A. CRU., (etitioner,
vs.
ALBERTO %INA, HON. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO ")/ HON. .ENAI$A LAGUILLES,
)espondents.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA0%ARTINE., J.'
'e$ore the Court is a (etition $or Certiorari under )ule D, o$ the )ules o$ Court, rounded on
pure Muestions o$ la%, %ith (rayer $or (reliminary Injunction assailin the )esolution dated
-ay 2, .00. promulated by the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5, 'ranch **D, (asay City, in Civil
Case No. 0.-0*21, %hich denied the issuance o$ a %rit o$ preliminary injunction aainst the
-etropolitan #rial Court 4-e#C5, 'ranch +,, (asay City, in Criminal Case No. 00-*10,G
*
and
the )#C8s Order dated @une ,, .00. denyin the -otion $or )econsideration. No %rit o$
preliminary injunction %as issued by this Court.
#he antecedents<
On September .,, .000, 9erdinand 3. Cru? 4petitioner5 !led be$ore the -e#C a $ormal Entry
o$ 3ppearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal Case No. 00-*10, $or 6rave #hreats, %here
his $ather, -ariano Cru?, is the complainin %itness.
#he petitioner, describin himsel$ as a third year la% student, justi!es his appearance as
private prosecutor on the bases o$ Section 2+ o$ )ule *2F o$ the )ules o$ Court and the rulin
o$ the Court En 'anc in Cantimbu$an v. (udge Cruz (r.
.
that a non-la%yer may appear be$ore
the in$erior courts as an aent or $riend o$ a party litiant. #he petitioner $urthermore avers
that his appearance %as %ith the prior con$ormity o$ the public prosecutor and a %ritten
authority o$ -ariano Cru? appointin him to be his aent in the prosecution o$ the said
criminal case.
>o%ever, in an Order dated 9ebruary *, .00., the -e#C denied permission $or petitioner to
appear as private prosecutor on the round that Circular No. */ overnin limited la%
student practice in conjunction %ith )ule *2F-3 o$ the )ules o$ Court 4:a% Student (ractice
)ule5 should ta&e precedence over the rulin o$ the Court laid do%n in Cantimbu$anG and set
the case $or continuation o$ trial.
2

On 9ebruary *2, .00., petitioner !led be$ore the -e#C a -otion $or )econsideration see&in
to reverse the 9ebruary *, .00. Order allein that )ule *2F-3, or the :a% Student (ractice
)ule, does not have the eCect o$ supersedin Section 2+ o$ )ule *2F, $or the authority to
interpret the rule is the source itsel$ o$ the rule, %hich is the Supreme Court alone.
In an Order dated -arch +, .00., the -e#C denied the -otion $or )econsideration.
On 3pril ., .00., the petitioner !led be$ore the )#C a (etition $or Certiorari and -andamus
%ith (rayer $or (reliminary Injunction and #emporary )estrainin Order aainst the private
respondent and the public respondent -e#C.
3$ter hearin the prayer $or preliminary injunction to restrain public respondent -e#C @ude
$rom proceedin %ith Criminal Case No. 00-*10, pendin the Certiorari proceedins, the
)#C, in a )esolution dated -ay 2, .00., resolved to deny the issuance o$ an injunctive %rit
on the round that the crime o$ 6rave #hreats, the subject o$ Criminal Case No. 00-*10,, is
one that can be prosecuted de o!cio, there bein no claim $or civil indemnity, and that
there$ore, the intervention o$ a private prosecutor is not leally tenable.
On -ay /, .00., the petitioner !led be$ore the )#C a -otion $or )econsideration. #he
petitioner arues that no%here does the la% provide that the crime o$ 6rave #hreats has no
civil aspect. 3nd last, petitioner cites 'ar -atter No. 120 dated @une *0, *//1 %hich
e"pressly provides $or the appearance o$ a non-la%yer be$ore the in$erior courts, as an aent
or $riend o$ a party litiant, even %ithout the supervision o$ a member o$ the bar.
(endin the resolution o$ the $oreoin -otion $or )econsideration be$ore the )#C, the
petitioner !led a Second -otion $or )econsideration dated @une 1, .00. %ith the -e#C
see&in the reversal o$ the -arch +, .00. Denial Order o$ the said court, on the strenth o$
'ar -atter No. 120, and a -otion to >old In 3beyance the #rial dated @une *0, .00. o$
Criminal Case No. 00-*10, pendin the outcome o$ the certiorari proceedins be$ore the
)#C.
On @une ,, .00., the )#C issued its Order denyin the petitioner8s -otion $or
)econsideration.
:i&e%ise, in an Order dated @une *2, .00., the -e#C denied the petitioner8s Second -otion
$or )econsideration and his -otion to >old in 3beyance the #rial on the round that the )#C
had already denied the Entry o$ 3ppearance o$ petitioner be$ore the -e#C.
On @uly 20, .00., the petitioner directly !led %ith this Court, the instant (etition and assins
the $ollo%in errors<
I.
the respondent reional trial court abused its discretion %hen it resolved to deny the prayer
$or the %rit o$ injunction o$ the herein petitioner despite petitioner havin established the
necessity o$ rantin the %ritG
II.
#>E )ES(ONDEN# #)I3: CO;)# 3';SED I#S DISC)E#ION, #3N#3-O;N# #O I6NO)3NCE O9
#>E :3W, W>EN I# )ESO:7ED #O DENO #>E ()3OE) 9O) #>E W)I# O9 ()E:I-IN3)O
IN@;NC#ION 3ND #>E S;'SEH;EN# -O#ION 9O) )ECONSIDE)3#ION O9 #>E >E)EIN
(E#I#IONE) ON #>E '3SIS #>3# A6)37EB #>)E3#S >3S NO CI7I: 3S(EC#, 9O) #>E S3ID
'3SIS O9 DENI3: IS NO# IN 3CCO)D WI#> #>E :3WG
III.
#>E )ES(ONDEN# -E#)O(O:I#3N #)I3: CO;)# 3';SED I#S DISC)E#ION W>EN I# DENIED
#>E -O#ION #O >O:D IN 3'EO3NCE #)I3:, W>EN W>3# W3S DENIED 'O #>E )ES(ONDEN#
)E6ION3: #)I3: CO;)# IS #>E ISS;3NCE O9 #>E W)I# O9 ()E:I-IN3)O IN@;NC#ION and
W>EN #>E )ES(ONDEN# )E6ION3: #)I3: CO;)# IS OE# #O DECIDE ON #>E -E)I#S O9 #>E
(E#I#ION 9O) C*+T!,+A+!G
I7.
#>E )ES(ONDEN# CO;)#AsB 3)E C:E3):O I6NO)IN6 #>E :3W W>EN #>EO (3#EN#:O
)E9;SED #O >EED #O AsicB #>E C:E3) -3ND3#E O9 #>E :3(;#, C3N#I-';>3N 3ND
';:3C3N C3SES, 3S WE:: 3S '3) -3##E) NO. 120, ()O7IDIN6 9O) #>E 3((E3)3NCE O9
NON-:3WOE)S 'E9O)E #>E :OWE) CO;)#S 4-#C8S5.
+

#his Court, in e"ceptional cases, and $or compellin reasons, or i$ %arranted by the nature o$
the issues revie%ed, may ta&e coni?ance o$ petitions !led directly be$ore it.
,

Considerin that this case involves the interpretation, clari!cation, and implementation o$
Section 2+, )ule *2F o$ the )ules o$ Court, 'ar -atter No. 120, Circular No. */ overnin la%
student practice and )ule *2F-3 o$ the )ules o$ Court, and the rulin o$ the Court in
Cantimbu$an, the Court ta&es coni?ance o$ herein petition.
#he basic Muestion is %hether the petitioner, a la% student, may appear be$ore an in$erior
court as an aent or $riend o$ a party litiant.
#he courts a Muo held that the :a% Student (ractice )ule as encapsulated in )ule *2F-3 o$
the )ules o$ Court, prohibits the petitioner, as a la% student, $rom enterin his appearance in
behal$ o$ his $ather, the private complainant in the criminal case %ithout the supervision o$
an attorney duly accredited by the la% school.
)ule *2F-3 or the :a% Student (ractice )ule, provides<
);:E *2F-3
:3W S#;DEN# ()3C#ICE );:E
Section *. Conditions $or Student (ractice. P 3 la% student %ho has success$ully completed
his 2rd year o$ the reular $our-year prescribed la% curriculum and is enrolled in a reconi?ed
la% schoolQs clinical leal education proram approved by the Supreme Court, may appear
%ithout compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case be$ore any trial court,
tribunal, board or oIcer, to represent indient clients accepted by the leal clinic o$ the la%
school.
Sec. .. 3ppearance. P #he appearance o$ the la% student authori?ed by this rule, shall be
under the direct supervision and control o$ a member o$ the Interated 'ar o$ the (hilippines
duly accredited by the la% school. 3ny and all pleadins, motions, brie$s, memoranda or
other papers to be !led, must be sined by the supervisin attorney $or and in behal$ o$ the
leal clinic.
>o%ever, in )esolution
D
dated @une *0, *//1 in 'ar -atter No. 120, the Court En 'anc
clari!ed<
#he rule, ho%ever, is diCerent i$ the la% student appears be$ore an in$erior court, %here the
issues and procedure are relatively simple. In in$erior courts, a la% student may appear in his
personal capacity %ithout the supervision o$ a la%yer. Section 2+, )ule *2F provides<
Sec. 2+. -y #$om litigation is conducted. - I) '! &o(r' o+ " 1(#'i&! o+ '! p!"&!, a party
may conduct his litiation in person, %ith the aid o$ an aent or $riend appointed by him $or
that purpose, or %ith the aid o$ an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his
litiation personally or by aid o$ an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or
by a duly authori?ed member o$ the bar.
#hus, a la% student may appear be$ore an in$erior court as an aent or $riend o$ a party
%ithout the supervision o$ a member o$ the bar.
1
4Emphasis supplied5
#he phrase =In the court o$ a justice o$ the peace= in 'ar -atter No. 120 is subseMuently
chaned to =In the court o$ a municipality= as it no% appears in Section 2+ o$ )ule *2F,
thus<
F

SEC. 2+. 'y %hom litiation is conducted. R In the Court o$ a municipality a party may
conduct his litiation in person, %ith the aid o$ an aent or $riend appointed by him $or that
purpose, or %ith the aid o$ an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litiation
personally or by aid o$ an attorney and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly
authori?ed member o$ the bar. 4Emphasis supplied5
%hich is the prevailin rule at the time the petitioner !led his Entry o$ 3ppearance %ith the
-e#C on September .,, .000. No real distinction e"ists $or under Section D, )ule , o$ the
)ules o$ Court, the term =-unicipal #rial Courts= as used in these )ules shall include
-etropolitan #rial Courts, -unicipal #rial Courts in Cities, -unicipal #rial Courts, and -unicipal
Circuit #rial Courts.
#here is really no problem as to the application o$ Section 2+ o$ )ule *2F and )ule *2F-3. In
the $ormer, the appearance o$ a non-la%yer, as an aent or $riend o$ a party litiant, is
e"pressly allo%ed, %hile the latter rule provides $or conditions %hen a la% student, not as an
aent or a $riend o$ a party litiant, may appear be$ore the courts.
(etitioner e"pressly anchored his appearance on Section 2+ o$ )ule *2F. #he court a .uo
must have been con$used by the $act that petitioner re$erred to himsel$ as a la% student in
his entry o$ appearance. )ule *2F-3 should not have been used by the courts a .uo in
denyin permission to act as private prosecutor aainst petitioner $or the simple reason that
)ule *2F-3 is not the basis $or the petitioner8s appearance.
Section 2+, )ule *2F is clear that appearance be$ore the in$erior courts by a non-la%yer is
allo%ed, irrespective o$ %hether or not he is a la% student. 3s succinctly clari!ed in 'ar
-atter No. 120, by virtue o$ Section 2+, )ule *2F, a la% student may appear, as an aent or
a $riend o$ a party litiant, %ithout the supervision o$ a la%yer be$ore in$erior courts.
(etitioner $urther arues that the )#C erroneously held that, by its very nature, no civil
liability may Ko% $rom the crime o$ 6rave #hreats, and, $or this reason, the intervention o$ a
private prosecutor is not possible.
It is clear $rom the )#C Decision that no such conclusion had been intended by the )#C. In
denyin the issuance o$ the injunctive court, the )#C stated in its Decision that there %as no
claim $or civil liability by the private complainant $or damaes, and that the records o$ the
case do not provide $or a claim $or indemnityG and that there$ore, petitioner8s appearance as
private prosecutor appears to be leally untenable.
;nder 3rticle *00 o$ the )evised (enal Code, every person criminally liable $or a $elony is
also civilly liable e"cept in instances %hen no actual damae results $rom an oCense, such as
espionae, violation o$ neutrality, Kiht to an enemy country, and crime aainst popular
representation.
/
#he basic rule applies in the instant case, such that %hen a criminal action
is instituted, the civil action $or the recovery o$ civil liability arisin $rom the oCense chared
shall be deemed instituted %ith criminal action, unless the oCended party %aives the civil
action, reserves the riht to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
*0

#he petitioner is correct in statin that there bein no reservation, %aiver, nor prior
institution o$ the civil aspect in Criminal Case No. 00-*10,, it $ollo%s that the civil aspect
arisin $rom 6rave #hreats is deemed instituted %ith the criminal action, and, hence, the
private prosecutor may riht$ully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect.
W>E)E9O)E, the (etition is GRANTE$. #he assailed )esolution and Order o$ the )eional
#rial Court, 'ranch **D, (asay City are RE2ERSE$ and SET ASI$E. #he -etropolitan #rial
Court, 'ranch +,, (asay City is DI)EC#ED to 3D-I# the Entry o$ 3ppearance o$ petitioner in
Criminal Case No. 00-*10, as a private prosecutor under the direct control and supervision
o$ the public prosecutor.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 1-3177 4")("r5 23, 2003
SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG ")/ CAROLINE SIO6 CHING TENG, petitioners,
vs.
2ICENTE BALBOA, respondent.
$ E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA0%ARTINE., J.:
#he spouses 'enito :o 'un #ion and Caroline Sio& Chin #en 4petitioners5 chare 7icente
'alboa 4respondent5 %ith $orum shoppin.
On 9ebruary .+, *//1, respondent !led %ith the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ -anila 4'ranch
2+5, Civil Case No. /1-F..., $or Collection o$ Sum o$ -oney aainst petitioners. #he amount
souht covers three post-dated chec&s issued by petitioner Caroline Sio& Chin #en
4Caroline5, as $ollo%s< 3sia #rust Chec& No. 'NDO,1,+D dated December 20, *//D $or
(.,000,000.00G 3sia #rust Chec& No. 'NDO,1,+1 dated @anuary *,, *//1 $or (*,.00,000.00G
and 3sia #rust Chec& No. 'NDO,1,+F dated @anuary 2*, *//1 $or (*,/1,,.,0.00 - or a total
o$ (,,*1,,.,0.00.
*

On @uly .*, *//1, separate criminal complaints $or violation o$ -atas Pambansa -lg. .. 4'.(.
No. ..5 %ere !led aainst Caroline be$ore the -unicipal #rial Court 4-#C5 o$ -anila 4'ranch
*05, coverin the said three chec&s. #hese cases %ere doc&eted as Criminal Case Nos.
.11,1D to 1F.
.
On 3uust **, *//F, the )#C rendered its Decision in Civil Case No. /1-F..., !ndin
petitioners liable, as $ollo%s<
W>E)E9O)E, judment is hereby rendered in $avor o$ the plaintiC and aainst the
de$endants orderin the latter<
*. #o play the plaintiC the sum o$ (,,*1,,.,0.00 plus DS interest per annum until $ull
paymentG
.. #o pay the plaintiC the sum o$ (*00,000.00 as and $or attorneyQs $ees.
2. #o pay the cost o$ suit.
#he counterclaim is hereby dismissed $or lac& o$ merit.
SO O)DE)ED.
2
#herea$ter, in a Decision dated December ,, .00* rendered in Criminal Case Nos. .11,1D to
1F, the -#C acMuitted Caroline o$ the oCenses chared $or $ailure o$ the prosecution to prove
her uilt beyond reasonable doubt. #he -#C, ho%ever, $ound Caroline civilly liable in $avor o$
respondent $or the amounts covered by these chec&s, to %it<
W>E)E9O)E, accused Caroline Sio& Chin #en is acMuitted o$ the chare $or violation
o$ '( 'l. .. $or $ailure o$ the prosecution to prove her uilt beyond reasonable doubt.
#he accused is ordered civilly liable to the oCended party $or the amounts o$ the
chec&s subject o$ the three in$ormations herein, i.e., (*,.00,000.00, (*,/1,,.,0.00
and (.,000,000.00.
SO O)DE)ED.
+
(etitioner souht partial reconsideration o$ the -#C Decision prayin $or the deletion o$ the
a%ard o$ civil indemnity, but it %as denied by the -#C per Order dated 3pril *., .00.. #hus,
Caroline appealed to the )#C, %hich doc&eted the case as Criminal Case Nos. 0.-.0+,++-+D.
In the meantime, petitioners brouht to the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35 on appeal the )#C
Decision in Civil Case No. /1-F...,, doc&eted as C3-6.). C7 No. D*+,1. In the assailed
Decision dated November .0, .00., the C3
,
dismissed the appeal $or lac& o$ merit and
aIrmed the )#C Decision in toto. #he dispositive portion o$ the assailed C3 Decision reads<
W>E)E9O)E, in vie% o$ the $oreoin and !ndin no reversible error in the appealed
Decision dated 3uust **, *//F o$ 'ranch 2+ o$ the )eional #rial Court o$ -anila in
Civil Case No. /1-F...,, the instant appeal is DIS-ISSED $or lac& o$ merit, and said
Decision is aIrmed in toto.
SO O)DE)ED.
D
(etitioners moved $or reconsideration o$ the C3 Decision, but this %as denied per )esolution
dated 3pril .*, .002.
1
On -ay F, .002, the )#C as an appellate court, rendered its Decision in Criminal Case No.
0.-.0+,++-+D, modi$yin the -#C Decision by deletin the a%ard o$ civil damaes.
F

No% be$ore the Court $or resolution is the 3mended (etition !led under )ule +, o$ the )ules
o$ Court, Muestionin the C3 Decision dated November .0, .00. and )esolution dated 3pril
.*, .002, on the lone round that<
(;':IC )ES(ONDEN# CO;)# O9 3((E3:S 3C#ED WI#>O;# @;)ISDIC#ION 3ND WI#>
6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION IN 3::OWIN6 ()I73#E )ES(ONDEN# #O )ECO7E)
#WICE 9O) #>E S3-E O':I63#ION ON 3CCO;N# O9 #>E S3ID ()I73#E
)ES(ONDEN#QS DE:I'E)3#E 93I:;)E 3ND )E9;S3: #O IN9O)- #>E )E6ION3: #)I3:
CO;)# #>3# #>E CI7I: O':I63#ION 'EIN6 S;ED ;(ON IS #>E S;'@EC# O9 C)I-IN3:
CO-(:3IN#S WI#> #>E -E#)O(O:I#3N #)I3: CO;)#, 3ND 9O) W>IC> #>E CI7I:
O':I63#ION W3S S;'SEH;EN#:O 3D@;D6ED.
/
(etitioners contend that the assailed C3 Decision and )esolution should be reconsidered and
the )#C Decision dated 3uust **, *//F dismissed as respondentQs act o$ !lin Civil Case No.
/1-F..., and Criminal Cases Nos. .11,1D to 1F constitutes $orum shoppin.
9orum shoppin is the institution o$ t%o or more actions or proceedins rounded on the
same cause, on the supposition that one or the other court %ould render a $avorable
disposition. It is usually resorted to by a party aainst %hom an adverse judment or order
has been issued in one $orum, in an attempt to see& and possibly to et a $avorable opinion
in another $orum, other than by an appeal or a special civil action $or certiorari.
*0
#here is $orum shoppin %hen the $ollo%in elements concur< 4*5 identity o$ the parties or, at
least, o$ the parties %ho represent the same interest in both actionsG 4.5 identity o$ the rihts
asserted and relie$ prayed $or, as the latter is $ounded on the same set o$ $actsG and 425
identity o$ the t%o precedin particulars, such that any judment rendered in the other
action %ill amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or %ill constitute litis
pendentia.
**
In /yatt !ndustrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia 0ynamic *lectrix Corp.,
*.
the Court ruled that
there is identity o$ parties and causes o$ action bet%een a civil case $or the recovery o$ sum
o$ money as a result o$ the issuance o$ bouncin chec&s, and a criminal case $or the
prosecution o$ a '.(. No. .. violation. #hus, it ordered the dismissal o$ the civil action so as
to prevent double payment o$ the claim. #he Court stated<
" " " #he prime purpose o$ the criminal action is to punish the oCender to deter him
and others $rom committin the same or similar oCense, to isolate him $rom society,
re$orm or rehabilitate him or, in eneral, to maintain social order. #he purpose,
mean%hile, o$ the civil action is $or the restitution, reparation or indemni!cation o$ the
private oCended party $or the damae or injury he sustained by reason o$ the delictual
or $elonious act o$ the accused. >ence, the relie$ souht in the civil aspect o$ I.S. No.
00-0*-0020+ and I.S. No. 00-0*-00200 is the same as that souht in Civil Case No. -C
0*-*+/2, that is, the recovery o$ the amount o$ the chec&s, %hich, accordin to
petitioner, represents the amount to be paid by respondent $or its purchases. " " "
#his %as reiterated in 'ilangan Textile Manufacturing Corp. v. 0emetria,
*2
%here the civil
case $or the recovery o$ the amount covered by the bouncin chec&s %as also ordered
dismissed.
In /yatt and 'ilangan, the Court applied Supreme Court Circular No. ,1-/1 eCective
September *D, *//1, %hich provides<
*. #he criminal action $or violation o$ 'atas (ambansa 'l. .. shall be deemed to
necessarily include the correspondin civil action, and no reservation to !le such
action separately shall be allo%ed or reconi?ed.
#his %as later adopted as )ule ***4b5 o$ the .000 )evised )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure, to
%it<
4b5 #he criminal action $or violation o$ 'atas (ambansa 'l. .. shall be deemed to
include the correspondin civil action. No reservation to !le such civil action
separately shall be allo%ed.
;pon !lin o$ the a$oresaid joint criminal and civil actions, the oCended party shall
pay in $ull the !lin $ees based on the amount o$ the chec& involved, %hich shall be
considered as the actual damaes claimed. Where the complaint or in$ormation also
see&s to recover liMuidated, moral, nominal, temperate or e"emplary damaes, the
oCended party shall pay the !lin $ees based on the amounts alleed therein. I$ the
amounts are not so alleed but any o$ these damaes are subseMuently a%arded by
the court, the !lin $ees based on the amount a%arded shall constitute a !rst lien on
the judment.
Where the civil action has been !led separately and trial thereo$ has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated %ith the criminal action upon application %ith the
court tryin the latter case. I$ the application is ranted, the trial o$ both actions shall
proceed in accordance %ith section . o$ this )ule overnin consolidation o$ the civil
and criminal actions.
#he $oreoin, ho%ever, are not applicable to the present case. It is %orth notin that Civil
Case No. /1-F..., %as !led on 9ebruary .+, *//1, and Criminal Cases Nos. .11,1D to 1F on
@uly .*, *//1, prior to the adoption o$ Supreme Court Circular No. ,1-/1 on September *D,
*//1. #hus, at the time o$ !lin o$ Civil Case No. /1-F..., and Criminal Cases Nos. .11,1D
to 1F, the overnin rule is Section *, )ule *** o$ the */F, )ules o$ Court, to %it<
SEC. *. !nstitution of criminal and civil actions. - When a criminal action is instituted,
the civil action $or the recovery o$ civil liability is impliedly instituted %ith the criminal
action, unless the oCended party %aives the civil action, reserves his riht to institute
it separately, or i)#'i'('!# '! &i7il "&'io) prior 'o '! &ri8i)"l "&'io).
Such civil action includes the recovery o$ indemnity under the )evised (enal Code,
and damaes under 3rticles 2., 22, 2+ and .*1D o$ the Civil Code o$ the (hilippines
arisin $rom the same act or omission o$ the accused.
" " " " 4Emphasis supplied5
;nder the $oreoin rule, an action $or the recovery o$ civil liability arisin $rom an oCense
chared is necessarily included in the criminal proceedins, unless 4*5 there is an e"press
%aiver o$ the civil action, or 4.5 there is a reservation to institute a separate one, or 425 the
civil action %as !led prior to the criminal complaint.
*+
Since respondent instituted the civil
action prior to the criminal action, then Civil Case No. /1-F..., may proceed independently
o$ Criminal Cases Nos. .11,1D to 1F, and there is no $orum shoppin to spea& o$.
Even under the amended rules, a separate proceedin $or the recovery o$ civil liability in
cases o$ violations o$ '.(. No. .. is allo%ed %hen the civil case is !led ahead o$ the criminal
case. #hus, in the /yatt case, the Court noted, viz.<
" " " #his rule A)ule ***4b5 o$ the .000 )evised )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure B %as
enacted to help declo court doc&ets %hich are !lled %ith '.(. .. cases as creditors
actually use the courts as collectors. 'ecause ordinarily no !lin $ee is chared in
criminal cases $or actual damaes, the payee uses the intimidatin eCect o$ a criminal
chare to collect his credit ratis and sometimes, upon bein paid, the trial court is
not even in$ormed thereo$. #he inclusion o$ the civil action in the criminal case is
e"pected to sini!cantly lo%er the number o$ cases !led be$ore the courts $or
collection based on dishonored chec&s. It is also e"pected to e"pedite the disposition
o$ these cases. Instead o$ institutin t%o separate cases, one $or criminal and another
$or civil, only a sinle suit shall be !led and tried. It should be stressed that the policy
laid do%n by the )ules is to discourae the separate !lin o$ the civil action. #he )ules
even prohibit the reservation o$ a separate civil action, %hich means that one can no
loner !le a separate civil case a$ter the criminal complaint is !led in court. T! o)l5
i)#'")&! 9!) #!p"r"'! pro&!!/i)*# "r! "llo9!/ i# 9!) '! &i7il "&'io) i#
:l!/ "!"/ o+ '! &ri8i)"l &"#!. Even then, the )ules encourae the consolidation
o$ the civil and criminal cases. We have previously observed that a separate civil
action $or the purpose o$ recoverin the amount o$ the dishonored chec&s %ould only
prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consumin $or both parties and %ould
$urther delay the !nal disposition o$ the case. #his multiplicity o$ suits must be
avoided. Where petitionersQ rihts may be $ully adjudicated in the proceedins be$ore
the trial court, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly
un%arranted. 4Emphasis supplied5
-oreover, the )#C, in its Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 0.-.0+,++-+D, already deleted the
a%ard o$ civil damaes. )ecords do not disclose that appeal had been ta&en there$rom.
#here is, there$ore, no double recovery o$ the amounts covered by the chec&s or unjust
enrichment on the part o$ respondent.
;HEREFORE, the petition is $ENIE$ $or lac& o$ merit. #he Decision dated November .0,
.00. and )esolution dated 3pril .*, .002 o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals are AFFIR%E$.
Costs aainst petitioners.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 133347 O&'o<!r 1-, 2003
ABS0CBN BROA$CASTING CORPORATION, EUGENIO LOPE., 4R., AUGUSTO AL%E$A0
LOPE., ")/ OSCAR %. LOPE., petitioners,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE O%BU$S%AN, ROBERTO S. BENE$ICTO,
N
E=E>UIEL B. GARCIA,
%IGUEL 2. GON.ALES, ")/ SAL2A$OR ?BU$$@A TAN,
N
respondent.
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
3t bar is a petition $or certiorari under )ule D, o$ the )ules o$ Court challenin the @oint
)esolution
*
dated -ay ., *//1 o$ then Ombudsman 3niano Desierto in O-'-0-/+-**0/,
dismissin the complaint !led by petitioners aainst private respondents, and the Order
.

denyin their motion $or reconsideration.
#his case stems $rom an all too $amiliar chapter in (hilippine history, i.e., the declaration o$
martial la% by then (resident 9erdinand -arcos and the simultaneous seMuestration o$ not a
$e% private corporations, includin one o$ the petitioners herein, 3'S-C'N 'roadcastin
Corporation 43'S-C'N5.
On 3pril *F and .D, *//+, petitioners Euenio, @r., Oscar and 3uusto 3lmeda, all surnamed
:ope?, as oIcers and on behal$ o$ 3'S-C'N, e"ecuted separate complaint-aIdavits charin
private respondents )oberto S. 'enedicto, E"eMuiel '. 6arcia, -iuel 7. 6on?ale?, and
Salvador 4'uddy5 #an %ith the $ollo%in crimes penali?ed under the )evised (enal Code
4)(C5< 4a5 3rticle ./F - E"ecution o$ Deeds by -eans o$ 7iolence or IntimidationG 4b5 3rticle
2*, pararaphs *AbB, .AaB, 2AaB - Esta$aG 4c5 3rticle 20F - #he$tG 4d5 3rticle 20. - )obberyG 4e5
3rticle 2*. - Occupation o$ )eal (roperty or ;surpation o$ )eal )ihts in (ropertyG and 4$5
3rticle 2*F - Other Deceits.
Individual petitionersQ complaint-aIdavits
2
uni$ormly narrated the $ollo%in $acts<
*. #he day a$ter the declaration o$ martial la%, or on September .., */1., just be$ore
midniht, military troops arrived at the 3'S-C'N 'roadcast Center in 'ohol 3venue, Hue?on
City, and in$ormed the oIcers and personnel thereat o$ the sei?ure and closure o$ the
premises by virtue o$ :etter o$ Instruction 4:OI5 No. * issued by (resident -arcos orderin the
closure o$ all radio and television stations in the country.
.. :OI No. * authori?ed the Secretary o$ National De$ense to =ta&e over or control, or cause
the ta&in over and control o$ all " " " ne%spapers, maa?ines, radio and television $acilities
and all other media o$ communications= throuhout the country. ConseMuently, a total o$
seven 415 television stations o%ned and operated by 3'S-C'N %ere closed do%n by the
overnment.
+
2. When it became apparent that petitioners %ould not be ranted a permit to re-open, 3'S-
C'N on October 2*, */1., terminated the services o$ all its employees, ivin each
employee hisJher retirement bene!ts. Corollary thereto, sometime in November */1.,
Euenio :ope?, @r., then president o$ 3'S-C'N, %rote then Secretary o$ National De$ense,
@uan (once Enrile,
,
o$ their desire to sell 3'S-C'N to the overnment. In that same month,
ho%ever, Euenio :ope?, @r. %as arrested by the military, and detained at 9ort 'oni$acio $or
almost !ve 4,5 years until his escape there$rom on September 20, */11.
+. SubseMuently, a$ter the proposal to sell 3'S-C'N to the -arcos overnment did not
materiali?e, 3'S-C'N started neotiations %ith then 6overnor o$ :eyte, 'enjamin =To&oy=
)omualde?, %ho e"pressed his desire and intention to acMuire the $ormer. >o%ever, the
neotiations %ith To&oy )omualde? in */12 li&e%ise did not result in the sale and re-openin
o$ 3'S-C'N.
,. On @une D, */12, the television and radio stations o$ Tanlaon 'roadcastin System 4T'S5
on )o"as 'oulevard, (asay City %ere consumed by !re. T'S %as the umbrella corporation o$
the 'enedicto 6roup o$ broadcastin companies, includin )adio (hilippines Net%or& 4)(N5,
D

%hich operated #7 Channel /, the only television station allo%ed to continue operatin
durin the early years o$ the martial la% reime. )espondent 'enedicto, then (hilippine
3mbassador to @apan, manaed, controlled, and %as one o$ the principal stoc&holders o$
)(N.
D. On even date, both 'enedicto and 3l$redo -ontelibano, %ho at that time %as Chairperson
o$ the 'oard o$ Directors 4'OD5 o$ 3'S-C'N, %ere in 'acolod. 'enedicto constituted
-ontelibano as his emissary to the :ope?es, relayin his plan to temporarily use 3'S-C'NQs
broadcast studios in Hue?on City, $rom %hich to operate #7 Channel /, $or such period o$
time as may be necessary to rebuild T'SQ burned studios.
1. On @une F, */12, -ontelibano met %ith other oIcers and e"ecutives o$ 3'S-C'N,
includin herein petitioners Oscar and 3uusto :ope?, in$ormin them o$ 'enedictoQs
reMuest. Oscar and 3uusto, and the rest o$ the 3'S-C'N manaement team, stronly
opposed the reMuest. Eventually, ho%ever, %hen -ontelibano mentioned that -alacaUan
and )omualde? had cleared said reMuest, the possibility o$ a overnment-ordered
con!scation o$ 3'S-C'N, and not least o$ all, the possible release o$ Euenio :ope?, @r.,
petitioners Oscar and 3uusto, as %ith the rest o$ 3'S-C'NQs e"ecutives, acMuiesced to
'enedictoQs reMuest.
F. #hus, at noontime on the same day, representatives o$ T'S headed by @ose -ontalvo
arrived at the -eralco 'uildin to !nali?e the proposed arranement %ith 3'S-C'N. #he
transaction bet%een 3'S-C'N and T'S is evidenced by a letter-areement dated @une F,
*/12, %hich reads in relevant part<
#his is to con!rm the areement arrived at bet%een )(N and 3'S-C'N to the
$ollo%in eCect<
*. Commencin on the date hereo$, 3'S-C'N hereby conveys to )(N by %ay o$ lease
its #7 and radio eMuipment 4e"cludin #7 channels and radio $reMuencies5 and its
premises at the 3'S-C'N 'roadcast Center, 'ohol 3venue, Hue?on City 4collectively
called the =leased $acilities=5 listed in the schedule attached hereto and mar&ed as
3nne" =3=.
.. )(N shall pay 3'S-C'N monthly rental as is reasonable compensation $or the use o$
the leased $acilities. #he amount o$ the rental shall be determined a$ter a discussion
%ith 3mbassador )oberto 'enedicto.
2. #he term o$ this lease shall commence on the date hereo$ and continue $or such
reasonable time as may be normally necessary $or the rehabilitation o$ )(NQs $acilities
unless an earlier period may be !"ed by )(N and 3'S-C'N a$ter discussion %ith
3mbassador 'enedicto.
+. )(N hereby assumes $ull and complete responsibility $or the leased $acilities and
shall be ans%erable $or any and all losses and damaes to such $acilities.
" " " "
D. ;pon termination o$ this lease, )(N shall return the possession o$ the leased
$acilities to 3'S-C'N and vacate the same %ithout the need o$ notice or demand.
1. 3'S-C'N, throuh its Chairman, -r. 3l$redo -ontelibano, shall have the riht to
select and desinate the personnel 4not to e"ceed .0 at any one time5 to maintain
and operate all speciali?ed #7 and radio eMuipment.
" " " "
*0. 3'S-C'N shall have the riht to enter the 'roadcast Center at any reasonable time
durin the term o$ this lease $or the purpose o$ determinin compliance by )(N o$ the
terms hereo$.
" " " "
*.. )(N shall not, %ithout the prior %ritten consent o$ 3'S-C'N, sub-lease the leased
$acilities or any part thereo$ nor shall any part be removed $rom the premises e"cept
the eMuipment, %hich are intended $or operation the 'roadcast Center in due course
o$ operations.
/. -ean%hile, it appears that the parties %ere hard pressed to neotiate and !" the monthly
rental rate. Several attempts by Oscar to set up a meetin %ith 'enedicto $or the !"in o$
the monthly rentals proved unsuccess$ul.
*0. 3$ter more than $our months o$ tryin, a meetin bet%een Oscar and 'enedicto !nally
materiali?ed on October 2*, */12. 3t that meetin, the discussion not only covered !"in o$
reasonable rentals $or the lease o$ the 3'S-C'N studios, but li&e%ise included the possibility
o$ an outriht sale.
**. #herea$ter, the discussions and neotiations stopped as none o$ the petitioners %ere
able to meet ane% %ith 'enedicto %ho had supposedly re$erred the matter to =people
above= and the =man on top.=
*.. 9rustrated, then Senator :oren?o #aUada, as counsel $or 3'S-C'N, in -ay */1D, %rote
'enedicto demandin vacation o$ the 3'S-C'N 'roadcast Center and payment o$ bac&
rentals $or the use o$ the 3'S-C'N studios and $acilities.
*2. In response, Senator Estanislao 9ernande?, on behal$ o$ 'enedicto, met %ith Senator
#aUada in @une */1D. 3nother meetin too& place bet%een the partiesQ respective counsels
%hich included respondent 6on?ales, another counsel $or 'enedicto. Despite these
meetins, no areement %as reached bet%een 'enedicto and 3'S-C'N. On the %hole, $rom
@une F, */12, the time T'S occupied the 3'S-C'N studios in Hue?on City, no rental %as paid
by the $ormer to the latter.
*+. In the years $ollo%in until the -arcos overnment %as toppled in */FD, the 3'S-C'N
stations %ere trans$erred to the National -edia (roduction Center 4N-(C5 headed by
6reorio CendaUa o$ the -inistry o$ In$ormation. Startin in @anuary */F0, T'S, on a
staered basis, trans$erred possession, control and manaement o$ 3'S-C'NQs provincial
television stations to N-(C. Some o$ the radio stations o$ 3'S-C'N %ere turned over to the
overnmentQs 'ureau o$ 'roadcast, %hile some %ere retained by T'S thru the 'anaha%
'roadcastin Corporation 4''C5 and )adio (hilippines Net%or& 4)(N5.
*,. (arenthetically, durin a military inventory in */1/-*/F0, and a visit by 3'S-C'N
e"ecutives at 3'S-C'NQs radio transmittin stations in -eycauayan, 'ulacan, headed by
petitioner 3uusto, on 3uust *2, */F+, 3'S-C'N properties and massive eMuipment %ere
$ound to be missin. In addition, the musical records and radio dramas accumulated by 3'S-
C'N in a span o$ t%enty-!ve 4.,5 years and stored in its library %ere no% one.
*D. In @une */FD, (resident Cora?on 3Muino, actin on the reMuest o$ 3'S-C'N throuh
Senator #aUada, returned to 3'S-C'N these radio and #7 stations on a radual and
scheduled basis.
3s reMuired by the Ombudsman, the respondents, e"cept $or 6arcia, !led their respective
counter-aIdavits,
1
%ith 'enedicto adoptin that o$ 6on?alesQ, denyin petitionersQ chares,
and averrin that<
*. #he e"ecution o$ the @une F, */12 letter-areement %as a $ree and voluntary act o$ 3'S-
C'N %hich areed thereto $ully e"pectin remuneration in the $orm o$ rentals, thus<
.. )(N shall pay 3'S-C'N monthly rental as is reasonable compensation $or the use o$
the lease $acilities. #he amount o$ the rental shall be determined a$ter a discussion
%ith 3mbassador )oberto 'enedicto.
.. In that reard, respondent 6on?ales, counsel $or T'S, )(N and 'enedicto, participated in
the neotiations and %as present at three 425 meetins $or the !"in o$ rentals. 3lso in
attendance %ere $ormer Senator Estanislao 9ernande?, specially enaed to represent )(N
and 'enedicto, and Senator #aUada and petitioner 3uusto $or 3'S-C'N.
2. Initially, the discussions centered on the possible $ormulas $or the !"in o$ rentals. :ater
on, ho%ever, be$ore an areement on the rental rate could be reached, the discussions
shi$ted to the possibility o$ an outriht sale. #he discussions on the sale %ere e"panded as
various creditors o$ 3'S-C'N had made and presented claims be$ore respondent 6arcia,
then Comptroller o$ T'S-)(N.
+. >o%ever, the discussions %ere discontinued %hen then Secretary o$ National De$ense
@uan (once Enrile reminded T'S o$ the seMuestered status o$ 3'S-C'N $acilities such that
arranements underta&en $or the use and lease thereo$ should be ta&en up %ith the
overnment.
F
,. -ean%hile, in @uly */1+, Secretary (once Enrile authori?ed T'S, actin on behal$ o$ ''C,
to ma&e use o$ the 3'S-C'N provincial stations %hich %ere not covered by the @une F, */12
letter-areement. #he authori?ation %as ranted in connection %ith the increased
underta&ins assined by the Department o$ National De$ense 4DND5 to T'S, speci!cally, $or
the overnmentQs mass-media developmental peace and order nation%ide campain.
1. #herea$ter, in October */11, )(N vacated the 3'S-C'N studios and turned over the
properties to 6eore 7iduya, the eneral manaer o$ the overnment station 6#7-+. 7iduya
continued operations o$ 6#7-+ at the 3'S-C'N properties, a$ter %hich, the properties %ere all
delivered in */1/ to the N-(C headed by CendaUa. #he provincial stations %ere delivered
and turned over on a staered basis, %ith the DV)I station in Daupan handed over in
*/1/. #he successive trans$er o$ all 3'S-C'N studios and stations, in Hue?on City and the
provinces, %ere covered by receipts %hich %ere collated by the la% !rm o$ respondent
6on?ales retained by T'S $or that purpose.
F. #he use o$ the 3'S-C'N studios involved only three 425 juridical entities, )(N, 3'S-C'N
and the overnment. #he chares leveled by petitioners in their complaint-aIdavits merely
point to civil liability as speci!ed in the letter-areement itsel$<
+. )(N hereby assumes $ull and complete responsibility $or the leased $acilities and
shall be ans%erable $or any and all losses and damaes to such $acilities.
On the %hole, the alleations o$ petitioners do not support the elements o$ the crimes
chared.
/. :astly, respondents invo&e the rant o$ absolute immunity to 'enedicto as part o$ the
Compromise 3reement in Sandianbayan Civil Case No. 2+ %hich states<
#he 6overnment hereby e"tends absolute immunity, as authori?ed under the
pertinent provisions o$ E"ecutive Orders Nos. *, ., *+ and *+-3, to 'enedicto, the
members o$ his $amily, oIcers and employees o$ the corporations above mentioned,
%ho are included in past, present and $uture cases and investiations o$ the (hilippine
6overnment, such that there shall be no criminal investiation or prosecution aainst
said persons $or acts, omissions committed prior to 9ebruary .,, */FD that may be
alleed to have violated any penal la%, includin but not limited to )epublic 3ct No.
20*/, in relation to the acMuisition o$ any asset treated, mentioned or included in this
3reement.
E"pectedly, the petitioners in their joint reply-aIdavit re$uted respondentsQ counter-
aIdavits. Contrary to respondentsQ alleations, petitioners reiterated 'enedictoQs over-all
ploy, in conspiracy %ith the other respondents %ho %ere oIcers o$ T'S andJor )(N, to use
and occupy 3'S-C'N properties %ithout payin compensation there$or. (etitioners maintain
that respondentsQ rand scheme %as to ta&e-over 3'S-C'N, albeit ostensibly covered by the
letter-lease areement, ivin the ta&e over a semblance o$ leality.
#herea$ter, %ith the issues havin been joined, the Ombudsman issued the herein assailed
@oint )esolution dismissin petitionersQ complaints. #o the Ombudsman, the $ollo%in
circumstances did not ive rise to probable cause necessary to indict respondents $or the
various $elonies chared<
*. #he :etter-3reement o$ @une F, */12 belie any illeal ta&e-over o$ the 3'S-C'N
comple".
While the :ope?es are no% complainin that the letter-areement %as virtually $orced
unto them thru intimidation, hence, the vitiated consent o$ -r. -ontelibano, there is
nothin ho%ever %hich the complainants adduced to prove this alleation e"cept their
threadbare alleations o$ threats. On the contrary, it appears that the :ope?es blessed
the letter-areement hopin that their !nancial diIculties %ith respect to the aCairs
o$ the 3'S-C'N and their problem concernin the continued detention o$ Euenio
:ope?, @r. by the military, %ould at least be mitiated. " " "
It is thus clear that the 3'S-C'N comple" %as $reely leased by -ontelibano upon
consultation %ith the :ope?es %ho entertained some ulterior motives o$ their o%n
%hich they e"pect %ould result $rom the areement, either directly or indirectly. O$
course, the :ope?es may not have reali?ed some o$ these e"pectations 4i.e., the
rentals, the release o$ Euenio, @r. $rom detention5 but this does not chane the $act
that the partiesQ consent to the contract appears to have been $reely iven. (er$orce,
the complaint under 3rticle ./F o$ the )evised (enal Code o$ the (hilippines must $ail.
.. Other #7 and radio stations %ere ta&en over pursuant to :OI *-3, hence no
violations o$ 3rt. 2*., 20. and 20F o$ )(C.
#o the alleed violation o$ 3rt. 2*. o$ the )evised (enal Code, the respondents
contended that their use o$ 3'S-C'NQs $acilities other than those included in the lease-
areement, %as in $act %ith the authority o$ the then Department o$ National De$ense
4DND5. #here is no denyin that all o$ the 3'S-C'N properties includin the provincial
ones are under seMuestration pursuant to (residential :etter o$ Instruction No. *-3,
issued on September .F, */1.. It %as under the strenth o$ this (residential :etter o$
Instruction that T'S-)(N %as authori?ed to enter, occupy and operate the $acilities o$
3'S-C'N. #his %as also con!rmed by DND Secretary @uan (once Enrile in his letter to
)(N dated @une .D, */1D. ;nmista&ably, T'S-)(NQs possession o$ the 3'S-C'NQs
property other than those in the 3'S-C'N comple" is primarily anchored on the
authority pursuant to :OI *-3. With this apparent authority, this investiation can not
see in any %hich %ay ho% the respondents could have illeally ta&en over the
properties o$ the ApetitionersB, particularly those in the provinceG there is there$ore no
convincin proo$ to support a chare under 3rticle 2*. o$ the )evised (enal Code. It
may come to mind that =occupation o$ real property or usurpation o$ real rihts in
property= under 3rticle 2*. reMuires as one o$ its elements the presence o$ violence
aainst or intimidation o$ persons as a means in securin real property or rihts
belonin to another. (lainly, this element is not sho%n. #he complainants may have
$elt intimidated by the seMuestration order, but it is in the nature o$ such Order to be
coercive. It %as an act Ko%in $rom the martial la% po%ers o$ then (resident -arcos.
2. No unla%$ul ta&in as to justi$y chares $or )obbery or #he$t.
)obbery and #he$t under 3rticles 20. and 20F o$ the )evised (enal Code %ere also
attributed by the ApetitionersB aainst the respondents. 9rom the records, it is clear
that T'S-)(N has juridical possession o$ the 3'S-C'N properties subject o$ this
complaintG a riht %hich can be validly set-up even aainst 3'S-C'N itsel$. It can be
recalled that T'S-)(N %as authori?ed to enter, occupy and operate 3'S-C'N $acilities
by virtue o$ the authority ranted by the (resident, pursuant to :OI No. *-3. 3side, the
'roadcast Center itsel$ %as covered by the lease-areement. ;nder these situations,
there is obviously no basis to chare the respondents $or robbery and the$tG $or these
penal oCense reMuire as an element the act o$ unla%$ul ta&in or asportation.
3sportation is simply poles apart $rom the juridical possession %hich T'S-)(N enjoyed
over the properties.
+. No deceit %as employed to ain possession o$ the 'roadcast Center and the
provincial #7 and radio stations.
In the prosecution $or esta$a under A3rticles 2*,, pararaphs .4a5, 24a5 and 2*FB o$ the
)evised (enal Code, it is indispensable that the element o$ deceit, consistin in the
$alse statement o$ $raudulent representation o$ the accused, be made prior to, or, at
least simultaneously %ith, the delivery o$ the thin by the complainants, it bein
essential that such $alse statement or $raudulent representation constitutes the very
cause or the only motive %hich induces the complainants to part %ith the thin. I$
there be no such prior or simultaneous $alse statement or $raudulent representation,
any subseMuent act o$ the respondent, ho%ever $raudulent or suspicious it may
appear, can not serve as basis $or the prosecution o$ these crimes.
A9rom petitionersQ complaint-aIdavitsB, it is very clear that the late 3l$redo
-ontelibano %as the one %ho tal&ed %ith )oberto 'enedicto, preparatory to the
sinin o$ the lease-areement. 3s the complainants did not identi$y e"actly %hich
constitute the deceit$ul act 4or the intimidation5 %hich could have induced the :ope?es
into acceptin the lease areement, in most probability, the occurrences %hich
vitiated their consent happened durin this preliminary discussion. Noticeably
ho%ever, it is not 3l$redo -ontelibano, the one %ho supposedly tal&ed %ith 'enedicto,
%ho is testi$yin on the alleed =veiled threat= or deceits, i$ there are. (recisely,
because he is already dead.
" " " AIBt is submitted that the :ope?es can not no% testi$y on somethin %hich are not
derived $rom their o%n personal perception. #he bottomline is that %hat they are no%
tryin to adduce, pertainin to the alleed deceits Aor intimidationB attendin the
neotiation o$ the lease areement are purely hearsay. #his is a matter %hich only
3l$redo -ontelibano could testi$y competently.
/
#he Ombudsman sa% no need to discuss the de$enses o$ prescription and immunity $rom
suit raised by the respondents iven his dismissal o$ the complaint-aIdavits on the merits.
>o%ever, in a subseMuent Order denyin petitioners -otion $or )econsideration o$ the @oint
)esolution, the Ombudsman li$ted the OIce o$ the Chie$ :eal CounselQs ratiocination $or
dismissin the complaint-aIdavits, thus<
Incidentally, )(N has been identi!ed as amon the corporation in %hich respondent
'enedicto has substantial interests. In $act, it %as one o$ the subject matters o$ the
Compromise 3reement reached by the overnment and respondent 'enedicto in
Sandianbayan Civil Case no. 2+.
In that Compromise 3reement, $or and in consideration o$ respondent 'enedictoQs
cession o$ eMuities, and assinment o$ his rihts and interest in corporations therein
listed, amon them )(N, the overnment e"tended =absolute immunity= to 'enedicto,
includin oIcers o$ his corporations as therein mentioned, =such that there shall be
no criminal investiation or prosecution aainst said persons $or acts or omissions
committed prior to 9ebruary .,, */FD that may be alleed to have violated any penal
la%, includin but not limited to )epublic 3ct No. 20*/, in relation to the acMuisition o$
any asset treated or included in this 3reement.=
In eCect, the (eople o$ the (hilippines as the oCended party in criminal cases has
%aived its riht to proceed criminally aainst 'enedicto, et. al., $or %hatever crime
they may have committed relative to, amon others, the alleed plunder o$ 3'S-C'N
properties. 3ain, %hatever liability that remains thereabout on respondentsQ part is
per$orce only civil in nature.
*0
>ence, this recourse by the petitioners allein rave abuse o$ discretion in the
OmbudsmanQs @oint )esolution and Order.
'e$ore anythin else, %e note that on 3pril ,, */// and @une *2, .000, the respective
counsel $or respondents #an and 'enedicto, in compliance %ith Section *D,
**
)ule 2 o$ the
)ules o$ Court, !led pleadins in$ormin the Court o$ their clientsQ demise. 'enedictoQs
counsel !led a Notice o$ Death 4With (rayer $or Dismissal5
*.
movin that 'enedicto be
dropped as respondent in the instant case $or the reason =that the pendin criminal cases
subject o$ this appeal are actions %hich do not survive the death o$ the party accused.=
(etitioners opposed the move to drop 'enedicto as respondent, citin Torri1os v. Court of
Appeals
*2
%hich held that =civil liability o$ the accused survives his deathG because death is
not a valid cause $or the e"tinuishment o$ civil obliations.=
Our rulin on this issue need not be arduous. #he rules on %hether the civil liability o$ an
accused, upon death, is e"tinuished toether %ith his criminal liability, has lon been
clari!ed and settled in the case o$ (eople v. 'ayotas<
*+
*. Death o$ an accused pendin appeal o$ his conviction e"tinuishes his criminal
liability as %ell as the civil liability based solely thereon. 3s opined by @ustice
)ealado, in this reard, =the death o$ the accused prior to !nal judment terminates
his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arisin $rom and based solely on
the oCense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.=
.. Corollarily, the claim $or civil liability survives not%ithstandin the death o$
accused, i$ the same may also be predicated on a source o$ obliation other than
delict. 3rticle **,1 o$ the Civil Code enumerates these other sources o$ obliation
$rom %hich the civil liability may arise as a result o$ the same act or omission<
a5 :a%
b5 Contracts
c5 Huasi-contracts
d5 " " "
e5 Huasi-delicts
2. Where the civil liability survives, as e"plained in Number . above, an action $or
recovery there$or may be pursued but only by %ay o$ !lin a separate civil action and
subject to Section *, )ule *** o$ the */F, )ules on Criminal (rocedure
*,
as amended.
#he separate civil action may be en$orced either aainst the e"ecutorJadministrator or
the estate o$ the accused, dependin on the source o$ obliation upon %hich the same
is based as e"plained above.
+. 9inally, the private oCended party need not $ear a $or$eiture o$ his riht to !le this
separate civil action by prescription, in cases %here durin the prosecution o$ the
criminal action and prior to its e"tinction, the private-oCended party instituted
toether there%ith the civil action. In such case, the statute o$ limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted durin the pendency o$ the criminal case, con$ormably
%ith provisions o$ 3rticle **,, o$ the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible AdeBprivation o$ riht by prescription.
3pplyin the $oreoin rules, 3'S-C'NQs insistence that the case at bench survives because
the civil liability o$ the respondents subsists is stripped o$ merit.
#o bein %ith, there is no criminal case as yet aainst the respondents. #he Ombudsman did
not !nd probable cause to prosecute respondents $or various $elonies in the )(C. 3s such,
the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted alon %ith the criminal action unless the
oCended party< 4a5 %aives the civil action, 4b5 reserves the riht to institute it separately, or
4c5 institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action,
*D
is not applicable.
In any event, consistent %ith People v. -ayotas,
*1
the death o$ the accused necessarily calls
$or the dismissal o$ the criminal case aainst him, reardless o$ the institution o$ the civil
case %ith it. #he civil action %hich survives the death o$ the accused must hine on other
sources o$ obliation provided in 3rticle **,1 o$ the Civil Code. In such a case, a survivin
civil action aainst the accused $ounded on other sources o$ obliation must be prosecuted
in a separate civil action. In other %ords, civil liability based solely on the criminal action is
e"tinuished, and a diCerent civil action cannot be continued and prosecuted in the same
criminal action.
Sini!cantly, this Court in -enedicto v. Court of Appeals,
*F
ta&in coni?ance o$ respondent
'enedictoQs death on -ay *,, .000, has ordered that the latter be dropped as a party, and
declared e"tinuished any criminal as %ell as civil liability e" delicto that miht be
attributable to him in Criminal Cases Nos. /*-*0*F1/ to /*-*0*FF2, /*-*0*FF+ to *0*F/.,
and /.-*0*/,/ to /.-*0*/D/ pendin be$ore the )eional #rial Court o$ -anila.
:astly, %e note that petitioners appear to have already $ollo%ed our rulin in People v.
-ayotas
*/
by !lin a separate civil action to en$orce a claim aainst the estate o$ respondent
'enedicto.
.0
#he claim aainst the estate o$ 'enedicto is based on contract-the @une F, */12
letter- areement-in consonance %ith Section ,,
.*
)ule FD o$ the )ules o$ Court. (lainly, the
droppin o$ respondents 'enedicto and #an as parties herein is in order.
We no% come to the core issue o$ %hether the Ombudsman committed rave abuse o$
discretion in dismissin petitionersQ complaint aainst the respondents. We rule in the
neative and, accordinly, dismiss the petition.
We cannot overemphasi?e the $act that the Ombudsman is a constitutional oIcer duty
bound to =investiate on its o%n, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission o$ any
public oIcial, employee, oIce or aency, %hen such act or omission appears to be illeal,
unjust, improper, or ineIcient.=
..
#he raison d 2etre $or its creation and endo%ment o$ broad
investiative authority is to insulate it $rom the lon tentacles o$ oIcialdom that are able to
penetrate judesQ and !scalsQ oIces, and others involved in the prosecution o$ errin public
oIcials, and throuh the e"ecution o$ oIcial pressure and inKuence, Muash, delay, or
dismiss investiations into mal$easances and mis$easances committed by public oIcers.
.2

In Presidential Commission on Good Government 3PCGG4 v. 0esierto,
.+
%e d%elt on the
po%ers, $unctions and duties o$ the Ombudsman, to %it<
#he prosecution o$ oCenses committed by public oIcers is vested primarily in the
OIce o$ the Ombudsman. It bears emphasis that the OIce has been iven a %ide
latitude o$ investiatory and prosecutory po%ers under the Constitution and )epublic
3ct No. D110 4#he Ombudsman 3ct o$ */F/5. #his discretion is all but $ree $rom
leislative, e"ecutive or judicial intervention to ensure that the OIce is insulated $rom
any outside pressure and improper inKuence.
Indeed, the Ombudsman is empo%ered to determine %hether there e"ist reasonable
rounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably
uilty thereo$ and, therea$ter, to !le the correspondin in$ormation %ith the
appropriate courts. #he Ombudsman may thus conduct an investiation i$ the
complaint !led is $ound to be in the proper $orm and substance. Conversely, the
Ombudsman may also dismiss the complaint should it be $ound insuIcient in $orm or
substance.
;nless there are ood and compellin reasons to do so, the Court %ill re$rain $rom
inter$erin %ith the e"ercise o$ the OmbudsmanQs po%ers, and respect the initiative
and independence inherent in the latter %ho, beholden to no one, acts as the
champion o$ the people and the preserver o$ the interity o$ public service.
#he pramatic basis $or the eneral rule %as e"plained in Ocampo v. Ombudsman<
#he rule is based not only upon respect $or the investiatory and prosecutory
po%ers ranted by the Constitution to the OIce o$ the Ombudsman but upon
practicality as %ell. Other%ise, the $unctions o$ the courts %ill be rievously
hampered by innumerable petitions assailin the dismissal o$ investiatory
proceedins conducted by the OIce o$ the Ombudsman %ith reard to
complaints !led be$ore it, in much the same %ay that the courts %ould be
e"tremely s%amped i$ they %ould be compelled to revie% the e"ercise o$
discretion on the part o$ the !scals or prosecutin attorneys each time they
decide to !le an in$ormation in court or dismiss a complaint by private
complainants.
.,
9rom the $oreoin, it is crystal clear that %e do not inter$ere %ith the OmbudsmanQs
e"ercise o$ his investiatory and prosecutory po%ers vested by the Constitution. In short, %e
do not revie% the OmbudsmanQs e"ercise o$ discretion in prosecutin or dismissin a
complaint e"cept %hen the e"ercise thereo$ is tainted %ith rave abuse o$ discretion.
'y rave abuse o$ discretion is meant such capricious and %himsical e"ercise o$ judment
tantamount to lac& o$ jurisdiction. #he abuse o$ discretion must be so patent and ross as to
amount to an evasion o$ a positive duty or a virtual re$usal to per$orm a duty enjoined by
la%, or to act at all in contemplation o$ la%, as %here the po%er is e"ercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason o$ passion or hostility.
.D
In this reard, petitioners utterly
$ailed to demonstrate the OmbudsmanQs abuse, much less rave abuse, o$ discretion.
3part $rom a blan&et and eneral chare that remainin respondents herein, 6on?ales and
6arcia, are oIcers o$ T'SJ)(N andJor alter eos o$ 'enedicto, petitionersQ complaint-
aIdavits are bere$t o$ suIcient round to enender a %ell-$ounded belie$ that crimes have
been committed and the respondents, namely, 6on?ales and 6arcia, are probably uilty
thereo$ and should be held $or trial.
.1
Certainly, the Ombudsman did not commit rave abuse
o$ discretion in dismissin petitionersQ complaint-aIdavits.
9rom the entirety o$ the records, it is beyond cavil that petitioners see& to attach criminal
liability to an uneMuivocally civil underta&in one a%ry. 3s pointed out by the Ombudsman,
althouh the petitioners may not have reali?ed their e"pectations in enterin into the @une F,
*/12 letter-areement, such does not render their consent thereto de$ective.
#he e"ecution and validity o$ this letter-areement is connected %ith respondentsQ culpability
$or the $elonies chared as these include the element o$ %hether they had juridical
possession o$ the 3'S-C'N properties. Essentially, petitioners claim they did not $reely ive
their consent to the letter-areement. >o%ever, on more than one occasion, petitioners have
invo&ed the letter-areementQs provisions, and made claims thereunder.
9irst, petitioners met and discussed %ith respondents the !"in o$ the rental rate $or the
3'S-C'N studios in Hue?on City as provided in pararaph . o$ the letter-lease areement.
Ne"t, petitionersQ counsel %rote a demand letter to respondents $or the payment o$ rentals
$or the latterQs occupation and use o$ 3'S-C'N properties pursuant to the letter-areement.
:ast and most importantly, petitioners have made a claim aainst the estate o$ 'enedicto
based on the same @une F, */12 letter-areement.
#his action o$ petitioners clearly evinces their rati!cation o$ the letter-areement. 3s
previously discussed, the civil liability o$ respondents 'enedicto and #an hinin on the
chared criminal acts herein %as e"tinuished upon their death. 'ut other civil liabilities
$ounded on other sources o$ obliations under 3rticle **,1 o$ the Civil Code may still be
prosecuted either aainst the estate o$ the deceased i$ based on contract,
.F
or aainst the
e"ecutors and administrators o$ the deceasedQs estate i$ based on Muasi-delict.
./
3s petitioners have rati!ed the letter-areement, even a$ter the li$tin o$ martial la% and the
topplin o$ the -arcos overnment, and advanced the validity o$ the letter-areement in
their claim aainst the estate o$ 'enedicto, they cannot, in the same breath, aver that
respondentsQ actuations in the e"ecution o$ the letter-areement %ere criminal in nature, or
that the letter-areement %as more ostensible than real and to insist on the prosecution o$
respondents $or $elonies supposedly committed in connection %ith this ubiMuitous letter-
areement.
20

In !ne, the Ombudsman did not abuse his discretion in determinin that the alleations o$
petitioners aainst respondents are civil in nature, bere$t o$ criminal character. (er$orce, he
%as correct in dismissin petitionersQ complaint-aIdavits.
;HEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby $IS%ISSE$. )oberto S.
'enedicto and Salvador #an are dropped as private respondents %ithout prejudice to the
!lin o$ separate civil actions aainst their respective estates. #he assailed @oint )esolution
and Order o$ the Ombudsman in O-'-0-/+-**0/ are AFFIR%E$.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 1B-4CB F!<r("r5 12, 2007
HUN H@UNG PAR6, (etitioner,
vs.
EUNG ;ON CHOI, )espondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO %ORALES, J.'
(etitioner, >un >yun (ar&, assails the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35 )esolutions dated -ay .0,
.00+
*
and September .F, .00+
.
in C3 6.). C) No. .F2++ dismissin his petition and denyin
reconsideration thereo$, respectively.
In an In$ormation
2
dated 3uust 2*, .000, respondent, Eun Won Choi, %as chared $or
violation o$ -atas Pambansa -lg. .., other%ise &no%n as the 'ouncin Chec&s :a%, $or
issuin on @une .F, */// (hilippine National 'an& Chec& No. 0011*22 postdated 3uust .F,
*/// in the amount o$ (*,F1,,000 %hich %as dishonored $or havin been dra%n aainst
insuIcient $unds.
;pon arrainment, respondent, %ith the assistance o$ counsel, pleaded =not uilty= to the
oCense chared. 9ollo%in the pre-trial con$erence, the prosecution presented its evidence-
in-chie$.
3$ter the prosecution rested its case, respondent !led a -otion $or :eave o$ Court to 9ile
Demurrer to Evidence to %hich he attached his Demurrer, assertin that the prosecution
$ailed to prove that he received the notice o$ dishonor, hence, the presumption o$ the
element o$ &no%lede o$ insuIciency o$ $unds did not arise.
+

'y Order
,
o$ 9ebruary .1, .002, the -etropolitan #rial Court 4-e#C5 o$ -a&ati, 'ranch D,
ranted the Demurrer and dismissed the case. #he prosecution8s -otion $or )econsideration
%as denied.
D

(etitioner appealed the civil aspect
1
o$ the case to the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ -a&ati,
contendin that the dismissal o$ the criminal case should not include its civil aspect.
'y Decision o$ September **, .002, 'ranch D0 o$ the )#C held that %hile the evidence
presented %as insuIcient to prove respondent8s criminal liability, it did not altoether
e"tinuish his civil liability. It accordinly ranted the appeal o$ petitioner and ordered
respondent to pay him the amount o$ (*,F1,,000 %ith leal interest.
F

;pon respondent8s motion $or reconsideration, ho%ever, the )#C set aside its decision and
ordered the remand o$ the case to the -e#C =$or $urther proceedins, so that the de$endant
A-respondent hereinB may adduce evidence on the civil aspect o$ the case.=
/
(etitioner8s
motion $or reconsideration o$ the remand o$ the case havin been denied, he elevated the
case to the C3 %hich, by the assailed resolutions, dismissed his petition $or the $ollo%in
reasons<
*. #he veri!cation and certi!cation o$ non-$orum shoppin attached to the petition
does not $ully comply %ith Section +, as amended by 3.-. No. 00-.-*0-SC, )ule 1,
*//1 )ules o$ Court, because it does not ive the assurance that the alleations o$ the
petition are true and correct based on authentic records.
.. #he petition is not accompanied by copies o$ certain pleadins and other material
portions o$ the record, 4i.e., motion $or leave to !le demurrer to evidence, demurrer to
evidence and the opposition thereto, and the -unicipal AsicB #rial Court8s Order
dismissin Criminal Case No. ./+D/05 as %ould support the alleations o$ the petition
4Sec. ., )ule +., ibid.5.
2. #he Decision dated September **, .002 o$ the )eional #rial Court attached to the
petition is an uncerti!ed and illeible mere machine copy o$ the oriinal 4Sec. ., )ule
+., ibid.5.
+. (etitioners $ailed to implead the (eople o$ the (hilippines as party-respondent in the
petition.
*0

In his present petition, petitioner assails the above-stated reasons o$ the appellate court in
dismissin his petition.
#he manner o$ veri!cation $or pleadins %hich are reMuired to be veri!ed, such as a petition
$or revie% be$ore the C3 o$ an appellate judment o$ the )#C,
**
is prescribed by Section + o$
)ule 1 o$ the )ules o$ Court<
Sec. +. 7eri!cation. E"cept %hen other%ise speci!cally reMuired by la% or rule, pleadins
need not be under oath, veri!ed or accompanied by aIdavit.
3 pleadin is veri!ed by an aIdavit that the aIant has read the pleadin and that the
alleations therein are true and correct o$ his personal &no%lede or based on authentic
records.
3 pleadin reMuired to be veri!ed %hich contains a veri!cation based on =in$ormation and
belie$,= or upon =&no%lede, in$ormation and belie$,= or lac&s a proper veri!cation shall be
treated as an unsined pleadin.
*.
4Emphasis and underscorin supplied5
(etitioner arues that the %ord =or= is a disjunctive term sini$yin disassociation and
independence, hence, he chose to aIrm in his petition he !led be$ore the court a Muo that
its contents are =true and correct o$ my o%n personal &no%lede,=
*2
and not on the basis o$
authentic documents.
On the other hand, respondent counters that the %ord =or= may be interpreted in a
conjunctive sense and construed to mean as =and,= or vice versa, %hen the conte"t o$ the
la% so %arrants.
3 readin o$ the above-Muoted Section + o$ )ule 1 indicates that a pleadin may be veri!ed
under either o$ the t%o iven modes or under both. #he veracity o$ the alleations in a
pleadin may be aIrmed based on either one8s o%n personal &no%lede or on authentic
records, or both, as %arranted. #he use o$ the preposition =or= connotes that either source
Muali!es as a suIcient basis $or veri!cation and, needless to state, the concurrence o$ both
sources is more than suIcient.
*+
'earin both a disjunctive and conjunctive sense, this
parallel leal sini!cation avoids a construction that %ill e"clude the combination o$ the
alternatives or bar the eIcacy o$ any one o$ the alternatives standin alone.
*,

Contrary to petitioner8s position, the rane o$ permutation is not le$t to the pleader8s li&in,
but is dependent on the surroundin nature o$ the alleations %hich may %arrant that a
veri!cation be based either purely on personal &no%lede, or entirely on authentic records,
or on both sources.
3s pointed out by respondent, =authentic records= as a basis $or veri!cation bear sini!cance
in petitions %herein the reater portions o$ the alleations are based on the records o$ the
proceedins in the court o$ oriin andJor the court a .uo, and not solely on the personal
&no%lede o$ the petitioner. #o illustrate, petitioner himsel$ could not have aIrmed, based
on his personal &no%lede, the truth$ulness o$ the statement in his petition
*D
be$ore the C3
that at the pre-trial con$erence respondent admitted havin received the letter o$ demand,
because he 4petitioner5 %as not present durin the con$erence.
*1
>ence, petitioner needed to
rely on the records to con!rm its veracity.
7eri!cation is not an empty ritual or a meaninless $ormality. Its import must never be
sacri!ced in the name o$ mere e"pedience or sheer caprice. 9or %hat is at sta&e is the
matter o$ verity attested by the sanctity o$ an oath
*F
to secure an assurance that the
alleations in the pleadin have been made in ood $aith, or are true and correct and not
merely speculative.
*/

#his Court has strictly been en$orcin the reMuirement o$ veri!cation and certi!cation and
enunciatin that obedience to the reMuirements o$ procedural rules is needed i$ $air results
are to be e"pected there$rom. ;tter disreard o$ the rules cannot just be rationali?ed by
har&in on the policy o$ liberal construction.
.0
While the reMuirement is not jurisdictional in
nature, it does not ma&e it less a rule. 3 rela"ed application o$ the rule can only be justi!ed
by the attendin circumstances o$ the case.
.*

#o sustain petitioner8s e"planation that the basis o$ veri!cation is a matter o$ simple
pre$erence %ould triviali?e the rationale and diminish the resoluteness o$ the rule. It %ould
play on predilection and pay no heed in providin enouh assurance o$ the correctness o$
the alleations.
On the second reason o$ the C3 in dismissin the petition P that the petition %as not
accompanied by copies o$ certain pleadins and other material portions o$ the record as
%ould support the alleations o$ the petition 4i.e., -otion $or :eave to 9ile Demurrer to
Evidence, Demurrer to Evidence and the Opposition thereto, and the -e#C 9ebruary .1,
.002 Order dismissin the case5 P petitioner contends that these documents are immaterial
to his appeal.
Contrary to petitioner8s contention, ho%ever, the materiality o$ those documents is very
apparent since the civil aspect o$ the case, $rom %hich he is appealin, %as li&e%ise
dismissed by the trial court on account o$ the same Demurrer.
(etitioner, nonetheless, posits that he subseMuently submitted to the C3 copies o$ the
enumerated documents, save $or the -e#C 9ebruary .1, .002 Order, as attachments to his
-otion $or )econsideration.
#he )ules, ho%ever, reMuire that the petition must =be accompanied by clearly leible
duplicate oriinal or true copies o$ the judments or !nal orders o$ both lo%er courts,
certi!ed correct by the cler& o$ court.=
..

3 perusal o$ the petition !led be$ore the C3 sho%s that the only duplicate oriinal or certi!ed
true copies attached as anne"es thereto are the @anuary *+, .00+ )#C Order rantin
respondent8s -otion $or )econsideration and the -arch ./, .00+ )#C Order denyin
petitioner8s -otion $or )econsideration. #he copy o$ the September **, .002 )#C Decision,
%hich petitioner prayed to be reinstated, is not a certi!ed true copy and is not even leible.
(etitioner later recompensed thouh by appendin to his -otion $or )econsideration a
duplicate oriinal copy.
While petitioner averred be$ore the C3 in his -otion $or )econsideration that the 9ebruary
.1, .002 -e#C Order %as already attached to his petition as 3nne" =6,= 3nne" =6= bares a
replicate copy o$ a diCerent order, ho%ever. It %as to this Court that petitioner belatedly
submitted an uncerti!ed true copy o$ the said -e#C Order as an anne" to his )eply to
respondent8s Comment.
#his Court in $act observes that the copy o$ the other -e#C Order, that dated -ay ,, .002,
%hich petitioner attached to his petition be$ore the C3 is similarly uncerti!ed as true.
Since both Orders o$ the -e#C %ere adverse to him even %ith respect to the civil aspect o$
the case, petitioner %as mandated to submit them in the reMuired $orm.
.2

In !ne, petitioner $ell short in his compliance %ith Section . 4d5 o$ )ule +., the mandatory
tenor o$ %hich is discernible thereunder and is %ell settled.
.+
>e has not, ho%ever, advanced
any stron compellin reasons to %arrant a rela"ation o$ the )ules, hence, his petition be$ore
the C3 %as correctly dismissed.
(rocedural rules are tools desined to $acilitate the adjudication o$ cases. Courts and
litiants ali&e are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. 3nd %hile the Court, in some
instances, allo%s a rela"ation in the application o$ the rules, this %e stress, %as never
intended to $ore a bastion $or errin litiants to violate the rules %ith impunity. #he
liberality in the interpretation and application o$ the rules applies only in proper cases and
under justi!able causes and circumstances. While it is true that litiation is not a ame o$
technicalities, it is eMually true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance %ith the
prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration o$ justice.
.,
4Emphasis
supplied5
3s to the third reason $or the appellate court8s dismissal o$ his petition P $ailure to implead
the (eople o$ the (hilippines as a party in the petition P indeed, as petitioner contends, the
same is o$ no moment, he havin appealed only the civil aspect o$ the case. (assin on the
dual purpose o$ a criminal action, this Court ruled<
;nless the oCended party %aives the civil action or reserves the riht to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action, there are t%o actions
involved in a criminal case. #he !rst is the criminal action $or the punishment o$ the oCender.
#he parties are the (eople o$ the (hilippines as the plaintiC and the accused. In a criminal
action, the private complainant is merely a %itness $or the State on the criminal aspect o$
the action. #he second is the civil action arisin $rom the delict. #he private complainant is
the plaintiC and the accused is the de$endant. #here is a merer o$ the trial o$ the t%o cases
to avoid multiplicity o$ suits.
.D
4;nderscorin supplied5
It bears recallin that the -e#C acMuitted respondent.
.1
3s a rule, a judment o$ acMuittal is
immediately !nal and e"ecutory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acMuittal because o$
the constitutional prohibition aainst double jeopardy.
Either the oCended party or the accused may, ho%ever, appeal the civil aspect o$ the
judment despite the acMuittal o$ the accused. #he public prosecutor has enerally no
interest in appealin the civil aspect o$ a decision acMuittin the accused. #he acMuittal ends
his %or&. #he case is terminated as $ar as he is concerned. T! r!"l p"r'i!# i) i)'!r!#' i)
'! &i7il "#p!&' o+ " /!&i#io) "r! '! oD!)/!/ p"r'5 ")/ '! "&&(#!/.
.F

#echnicality aside, the petition is devoid o$ merit.
When a demurrer to evidence is !led #it$out leave of court, the %hole case is submitted $or
judment on the basis o$ the evidence $or the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have
%aived the riht to present evidence.
./
3t that juncture, the court is called upon to decide
the case includin its civil aspect, unless the en$orcement o$ the civil liability by a separate
civil action has been %aived or reserved.
20

I$ the !lin o$ a separate civil action has not been reserved or priorly instituted or the
en$orcement o$ civil liability is not %aived, the trial court should, in case o$ conviction, state
the civil liability or damaes caused by the %ron$ul act or omission to be recovered $rom
the accused by the oCended party, i$ there is any.
2*

9or, in case o$ acMuittal, the accused may still be adjuded civilly liable. #he e"tinction o$ the
penal action does not carry %ith it the e"tinction o$ the civil action %here 4a5 the acMuittal is
based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance o$ evidence is reMuiredG 4b5 the court
declares that the liability o$ the accused is only civilG and 4c5 the civil liability o$ the accused
does not arise $rom or is not based upon the crime o$ %hich the accused %as acMuitted.
2.

#he civil action based on delict may, ho%ever, be deemed e"tinuished i$ there is a !ndin
on the !nal judment in the criminal action that the act or omission $rom %hich the civil
liability may arise did not e"ist.
22

In case o$ a demurrer to evidence !led #it$ leave of court, the accused may adduce
countervailin evidence i$ the court denies the demurrer.
2+
Such denial bears no distinction
as to the t%o aspects o$ the case because there is a disparity o$ evidentiary value bet%een
the Muanta o$ evidence in such aspects o$ the case. In other %ords, a court may not deny the
demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at the same time rant the demurrer as to the civil
aspect, $or i$ the evidence so $ar presented is not insuIcient to prove the crime beyond
reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is li&e%ise not insuIcient to establish civil
liability by mere preponderance o$ evidence.
On the other hand, i$ the evidence so $ar presented is insuIcient as proo$ beyond
reasonable doubt, it does not $ollo% that the same evidence is insuIcient to establish a
preponderance o$ evidence. 9or i$ the court rants the demurrer, proceedins on the civil
aspect o$ the case enerally proceeds. #he only reconi?ed instance %hen an acMuittal on
demurrer carries %ith it the dismissal o$ the civil aspect is %hen there is a !ndin that the
act or omission $rom %hich the civil liability may arise did not e"ist. 3bsent such
determination, trial as to the civil aspect o$ the case must per$orce continue. #hus this Court,
in 'alazar v. People,
2,
held<
I$ demurrer is ranted and the accused is acMuitted by the court, the accused has the riht
to adduce evidence on the civil aspect o$ the case unless the court also declares that the act
or omission $rom %hich the civil liability may arise did not e"ist.
2D

In the instant case, the -e#C ranted the demurrer and dismissed the case %ithout any
!ndin that the act or omission $rom %hich the civil liability may arise did not e"ist.
)espondent did not assail the )#C order o$ remand. >e thereby reconi?ed that there is basis
$or a remand.
Indicatively, respondent stands by his de$ense that he merely borro%ed (*,,00,000 %ith the
remainder representin the interest, and that he already made a partial payment o$
(*,,/0,000. (etitioner counters, ho%ever, that the payments made by respondent pertained
to other transactions.
21
6iven these conKictin claims %hich are $actual, a remand o$ the
case %ould aCord the $ullest opportunity $or the parties to ventilate, and $or the trial court to
resolve the same.
(etitioner !nally posits that respondent %aived his riht to present evidence on the civil
aspect o$ the case 4*5 %hen the rant o$ the demurrer %as reversed on appeal, citin Section
* o$ )ule 22,
2F
and 4.5 %hen respondent orally opposed petitioner8s motion $or
reconsideration pleadin that proceedins %ith respect to the civil aspect o$ the case
continue.
(etitioner8s position is tenuous.
(etitioner8s citation o$ Section * o$ )ule 22 is incorrect.5a#p$i5.net Where a court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person o$ the accused, and the crime %as
committed %ithin its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily e"ercises jurisdiction over
all issues that the la% reMuires it to resolve.
One o$ the issues in a criminal case bein the civil liability o$ the accused arisin $rom the
crime, the overnin la% is the )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure, not the )ules o$ Civil (rocedure
%hich pertains to a civil action arisin $rom the initiatory pleadin that ives rise to the
suit.
2/

3s $or petitioner8s attribution o$ %aiver to respondent, it cannot be determined %ith certainty
$rom the records the nature o$ the alleed oral objections o$ respondent to petitioner8s
motion $or reconsideration o$ the rant o$ the demurrer to evidence. 3ny %aiver o$ the riht
to present evidence must be positively demonstrated. 3ny ambiuity in the voluntariness o$
the %aiver is $ro%ned upon,
+0
hence, courts must indule every reasonable presumption
aainst it.
+*

#his Court there$ore upholds respondent8s riht to present evidence as reserved by his !lin
o$ leave o$ court to !le the demurrer.
W>E)E9O)E, the petition is, in liht o$ the $oreoin discussions, DENIED.
#he case is )E-3NDED to the court o$ oriin, -etropolitan #rial Court o$ -a&ati City, 'ranch
D, %hich is DI)EC#ED to $orth%ith set Criminal Case No. ./+D/0 $or $urther proceedins only
$or the purpose o$ receivin evidence on the civil aspect o$ the case.
Costs aainst petitioner.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 1C0BCB A(*(#' 3, 2010
ROLITO CALANG ")/ PHILTRANCO SER2ICE ENTERPRISES, INC., (etitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, )espondent.
) E S O : ; # I O N
BRION, J.'
We resolve the motion $or reconsideration !led by the petitioners, (hiltranco Service
Enterprises, Inc. 4(hiltranco5 and )olito Calan, to challene our )esolution o$ 9ebruary *1,
.0*0. Our assailed )esolution denied the petition $or revie% on certiorari $or $ailure to sho%
any reversible error suIcient to %arrant the e"ercise o$ this Court8s discretionary appellate
jurisdiction.
3ntecedent 9acts
3t around .<00 p.m. o$ 3pril .., */F/, )olito Calan %as drivin (hiltranco 'us No. 100*,
o%ned by (hiltranco alon Daan -aharli&a >ih%ay in 'aranay :ambao, Sta. -ararita,
Samar %hen its rear le$t side hit the $ront le$t portion o$ a Sarao jeep comin $rom the
opposite direction. 3s a result o$ the collision, Cresencio (inohermoso, the jeep8s driver, lost
control o$ the vehicle, and bumped and &illed @ose -abansa, a bystander %ho %as standin
alon the hih%ay8s shoulder. #he jeep turned turtle three 425 times be$ore !nally stoppin
at about ., meters $rom the point o$ impact. #%o o$ the jeep8s passeners, 3rmando Nablo
and an unidenti!ed %oman, %ere instantly &illed, %hile the other passeners sustained
serious physical injuries.
#he prosecution chared Calan %ith multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries
and damae to property thru rec&less imprudence be$ore the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5,
'ranch 2*, Calbayo City. #he )#C, in its decision dated -ay .*, .00*, $ound Calan uilty
beyond reasonable doubt o$ rec&less imprudence resultin to multiple homicide, multiple
physical injuries and damae to property, and sentenced him to suCer an indeterminate
penalty o$ thirty days o$ arresto menor, as minimum, to $our years and t%o months o$ prision
correccional, as ma"imum. #he )#C ordered Calan and (hiltranco, jointly and severally, to
pay (,0,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs o$ 3rmandoG (,0,000.00 as death indemnity
to the heirs o$ -abansaG and (/0,0F2./2 as actual damaes to the private complainants.
#he petitioners appealed the )#C decision to the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35, doc&eted as C3-6.).
C) No. .,,... #he C3, in its decision dated November .0, .00/, aIrmed the )#C decision in
toto. #he C3 ruled that petitioner Calan $ailed to e"ercise due care and precaution in drivin
the (hiltranco bus. 3ccordin to the C3, various eye%itnesses testi!ed that the bus %as
travelin $ast and encroached into the opposite lane %hen it evaded a pushcart that %as on
the side o$ the road. In addition, he $ailed to slac&en his speed, despite admittin that he had
already seen the jeep comin $rom the opposite direction %hen it %as still hal$ a &ilometer
a%ay. #he C3 $urther ruled that Calan demonstrated a rec&less attitude %hen he drove the
bus, despite &no%in that it %as suCerin $rom loose compression, hence, not road%orthy.
#he C3 added that the )#C correctly held (hiltranco jointly and severally liable %ith
petitioner Calan, $or $ailin to prove that it had e"ercised the dilience o$ a ood $ather o$
the $amily to prevent the accident.
#he petitioners !led %ith this Court a petition $or revie% on certiorari. In our )esolution dated
9ebruary *1, .0*0, %e denied the petition $or $ailure to suIciently sho% any reversible error
in the assailed decision to %arrant the e"ercise o$ this Court8s discretionary appellate
jurisdiction.
#he -otion $or )econsideration
In the present motion $or reconsideration, the petitioners claim that there %as no basis to
hold (hiltranco jointly and severally liable %ith Calan because the $ormer %as not a party in
the criminal case 4$or multiple homicide %ith multiple serious physical injuries and damae
to property thru rec&less imprudence5 be$ore the )#C.
#he petitioners li&e%ise maintain that the courts belo% overloo&ed several relevant $acts,
supported by documentary e"hibits, %hich, i$ considered, %ould have sho%n that Calan %as
not nelient, such as the aIdavit and testimony o$ %itness Celestina CabriaG the
testimony o$ %itness )odrio 'ocaycayG the traIc accident s&etch and reportG and the
jeepney8s reistration receipt. #he petitioners also insist that the jeep8s driver had the last
clear chance to avoid the collision.
We partly rant the motion.
:iability o$ Calan
We see no reason to overturn the lo%er courts8 !ndin on Calan8s culpability. #he !ndin o$
nelience on his part by the trial court, aIrmed by the C3, is a Muestion o$ $act that %e
cannot pass upon %ithout oin into $actual matters touchin on the !ndin o$ nelience.
In petitions $or revie% on certiorari under )ule +, o$ the )evised )ules o$ Court, this Court is
limited to revie%in only errors o$ la%, not o$ $act, unless the $actual !ndins complained o$
are devoid o$ support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judment is based on a
misapprehension o$ $acts.
:iability o$ (hiltranco
We, ho%ever, hold that the )#C and the C3 both erred in holdin (hiltranco jointly and
severally liable %ith Calan. We emphasi?e that Calan %as chared criminally be$ore the
)#C. ;ndisputedly, (hiltranco %as not a direct party in this case. Since the cause o$ action
aainst Calan %as based on delict, both the )#C and the C3 erred in holdin (hiltranco
jointly and severally liable %ith Calan, based on Muasi-delict under 3rticles .*1D
*
and .*F0
.
o$ the Civil Code. 3rticles .*1D and .*F0 o$ the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability o$
an employer $or Muasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Such provision o$ la% does
not apply to civil liability arisin $rom delict.
I$ at all, (hiltranco8s liability may only be subsidiary. 3rticle *0. o$ the )evised (enal Code
states the subsidiary civil liabilities o$ inn&eepers, tavern&eepers and proprietors o$
establishments, as $ollo%s<
In de$ault o$ the persons criminally liable, inn&eepers, tavern&eepers, and any other persons
or corporations shall be civilly liable $or crimes committed in their establishments, in all
cases %here a violation o$ municipal ordinances or some eneral or special police reulations
shall have been committed by them or their employees.5avvp$il
Inn&eepers are also subsidiary liable $or the restitution o$ oods ta&en by robbery or the$t
%ithin their houses $rom uests lodin therein, or $or the payment o$ the value thereo$,
provided that such uests shall have noti!ed in advance the inn&eeper himsel$, or the
person representin him, o$ the deposit o$ such oods %ithin the innG and shall $urthermore
have $ollo%ed the directions %hich such inn&eeper or his representative may have iven
them %ith respect to the care o$ and viilance over such oods. No liability shall attach in
case o$ robbery %ith violence aainst or intimidation o$ persons unless committed by the
inn&eeper8s employees.
#he $oreoin subsidiary liability applies to employers, accordin to 3rticle *02 o$ the
)evised (enal Code, %hich reads<
#he subsidiary liability established in the ne"t precedin article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations enaed in any &ind o$ industry $or $elonies
committed by their servants, pupils, %or&men, apprentices, or employees in the dischare o$
their duties.
#he provisions o$ the )evised (enal Code on subsidiary liability P 3rticles *0. and *02 P are
deemed %ritten into the judments in cases to %hich they are applicable. #hus, in the
dispositive portion o$ its decision, the trial court need not e"pressly pronounce the subsidiary
liability o$ the employer.
2
Nonetheless, be$ore the employers8 subsidiary liability is en$orced,
adeMuate evidence must e"ist establishin that 4*5 they are indeed the employers o$ the
convicted employeesG 4.5 they are enaed in some &ind o$ industryG 425 the crime %as
committed by the employees in the dischare o$ their dutiesG and 4+5 the e"ecution aainst
the latter has not been satis!ed due to insolvency. #he determination o$ these conditions
may be done in the same criminal action in %hich the employee8s liability, criminal and civil,
has been pronounced, in a hearin set $or that precise purpose, %ith due notice to the
employer, as part o$ the proceedins $or the e"ecution o$ the judment.
+

W>E)E9O)E, %e (3)#:O 6)3N# the present motion. #he Court o$ 3ppeals decision that
aIrmed in toto the )#C decision, !ndin )olito Calan uilty beyond reasonable doubt o$
rec&less imprudence resultin in multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and
damae to property, is 399I)-ED, %ith the -ODI9IC3#ION that (hiltranco8s liability should
only be subsidiary. No costs.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 11203C 4")("r5 24, 2001
RE%E$IOS A. $UPAS>UIER, ENRI>UE %. .ALA%EA, 4R., RA%ON HENARES,
RO$RIGO GAT%AITAN, 4R., 4ESUS COR$ERO, BEN4A%IN ELI.AGA AN$ E$UAR$O
TACOLO$, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECRETAR@ OF 4USTICE, THE
PRO2INCIAL PROSECUTOR OF RI.AL, 4U$GE 4ULIO R. LOGARTA o+ Br")& B3,
R!*io)"l Tri"l Co(r' o+ %"E"'i, BANCO FILIPINO SA2INGS F %ORTGAGE BAN6 ")/
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
W----------------------------------------W
G.R. No. 112737 4")("r5 24, 2001
HON. E$UAR$O G. %ONTENEGRO, i) i# &"p"&i'5 "# S!&r!'"r5 o+ 4(#'i&!G HON.
%AURO C. CASTRO, i) i# &"p"&i'5 "# PRO2INCIAL Pro#!&('or +or RiH"lG HON.
TEOFILO L. GUA$I., 4R., i) i# &"p"&i'5 "# Pr!#i/i)* 4(/*! o+ Br")& 147, %"E"'iG
HON. CAN$I$O P. 2ILLANUE2A, i) i# &"p"&i'5 "# Pr!#i/i)* 4(/*!, RTC, Br")&
144, %"E"'i, ")/ HON. 4ULIO R. LOGARTA, i) i# &"p"&i'5 "# Pr!#i/i)* 4(/*!, RTC,
Br")& -3, %"E"'i, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS ")/ FORTUNATO %. $I.ON, 4R., respondents.
PAR$O, J.:
#hese are t%o 4.5 consolidated cases assailin t%o 4.5 decisions
*
o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals
involvin the prosecution o$ oIcials o$ 'anco 9ilipino Savins and -ortae 'an&, $or esta$a.
In the !rst decision, the Court o$ 3ppeals
.
dismissed the petition o$ )emedios 3. DupasMuier,
EnriMue -. Valamea, @r., )amon >enares, )odrio 6atmaitan, @r., @esus Cordero, 'enjamin
Eli?aa and Eduardo #acolod, $or the dismissal o$ the chares aainst them. 56#p$i5.n7t
In the second decision, the Court o$ 3ppeals
2
ordered petitioners Secretary o$ @ustice,
(rovincial (rosecutor $or )i?al, and the trial courts to dismiss the chares aainst respondent
9ortunato -. Di?on, @r.
In */F1, Carlota (. 7alen?uela, deputy overnor o$ the Central 'an& o$ the (hilippines and
receiverJliMuidator o$ 'anco 9ilipino Savins and -ortae 'an&, !led %ith the Department o$
@ustice a complaint $or esta$a aainst the $ollo%in 'anco 9ilipino oIcials in connection %ith
irreular rants o$ commercial loans to corporate subsidiaries o$ 'anco 9ilipino, namely<
3nthony C. 3uirre, #omas '. 3uirre, #eodoro C. 3rcenas, 9ortunato -. Di?on, @r., 3lberto C.
3uirre, Del!n -. Dimaiba, Napoleon :. 'uencamino, EnriMue -. Valamea, @r., Euenio 3.
Osias, )amon >enares, 'enjamin E. Eli?aa, -artin :. Calicutan, Eduardo 7. #acolod, Eduardo
9. Huirino, Cynthia Subijano, Solita -. -analaysay, >autila D. @ose, )emedios DupasMuierG
Nancy :. #y and Elena (allasiMue.
+

3$ter conductin preliminary investiation, )i?al .nd 3ssistant (rovincial (rosecutor >erminio
#. ;bana, Sr. issued t%o 4.5 resolutions
,
recommendin the !lin o$ in$ormation $or esta$a
aainst the above-named oIcials, e"cept $or Nancy :. #y and Elena (allasiMue. With the
approval o$ the (rovincial (rosecutor o$ )i?al, on 3uust F, */FF, in$ormations
D
%ere thus
!led aainst said oIcials %ith the )eional #rial Court, -a&ati, 'ranch D2.
9rom the resolutions o$ the prosecutor, some o$ the accused-oIcials moved $or a
reconsideration or reinvestiation allein serious irreularities durin the preliminary
investiation, to %it< 4a5 parties not oriinally chared %ere $ound indictable in said
resolutions and 4b5 o$ many %ho %ere not included in the resolutions %ere chared in the
in$ormations !led in Cour.
On 3pril *0, */F/, )i?al (rovincial (rosecutor -auro -. Castro issued a resolution
1
rantin a
reinvestiation.
On -arch .*, *//*, a panel o$ investiators composed o$ .nd 3ssistant (rosecutor Ed%in
Condaya, 2rd 3ssistant (rosecutor Domino 3llena and +th 3ssistant (rosecutor Eduardo
'autista prepared a memorandum
F
$or (rovincial (rosecutor -auro -. Castro recommendin
the dismissal o$ the chares aainst the accused $or lac& o$ probable cause.
On @uly **, *//*, respondent (rovincial (rosecutor Castro issued a resolution
/
reversin the
investiatin panelQs recommendation and ordered the prosecution o$ petitioners
*0
and
respondent 9ortunato Di?on, @r.
**

On or about @uly ./, *//*, petitioners
*.
!led a motion $or reconsideration
*2
o$ the @uly **,
*//* resolution o$ (rovincial (rosecutor Castro. On the other hand, on @uly .+, *//*,
respondent 9ortunato -. Di?on, @r. %ith others !led %ith the OIce o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice
a petition $or revie% .
*+

On October ., *//*, 3ctin Secretary o$ @ustice Silvestre >. 'ello dismissed respondent
Di?onQs petition $or revie%.
*,
On -arch .,, *//., Secretary o$ @ustice Eduardo 6. -ontenero
denied respondent Di?onQs motion $or reconsideration.
*D

On -ay *F, *//., respondent Di?on
*1
!led %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals a petition $or certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus
*F
to annul the resolution
*/
o$ 3ctin Secretary o$ @ustice Eduardo
6. -ontenero, and to order the dismissal o$ all the criminal cases aainst him be$ore the
-a&ati )eional #rial courts.
On -ay .F, *//., (rovincial (rosecutor -auro -. Castro denied the motion $or
reconsideration o$ the petitioners.
.0

On @une */, *//., petitioners appealed to the Secretary o$ @ustice $rom the resolution o$
respondent (rovincial (rosecutor Castro.
.*
On @uly *2, *//., Secretary o$ @ustice 9ran&lin -. Drilon dismissed the appeal o$ petitioners.
..
On 3uust .+, *//., ;ndersecretary )amon S. Esuerra denied the motion $or
reconsideration.
.2

On September F, *//., petitioners
.+
!led %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals a petition $or certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus.
.,
#hey alleed that<
= *. #he respondents are actin %ith an uneven hand and, in $act, are actin
oppressively aainst )emedios DupasMuier %hen they allo% her prosecution %hile
e"cludin another similarly situated.
=.. #he respondent Secretary o$ @ustice committed an act in rave abuse o$ his
discretion and in e"cess o$ his jurisdiction %hen he sustained the rave abuse o$
discretion o$ the respondent (rovincial (rosecutor in substitutin his judment in place
o$ that o$ the panel $ormed by him %ithout !rst in$ormin the petitioners o$ the result
o$ the investiation.
2. the respondents Secretary and (rovincial (rosecutor acted in rave abuse o$
discretion amountin to an e"cess o$ jurisdiction %hen they continued prosecution o$
the petitioners despite lac& o$ basis there$ore and despite lac& o$ damae on the part
o$ 'anco 9ilipino Savins X -ortae 'an&.=
On @une *F, *//2, the Court o$ 3ppeals promulated a decision
.D
dismissin the petition $or
lac& o$ merit. On @uly ,, *//2, petitioners !led a motion $or reconsideration.
.1

Durin the pendency o$ the motion $or reconsideration,
.F
on September 02, *//2, the Court
o$ 3ppeals promulated a decision
./
settin aside the resolution
20
o$ respondent Secretary o$
@ustice and orderin the dismissal o$ the criminal cases aainst respondent Di?on.
;pon learnin o$ the triumph o$ their co-accused respondent Di?on, @r.,
2*
on September *+,
*//2,
2.
petitioners !led %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals a supplemental motion $or reconsideration
and an urent motion $or the consolidation o$ C3-6.). S( No. .FFD1 and C3-6.). S( No.
.1/... On October *, *//2, the Court o$ 3ppeals denied the motion $or reconsideration.
22

>ence, on November /, *//2, they !led %ith the Supreme Court a petition $or revie% on
certiorari
2+
prayin that the criminal cases aainst them be dismissed.
On @anuary *0, *//+, the prosecution
2,
interposed an appeal via certiorari to the Supreme
Court $rom the decision o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals.
2D

On motion o$ petitioners,
21
on 3uust .., *//+, the Court resolved to consolidate the t%o
cases.
2F
(etitioners
2/
raised several interrelated issues. >o%ever, the crucial issue raised is %hether
the court may revie% !ndins o$ the prosecutor on the e"istence o$ probable cause suIcient
to !le the proper in$ormation in court and substitute its judment to that o$ the prosecutor in
determinin the suIciency o$ evidence to establish the uilt o$ petitioners $or esta$a.
We need only to stress that the determination o$ probable cause durin a preliminary
investiation or reinvestiation is reconi?ed as an e"ecutive $unction e"clusively o$ the
prosecutor.
+0
3n investiatin prosecutor is under no obliation to !le a criminal action
%here he is not convinced that he has the Muantum o$ evidence at hand to support the
averments.
+*
(rosecutin oIcers have eMually the duty not to prosecute %hen a$ter
investiation or reinvestiation they are convinced that the evidence adduced %as not
suIcient to establish a prima facie case.
+.
#hus, the determination o$ the persons to be
prosecuted rests primarily %ith the prosecutor %ho is vested %ith discretion in the dischare
o$ this $unction.
+2

ConseMuently, the $act that the investiatin prosecutor e"onerated some o$ the co-accused
in the preliminary investiation does not necessarily entitle petitioners to a similar
e"oneration %here the investiatin prosecutor $ound probable cause to prosecute them $or
the crime chared.
#he Court !nds erroneous the assailed decision o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals reversin the
investiatin prosecutorQs recommendation $or the prosecution o$ respondent 9ortunato -.
Di?on, @r. Courts should ive credence, in the absence o$ a clear sho%in o$ arbitrariness, to
the !ndins and determination o$ probable cause by prosecutors in a preliminary
investiation.
++
We have repeated this dictum in People v. Cerbo
+,
%here %e said that<
=In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor has the Muasi- judicial discretion
to determine %hether or not a criminal case should be !led in court. Courts must
respect the e"ercise o$ such discretion %hen the in$ormation !led aainst the accused
is valid on its $ace, and no mani$est error, rave abuse o$ discretion or prejudice can
be imputed to the public prosecutor.=
9inally, %e note that the parties
+D
are ventilatin be$ore us the merits o$ their respective
causes or de$enses. #his is not the occasion $or the $ull and e"haustive display o$ the partiesQ
evidence. #he presence or absence o$ the elements o$ the crime is evidentiary in nature that
may be passed upon a$ter a $ull-blo%n trial on the merits.
+1
;HEREFORE, '! Co(r':
4*5 In 6. ). No.**.0F/, $ENIES the petition and AFFIR%S the decision o$ the Court
o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No..FFD1G and
4.5 In 6.). No. **.121, GRANTS the petition and RE2ERSES the decision o$ the Court
o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. .1/...
:et the t%o cases be RE%AN$E$ to the court o$ oriin $or $urther proceedins.
No costs.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 1714B- 4()! 3, 2007
AAA
I
, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL, i) i# &"p"&i'5 "# Pr!#i/i)* 4(/*!, Br")& 27,
R!*io)"l Tri"l Co(r', S") F!r)")/o Ci'5, L" U)io) ")/ ENGR. 4AI%E O. AR.A$ON,
respondents.
D E C I S I O N
@NARES0SANTIAGO, J.'
#his petition $or certiorari
*
assails the December *D, .00,
.
Order o$ the )eional #rial Court,
'ranch .1, San 9ernando, :a ;nion in Criminal Case No. D/F2, dismissin the rape case !led
aainst private respondent @aime O. 3r?adon $or lac& o$ probable causeG and its 9ebruary 2,
.00D
2
Order denyin petitioner8s motion $or reconsideration.
(etitioner %or&ed as a secretary at the 3r?adon 3utomotive and Car Service Center $rom
9ebruary .F, .00* to 3uust *D, .00*. On -ay .1, .00* at about D<20 p.m., 3r?adon as&ed
her to deliver a boo& to an oIce located at another buildin but %hen she returned to their
oIce, the lihts had been turned oC and the ate %as closed. Nevertheless, she %ent inside
to et her handba.
On her %ay out, she sa% 3r?adon standin beside a par&ed van holdin a pipe. >e told her
to o near him and upon reachin his side, he threatened her %ith the pipe and $orced her to
lie on the pavement. >e removed her pants and under%ear, and inserted his penis into her
vaina. She %ept and cried out $or help but to no avail because there %as nobody else in the
premises.
(etitioner did not report the incident because 3r?adon threatened to &ill her and her $amily.
'ut %hen she discovered that she %as prenant as a conseMuence o$ the rape, she narrated
the incident to her parents. On @uly .+, .00., petitioner !led a complaint $or rape aainst
3r?adon.
On September *D, .00., 3ssistant City (rosecutor Imelda Cosalan issued a )esolution
+

!ndin probable cause and recommendin the !lin o$ an in$ormation $or rape. 3r?adon
moved $or reconsideration and durin the clari!catory hearin held on October **, .00.,
petitioner testi!ed be$ore the investiatin prosecutor. >o%ever, she $ailed to attend the
ne"t hearin hence, the case %as provisionally dismissed.
On -arch ,, .002, petitioner !led another 3Idavit-Complaint
,
%ith a comprehensive
account o$ the alleed rape incident. #he case %as assined to .nd 3ssistant (rovincial
(rosecutor 6eorina >idalo. Durin the preliminary investiation, petitioner appeared $or
clari!catory Muestionin. On @une **, .002, the investiatin prosecutor issued a )esolution
D
!ndin that a prima facie case o$ rape e"ists and recommendin the !lin o$ the in$ormation.
3r?adon moved $or reconsideration and reMuested that a panel o$ prosecutors be constituted
to revie% the case. #hus, a panel o$ prosecutors %as created and a$ter the clari!catory
Muestionin, the panel issued on October *2, .002 a )esolution
1
!ndin probable cause and
denyin 3r?adon8s motion $or reconsideration.
3n In$ormation
F
$or rape %as !led be$ore the )eional #rial Court, 'ranch .1, San 9ernando,
:a ;nion on 9ebruary D, .00+, doc&eted as Criminal Case No. D+*,. #herea$ter, 3r?adon !led
a =-otion to >old in 3beyance 3ll Court (roceedins Includin the Issuance o$ a Warrant o$
3rrest and to Determine (robable Cause $or the (urpose o$ Issuin a Warrant o$ 3rrest.=
/
On
-arch *F, .00+, respondent @ude 3ntonio 3. Carbonell ranted the motion and directed
petitioner and her %itnesses to ta&e the %itness stand $or determination o$ probable cause.
3r?adon also appealed the )esolution o$ the panel o$ prosecutors !ndin probable cause
be$ore the Department o$ @ustice. On @uly /, .00+, then 3ctin Secretary o$ @ustice
-erceditas 6utierre? $ound no probable cause and directed the %ithdra%al o$ the In$ormation
in Criminal Case No. D+*,.
*0
;pon motion $or reconsideration by petitioner, ho%ever, Secretary o$ @ustice )aul 6on?ales
reversed the @uly /, .00+ )esolution and issued another )esolution
**
!ndin that probable
cause e"ists. #hus, a ne% In$ormation
*.
$or rape %as !led aainst 3r?adon doc&eted as
Criminal Case No. D/F2.
ConseMuently, 3r?adon !led an =;rent -otion $or @udicial Determination o$ (robable Cause
$or the (urpose o$ Issuin a Warrant o$ 3rrest.=
*2
In an Order dated 3uust **, .00,,
respondent @ude Carbonell ranted the motion and directed petitioner and her %itnesses to
ta&e the %itness stand.
Instead o$ ta&in the %itness stand, petitioner !led a motion $or reconsideration claimin
that the documentary evidence suIciently established the e"istence o$ probable cause.
(endin resolution thereo$, she li&e%ise !led a petition
*+
%ith this Court $or the trans$er o$
venue o$ Criminal Case No. D/F2. #he case %as doc&eted as 3dministrative -atter No. 0,-
*.-1,D-)#C and entitled +e8 Transfer of 9enue of Criminal Case :o. ;<=> formerly Criminal
Case :o. ;?5@ from t$e +egional Trial Court -ranc$ AB 'an Cernando City %a )nion to any
Court in Metro Manila.
In a )esolution
*,
dated @anuary *F, .00D, the Court ranted petitioner8s reMuest $or trans$er
o$ venue. #he case %as raYed to the )eional #rial Court o$ -anila, 'ranch .,, and doc&eted
as Criminal Case No. 0D-.+..F/. >o%ever, the proceedins have been suspended pendin
the resolution o$ this petition.
-ean%hile, on December *D, .00,, respondent @ude Carbonell issued the assailed Order
dismissin Criminal Case No. D/F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause. (etitioner8s motion $or
reconsideration %as denied hence, this petition.
(etitioner raises the $ollo%in issues<
*D
I
)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E 3C#ED WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION 3-O;N#IN6 #O :3CT O9
O) IN EWCESS O9 @;)ISDIC#ION W>EN I# 6)3N#ED #>E -O#ION 9O) DE#E)-IN3#ION O9
()O'3':E C3;SE 9I:ED 'O #>E ()I73#E )ES(ONDEN# 3ND #>E S;'SEH;EN# DENI3: O9
#>E -O#ION 9O) )ECONSIDE)3#ION
II
)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E CO--I##ED 9;)#>E) 3C#S CONS#I#;#IN6 6)37E 3';SE O9
DISC)E#ION 3-O;N#IN6 #O :3CT O) IN EWCESS O9 @;)ISDIC#ION W>EN I# O)DE)ED #>E
CO-(:3IN3N# 3ND WI#NESSES #O #3TE #>E S#3ND 9O) #>E (;)(OSE O9 DE#E)-ININ6
()O'3':E C3;SE
III
)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E 3C#ED WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION W>EN >E )E9;SED #O
IN>I'I# 9)O- 9;)#>E) >3ND:IN6 #>E C3SE DES(I#E W>IS(E)S O9 DO;'# ON >IS 'I3S
3ND (3)#I3:I#O
I7
)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E 3C#ED WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION W>EN I# ISS;ED #>E
O)DE) O9 9E');3)O 2, .00D, DENOIN6 #>E -O#ION 9O) )ECONSIDE)3#ION, DES(I#E #>E
S;()E-E CO;)# )ESO:;#ION O9 @3N;3)O *F, .00D, 6)3N#IN6 #>E #)3NS9E) O9 7EN;E
(etitioner contends that the jude is not reMuired to personally e"amine the complainant and
her %itnesses in satis$yin himsel$ o$ the e"istence o$ probable cause $or the issuance o$ a
%arrant o$ arrest. She arues that respondent @ude Carbonell should have ta&en into
consideration the documentary evidence as %ell as the transcript o$ stenoraphic notes
%hich suIciently established the e"istence o$ probable cause.
3r?adon claims that the petition should be dismissed outriht $or bein the %ron mode o$
appeal, it appearin that the issues raised by petitioner properly $all under an action $or
certiorari under )ule D,, and not )ule +,, o$ the )ules o$ Court.
)espondent @ude Carbonell arues in his Comment
*1
that the !ndin o$ probable cause by
the investiatin prosecutor is not bindin or obliatory, and that he %as justi!ed in
reMuirin petitioner and her %itnesses to ta&e the %itness stand in order to determine
probable cause.
#he issues $or resolution are *5 %hether the petition should be dismissed $or bein the %ron
mode o$ appealG and .5 %hether respondent @ude Carbonell acted %ith rave abuse o$
discretion in dismissin Criminal Case No. D/F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause.
#he petition has merit.
3 petition $or revie% on certiorari under )ule +, is distinct $rom a petition $or certiorari under
)ule D, in that the $ormer brins up $or revie% errors o$ judment %hile the latter concerns
errors o$ jurisdiction or rave abuse o$ discretion amountin to lac& or e"cess o$ jurisdiction.
6rave abuse o$ discretion is not an allo%able round under )ule +,. >o%ever, a petition $or
revie% on certiorari under )ule +, may be considered a petition $or certiorari under )ule D,
%here it is alleed that the respondents abused their discretion in their Muestioned actions,
as in the instant case.
*F
While petitioner claims to have brouht the instant action under )ule
+,, the rounds raised herein involve an alleed rave abuse o$ discretion on the part o$
respondent @ude Carbonell. 3ccordinly, the Court shall treat the same as a petition $or
certiorari under )ule D,.
>o%ever, %e must point out the procedural error committed by petitioner in directly !lin
the instant petition be$ore this Court instead o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals, thereby violatin the
principle o$ judicial hierarchy o$ courts. It is %ell-settled that althouh the Supreme Court,
Court o$ 3ppeals and the )eional #rial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue %rits o$
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, .uo #arranto, $abeas corpus and injunction, such
concurrence does not ive the petitioner unrestricted $reedom o$ choice o$ court $orum.
*/
In
this case, ho%ever, the ravity o$ the oCense chared and the lenth o$ time that has
passed since the !lin o$ the complaint $or rape, compel us to resolve the present
controversy in order to avoid $urther delay.
.0
We thus proceed to the issue o$ %hether respondent @ude Carbonell acted %ith rave abuse
o$ discretion in dismissin Criminal Case No. D/F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause.
We rule in the aIrmative.
)espondent @ude Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. D/F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause on
the round that petitioner and her %itnesses $ailed to comply %ith his orders to ta&e the
%itness stand. #hus P
In )ES;-E there$ore, as indubitably borne out by the case record and considerin that the
(rivate (rosecutor, despite several admonitions contumaciously nay contemptuously re$used
to complyJobey this Court8s Orders o$ -arch *F, .00+, 3uust **, .00, and eiht 4F5 other
similar Orders issued in open Court that directed the complainantJ%itnesses to ta&e the
%itness stand to be as&ed probinJclari!catory Muestions consonant %ith cited
jurisprudential rulins o$ the Supreme Court, this Court in the e"ercise o$ its discretion and
sound judment !nds and so holds that NO probable cause %as established to %arrant the
issuance o$ an arrest order and the $urther prosecution o$ the instant case.
)ecord also sho%s in no unclear terms that in all the scheduled hearins o$ the case, the
accused had al%ays been present. 3 contrario, the private complainant $ailed to appear
durin the last $our 4+5 consecutive settins despite due notice %ithout ivin any
e"planation, %hich to the mind o$ the Court may indicate an apparent lac& o$ interest in the
$urther prosecution o$ this case. #hat $ailure may even be construed as a con!rmation o$ the
De$ense8s contention reKected in the case record, that the only party interested in this case
is the (rivate prosecutor, prodded by the accused8s alleed hostile siblins to continue %ith
the case.
W>E)E9O)E, premises considered, $or utter lac& o$ probable cause, the instant case is
hereby ordered DIS-ISSED.
.*
>e claims that under Section ., 3rticle III o$ the */F1 Constitution, no %arrant o$ arrest shall
issue e"cept upon probable cause =to be determined personally by the jude a$ter
e"amination under oath or aIrmation o$ the complainant and the %itnesses he may
produce.=
>o%ever, in the leadin case o$ 'oliven v. MaDasiar,
..
the Court e"plained that this
constitutional provision does not mandatorily reMuire the jude to personally e"amine the
complainant and her %itnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report and
supportin documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disreard the prosecutor8s
report and reMuire the submission o$ supportin aIdavits o$ %itnesses. #hus<
#he addition o$ the %ord =personally= a$ter the %ord =determined= and the deletion o$ the
rant o$ authority by the */12 Constitution to issue %arrants to =other responsible oIcers as
may be authori?ed by la%,= has apparently convinced petitioner 'eltran that the Constitution
no% reMuires the jude to personally e"amine the complainant and his %itnesses in his
determination o$ probable cause $or the issuance o$ %arrants o$ arrest. #his is not an
accurate interpretation.
What the Constitution underscores is the e"clusive and personal responsibility o$ the issuin
jude to satis$y himsel$ o$ the e"istence o$ probable cause. In satis$yin himsel$ o$ the
e"istence o$ probable cause $or the issuance o$ a %arrant o$ arrest, the jude is not reMuired
to personally e"amine the complainant and his %itnesses. 9ollo%in established doctrine and
procedure, he shall< 4*5 personally evaluate the report and the supportin documents
submitted by the !scal reardin the e"istence o$ probable cause and, on the basis thereo$,
issue a %arrant o$ arrestG or 4.5 i$ on the basis thereo$ he !nds no probable cause, he may
disreard the !scal8s report and reMuire the submission o$ supportin aIdavits o$ %itnesses
to aid him in arrivin at a conclusion as to the e"istence o$ probable cause.
Sound policy dictates this procedure, other%ise judes %ould by unduly laden %ith the
preliminary e"amination and investiation o$ criminal complaints instead o$ concentratin on
hearin and decidin cases !led be$ore their courts.
.2
We reiterated the above rulin in the case o$ Eebb v. 0e %eon,
.+
%here %e held that be$ore
issuin %arrants o$ arrest, judes merely determine the probability, not the certainty, o$ uilt
o$ an accused. In doin so, judes do not conduct a de novo hearin to determine the
e"istence o$ probable cause. #hey just personally revie% the initial determination o$ the
prosecutor !ndin a probable cause to see i$ it is supported by substantial evidence.
.,
It is %ell to remember that there is a distinction bet%een the preliminary inMuiry %hich
determines probable cause $or the issuance o$ a %arrant o$ arrest and the preliminary
investiation proper %hich ascertains %hether the oCender should be held $or trial or be
released. #he determination o$ probable cause $or purposes o$ issuin the %arrant o$ arrest
is made by the jude. #he preliminary investiation proper P %hether or not there is
reasonable round to believe that the accused is uilty o$ the oCense chared P is the
$unction o$ the investiatin prosecutor.
.D
#rue, there are cases %here the circumstances may call $or the jude8s personal e"amination
o$ the complainant and his %itnesses. 'ut it must be emphasi?ed that such personal
e"amination is not mandatory and indispensable in the determination o$ probable cause $or
the issuance o$ a %arrant o$ arrest. #he necessity arises only %hen there is an utter $ailure o$
the evidence to sho% the e"istence o$ probable cause.
.1
Other%ise, the jude may rely on
the report o$ the investiatin prosecutor, provided that he li&e%ise evaluates the
documentary evidence in support thereo$.
Indeed, %hat the la% reMuires as personal determination on the part o$ the jude is that he
should not rely solely on the report o$ the investiatin prosecutor. In ,Dabe v. Gutierrez,
.F

%e stressed that the jude should consider not only the report o$ the investiatin
prosecutor but also the aIdavit and the documentary evidence o$ the parties, the counter-
aIdavit o$ the accused and his %itnesses, as %ell as the transcript o$ stenoraphic notes
ta&en durin the preliminary investiation, i$ any, submitted to the court by the investiatin
prosecutor upon the !lin o$ the In$ormation.
./
I$ the report, ta&en toether %ith the
supportin evidence, is suIcient to sustain a !ndin o$ probable cause, it is not compulsory
that a personal e"amination o$ the complainant and his %itnesses be conducted.
In this case, respondent @ude Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. D/F2 %ithout ta&in
into consideration the @une **, .002 )esolution o$ .nd 3ssistant (rovincial (rosecutor
6eorina >idalo, the October *2, .002 )esolution o$ the panel o$ prosecutors, and the @uly
*, .00, )esolution o$ the Department o$ @ustice, all o$ %hich sustain a !ndin o$ probable
cause aainst 3r?adon. -oreover, he $ailed to evaluate the evidence in support thereo$.
)espondent jude8s !ndin o$ lac& o$ probable cause %as premised only on the
complainant8s and her %itnesses8 absence durin the hearin scheduled by the respondent
jude $or the judicial determination o$ probable cause.
(etitioner narrated in detail the alleed rape incident both in her 'inumpaang 'alaysay
20

dated @uly .+, .00. and Complaint-3Idavit
2*
dated -arch ,, .002. She attended several
clari!catory hearins that %ere conducted in the instant case. #he transcript o$ stenoraphic
notes
2.
o$ the hearin held on October **, .00. sho%s that she positively identi!ed 3r?adon
as her assailant, and the speci!c time and place o$ the incident. She also claimed that she
bore a child as a result o$ the rape and, in support o$ her contentions, presented the child
and her birth certi!cate as evidence. In contrast, 3r?adon merely relied on the de$ense o$
alibi %hich is the %ea&est o$ all de$enses.
3$ter a care$ul e"amination o$ the records, %e !nd that there is suIcient evidence to
establish probable cause. #he ravamen o$ rape is the carnal &no%lede by the accused o$
the private complainant under any o$ the circumstances provided in 3rticle 22, o$ the
)evised (enal Code, as amended.
22
(etitioner has cateorically stated that 3r?adon raped
her, recountin her ordeal in detail durin the preliminary investiations. #a&en %ith the
other evidence presented be$ore the investiatin prosecutors, such is suIcient $or
purposes o$ establishin probable cause. It is %ell-settled that a !ndin o$ probable cause
need not be based on clear and convincin evidence beyond reasonable doubt. (robable
cause is that %hich enenders a %ell-$ounded belie$ that a crime has been committed and
that the respondent is probably uilty thereo$ and should be held $or trial. It does not reMuire
that the evidence %ould justi$y conviction.
2+
It is clear there$ore that respondent @ude Carbonell ravely abused his discretion in
dismissin Criminal Case No. D/F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause on the round that petitioner
and her %itnesses $ailed to ta&e the %itness stand. Considerin there is ample evidence and
suIcient basis on record to support a !ndin o$ probable cause, it %as unnecessary $or him
to ta&e the $urther step o$ e"aminin the petitioner and her %itnesses. -oreover, he erred in
holdin that petitioner8s absences in the scheduled hearins %ere indicative o$ a lac& o$
interest in prosecutin the case. In $act, the records sho% that she has relentlessly pursued
the same.
Needless to say, a $ull-blo%n trial is to be pre$erred to $erret out the truth.
2,
3s it %ere, the
incidents o$ this case have been pendin $or almost !ve years %ithout havin even passed
the preliminary investiation stae. SuIce to say that the credibility o$ petitioner may be
tested durin the trial %here the respective alleations and de$enses o$ the complainant and
the accused are properly ventilated. It is only then that the truth as to 3r?adon8s innocence
or uilt can be determined.
W>E)E9O)E, the petition is 6)3N#ED. #he Orders o$ the )eional #rial Court, 'ranch .1, San
9ernando, :a ;nion dated December *D, .00,, and 9ebruary 2, .00D dismissin Criminal
Case No. D/F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause are )E7E)SED and SE# 3SIDE, and the In$ormation
in the said case is hereby REINSTATE$. #he )eional #rial Court, 'ranch .,, -anila is
$IRECTE$ to ta&e coni?ance o$ the case and let the records thereo$ be RE%AN$E$ to the
said court $or $urther proceedins.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. L0-3373 4()! 30, 1C37
%ARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. LEO$EGARIO L. %OGUL, Pr!#i/i)* 4(/*!, CIRCUIT CRI%INAL COURT OF
LUCENA CIT@, C' 4(/i&i"l $i#'., THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, r!pr!#!)'!/ <5
'! SOLICITOR GENERAL, RICAR$O BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents.

GANCA@CO, J.'
#he issue raised in this ease is %hether the trial court actin on a motion to dismiss a
criminal case !led by the (rovincial 9iscal upon instructions o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice to
%hom the case %as elevated $or revie%, may re$use to rant the motion and insist on the
arrainment and trial on the merits.
On 3pril *F, */11 3ssistant 9iscal (roceso T. de 6ala %ith the approval o$ the (rovincial
9iscal !led an in$ormation $or esta$a aainst -ario 9l. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court o$
:ucena City %hich %as doc&eted as Criminal Case No. CCCIW-,. 4Hue?on5 Q11.1 When the
case %as set $or arraiment the accused !led a motion to de$er arrainment on the round
that there %as a pendin petition $or revie% !led %ith the Secretary o$ @ustice o$ the
resolution o$ the OIce o$ the (rovincial 9iscal $or the !lin o$ the in$ormation. In an order o$
3uust *, */11, the presidin jude, >is >onor, :eodeario :. -oul, denied the motion.
2
3
motion $or reconsideration o$ the order %as denied in the order o$ 3uust ,, */11 but the
arrainment %as de$erred to 3uust *F, */11 to aCord nine $or petitioner to elevate the
matter to the appellate court.
3
3 petition $or certiorari and prohibition %ith prayer $or a preliminary %rit o$ injunction %as
!led by the accused in the Court o$ 3ppeals that %as doc&eted as C3-6.). S( No. 0D/1F.
4
In
an order o$ 3uust *1, */11 the Court o$ 3ppeals restrained @ude -oul $rom proceedin
%ith the arrainment o$ the accused until $urther orders o$ the Court.
-
In a comment that
%as !led by the Solicitor 6eneral he recommended that the petition be iven due course.
B

On -ay *,, */1F a decision %as rendered by the Court o$ 3ppeals rantin the %rit and
perpetually restrainin the jude $rom en$orcin his threat to compel the arrainment o$ the
accused in the case until the Department o$ @ustice shall have !nally resolved the petition $or
revie%.
7
On -arch .., */1F then ;ndersecretary o$ @ustice, >on.Catalino -acarai, @r., resolvin the
petition $or revie% reversed the resolution o$ the OIce o$ the (rovincial 9iscal and directed
the !scal to move $or immediate dismissal o$ the in$ormation !led aainst the accused.
3
3
motion to dismiss $or insuIciency o$ evidence %as !led by the (rovincial 9iscal dated 3pril
*0, */1F %ith the trial court,
C
attachin thereto a copy o$ the letter o$ ;ndersecretary
-acarai, @r. In an order o$ 3uust ., */1F the private prosecutor %as iven time to !le an
opposition thereto. 10 On November .+, */1F the @ude denied the motion and set the
arrainiment statin<
O)DE)
9or resolution is a motion to dismiss this rase !led by the procutin !scal
premised on insuIciency o$ evidence, as suested by the ;ndersecretary o$
@ustice, evident $rom 3nne" =3= o$ the motion %herein, amon other thins, the
9iscal is ured to move $or dismissal $or the reason that the chec& involved
havin been issued $or the payment o$ a pre-e"istin obliation the >ability o$
the dra%er can only be civil and not criminal.
#he motionQs thrust bein to induce this Court to resolve the innocence o$ the
accused on evidence not be$ore it but on that adduced be$ore the
;ndersecretary o$ @ustice, a matter that not only disreards the reMuirements o$
due process but also erodes the CourtQs independence and interity, the motion
is considered as %ithout merit and there$ore hereby DENIED.
W>E)E9O)E, let the arrainment be, as it is hereby set $or December *F, */1F
at /<00 oQcloc& in the momin.
SO O)DE)ED. 11
#he accused then !led a petition $or certiorari, prohibition and mandamus %ith petition $or
the issuance o$ preliminary %rit o$ prohibition andJor temporary restrainin order in the
Court o$ 3ppeals that %as doc&eted as C3-6.). No. S(-0F111. 12 On @anuary .2, */1/ a
restrainin order %as issued by the Court o$ 3ppeals aainst the threatened act o$
arrainment o$ the accused until $urther orders $rom the Court. 13 In a decision o$ October
.,, */1/ the Court o$ 3ppeals dismissed the petition and li$ted the restrainin order o$
@anuary .2, */1/. 14 3 motion $or reconsideration o$ said decision !led by the accused %as
denied in a resolution o$ 9ebruary */, */F0. 1-
>ence this petition $or revie% o$ said decision %as !led by accused %hereby petitioner prays
that said decision be reversed and set aside, respondent jude be perpetually enjoined $rom
en$orcin his threat to proceed %ith the arrainment and trial o$ petitioner in said criminal
case, declarin the in$ormation !led not valid and o$ no leal $orce and eCect, orderin
respondent @ude to dismiss the said case, and declarin the obliation o$ petitioner as
purely civil. 1B
In a resolution o$ -ay */, */F0, the Second Division o$ this Court %ithout ivin due course
to the petition reMuired the respondents to comment to the petition, not to !le a motiod to
dismiss, %ithin ten 4*05 days $rom notice. In the comment !led by the Solicitor 6eneral he
recommends that the petition be iven due course, it bein meritorious. (rivate respondent
throuh counsel !led his reply to the comment and a separate conunent to the petition
as&in that the petition be dismissed. In the resolution o$ 9ebruary ,, */F*, the Second
Division o$ this Court resolved to trans$er this case to the Court *n -anc. In the resolution o$
9ebruary .D, */F*, the Court *n -anc resolved to ive due course to the petition.
(etitioner and private respondent !led their respective brie$s %hile the Solicitor 6eneral !led
a -ani$estation in lieu o$ brie$ reiteratin that the decision o$ the respondent Court o$
3ppeals be reversed and that respondent @ude be ordered to dismiss the in$ormation.
It is a cardinal principle that an criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by
in$ormation shall be prosecuted under the direction and control o$ the !scal. 17 #he
institution o$ a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion o$ the !scal. >e may or
may not !le the complaint or in$ormation, $ollo% or not $ono% that presented by the oCended
party, accordin to %hether the evidence in his opinion, is suIcient or not to establish the
uilt o$ the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13 #he reason $or placin the criminal
prosecution under the direction and control o$ the !scal is to prevent malicious or un$ounded
prosecution by private persons. 1C It cannot be controlled by the complainant.
20
(rosecutin
oIcers under the po%er vested in them by la%, not only have the authority but also the duty
o$ prosecutin persons %ho, accordin to the evidence received $rom the complainant, are
sho%n to be uilty o$ a crime committed %ithin the jurisdiction o$ their oIce.
21
#hey have
eMually the leal duty not to prosecute %hen a$ter an investiation they become convinced
that the evidence adduced is not suIcient to establish a prima facie case.
22
It is throuh the conduct o$ a preliminary investiation
23
that the !scal determines the
e"istence o$ a puma $acie case that %ould %arrant the prosecution o$ a case. #he Courts
cannot inter$ere %ith the !scalQs discretion and control o$ the criminal prosecution. It is not
prudent or even permissible $or a Court to compel the !scal to prosecute a proceedin
oriinally initiated by him on an in$ormation, i$ he !nds that the evidence relied upon by him
is insuIcient $or conviction.
24
Neither has the Court any po%er to order the !scal to
prosecute or !le an in$ormation %ithin a certain period o$ time, since this %ould inter$ere
%ith the !scalQs discretion and control o$ criminal prosecutions.
2-
#hus, a !scal %ho as&s $or
the dismissal o$ the case $or insuIciency o$ evidence has authority to do so, and Courts that
rant the same commit no error.
2B
#he !scal may re-investiate a case and subseMuently
move $or the dismissal should the re-investiation sho% either that the de$endant is innocent
or that his uilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt.
27
In a clash o$ vie%s
bet%een the jude %ho did not investiate and the !scal %ho did, or bet%een the !scal and
the oCended party or the de$endant, those o$ the 9iscalQs should normally prevail.
23
On the
other hand, neither an injunction, preliminary or !nal nor a %rit o$ prohibition may be issued
by the courts to restrain a criminal prosecution
2C
e"cept in the e"treme case %here it is
necessary $or the Courts to do so $or the orderly administration o$ justice or to prevent the
use o$ the stron arm o$ the la% in an op pressive and vindictive manner.
30
>o%ever, the action o$ the !scal or prosecutor is not %ithout any limitation or control. #he
same is subject to the approval o$ the provincial or city !scal or the chie$ state prosecutor as
the case maybe and it maybe elevated $or revie% to the Secretary o$ @ustice %ho has the
po%er to aIrm, modi$y or reverse the action or opinion o$ the !scal. ConseMuently the
Secretary o$ @ustice may direct that a motion to dismiss the rase be !led in Court or
other%ise, that an in$ormation be !led in Court.
31

#he !lin o$ a complaint or in$ormation in Court initiates a criminal action. #he Court thereby
acMuires jurisdiction over the case, %hich is the authority to hear and determine the case.
32

When a$ter the !lin o$ the complaint or in$ormation a %arrant $or the arrest o$ the accused
is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submited himsel$ to the Court
or %as duly arrested, the Court thereby acMuired jurisdiction over the person o$ the accused.
33
#he preliminary investiation conducted by the !scal $or the purpose o$ determinin %hether
a prima facie case e"ists %arrantin the prosecution o$ the accused is terminated upon the
!lin o$ the in$ormation in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the !lin o$ said
in$ormation sets in motion the criminal action aainst the accused in Court. Should the !scal
!nd it proper to conduct a reinvestiation o$ the case, at such stae, the permission o$ the
Court must be secured. 3$ter such reinvestiation the !ndin and recommendations o$ the
!scal should be submitted to the Court $or appropriate action.
34
While it is true that the
!scal has the .uasi 1udicial discretion to determine %hether or not a criminal case should be
!led in court or not, once the case had already been brouht to Court %hatever disposition
the !scal may $eel should be proper in the rase therea$ter should be addressed $or the
consideration o$ the Court,
3-
#he only Muali!cation is that the action o$ the Court must not
impair the substantial rihts o$ the accused.
3B
or the riht o$ the (eople to due process o$
la%.
3B
"
Whether the accused had been arrained or not and %hether it %as due to a reinvestiation
by the !scal or a revie% by the Secretary o$ @ustice %hereby a motion to dismiss %as
submitted to the Court, the Court in the e"ercise o$ its discretion may rant the motion or
deny it and reMuire that the trial on the merits proceed $or the proper determination o$ the
case.
>o%ever, one may as&, i$ the trial court re$uses to rant the motion to dismiss !led by the
!scal upon the directive o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice %ill there not be a vacuum in the
prosecutionZ 3 state prosecutor to handle the case cannot possibly be desinated by the
Secretary o$ @ustice %ho does not believe that there is a basis $or prosecution nor can the
!scal be e"pected to handle the prosecution o$ the case thereby de$yin the superior order
o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice.
#he ans%er is simple. #he role o$ the !scal or prosecutor as We all &no% is to see that justice
is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction o$ the person accused be$ore the
Courts. #hus, in spite o$ his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty o$ the !scal to proceed %ith
the presentation o$ evidence o$ the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at
its o%n independent judment as to %hether the accused should be convicted or acMuitted.
#he !scal should not shir& $rom the responsibility o$ appearin $or the (eople o$ the
(hilippines even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution o$
the case leavin it to the hands o$ a private prosecutor $or then the entire proceedins %ill
be null and void.
37
#he least that the !scal should do is to continue to appear $or the
prosecution althouh he may turn over the presentation o$ the evidence to the private
prosecutor but still under his direction and control.
33
#he rule there$ore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or in$ormation is !led in Court
any disposition o$ the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acMuittal o$ the accused rests
in the sound discretion o$ the Court. 3lthouh the !scal retains the direction and control o$
the prosecution o$ criminal cases even %hile the case is already in Court he cannot impose
his opinion on the trial court. #he Court is the best and sole jude on %hat to do %ith the
case be$ore it. #he determination o$ the case is %ithin its e"clusive jurisdiction and
competence. 3 motion to dismiss the case !led by the !scal should be addressed to the
Court %ho has the option to rant or deny the same. It does not matter i$ this is done be$ore
or a$ter the arrainment o$ the accused or that the motion %as !led a$ter a reinvestiation or
upon instructions o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice %ho revie%ed the records o$ the investiation.
In order there$or to avoid such a situation %hereby the opinion o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice
%ho revie%ed the action o$ the !scal may be disrearded by the trial court, the Secretary o$
@ustice should, as $ar as practicable, re$rain $rom entertainin a petition $or revie% or appeal
$rom the action o$ the !scal, %hen the complaint or in$ormation has already been !led in
Court. #he matter should be le$t entirely $or the determination o$ the Court.
W>E)E9O)E, the petition is DIS-ISSED $or lac& o$ merit %ithout pronouncement as to costs.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 132B77 A(*(#' 3, 2010
4OSE ANTONIO C. LE2ISTE, (etitioner,
vs.
HON. EL%O %. ALA%E$A, HON. RAUL %. GON.ALE., HON. E%%ANUEL @. 2ELASCO,
HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL $E LAS ALAS, )espondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO %ORALES, J.'
@ose 3ntonio C. :eviste 4petitioner5 assails via the present petition $or revie% !led on -ay 20,
.00F the 3uust 20, .001 Decision
*
and the 3pril *F, .00F )esolution
.
o$ the Court o$
3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. /11D* that aIrmed the trial court8s Orders o$ @anuary .+, 2*,
9ebruary 1, F, all in .001, and denied the motion $or reconsideration, respectively.
(etitioner %as, by In$ormation
2
o$ @anuary *D, .001, chared %ith homicide $or the death o$
)a$ael de las 3las on @anuary *., .001 be$ore the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ -a&ati City.
'ranch *,0 to %hich the case %as raYed, presided by @ude Elmo 3lameda, $orth%ith issued
a commitment order
+
aainst petitioner %ho %as placed under police custody %hile con!ned
at the -a&ati -edical Center.
,
3$ter petitioner posted a (+0,000 cash bond %hich the trial court approved,
D
he %as released
$rom detention, and his arrainment %as set on @anuary .+, .001.
#he private complainants-heirs o$ De las 3las !led, %ith the con$ormity o$ the public
prosecutor, an ;rent Omnibus -otion
1
prayin, inter alia, $or the de$erment o$ the
proceedins to allo% the public prosecutor to re-e"amine the evidence on record or to
conduct a reinvestiation to determine the proper oCense.
#he )#C therea$ter issued the 4*5 Order o$ @anuary .+, .001
F
de$errin petitioner8s
arrainment and allo%in the prosecution to conduct a reinvestiation to determine the
proper oCense and submit a recommendation %ithin 20 days $rom its inception, inter aliaG
and 4.5 Order o$ @anuary 2*, .001
/
denyin reconsideration o$ the !rst order. (etitioner
assailed these orders via certiorari and prohibition be$ore the Court o$ 3ppeals.
-eantime, petitioner !led an ;rent E"-(arte -ani$estation and -otion be$ore the trial court
to de$er actin on the public prosecutor8s recommendation on the proper oCense until a$ter
the appellate court resolves his application $or injunctive relie$s, or alternatively, to rant
him time to comment on the prosecutor8s recommendation and therea$ter set a hearin $or
the judicial determination o$ probable cause.
*0
(etitioner also separately moved $or the
inhibition o$ @ude 3lameda %ith prayer to de$er action on the admission o$ the 3mended
In$ormation.
**

#he trial court nonetheless issued the other assailed orders, vi?< 4*5 Order o$ 9ebruary 1,
.001
*.
that admitted the 3mended In$ormation
*2
$or murder and directed the issuance o$ a
%arrant o$ arrestG and 4.5 Order o$ 9ebruary F, .001
*+
%hich set the arrainment on 9ebruary
*2, .001. (etitioner Muestioned these t%o orders via supplemental petition be$ore the
appellate court.
#he appellate court dismissed petitioner8s petition, hence, his present petition, aruin that<
()I73#E )ES(ONDEN# DID NO# >37E #>E )I6># #O C3;SE #>E )EIN7ES#I63#ION O9 #>E
C)I-IN3: C3SE 'E:OW W>EN #>E C)I-IN3: IN9O)-3#ION >3D 3:)E3DO 'EEN 9I:ED WI#>
#>E :OWE) CO;)#. >ENCE, #>E CO;)# O9 3((E3:S CO--I##ED 3 6)37E E))O) IN
9INDIN6 #>3# )ES(ONDEN# @;D6E DID NO# 3C# WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION IN
6)3N#IN6 S;C> )EIN7ES#I63#ION DES(I#E >37IN6 NO '3SIS IN #>E );:ES O9 CO;)#AGB
)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E 3C#ED WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION IN 3D-I##IN6 S#3#E
()OSEC;#O) 7E:3SCO8S 3-ENDED IN9O)-3#ION, ISS;IN6 3 W3))3N# O9 3))ES#, 3ND
SE##IN6 #>E C3SE 'E:OW 9O) 3))3I6N-EN#, CONSIDE)IN6 #>3# #>E 73:IDI#O 3ND
:E63:I#O O9 >IS O)DE)S D3#ED .+ 3ND 2* @3N;3)O .001, W>IC> :ED #O #>E
H;ES#ION3':E )EIN7ES#I63#ION 3ND I::E63: 3-ENDED IN9O)-3#IONA,B 3)E OE# #O 'E
)ESO:7ED 'O #>IS >ONO)3':E CO;)# 4sic5G A3NDB
CONSIDE)IN6 #>3# ()OSEC;#O) 7E:3SCO8S 9INDIN6S IN >IS )ESO:;#ION D3#ED .
9E');3)O .001 3)E ':3#3N#:O '3SED ON -E)E S(EC;:3#IONS 3ND CON@EC#;)ES,
WI#>O;# 3NO S;'S#3N#I3: O) -3#E)I3: NEW E7IDENCE 'EIN6 3DD;CED D;)IN6 #>E
)EIN7ES#I63#ION, )ES(ONDEN# @;D6E S>O;:D >37E 3# :E3S# 3::OWED (E#I#IONE)8S
-O#ION 9O) 3 >E3)IN6 9O) @;DICI3: DE#E)-IN3#ION O9 ()O'3':E C3;SE.
*,
4emphasis in
the oriinal omitted5
)ecords sho% that the arrainment scheduled on -arch .*, .001 pushed throuh durin
%hich petitioner re$used to plead, dra%in the trial court to enter a plea o$ =not uilty= $or
him.
(rior thereto or on 9ebruary .2, .001, petitioner !led an ;rent 3pplication $or 3dmission to
'ail E" 3bundanti Cautela
*D
%hich the trial court, a$ter hearins thereon, ranted by Order o$
-ay .*, .001,
*1
it !ndin that the evidence o$ uilt $or the crime o$ murder is not stron. It
accordinly allo%ed petitioner to post bail in the amount o$ (200,000 $or his provisional
liberty.
#he trial court, absent any %rit o$ preliminary injunction $rom the appellate court, %ent on to
try petitioner under the 3mended In$ormation. 'y Decision o$ @anuary *+, .00/, the trial
court $ound petitioner uilty o$ homicide, sentencin him to suCer an indeterminate penalty
o$ si" years and one day o$ prision mayor as minimum to *. years and one day o$ reclusion
temporal as ma"imum. 9rom the Decision, petitioner !led an appeal to the appellate court,
doc&eted as C3-6.). C) No. 2.*,/, durin the pendency o$ %hich he !led an urent
application $or admission to bail pendin appeal. #he appellate court denied petitioner8s
application %hich this Court, in 6.). No. *F/*.., aIrmed by Decision o$ -arch *1, .0*0.
#he OIce o$ the Solicitor 6eneral 4OS65 later arued that the present petition had been
rendered moot since the presentation o$ evidence, %herein petitioner actively participated,
had been concluded.
*F
Waiver on the part o$ the accused must be distinuished $rom mootness o$ the petition, $or
in the present case, petitioner did not, by his active participation in the trial, %aive his stated
objections.
Section .D, )ule **+ o$ the )ules o$ Court provides<
SEC. .D. -ail not a bar to ob1ections on illegal arrest lacD of or irregular preliminary
investigation. P 3n application $or or admission to bail shall not bar the accused $rom
challenin the validity o$ his arrest or the leality o$ the %arrant issued there$or, or $rom
assailin the reularity or Muestionin the absence o$ a preliminary investiation o$ the
chare aainst him, provided that he raises them be$ore enterin his plea. #he court shall
resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start o$ the trial o$ the case.
'y applyin $or bail, petitioner did not %aive his riht to challene the reularity o$ the
reinvestiation o$ the chare aainst him, the validity o$ the admission o$ the 3mended
In$ormation, and the leality o$ his arrest under the 3mended In$ormation, as he viorously
raised them prior to his arrainment. Durin the arrainment on -arch .*, .001, petitioner
re$used to enter his plea since the issues he raised %ere still pendin resolution by the
appellate court, thus promptin the trial court to enter a plea o$ =not uilty= $or him.
#he principle that the accused is precluded a$ter arrainment $rom Muestionin the illeal
arrest or the lac& o$ or irreular preliminary investiation applies =only i$ he voluntarily
enters his plea and participates durin trial, %ithout previously invo&in his objections
thereto.=
*/
#here must be clear and convincin proo$ that petitioner had an actual intention
to relinMuish his riht to Muestion the e"istence o$ probable cause. When the only proo$ o$
intention rests on %hat a party does, his act should be so mani$estly consistent %ith, and
indicative o$, an intent to voluntarily and uneMuivocally relinMuish the particular riht that no
other e"planation o$ his conduct is possible.
.0

9rom the iven circumstances, the Court cannot reasonably in$er a valid %aiver on the part
o$ petitioner to preclude him $rom obtainin a de!nite resolution o$ the objections he so
timely invo&ed. Other than its alleation o$ active participation, the OS6 oCered no clear and
convincin proo$ that petitioner8s participation in the trial %as unconditional %ith the intent
to voluntarily and uneMuivocally abandon his petition. In $act, on @anuary .D, .0*0, petitioner
still moved $or the early resolution o$ the present petition.
.*

E$atever delay arisin $rom petitioner8s availment o$ remedies aainst the trial court8s
Orders cannot be imputed to petitioner to operate as a valid %aiver on his part. Neither can
the non-issuance o$ a %rit o$ preliminary injunction be deemed as a voluntary relinMuishment
o$ petitioner8s principal prayer. #he non-issuance o$ such injunctive relie$ only means that
the appellate court did not preliminarily !nd any e"ception
..
to the lon-standin doctrine
that injunction %ill not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution.
.2
ConseMuently, the trial o$ the
case too& its course.
#he petition is no% moot, ho%ever, in vie% o$ the trial court8s rendition o$ judment.
3 moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue
o$ supervenin events, so that a declaration thereon %ould be o$ no practical use or value.
.+

#he judment convictin petitioner o$ homicide under the 3mended In$ormation $or murder
operates as a supervenin event that mooted the present petition. 3ssumin that there is
round
.,
to annul the !ndin o$ probable cause $or murder, there is no practical use or value
in abroatin the concluded proceedins and retryin the case under the oriinal
In$ormation $or homicide just to arrive, more li&ely or even de!nitely, at the same conviction
o$ homicide. -ootness %ould have also set in had petitioner been convicted o$ murder, $or
proo$ beyond reasonable doubt, %hich is much hiher than probable cause, %ould have been
established in that instance.
Instead, ho%ever, o$ denyin the petition outriht on the round o$ mootness, the Court
proceeds to resolve the leal issues in order to $ormulate controllin principles to uide the
bench, bar and public.
.D
In the present case, there is compellin reason to clari$y the
remedies available be$ore and a$ter the !lin o$ an in$ormation in cases subject o$ inMuest.
3$ter oin over into the substance o$ the petition and the assailed issuances, the Court
!nds no reversible error on the part o$ the appellate court in !ndin no rave abuse o$
discretion in the issuance o$ the $our trial court Orders.
In his !rst assinment o$ error, petitioner posits that the prosecution has no riht under the
)ules to see& $rom the trial court an investiation or reevaluation o$ the case e"cept throuh
a petition $or revie% be$ore the Department o$ @ustice 4DO@5. In cases %hen an accused is
arrested %ithout a %arrant, petitioner contends that the remedy o$ preliminary investiation
belons only to the accused.
#he contention lac&s merit.
Section D,
.1
)ule **. o$ the )ules o$ Court reads<
When a person is la%$ully arrested %ithout a %arrant involvin an oCense %hich reMuires a
preliminary investiation, the complaint or in$ormation may be !led by a prosecutor %ithout
need o$ such investiation provided an inMuest has been conducted in accordance %ith
e"istin rules. In the absence or unavailability o$ an inMuest prosecutor, the complaint may
be !led by the oCended party or a peace oIcer directly %ith the proper court on the basis o$
the aIdavit o$ the oCended party or arrestin oIcer or person.
'e$ore the complaint or in$ormation is !led, the person arrested may as& $or a preliminary
investiation in accordance %ith this )ule, but he must sin a %aiver o$ the provisions o$
3rticle *., o$ the )evised (enal Code, as amended, in the presence o$ his counsel.
Not%ithstandin the %aiver, he may apply $or bail and the investiation must be terminated
%ithin !$teen 4*,5 days $rom its inception.
3$ter the !lin o$ the complaint or in$ormation in court %ithout a preliminary investiation,
the accused may, %ithin !ve 4,5 days $rom the time he learns o$ its !lin, as& $or a
preliminary investiation %ith the same riht to adduce evidence in his de$ense as provided
in this )ule. 4underscorin supplied5
3 preliminary investiation is reMuired be$ore the !lin o$ a complaint or in$ormation $or an
oCense %here the penalty prescribed by la% is at least $our years, t%o months and one day
%ithout reard to !ne.
.F
3s an e"ception, the rules provide that there is no need $or a
preliminary investiation in cases o$ a la%$ul arrest %ithout a %arrant
./
involvin such type o$
oCense, so lon as an inMuest, %here available, has been conducted.
20

InMuest is de!ned as an in$ormal and summary investiation conducted by a public
prosecutor in criminal cases involvin persons arrested and detained %ithout the bene!t o$ a
%arrant o$ arrest issued by the court $or the purpose o$ determinin %hether said persons
should remain under custody and correspondinly be chared in court.
2*

It is imperative to !rst ta&e a closer loo& at the predicament o$ both the arrested person and
the private complainant durin the brie$ period o$ inMuest, to rasp the respective remedies
available to them be$ore and a$ter the !lin o$ a complaint or in$ormation in court.
'E9O)E #>E 9I:IN6 O9 CO-(:3IN# O) IN9O)-3#ION IN CO;)#, the private complainant
may proceed in coordinatin %ith the arrestin oIcer and the inMuest oIcer durin the
latter8s conduct o$ inMuest. -ean%hile, the arrested person has the option to avail o$ a *,-
day preliminary investiation, provided he duly sins a %aiver o$ any objection aainst delay
in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities under 3rticle *., o$ the )evised (enal Code.
9or obvious reasons, this remedy is not available to the private complainant since he cannot
%aive %hat he does not have. #he bene!t o$ the provisions o$ 3rticle *.,, %hich reMuires the
!lin o$ a complaint or in$ormation %ith the proper judicial authorities %ithin the applicable
period,
2.
belons to the arrested person.
#he accelerated process o$ inMuest, o%in to its summary nature and the attendant ris& o$
runnin aainst 3rticle *.,, ends %ith either the prompt !lin o$ an in$ormation in court or
the immediate release o$ the arrested person.
22
Notably, the rules on inMuest do not provide
$or a motion $or reconsideration.
2+

Contrary to petitioner8s position that private complainant should have appealed to the DO@
Secretary, such remedy is not immediately available in cases subject o$ inMuest.
Note%orthy is the proviso that the appeal to the DO@ Secretary is by =petition by a proper
party under such rules as the Department o$ @ustice may prescribe.=
2,
#he rule re$erred to is
the .000 National (rosecution Service )ule on 3ppeal,
2D
Section * o$ %hich provides that the
)ule shall =apply to appeals $rom resolutions " " " in cases subject o$ preliminary
investiationJ reinvestiation.= In cases subject o$ inMuest, there$ore, the private party
should !rst avail o$ a preliminary investiation or reinvestiation, i$ any, be$ore elevatin the
matter to the DO@ Secretary.
In case the inMuest proceedins yield no probable cause, the private complainant may
pursue the case throuh the reular course o$ a preliminary investiation.
ONCE 3 CO-(:3IN# O) IN9O)-3#ION IS 9I:ED IN CO;)#, the rules yet provide the accused
%ith another opportunity to as& $or a preliminary investiation %ithin !ve days $rom the time
he learns o$ its !lin. #he )ules o$ Court and the Ne% )ules on InMuest are silent, ho%ever,
on %hether the private complainant could invo&e, as respondent heirs o$ the victim did in the
present case, a similar riht to as& $or a reinvestiation.
#he Court holds that the private complainant can move $or reinvestiation, subject to and in
liht o$ the ensuin disMuisition.
3ll criminal actions commenced by a complaint or in$ormation shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control o$ the public prosecutor.
21
#he private complainant in a criminal case is
merely a %itness and not a party to the case and cannot, by himsel$, as& $or the
reinvestiation o$ the case a$ter the in$ormation had been !led in court, the proper party $or
that bein the public prosecutor %ho has the control o$ the prosecution o$ the case.
2F
#hus,
in cases %here the private complainant is allo%ed to intervene by counsel in the criminal
action,
2/
and is ranted the authority to prosecute,
+0
the private complainant, by counsel and
%ith the con$ormity o$ the public prosecutor, can !le a motion $or reinvestiation.
In $act, the DO@ instructs that be$ore the arrainment o$ the accused, trial prosecutors must
=e"amine the In$ormation vis-[-vis the resolution o$ the investiatin prosecutor in order to
ma&e the necessary corrections or revisions and to ensure that the in$ormation is suIcient
in $orm and substance.=
+*
" " " Since no evidence has been presented at that stae, the error %ould appear or be
discoverable $rom a revie% o$ the records o$ the preliminary investiation. O$ course, that
$act may be perceived by the trial jude himsel$ but, aain, r!"li#'i&"ll5 i' 9ill <! '!
pro#!&('or 9o &") i)i'i"ll5 /!'!r8i)! '! #"8!. #hat is %hy such error need not be
mani$est or evident, nor is it reMuired that such nuances as oCenses includible in the oCense
chared be ta&en into account. It necessarily $ollo%s, there$ore, that '! pro#!&('or &")
")/ #o(l/ i)#'i'('! r!8!/i"l 8!"#(r!#A.B
+.
4emphasis and underscorin supplied5
#he prosecution o$ crimes appertains to the e"ecutive department o$ the overnment %hose
principal po%er and responsibility is to see that our la%s are $aith$ully e"ecuted. 3 necessary
component o$ this po%er to e"ecute our la%s is the riht to prosecute their violators. #he
riht to prosecute vests the prosecutor %ith a %ide rane o$ discretion P the discretion o$
%hat and %hom to chare, the e"ercise o$ %hich depends on a smorasbord o$ $actors %hich
are best appreciated by prosecutors.
+2

#he prosecution8s discretion is not boundless or in!nite, ho%ever.
++
#he standin principle is
that once an in$ormation is !led in court, any remedial measure such as a reinvestiation
must be addressed to the sound discretion o$ the court. Interestinly, petitioner supports this
vie%.
+,
Indeed, the Court ruled in one case that<
#he rule is no% %ell settled that once a complaint or in$ormation is !led in court, any
disposition o$ the case, %hether as to its dismissal or the conviction or the acMuittal o$ the
accused, rests in the sound discretion o$ the court. 3lthouh the prosecutor retains the
direction and control o$ the prosecution o$ criminal cases even %hen the case is already in
court, he cannot impose his opinion upon the tribunal. 9or %hile it is true that the prosecutor
has the Muasi-judicial discretion to determine %hether or not a criminal case should be !led
in court, once the case had already been brouht therein any disposition the prosecutor may
deem proper therea$ter
should be addressed to the court $or its consideration and approval. #he only Muali!cation is
that the action o$ the court must not impair the substantial rihts o$ the accused or the riht
o$ the (eople to due process o$ la%.
" " " "
In such an instance, be$ore a re-investiation o$ the case may be conducted by the public
prosecutor, the permission or consent o$ the court must be secured. I$ a$ter such re-
investiation the prosecution !nds a coent basis to %ithdra% the in$ormation or other%ise
cause the dismissal o$ the case, such proposed course o$ action may be ta&en but shall
li&e%ise be addressed to the sound discretion o$ the court.
+D
4underscorin supplied5
While Abugotal v. (udge Tiro
+1
held that to $erret out the truth, a trial is to be pre$erred to a
reinvestiation, the Court therein reconi?ed that a trial court may, %here the interest o$
justice so reMuires, rant a motion $or reinvestiation o$ a criminal case pendin be$ore it.
Once the trial court rants the prosecution8s motion $or reinvestiation, the $ormer is
deemed to have de$erred to the authority o$ the prosecutorial arm o$ the 6overnment.
>avin brouht the case bac& to the dra%in board, the prosecution is thus eMuipped %ith
discretion P %ide and $ar reachin P reardin the disposition thereo$,
+F
subject to the trial
court8s approval o$ the resultin proposed course o$ action.
Since a reinvestiation may entail a modi!cation o$ the criminal in$ormation as %hat
happened in the present case, the Court8s holdin is bolstered by the rule on amendment o$
an in$ormation under Section *+, )ule **0 o$ the )ules o$ Court<
A &o8pl"i)' or i)+or8"'io) 8"5 <! "8!)/!/, i) +or8 or i) #(<#'")&!, 9i'o('
l!"7! o+ &o(r', "' ")5 'i8! <!+or! '! "&&(#!/ !)'!r# i# pl!". 3$ter the plea and
durin the trial, a $ormal amendment may only be made %ith leave o$ court and %hen it can
be done %ithout causin prejudice to the rihts o$ the accused.
>o%ever, any amendment be$ore plea, %hich do%nrades the nature o$ the oCense chared
in or e"cludes any accused $rom the complaint or in$ormation, can be made only upon
motion by the prosecutor, %ith notice to the oCended party and %ith leave o$ court. #he
court shall state its reasons in resolvin the motion and copies o$ its order shall be $urnished
all parties, especially the oCended party.
I$ it appears at any time be$ore judment that a mista&e has been made in charin the
proper oCense, the court shall dismiss the oriinal complaint or in$ormation upon the !lin o$
a ne% one charin the proper oCense in accordance %ith section **, )ule **/, provided the
accused %ould not be placed in double jeopardy. #he court may reMuire the %itnesses to ive
bail $or their appearance at the trial. 4emphasis supplied5
In !ne, be$ore the accused enters a plea, a $ormal or substantial amendment o$ the
complaint or in$ormation may be made %ithout leave o$ court.
+/
3$ter the entry o$ a plea,
only a $ormal amendment may be made but %ith leave o$ court and only i$ it does not
prejudice the rihts o$ the accused. 3$ter arrainment, a substantial amendment is
proscribed e"cept i$ the same is bene!cial to the accused.
,0

It must be clari!ed thouh that not all de$ects in an in$ormation are curable by amendment
prior to entry o$ plea. 3n in$ormation %hich is void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a
round $or Muashal.
,*
3n amendment %hich operates to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court
is li&e%ise impermissible.
,.
Considerin the eneral rule that an in$ormation may be amended even in substance and
even %ithout leave o$ court at any time be$ore entry o$ plea, does it mean that the conduct
o$ a reinvestiation at that stae is a mere superKuityZ
It is not.
3ny remedial measure sprinin $rom the reinvestiation P be it a complete disposition or an
intermediate modi!cation
,2
o$ the chare P is eventually addressed to the sound discretion o$
the trial court, %hich must ma&e an independent evaluation or assessment o$ the merits o$
the case. Since the trial court %ould ultimately ma&e the determination on the proposed
course o$ action, it is $or the prosecution to consider %hether a reinvestiation is necessary
to adduce and revie% the evidence $or purposes o$ buttressin the appropriate motion to be
!led in court.
-ore importantly, reinvestiation is reMuired in cases involvin a substantial amendment o$
the in$ormation. Due process o$ la% demands that no substantial amendment o$ an
in$ormation may be admitted %ithout conductin another or a ne% preliminary investiation.
In Matalam v. T$e And 0ivision of t$e 'andiganbayan
,+
the Court ruled that a substantial
amendment in an in$ormation entitles an accused to another preliminary investiation,
unless the amended in$ormation contains a chare related to or is included in the oriinal
In$ormation.
#he Muestion to be resolved is %hether the amendment o$ the In$ormation $rom homicide to
murder is considered a substantial amendment, %hich %ould ma&e it not just a riht but a
duty o$ the prosecution to as& $or a preliminary investiation.
#he Court ans%ers in the aIrmative.
A #(<#'")'i"l "8!)/8!)' &o)#i#'# o+ '! r!&i'"l o+ +"&'# &o)#'i'('i)* '! oD!)#!
&"r*!/ ")/ /!'!r8i)"'i7! o+ '! 1(ri#/i&'io) o+ '! &o(r'. 3ll other matters are
merely o$ $orm. #he $ollo%in have been held to be mere +or8"l "8!)/8!)'#< 4*5 ne%
alleations %hich relate only to the rane o$ the penalty that the court miht impose in the
event o$ convictionG 4.5 an amendment %hich does not chare another oCense diCerent or
distinct $rom that chared in the oriinal oneG 425 additional alleations %hich do not alter
the prosecution8s theory o$ the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and aCect the
$orm o$ de$ense he has or %ill assumeG 4+5 an amendment %hich does not adversely aCect
any substantial riht o$ the accusedG and 4,5 an amendment that merely adds speci!cations
to eliminate vaueness in the in$ormation and not to introduce ne% and material $acts, and
merely states %ith additional precision somethin %hich is already contained in the oriinal
in$ormation and %hich adds nothin essential $or conviction $or the crime chared.
#he test as to %hether a de$endant is prejudiced by the amendment is %hether a de$ense
under the in$ormation as it oriinally stood %ould be available a$ter the amendment is made,
and %hether any evidence de$endant miht have %ould be eMually applicable to the
in$ormation in the one $orm as in the other. 3n amendment to an in$ormation %hich does not
chane the nature o$ the crime alleed therein does not aCect the essence o$ the oCense or
cause surprise or deprive the accused o$ an opportunity to meet the ne% averment had each
been held to be one o$ $orm and not o$ substance.
,,
4emphasis and underscorin supplied5
Matalam adds that the mere $act that the t%o chares are related does not necessarily or
automatically deprive the accused o$ his riht to another preliminary investiation. :otatu
dignum is the $act that both the oriinal In$ormation and the amended In$ormation in
Matalam %ere similarly charin the accused %ith violation o$ Section 24e5 o$ the 3nti-6ra$t
and Corrupt (ractices 3ct.
In one case,
,D
it %as sMuarely held that the amendment o$ the In$ormation $rom homicide to
murder is =one o$ substance %ith very serious conseMuences.=
,1
#he amendment involved in
the present case consists o$ additional averments o$ the circumstances o$ treachery, evident
premeditation, and cruelty, %hich Muali$y the oCense chared $rom homicide to murder. It
bein a ne% and material element o$ the oCense, petitioner should be iven the chance to
adduce evidence on the matter. Not bein merely clari!catory, the amendment essentially
varies the prosecution8s oriinal theory o$ the case and certainly aCects not just the $orm but
the %eiht o$ de$ense to be mustered by petitioner.
#he Court distinuishes the $actual milieus in -u$at v. CA
,F
and Pacoy v. Ca1igal,
,/
%herein
the amendment o$ the caption o$ the In$ormation $rom homicide to murder %as not
considered substantial because there %as no real chane in the recital o$ $acts constitutin
the oCense chared as alleed in the body o$ the In$ormation, as the alleations o$ Muali$yin
circumstances %ere already clearly embedded in the oriinal In$ormation. -u$at pointed out
that the oriinal In$ormation $or homicide already alleed the use o$ superior strenth, %hile
Pacoy states that the averments in the amended In$ormation $or murder are e"actly the
same as those already alleed in the oriinal In$ormation $or homicide. None o$ these
peculiar circumstances obtains in the present case.
Considerin that another or a ne% preliminary investiation is reMuired, the $act that %hat
%as conducted in the present case %as a reinvestiation does not invalidate the substantial
amendment o$ the In$ormation. #here is no substantial distinction bet#een a preliminary
investigation and a reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same manner and $or the
same objective o$ determinin %hether there e"ists suIcient round to enender a %ell-
$ounded belie$ that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably uilty
thereo$ and should be held $or trial.
D0
What is essential is that petitioner %as placed on uard
to de$end himsel$ $rom the chare o$ murder
D*
a$ter the claimed circumstances %ere made
&no%n to him as early as the !rst motion.
(etitioner did not, ho%ever, ma&e much o$ the opportunity to present countervailin
evidence on the proposed amended chare. Despite notice o$ hearin, petitioner opted to
merely observe the proceedins and declined to actively participate, even %ith e"treme
caution, in the reinvestiation. Mercado v. Court of Appeals states that the rules do not even
reMuire, as a condition sine Mua non to the validity o$ a preliminary investiation, the
presence o$ the respondent as lon as eCorts to reach him %ere made and an opportunity to
controvert the complainant8s evidence %as accorded him.
D.

In his second assinment o$ error, petitioner basically assails the hurried issuance o$ the last
t%o assailed )#C Orders despite the pendency be$ore the appellate court o$ the petition $or
certiorari challenin the !rst t%o trial court Orders allo%in a reinvestiation.
#he )ules cateorically state that the petition shall not interrupt the course o$ the principal
case unless a temporary retrainin order or a %rit o$ preliminary injunction has been
issued.
D2
#he appellate court, by )esolution o$ 9ebruary *,, .001,
D+
denied petitioner8s
application $or a temporary restrainin order and %rit o$ preliminary injunction.
Supplementary eCorts to see& injunctive relie$s proved $utile.
D,
#he appellate court thus did
not err in !ndin no rave abuse o$ discretion on the part o$ the trial court %hen it
proceeded %ith the case and eventually arrained the accused on -arch .*, .001, there
bein no injunction order $rom the appellate court. -oreover, petitioner opted to $oreo
appealin to the DO@ Secretary, a post-inMuest remedy that %as available a$ter the
reinvestiation and %hich could have suspended the arrainment.
DD
5avvp$i5
)eardin petitioner8s protestations o$ haste, suIce to state that the pace in resolvin
incidents o$ the case is not per se an indication o$ bias. In Santos-Concio v. Department o$
@ustice,
D1
the Court held<
Speed in the conduct o$ proceedins by a judicial or Muasi-judicial oIcer cannot per se be
instantly attributed to an injudicious per$ormance o$ $unctions. 9or one8s prompt dispatch
may be another8s undue haste. #he orderly administration o$ justice remains as the
paramount and constant consideration, %ith particular reard o$ the circumstances peculiar
to each case.
#he presumption o$ reularity includes the public oIcer8s oIcial actuations in all phases o$
%or&. Consistent %ith such presumption, it %as incumbent upon petitioners to present
contradictory evidence other than a mere tallyin o$ days or numerical calculation. #his,
petitioners $ailed to dischare. #he s%i$t completion o$ the Investiatin (anel8s initial tas&
cannot be releated as shoddy or shady %ithout discountin the presumably reular
per$ormance o$ not just one but !ve state prosecutors.
DF
#here is no round $or petitioner8s protestations aainst the DO@ Secretary8s sudden
desination o$ Senior State (rosecutor Emmanuel 7elasco as 3ctin City (rosecutor o$ -a&ati
City $or the present case
D/
and the latter8s con$ormity to the motion $or reinvestiation.
In rantin the reinvestiation, @ude 3lameda cannot choose the public prosecutor %ho %ill
conduct the reinvestiation or preliminary investiation.
10
#here is a hierarchy o$ oIcials in
the prosecutory arm o$ the e"ecutive branch headed by the Secretary o$ @ustice
1*
%ho is
vested %ith the preroative to appoint a special prosecutor or desinate an actin
prosecutor to handle a particular case, %hich broad po%er o$ control has been reconi?ed by
jurisprudence.
1.

3s $or the trial court8s inorin the DO@ Secretary8s uncontested statements to the media
%hich aired his opinion that i$ the assailant merely intended to maim and not to &ill the
victim, one bullet %ould have suIced R the DO@ Secretary reportedly uttered that =the !lin
o$ the case o$ homicide aainst ano aainst :eviste linte& naman eh I told you to %atch over
that case\ there should be a report about the ballistics, about the paraIn, etc., then that8s
not a complete investiation, that8s %hy you should use that as a round= R no abuse o$
discretion, much less a rave one, can be imputed to it.
#he statements o$ the DO@ Secretary do not evince a =determination to !le the In$ormation
even in the absence o$ probable cause.=
12
On the contrary, the remar&s merely underscored
the importance o$ securin basic investiative reports to support a !ndin o$ probable cause.
#he oriinal )esolution even reconi?ed that probable cause $or the crime o$ murder cannot
be determined based on the evidence obtained =AuBnless and until a more thorouh
investiation is conducted and eye%itnessJes AisJBare presented in evidenceA.B=
1+

#he trial court concluded that =the %ound sustained by the victim at the bac& o$ his head,
the absence o$ paraIn test and ballistic e"amination, and the handlin o$ physical
evidence,=
1,
as rationali?ed by the prosecution in its motion, are suIcient circumstances
that reMuire $urther inMuiry.
#hat the evidence o$ uilt %as not stron as subseMuently assessed in the bail hearins does
not aCect the prior determination o$ probable cause because, as the appellate court
correctly stated, the standard o$ stron evidence o$ uilt %hich is suIcient to deny bail to an
accused is mar&edly hiher than the standard o$ judicial probable cause %hich is suIcient to
initiate a criminal case.
1D

In his third assinment o$ error, petitioner $aults the trial court $or not conductin, at the
very least, a hearin $or judicial determination o$ probable cause, considerin the lac& o$
substantial or material ne% evidence adduced durin the reinvestiation.
(etitioner8s arument is specious.
#here are t%o &inds o$ determination o$ probable cause< e"ecutive and judicial. #he
e"ecutive determination o$ probable cause is one made durin preliminary investiation. It is
a $unction that properly pertains to the public prosecutor %ho is iven a broad discretion to
determine %hether probable cause e"ists and to chare those %hom he believes to have
committed the crime as de!ned by la% and thus should be held $or trial. Other%ise stated,
such oIcial has the Muasi-judicial authority to determine %hether or not a criminal case
must be !led in court. Whether that $unction has been correctly dischared by the public
prosecutor, i.e., %hether he has made a correct ascertainment o$ the e"istence o$ probable
cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itsel$ does not and may not be compelled to
pass upon.
11
#he judicial determination o$ probable cause is one made by the jude to ascertain %hether
a %arrant o$ arrest should be issued aainst the accused. #he jude must satis$y himsel$ that
based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity $or placin the accused under custody
in order not to $rustrate the ends o$ justice. I$ the jude !nds no probable cause, the jude
cannot be $orced to issue the arrest %arrant.
1F
(araraph 4a5, Section ,,
1/
)ule **. o$ the
)ules o$ Court outlines the procedure to be $ollo%ed by the )#C.
#o move the court to conduct a judicial determination o$ probable cause is a mere
superKuity, $or %ith or %ithout such motion, the jude is duty-bound to personally evaluate
the resolution o$ the public prosecutor and the supportin evidence. In $act, the tas& o$ the
presidin jude %hen the In$ormation is !led %ith the court is "rst and foremost to
determine the e"istence or non-e"istence o$ probable cause $or the arrest o$ the accused.
F0

What the Constitution underscores is the e"clusive and personal responsibility o$ the issuin
jude to satis$y himsel$ o$ the e"istence o$ probable cause. 'ut '! 1(/*! i# )o' r!J(ir!/
'o p!r#o)"ll5 !K"8i)! '! &o8pl"i)")' ")/ i# 9i')!##!#. 9ollo%in established
doctrine and procedure, he shall 4*5 personally evaluate the report and the supportin
documents submitted by the prosecutor reardin the e"istence o$ probable cause, and on
the basis thereo$, he may already ma&e a personal determination o$ the e"istence o$
probable causeG and 4.5 i$ he is not satis!ed that probable cause e"ists, he may disreard
the prosecutor8s report and reMuire the submission o$ supportin aIdavits o$ %itnesses to
aid him in arrivin at a conclusion as to the e"istence o$ probable cause.
F*
4emphasis and
underscorin supplied5
#he rules do not reMuire cases to be set $or hearin to determine probable cause $or the
issuance o$ a %arrant o$ arrest o$ the accused be$ore any %arrant may be issued.
F.
(etitioner
thus cannot, as a matter o$ riht, insist on a hearin $or judicial determination o$ probable
cause. Certainly, petitioner =cannot determine be$orehand ho% cursory or e"haustive the
AjudeQsB e"amination o$ the records should be Asince tBhe e"tent o$ the jude8s e"amination
depends on the e"ercise o$ his sound discretion as the circumstances o$ the case reMuire.=
F2

In one case, the Court emphatically stated<
#he periods provided in the )evised )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure are mandatory, and as such,
the jude must determine the presence or absence o$ probable cause %ithin such periods.
#he Sandianbayan8s determination o$ probable cause is made ex parte and is summary in
nature, not adversarial. T! 4(/*! #o(l/ )o' <! #'58i!/ ")/ /i#'r"&'!/ +ro8 i#
/!'!r8i)"'io) o+ pro<"<l! &"(#! <5 )!!/l!## 8o'io)# +or /!'!r8i)"'io) o+
pro<"<l! &"(#! :l!/ <5 '! "&&(#!/.
F+
4emphasis and underscorin supplied5
(etitioner proceeds to discuss at lenth evidentiary matters, aruin that no circumstances
e"ist that %ould Muali$y the crime $rom homicide to murder.
#he alleation o$ lac& o$ substantial or material ne% evidence deserves no credence,
because ne% pieces o$ evidence are not prereMuisites $or a valid conduct o$ reinvestiation.
It is not material that no ne% matter or evidence %as presented durin the reinvestiation o$
the case. It should be stressed that reinvestiation, as the %ord itsel$ implies, is merely a
repeat investiation o$ the case. Ne% matters or evidence are not prereMuisites $or a
reinvestiation, %hich is simply a chance $or the prosecutor to revie% and re-evaluate its
!ndins and the evidence already submitted.
F,

-oreover, under )ule +, o$ the )ules o$ Court, only Muestions o$ la% may be raised in, and
be subject o$, a petition $or revie% on certiorari since this Court is not a trier o$ $acts. #he
Court cannot thus revie% the evidence adduced by the parties on the issue o$ the absence or
presence o$ probable cause, as there e"ists no e"ceptional circumstances to %arrant a
$actual revie%.
FD

In a petition $or certiorari, li&e that !led by petitioner be$ore the appellate court, the
jurisdiction o$ the court is narro% in scope. It is limited to resolvin only errors o$
jurisdiction.5avvp$i5 It is not to stray at %ill and resolve Muestions and issues beyond its
competence, such as an error o$ judment.
F1
#he court8s duty in the pertinent case is
con!ned to determinin %hether the e"ecutive and judicial determination o$ probable cause
%as done %ithout or in e"cess o$ jurisdiction or %ith rave abuse o$ discretion. 3lthouh it is
possible that error may be committed in the dischare o$ la%$ul $unctions, this does not
render the act amenable to correction and annulment by the e"traordinary remedy o$
certiorari, absent any sho%in o$ rave abuse o$ discretion amountin to e"cess o$
jurisdiction.
FF
W>E)E9O)E, the petition is DENIED. #he assailed Decision and )esolution o$ the Court o$
3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. /11D* are 399I)-ED.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 143072 4(l5 10, 2007
FRANCISCO %AGESTRA$O, (etitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ")/ ELENA %. LIBRO4O )espondents.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO0NA.ARIO, J.'
#his (etition $or )evie% on Certiorari see&s to reverse the 4*5 )esolution
*
dated , -arch .00*
o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. D2./2 entitled, =9rancisco -aestrado v. >on.
Estrella #. Estrada, in her capacity as the (residin @ude o$ )eional #rial Court, 'ranch F2 o$
Hue?on City, (eople o$ the (hilippines and Elena -. :ibrojo,= %hich dismissed petitioner
9rancisco -aestrado8s (etition $or Certiorari $or bein the %ron remedyG and 4.5
)esolution
.
dated 2 -ay .00* o$ the same Court denyin petitioner8s motion $or
reconsideration.
(rivate respondent Elena -. :ibrojo !led a criminal complaint
2
$or perjury aainst petitioner
%ith the OIce o$ the City (rosecutor o$ Hue?on City, %hich %as doc&eted as I.S. No. /F-
2/00.
3$ter the !lin o$ petitioner8s counter-aIdavit and the appended pleadins, the OIce o$ the
City (rosecutor recommended the !lin o$ an in$ormation $or perjury aainst petitioner. #hus,
3ssistant City (rosecutor @osephine V. 9ernande? !led an in$ormation $or perjury aainst
petitioner %ith the -etropolitan #rial Court 4-e#C5 o$ Hue?on City. (ertinent portions o$ the
in$ormation are hereby Muoted as $ollo%s<
#hat on or about the .1th day o$ December, *//1, in Hue?on City, (hilippines, the said
accused, did then and there %ill$ully, unla%$ully and $eloniously and &no%inly ma&e an
untruth$ul statement under oath upon a material matter be$ore a competent oIcer
authori?ed to receive and administer oath and %hich the la% so reMuire, to %it< the said
accused subscribe and s%ore to an 3Idavit o$ :oss be$ore Notary (ublic Erlinda '. Espejo o$
Hue?on City, per Doc. No. *DF, (ae No. 2,, 'oo& No. C:WWI7 o$ her notarial reistry, $alsely
allein that he lost O%ner8s Duplicate Certi!cate o$ #C# No. N-*12*D2, %hich document %as
used in support o$ a (etition 9or Issuance o$ Ne% O%ner8s Duplicate Copy o$ Certi!cate o$
#itle and !led %ith the )eional #rial Court o$ Hue?on City, doc&eted as :)C] H-*00,. 4/F5
on @anuary .F, *//F and assined to 'ranch // o$ the said court, to %hich said 9rancisco -.
-aAeBstrado sined and s%ore on its veri!cation, per Doc. +*2 (ae F+ 'oo& No. C:WW7
Series o$ *//F o$ Notary (ublic Erlinda '. Espejo o$ Hue?on CityG the said accused &no%in
$ully %ell that the alleations in the said aIdavit and petition are $alse, the truth o$ the
matter bein that the property subject o$ #rans$er Certi!cate o$ #itle No. N-*12*D2 %as
mortaed to complainant Elena -. :ibrojo as collateral $or a loan in the amount o$ (
1,F,*2+.+. and as a conseMuence o$ %hich said title to the property %as surrendered by him
to the said complainant by virtue o$ said loan, thus, ma&in untruth$ul and deliberate
assertions o$ $alsehoods, to the damae and prejudice o$ the said Elena -. :ibrojo.
+
#he case %as raYed to the -e#C o$ Hue?on City, 'ranch +2, %here it %as doc&eted as
Criminal Case No. /01.* entitled, =(eople o$ the (hilippines v. 9rancisco -aestrado.=
On 20 @une *///, petitioner !led a motion
,
$or suspension o$ proceedins based on a
prejudicial Muestion. (etitioner alleed that Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/, a case $or recovery o$
a sum o$ money pendin be$ore the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ Hue?on City, 'ranch F+,
and Civil Case No. H-/F- 2+20F, a case $or Cancellation o$ -ortae, Delivery o$ #itle and
Damaes, pendin be$ore the )#C o$ Hue?on City, 'ranch 11, must be resolved !rst be$ore
Criminal Case No. /01.* may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or
intimately related to the issues raised in the criminal action.
On *+ @uly *///, -e#C-'ranch +2 issued an Order
D
denyin petitioner8s motion $or
suspension o$ proceedins, thus<
3ctin on the =-otion $or Suspension o$ (roceedins= !led by the Aherein petitioner
-aestradoB, thru counsel, and the =Comment and Opposition thereto, the Court a$ter an
evaluation o$ the same, !nds the a$oresaid motion %ithout merit, hence, is hereby DENIED, it
appearin that the resolution o$ the issues raised in the civil actions is not determinative o$
the uilt or innocence o$ the accused.
>ence, the trial o$ this case shall proceed as previously scheduled on @uly */ and 3uust .,
*//2 at F<20 in the mornin.
On *1 3uust *///, a motion
1
$or reconsideration %as !led by petitioner but %as denied by
the -e#C in an Order
F
dated */ October *///.
3rieved, petitioner !led a (etition $or Certiorari
/
under )ule D, o$ the )evised )ules o$
Court, %ith a prayer $or Issuance o$ a Writ o$ (reliminary Injunction be$ore the )#C o$ Hue?on
City, 'ranch F2, doc&eted as Civil Case No. H-//-2/2,F, on the round that -e#C @ude 'illy
@. 3palit committed rave abuse o$ discretion amountin to lac& or e"cess o$ jurisdiction in
denyin his motion to suspend the proceedins in Criminal Case No. /01.*.
On *+ -arch .000, )#C-'ranch F2 dismissed the petition and denied the prayer $or the
issuance o$ a %rit o$ preliminary injunction, reasonin thus<
Scrutini?in the complaints and ans%ers in the civil cases abovementioned, in relation to the
criminal action $or (E)@;)O, this Court opines and so holds that there is no prejudicial
Muestion involved as to %arrant the suspension o$ the criminal action to a%ait the outcome
o$ the civil cases. #he civil cases are principally $or determination %hether or not a loan %as
obtained by petitioner and %hether or not he e"ecuted the deed o$ real estate mortae
involvin the property covered by #C# No. N-*12*D2, %hereas the criminal case is $or perjury
%hich imputes upon petitioner the %ron$ul e"ecution o$ an aIdavit o$ loss to support his
petition $or issuance o$ a ne% o%ner8s duplicate copy o$ #C# No. *12*D2. Whether or not he
committed perjury is the issue in the criminal case %hich may be resolved independently o$
the civil cases. Note that the aIdavit o$ loss %as e"ecuted in support o$ the petition $or
issuance o$ a ne% o%ner8s duplicate copy o$ #C# No. N-*12*D2 %hich petition %as raYed to
'ranch // o$ the )#C. " " ".
*0
3ain, petitioner !led a motion $or reconsideration
**
but this %as denied by )#C- 'ranch F2
in an Order
*.
dated .* December .000.
Dissatis!ed, petitioner !led %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals a (etition $or Certiorari
*2
under )ule D,
o$ the )evised )ules o$ Court, %hich %as doc&eted as C3-6.). S( No. D2./2. (etitioner
alleed that )#C @ude Estrella #. Estrada committed rave abuse o$ discretion amountin to
lac& or e"cess o$ jurisdiction in denyin the (etition $or Certiorari in Civil Case No. H-//-
2/2,F, and in eCect sustainin the denial by -e#C-'ranch +2 o$ petitioner8s motion to
suspend the proceedins in Criminal Case No. /01.*, as %ell as his subseMuent motion $or
reconsideration thereo$.
On , -arch .00*, the Court o$ 3ppeals dismissed
*+
the (etition in C3-6.). S( No. D2./2 on
the round that petitioner8s remedy should have been an appeal $rom the dismissal by )#C-
'ranch F2 o$ his (etition $or Certiorari in H-//-2/2,F. #he Court o$ 3ppeals ruled that<
Is this instant (etition $or Certiorari under )ule D, the correct and appropriate remedyZ
We rule neatively.
#he resolution or dismissal in special civil actions, as in the instant petition, may be
appealed " " " under Section *0, )ule ++ o$ the *//1 )ules o$ Civil (rocedure and not by
petition $or certiorari under )ule D, o$ the same rules. #hus, the said rule provides<
Section *0. #ime $or !lin memoranda on special cases. In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
Muo %arranto and habeas corpus cases, the parties shall !le in lieu o$ brie$s, their respective
memoranda %ithin a non-e"tendible period o$ thirty 4205 days $rom receipt o$ the notice
issued by the cler& that all the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the
record " " ".
W>E)E9O)E, in consideration o$ the $oreoin premises, the instant (etition $or Certiorari
under )ule D, o$ the *//1 )ules o$ Civil (rocedure is hereby DIS-ISSED.
*,
#he Court o$ 3ppeals denied petitioner8s -otion $or )econsideration
*D
in a )esolution
*1
dated
2 -ay .00*.
>ence, petitioner comes be$ore us via a (etition $or )evie% on Certiorari under )ule +, o$ the
)evised )ules o$ Court raisin the $ollo%in issues<
*. Whether or not the Orders o$ @ude Estrella #. Estrada dated -arch *+, .000
denyin petitioner8s (etition $or Certiorari under )ule D, o$ the )ules o$ Court, and her
subseMuent Order dated December .*, .000, denyin the -otion $or )econsideration
therea$ter !led can only be revie%ed by the Court o$ 3ppeals thru appeal under
Section *0, )ule ++ o$ the *//1 )ules o$ Civil (rocedure.
.. Whether or not @ude Estrella #. Estrada o$ the )eional #rial Court, 'ranch F2,
Hue?on City, had committed rave abuse o$ discretion amountin to lac& or in e"cess
o$ her jurisdiction in denyin the (etition $or Certiorari and petitioner8s subseMuent
motion $or reconsideration on the round o$ a prejudicial Muestion pursuant to the
)ules on Criminal (rocedure and the prevailin jurisprudence.
3$ter consideration o$ the procedural and substantive issues raised by petitioner, %e !nd the
instant petition to be %ithout merit.
#he procedural issue herein basically hines on the proper remedy %hich petitioner should
have availed himsel$ o$ be$ore the Court o$ 3ppeals< an ordinary appeal or a petition $or
certiorari. (etitioner claims that he correctly Muestioned )#C-'ranch F28s Order o$ dismissal
o$ his (etition $or Certiorari in Civil Case No. H-//-2/2,F throuh a (etition $or Certiorari
be$ore the Court o$ 3ppeals. (rivate respondent and public respondent (eople o$ the
(hilippines insist that an ordinary appeal %as the proper remedy.
We aree %ith respondents. We hold that the appellate court did not err in dismissin
petitioner8s (etition $or Certiorari, pursuant to )ule +*, Section . o$ the )evised )ules o$
Court 4and not under )ule ++, Section *0, invo&ed by the Court o$ 3ppeals in its )esolution
dated , -arch .00*5.
#he correct procedural recourse $or petitioner %as appeal, not only because )#C-'ranch F2
did not commit any rave abuse o$ discretion in dismissin petitioner8s (etition $or Certiorari
in Civil Case No. H-//-2/2,F but also because )#C-'ranch F28s Order o$ dismissal %as a !nal
order $rom %hich petitioners should have appealed in accordance %ith Section ., )ule +* o$
the )evised )ules o$ Court.
3n order or a judment is deemed !nal %hen it !nally disposes o$ a pendin action, so that
nothin more can be done %ith it in the trial court. In other %ords, the order or judment
ends the litiation in the lo%er court. Au contraire an interlocutory order does not dispose o$
the case completely, but leaves somethin to be done as reards the merits o$ the latter.
*F

)#C-'ranch F28s Order dated *+ -arch .00* dismissin petitioner8s (etition $or Certiorari in
Civil Case No. H-//-2/2,F !nally disposes o$ the said case and )#C-'ranch F2 can do
nothin more %ith the case.
;nder )ule +* o$ the )ules o$ Court, an appeal may be ta&en $rom a judment or !nal order
that completely disposes o$ the case, or o$ a particular matter therein %hen declared by the
)evised )ules o$ Court to be appealable. #he manner o$ appealin an )#C judment or !nal
order is also provided in )ule +* as $ollo%s<
Section .. Modes of appeal. R
4a5 ,rdinary appeal. R #he appeal to the Court o$ 3ppeals in cases decided by the )eional
#rial Court in the e"ercise o$ its oriinal jurisdiction shall be ta&en by !lin a notice o$ appeal
%ith the court %hich rendered the judment or !nal order appealed $rom and servin a copy
thereo$ upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be reMuired e"cept in special
proceedins and other cases o$ multiple or separate appeals %here the la% or these )ules so
reMuire. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be !led and served in li&e manner.
Certiorari enerally lies only %hen there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or
adeMuate remedy available to petitioners. >ere, appeal %as available. It %as adeMuate to
deal %ith any Muestion %hether o$ $act or o$ la%, %hether o$ error o$ jurisdiction or rave
abuse o$ discretion or error o$ judment %hich the trial court miht have committed. 'ut
petitioners instead !led a special civil action $or certiorari.
We have time and aain reminded members o$ the bench and bar that a special civil action
$or certiorari under )ule D, o$ the )evised )ules o$ Court lies only %hen =there is no appeal
nor plain, speedy and adeMuate remedy in the ordinary course o$ la%.=
*/
Certiorari cannot be
allo%ed %hen a party to a case $ails to appeal a judment despite the availability o$ that
remedy,
.0
certiorari not bein a substitute $or lost appeal.
.*
3s certiorari is not a substitute $or lost appeal, %e have repeatedly emphasi?ed that the
per$ection o$ appeals in the manner and %ithin the period permitted by la% is not only
mandatory but jurisdictional, and that the $ailure to per$ect an appeal renders the decision o$
the trial court !nal and e"ecutory. #his rule is $ounded upon the principle that the riht to
appeal is not part o$ due process o$ la% but is a mere statutory privilee to be e"ercised only
in the manner and in accordance %ith the provisions o$ the la%. Neither can petitioner invo&e
the doctrine that rules o$ technicality must yield to the broader interest o$ substantial justice.
While every litiant must be iven the amplest opportunity $or the proper and just
determination o$ his cause, $ree $rom constraints o$ technicalities, the $ailure to per$ect an
appeal %ithin the relementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional
problem as it deprives the appellate court o$ jurisdiction over the appeal.
..
#he remedies o$ appeal and certiorari are mutually e"clusive and not alternative or
successive.
.2
3 party cannot substitute the special civil action o$ certiorari under )ule D, o$
the )ules o$ Court $or the remedy o$ appeal. #he e"istence and availability o$ the riht o$
appeal are antithetical to the availability o$ the special civil action $or certiorari.
.+
3s this
Court held in 9ajardo v. 'autista
.,
<
6enerally, an order o$ dismissal, %hether riht or %ron, is a !nal order, and hence a proper
subject o$ appeal, not certiorari. #he remedies o$ appeal and certiorari are mutually
e"clusive and not alternative or successive. 3ccordinly, althouh the special civil action o$
certiorari is not proper %hen an ordinary appeal is available, it may be ranted %here it is
sho%n that the appeal %ould be inadeMuate, slo%, insuIcient, and %ill not promptly relieve
a party $rom the injurious eCects o$ the order complained o$, or %here appeal is inadeMuate
and ineCectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute $or the lost or lapsed remedy
o$ appeal, %here such loss is occasioned by the petitioner8s o%n nelect or error in the
choice o$ remedies.
On .* December .000, petitioner received a copy o$ the Order o$ the )#C-'ranch F2 denyin
his motion $or reconsideration o$ the dismissal o$ his (etition $or Certiorari in Civil Case No.
H-//-2/2,FG hence, he had until *F @anuary .00* %ithin %hich to !le an appeal %ith the
Court o$ 3ppeals. #he (etition $or Certiorari !led by petitioner on */ 9ebruary .00* %ith the
Court o$ 3ppeals cannot be a substitute $or the lost remedy o$ appeal. 3s petitioner $ailed to
!le a timely appeal, )#C-'ranch F28s dismissal o$ his (etition $or Certiorari had lon become
!nal and e"ecutory.
9or this procedural lapse, the Court o$ 3ppeals correctly denied outriht the (etition $or
Certiorari !led by petitioner be$ore it.
-oreover, there are even more coent reasons $or denyin the instant (etition on the merits.
In the (etition at bar, petitioner raises several substantive issues. (etitioner harps on the
need $or the suspension o$ the proceedins in Criminal Case No. /01.* $or perjury pendin
be$ore -e#C-'ranch +2 based on a prejudicial Muestion still to be resolved in Civil Case No.
H-/F-2+20F 4$or cancellation o$ mortae5 and Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/ 4$or collection o$ a
sum o$ money5 %hich are pendin be$ore other trial courts.5avvp$i5
9or clarity, %e shall !rst discuss the alleations o$ petitioner in his complaint in Civil Case No.
H-/F-2+20F 4$or cancellation o$ mortae5 and that o$ private respondent in her complaint in
Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/ 4$or collection o$ a sum o$ money5.
Civil Case No. H-/F-2+20F is a complaint $or Cancellation o$ -ortae, Delivery o$ #itle and
Damaes !led on F -ay */FF by petitioner aainst private respondent %ith )#C-'ranch 11.
(etitioner allees that he purchased a parcel o$ land covered by #rans$er Certi!cate o$ #itle
No. N-*12*D2 thru private respondent, a real estate bro&er. In the process o$ neotiation,
petitioner %as pressured to sin a Deed o$ Sale prepared by private respondent. ;pon
sinin the Deed o$ Sale, he noticed that the Deed %as already sined by a certain Cristina
6on?ales as attorney-in-$act o$ vendor Spouses 6uillermo and 3mparo 6alve?. (etitioner
demanded $rom private respondent a special po%er o$ attorney and authority to sell, but the
latter $ailed to present one. (etitioner averred that private respondent re$used to deliver the
certi!cate o$ title o$ the land despite e"ecution and sinin o$ the Deed o$ Sale and payment
o$ the consideration. (etitioner %as thus compelled to enae the services o$ one -odesto
6a?min, @r. %ho areed, $or (*00,000.00 to $acilitate the !lin o$ cases aainst private
respondentG to deliver to petitioner the certi!cate o$ title o$ the landG andJor to cancel the
certi!cate o$ title in possession o$ private respondent. >o%ever, -r. 6a?min, @r., did nothin
upon receipt o$ the amount o$ (*00,000.00 $rom petitioner. In $act, petitioner %as even
chared %ith perjury be$ore the OIce o$ the City (rosecutor, all because o$ -r. 6a?min, @r.8s
%rondoin. (etitioner $urther alleed that he discovered the e"istence o$ a spurious )eal
Estate -ortae %hich he alleedly sined in $avor o$ private respondent. (etitioner
cateorically denied sinin the mortae document and it %as private respondent %ho
$alsi!ed the same in order to justi$y her unla%$ul %ithholdin o$ #C# No. N-*12*D2 $rom
petitioner. #hus, petitioner prayed $or<
*. #he cancellation o$ )eal Estate -ortae dated 3uust ., *//1 as null and voidG
.. 3s %ell as to order Aherein private respondentB to DE:I7E) the O%ner8s Duplicate
Copy o$ #rans$er Certi!cate o$ #itle No. N-*12*D2 to Aherein petitionerBG
2. Condemnin Aprivate respondentB to pay ApetitionerB the sums o$
a5 (*00,000.00 as -O)3: D3-36ESG
b5 (,0,000.00 as EWE-(:3)O D3-36ESG
c5 (,0,000.00 as 3ttorney8s $ees and
d5 Cost o$ suit.
+. 3 eneral relie$ is li&e%ise prayed $or 4sic5 just and eMuitable under the premises.
Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/,
.D
on the other hand, is a complaint $or a sum o$ money %ith a
motion $or issuance o$ a %rit o$ attachment !led by private respondent aainst petitioner on
*+ -ay */FF be$ore )#C-'ranch F+. (rivate respondent allees that petitioner obtained a
loan $rom her in the amount o$ (1,F,*2+.+. %ith a promise to pay on or be$ore 20 3uust
*//1. 3s security $or payment o$ the loan, petitioner e"ecuted a Deed o$ )eal Estate
-ortae coverin a parcel o$ land reistered under #C# No. N-*12*D2. (etitioner pleaded
$or additional time to pay the said obliation, to %hich respondent areed. 'ut private
respondent discovered sometime in 9ebruary *//F that petitioner e"ecuted an aIdavit o$
loss allein that he lost the o%ner8s duplicate copy o$ #C# No. N-*12*D2, and succeeded in
annotatin said aIdavit on the oriinal copy o$ #C# No. N-*12*D2 on !le %ith the )eistry o$
Deeds o$ Hue?on City. (rivate respondent $urther allees that she also discovered that
petitioner !led a petition $or issuance o$ a ne% o%ner8s duplicate copy o$ #C# No. N-*12*D2
%ith the )#C o$ Hue?on City, 'ranch /F, doc&eted as :)C Case No. H-*00,.. (rivate
respondent demanded that petitioner pay his obliation, but the latter re$used to do so.
)esultantly, private respondent prayed $or the $ollo%in<
3. #hat upon !lin o$ this Complaint as %ell as the 3Idavit o$ attachment and a
preliminary hearin thereon, as %ell as bond !led, a %rit o$ preliminary attachment is
4sic5 by the >onorable Court orderin the SheriC to levy Aherein petitionerB property
suIcient to ans%er Aherein private respondent8sB claim in this actionG
'. #hat a$ter due notice and hearin, judment be rendered in Aprivate respondent8sB
$avor as aainst ApetitionerB, orderin the latter to pay the $ormer the sum o$
(1,F,*2+.+. plus interest thereon at ,S per month $rom September *//1 up to the
date o$ actual paymentG actual damaes in the sums o$ (10,000.00 each under
pararaphs ** and *. o$ the complaintG (.00,000.00 as moral damaesG (*00,000.00
as e"emplary damaesG t%enty 4.0S5 o$ the principal claim as attorney8s $ees plus
(.,,00.00 per appearance honorariumG and (D0,000.00 as litiation e"pense be$ore
this >onorable Court.
A(etitionerB prays $or such $urther relie$ in la%, justice and eMuity.
3s to %hether it is proper to suspend Criminal Case No. /01.* $or perjury pendin !nal
outcome o$ Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/ and Civil Case No. H-/F-2+20F, %e ta&e into
consideration Sections D and 1, )ule *** o$ the )evised )ules o$ Court, %hich read<
Sec. D. Suspension by reason o$ prejudicial Muestion. P 3 petition $or suspension o$ the
criminal action based upon the pendency o$ a prejudicial Muestion in a civil action may be
!led in the oIce o$ the prosecutor or the court conductin the preliminary investiation.
When the criminal action has been !led in court $or trial, the petition to suspend shall be
!led in the same criminal action at any time be$ore the prosecution rests.
Sec. 1. Elements o$ prejudicial Muestion. P #he elements o$ a prejudicial Muestion are< 4a5 the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subseMuent criminal actionG and 4b5 the resolution o$ such issue determines
%hether or not the criminal action may proceed.
#he rationale behind the principle o$ suspendin a criminal case in vie% o$ a prejudicial
Muestion is to avoid t%o conKictin decisions.
.1
3 prejudial Muestion is de!ned as that %hich arises in a case the resolution o$ %hich is a
loical antecedent o$ the issue involved therein, and the coni?ance o$ %hich pertains to
another tribunal. #he prejudicial Muestion must be determinative o$ the case be$ore the court
but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the Muestion must be loded in another court or
tribunal. It is a Muestion based on a $act distinct and separate $rom the crime but so
intimately connected %ith it that it determines the uilt or innocence o$ the accused.
.F
9or a prejudicial Muestion in a civil case to suspend criminal action, it must appear not only
that said case involves $acts intimately related to those upon %hich the criminal prosecution
%ould be based but also that in the resolution o$ the issue or issues raised in the civil case,
the uilt or innocence o$ the accused %ould necessarily be determined.
#hus, $or a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the
suspension o$ the criminal proceedins until the !nal resolution o$ the civil case, the
$ollo%in reMuisites must be present< 4*5 the civil case involves $acts intimately related to
those upon %hich the criminal prosecution %ould be basedG 4.5 in the resolution o$ the issue
or issues raised in the civil action, the uilt or innocence o$ the accused %ould necessarily be
determinedG and 425 jurisdiction to try said Muestion must be loded in another tribunal.
./
I$ the resolution o$ the issue in the civil action %ill not determine the criminal responsibility o$
the accused in the criminal action based on the same $acts, or there is no necessity =that the
civil case be determined !rst be$ore ta&in up the criminal case,= there$ore, the civil case
does not involve a prejudicial Muestion.
20
Neither is there a prejudicial Muestion i$ the civil
and the criminal action can, accordin to la%, proceed independently o$ each other.
2*
>o%ever, the court in %hich an action is pendin may, in the e"ercise o$ sound discretion,
and upon proper application $or a stay o$ that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide by
the outcome o$ another case pendin in another court, especially %here the parties and the
issues are the same, $or there is po%er inherent in every court to control the disposition o$
cases on its doc&ets %ith economy o$ time and eCort $or itsel$, $or counsel, and $or litiants.
Where the rihts o$ parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the
Muestions raised in the !rst action are settled, the second action should be stayed.
2.
#he po%er to stay proceedins is incidental to the po%er inherent in every court to control
the disposition o$ the cases on its doc&ets, considerin its time and eCort, those o$ counsel
and the litiants. 'ut i$ proceedins must be stayed, it must be done in order to avoid
multiplicity o$ suits and prevent ve"atious litiations, conKictin judments, con$usion
bet%een litiants and courts. It bears stressin that %hether or not the trial court %ould
suspend the proceedins in the criminal case be$ore it is submitted to its sound discretion.
22
Indeed, a judicial order issued pursuant to the court8s discretionary authority is not subject
to reversal on revie% unless it constitutes an abuse o$ discretion. 3s the ;nited States
Supreme Court aptly declared in :andis v. North 3merican Co., =the burden o$ ma&in out
the justice and %isdom $rom the departure $rom the beaten truc& lay heavily on the
petitioner, less an un%illin litiant is compelled to %ait upon the outcome o$ a controversy
to %hich he is a straner. It is, thus, stated that only in rare circumstances %ill a litiant in
one case is compelled to stand aside, %hile a litiant in another, settlin the rule o$ la% that
%ill de!ne the rihts o$ both is, a$ter all, the parties be$ore the court are entitled to a just,
speedy and plain determination o$ their case undetermined by the pendency o$ the
proceedins in another case. 3$ter all, procedure %as created not to hinder and delay but to
$acilitate and promote the administration o$ justice.=
2+
3s stated, the determination o$ %hether the proceedins may be suspended on the basis o$
a prejudicial Muestion rests on %hether the $acts and issues raised in the pleadins in the
civil cases are so related %ith the issues raised in the criminal case such that the resolution
o$ the issues in the civil cases %ould also determine the judment in the criminal case.
3 perusal o$ the alleations in the complaints sho% that Civil Case No. H-/F-2+20F pendin
be$ore )#C-'ranch 11, and Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/, pendin be$ore )#C-'ranch F+, are
principally $or the determination o$ %hether a loan %as obtained by petitioner $rom private
respondent and %hether petitioner e"ecuted a real estate mortae involvin the property
covered by #C# No. N-*12*D2. On the other hand, Criminal Case No. /01.* be$ore -e#C-
'ranch +2, involves the determination o$ %hether petitioner committed perjury in e"ecutin
an aIdavit o$ loss to support his reMuest $or issuance o$ a ne% o%ner8s duplicate copy o$ #C#
No. N-*12*D2.
It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independently o$ each
other. )eardless o$ the outcome o$ the t%o civil cases, it %ill not establish the innocence or
uilt o$ the petitioner in the criminal case $or perjury. #he purchase by petitioner o$ the land
or his e"ecution o$ a real estate mortae %ill have no bearin %hatsoever on %hether
petitioner &no%inly and $raudulently e"ecuted a $alse aIdavit o$ loss o$ #C# No. N-*12*D2.
-e#C-'ranch +2, there$ore, did not err in rulin that the pendency o$ Civil Case No. H-/F-
2+20F $or cancellation o$ mortae be$ore the )#C-'ranch 11G and Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/
$or collection o$ a sum o$ money be$ore )#C-'ranch F+, do not pose a prejudicial Muestion in
the determination o$ %hether petitioner is uilty o$ perjury in Criminal Case No. /01.*. )#C-
'ranch F2, li&e%ise, did not err in rulin that -e#C-'ranch +2 did not commit rave abuse o$
discretion in denyin petitioner8s motion $or suspension o$ proceedins in Criminal Case No.
/01.*.
;HEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed )esolutions dated , -arch .00* and 2 -ay
.00*o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. D2./2 are hereby 399I)-ED and the instant
petition is DIS-ISSED $or lac& o$ merit. 3ccordinly, the -etropolitan #rial Court o$ Hue?on
City, 'ranch +2, is hereby directed to proceed %ith the hearin and trial on the merits o$
Criminal Case No. /01.*, and to e"pedite proceedins therein, %ithout prejudice to the riht
o$ the accused to due process. Costs aainst petitioner.
SO O)DE)ED
G.R. No. 1-4B22 A(*(#' 3, 2010
LAN$ BAN6 OF THE PHILIPPINES, (etitioner,
vs.
RA%ON P. 4ACINTO, )espondent.
D E C I S I O N
2ILLARA%A, 4R., J.'
(etitioner :and 'an& o$ the (hilippines 4:and 'an&5 see&s the reversal o$ the Decision
*
dated
November .F, .00* and the )esolution
.
dated 3uust D, .00. o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35 in
C3-6.). S( No. D.112. #he C3 had set aside the )esolutions dated October .,, .000
2
and
December *F, .000
+
o$ the Department o$ @ustice 4DO@5 and reinstated the )esolution
,
dated
-arch 2, */// o$ the City (rosecution OIce o$ -a&ati %hich dismissed the petitioner8s
complaint aainst respondent )amon (. @acinto in I.S. Nos. //-3-*,2D-++ $or violation o$
'atas (ambansa 'l. 4'.(.5 .. or =#he 'ouncin Chec&s :a%.=
#he undisputed $acts, as leaned $rom the records, are as $ollo%s<
#he 9irst Women8s Credit Corporation 49WCC5 obtained a loan $rom the petitioner :and 'an&
in the areate amount o$ (+00 million, evidenced by a Credit :ine 3reement
D
dated
3uust .., *//1. 3s security $or the loan, respondent )amon (. @acinto, (resident o$ 9WCC,
issued in $avor o$ :and 'an& nine 4/5 postdated chec&s amountin to (+D, million and dra%n
aainst 9WCC8s account at the (hilippine National 'an&. :ater, be$ore the chec&s matured,
petitioner and respondent e"ecuted several letter areements %hich culminated in the
e"ecution o$ a )estructurin 3reement on @une 2, *//F. ;nder the ne% areement, the loan
obliation contracted under the Credit :ine 3reement o$ 3uust .., *//1 %as restructured,
its terms o$ payment, amon others, havin been chaned or modi!ed. When 9WCC
de$aulted in the payment o$ the loan obliation under the terms o$ their restructured
areement, petitioner presented $or payment to the dra%ee ban& the postdated chec&s as
they matured. >o%ever, all the chec&s %ere dishonored or re$used payment $or the reason
=Payment 'topped= or =0ra#n Against !nsuFcient Cunds.= )espondent also $ailed to ma&e
ood the chec&s despite demands.
>ence, on @anuary *2, *///, :and 'an&, throuh its 3ssistant 7ice (resident, ;dela C. Salvo,
9inancial Institutions Department, !led be$ore the -a&ati City (rosecutor8s OIce a
Complaint-3Idavit
1
aainst respondent $or violation o$ '.(. ... )espondent !led his Counter-
3Idavit
F
denyin the chares and averrin that the complaint is baseless and utterly devoid
o$ merit as the said loan obliation has been e"tinuished by payment and novation by
virtue o$ the e"ecution o$ the )estructurin 3reement. )espondent also invo&ed the
proscription in the -ay .F, *//F Order o$ the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ -a&ati City,
'ranch *22 in Special (roceedins No. --+DFD $or Involuntary Insolvency %hich $orbade
9WCC $rom payin any o$ its debts.
In a )esolution
/
dated -arch 2, *///, (rosecutor 6eore 7. De @oya dismissed the complaint
aainst respondent, !ndin that the letter-areements bet%een :and 'an& and 9WCC
restructured and novated the oriinal loan areement. It %as held that there bein novation,
the chec&s issued pursuant to the oriinal loan obliation had lost their eIcacy and validity
and cannot be a valid basis to sustain the chare o$ violation o$ '.(. ...
On @une .*, *///, petitioner8s motion $or reconsideration %as li&e%ise denied.
*0

3rieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the DO@ $or revie%. On 3pril *0, .000, the DO@
issued a )esolution
**
dismissin the appeal. >o%ever, upon motion $or reconsideration !led
by petitioner, the DO@ reversed its rulin and issued a )esolution dated October .,, .000
holdin that novation is not a mode o$ e"tinuishin criminal liability. #hus, the DO@ held
that<
W>E)E9O)E, there bein probable cause to hold respondent triable $or the oCense o$
violation o$ '( .. 4nine 4/5 counts5, the Department )esolution dated 3pril *0, .000 is
hereby reconsidered and set aside and the resolution o$ the OIce o$ the City (rosecutor,
-a&ati City, dismissin the complaint should be, as it is, hereby )E7E)SED. Said oIce is
directed to !le the appropriate in$ormations $or violation o$ '( .. 4nine 4/5 counts5 aainst
respondent. )eport the action ta&en %ithin ten 4*05 days $rom receipt hereo$.
SO O)DE)ED.
*.
)espondent moved $or a reconsideration o$ the above Order but it %as denied in a )esolution
dated December *F, .000. ;ndaunted, respondent !led a petition $or certiorari be$ore the
C3.
On November .F, .00*, the C3, in the assailed Decision, reversed the )esolution o$ the DO@
and reinstated the )esolution o$ (rosecutor De @oya dismissin the complaint. While the C3
ruled that novation is not a mode o$ e"tinuishin criminal liability, it nevertheless held that
novation may prevent criminal liability $rom arisin in certain cases i$ novation occurs be$ore
the criminal in$ormation is !led in court because the novation causes doubt as to the true
nature o$ the obliation. 3lso, the C3 $ound merit in respondent8s assertion that a prejudicial
Muestion e"ists in the instant case because the issue o$ %hether the oriinal obliation o$
9WCC subject o$ the dishonored chec&s has been novated by the subseMuent areements
entered into by 9WCC %ith :and 'an&, is already the subject o$ the appeal in Civil Case No.
/F-.221 4entitled, =Cirst Eomen&s Credit Corporation v. %and -anD of t$e P$ilippines= $or
Declaration o$ Novation5 pendin be$ore the C3. #he C3 also ave consideration to
respondent8s assertion that the Order dated -ay .F, *//F o$ the )#C proscribin 9WCC $rom
payin its debts constitutes as a justi$yin circumstance %hich prevents criminal liability
$rom attachin.
(etitioner8s motion $or reconsideration $rom the said decision havin been denied, petitioner
!led the instant petition $or revie% on certiorari, raisin the $ollo%in assinment o$ errors<
I
#>E CO;)# O9 3((E3:S 6)37E:O E))ED W>EN I# );:ED #>3# #>E E:E-EN# O9 3
()E@;DICI3: H;ES#ION EWIS#S IN #>E INS#3N# C3SE 3ND #>3# #>E )ECO--END3#ION
9O) #>E 9I:IN6 O9 IN9O)-3#IONS IN CO;)# 363INS# #>E )ES(ONDEN# W3S -3DE WI#>
6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION.
II
#>E CO;)# O9 3((E3:S 6)37E:O E))ED W>EN I# );:ED #>3# #>E O)DE) D3#ED -3O .F,
*//F O9 #>E )E6ION3: #)I3: CO;)# O9 -3T3#I, ')3NC> *22, CONS#I#;#ES 3S 3
@;S#I9OIN6 CI)C;-S#3NCE #>3# ()E7EN#S C)I-IN3: :I3'I:I#O 9)O- 3##3C>IN6.
III
#>E CO;)# O9 3((E3:S 6)37E:O E))ED W>EN I# 93I:ED #O #3TE @;DICI3: NO#ICE O9 #>E
()O7ISIONS O9 #>E :3ND'3NT C>3)#E) )E:3#I7E #O #>E CO::EC#ION O9 I#S 9IN3NCI3:
EW(OS;)ES.
*2
Essentially, the issue to be resolved in this case is %hether the C3 erred in reversin the
)esolution o$ the DO@ !ndin probable cause to hold respondent liable $or violation o$ '.(. ...
(etitioner asserts that the @une 2, *//F )estructurin 3reement did not release 9WCC $rom
its obliation %ith :and 'an&.
*+
It merely accommodated 9WCC8s sister company, )@ 7entures
and Development Corporation.
*,
Whether there %as novation or not is also not determinative
o$ respondent8s responsibility $or violation o$ '.(. .., as the said special la% punishes the act
o$ issuin a %orthless chec& and not the purpose $or %hich the chec& %as issued or the
terms and conditions relatin to its issuance. In rulin that the Order dated -ay .F, *//F o$
the )#C in Special (roceedins No. --+DFD constituted a justi$yin circumstance, the C3
$ailed to ta&e judicial notice o$ Section FD-' 4+5
*D
o$ )epublic 3ct No. 1/01 %hich e"cludes the
proceeds o$ the chec&s $rom the property o$ the insolvent 9WCC.
)espondent counters that there %as novation %hich occurred prior to the institution o$ the
criminal complaint aainst him and that i$ proven, it %ould aCect his criminal liability.
*1

)espondent averred that i$ the C3 %ould judicially con!rm the e"istence o$ novation in the
appeal o$ Civil Case No. /F-.221 be$ore it, then it %ould $ollo% that the value represented by
the subject chec&s has been e"tinuished. )espondent arues that the consideration or
value o$ the subject chec&s have been modi!ed or novated %ith the e"ecution o$ the
)estructurin 3reement. #he payment o$ the obliation supposedly already depended on
the terms and conditions o$ the )estructurin 3reement and no loner on the respective
maturity dates o$ the subject chec&s as the value or consideration o$ the subject chec&s had
been rendered ine"istent by the subseMuent e"ecution o$ the )estructurin 3reement. >e
maintains that the subject chec&s can no loner be the basis o$ criminal liability since the
obliation $or %hich they %ere issued had already been novated or abroated.
We rant the petition.
3 prejudicial Muestion enerally e"ists in a situation %here a civil action and a criminal action
are both pendin, and there e"ists in the $ormer an issue that must be preemptively resolved
be$ore the latter may proceed, because ho%soever the issue raised in the civil action is
resolved %ould be determinative juris et de jure o$ the uilt or innocence o$ the accused in
the criminal case.
*F
#he elements o$ a prejudicial Muestion are provided under Section 1, )ule
*** o$ the )evised )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure as amended, as $ollo%s< 4i5 the previously
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subseMuent criminal action, and 4ii5 the resolution o$ such issue determines %hether or not
the criminal action may proceed.
*/
3 prejudicial Muestion is understood in la% as that %hich must precede the criminal action
and %hich reMuires a decision be$ore a !nal judment can be rendered in the criminal action
%ith %hich said Muestion is closely connected.
.0
Not every de$ense raised in a civil action %ill
raise a prejudicial Muestion to justi$y suspension o$ the criminal action. #he de$ense must
involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal case
and its resolution should determine %hether or not the latter action may proceed. I$ the
resolution o$ the issue in the civil action %ill not determine the criminal responsibility o$ the
accused in the criminal action based on the same $acts, or i$ there is no necessity that the
civil case be determined !rst be$ore ta&in up the criminal case, the civil case does not
involve a prejudicial Muestion.
.*
Neither is there a prejudicial Muestion i$ the civil and the
criminal action can, accordin to la%, proceed independently o$ each other.
..
5avvp$i5
In the instant case, %e !nd that the Muestion %hether there %as novation o$ the Credit :ine
3reement or not is not determinative o$ %hether respondent should be prosecuted $or
violation o$ the 'ouncin Chec&s :a%.
)espondent8s contention that i$ it be proven that the loan o$ 9WCC had been novated and
restructured then his liability under the dishonored chec&s %ould be e"tinuished, $ails to
persuade us. #here %as no e"press stipulation in the )estructurin 3reement that
respondent is released $rom his liability on the issued chec&s and in $act the letter-
areements bet%een 9WCC and :and 'an& e"pressly provide that respondent8s @SS 4@oint
and Several Sinatures5 continue to secure the loan obliation and the postdated chec&s
issued continue to uaranty the obliation. In $act, as aptly pointed out by petitioner, out o$
the nine 4/5 chec&s in Muestion, eiht 4F5 chec&s %ere dated @une F to October 20, *//F or
a$ter the e"ecution o$ the @une 2, *//F )estructurin 3reement. I$ indeed respondent8s
liability on the chec&s had been e"tinuished upon the e"ecution o$ the )estructurin
3reement, then respondent should have demanded the return o$ the chec&s.
.2
>o%ever,
there %as no proo$ that he had been released $rom his obliation. On the contrary, the
)estructurin 3reement contains a proviso %hich states that =T$is Agreement s$all not
novate or extinguis$ all previous security mortgage and ot$er collateral agreements
promissory notes solidary undertaDing previously executed by and bet#een t$e parties and
s$all continue in full force and eGect modi"ed only by t$e provisions of t$is Agreement.=
.+
-oreover, it is %ell settled that the mere act o$ issuin a %orthless chec&, even i$ merely as
an accommodation, is covered by '.(. ...
.,
#hus, this Court has held that the areement
surroundin the issuance o$ dishonored chec&s is irrelevant to the prosecution $or violation o$
'.(. ...
.D
#he ravamen o$ the oCense punished by '.(. .. is the act o$ ma&in and issuin a
%orthless chec& or a chec& that is dishonored upon its presentment $or payment.
.1
Section *
o$ '.(. .. enumerates the $ollo%in elements< 4*5 the ma&in, dra%in, and issuance o$ any
chec& to apply on account or $or valueG 4.5 the &no%lede o$ the ma&er, dra%er, or issuer
that at the time o$ issue he does not have suIcient $unds in or credit %ith the dra%ee ban&
$or the payment o$ the chec& in $ull upon its presentmentG and 425 the subseMuent dishonor
o$ the chec& by the dra%ee ban& $or insuIciency o$ $unds or credit or dishonor $or the same
reason had not the dra%er, %ithout any valid cause, ordered the ban& to stop payment.
#hus, even i$ it be subseMuently declared that novation too& place bet%een the 9WCC and
petitioner, respondent is not e"empt $rom prosecution $or violation o$ '.(. .. $or the
dishonored chec&s.
3s to the issue o$ %hether the Order dated -ay .F, *//F o$ the )#C o$ -a&ati City in Special
(roceedins No. --+DFD $or Involuntary Insolvency constitutes as a justi$yin circumstance
that prevents criminal liability $rom attachin, %e rule in the neative. 3s stated at the
outset, the said order $orbids 9WCC $rom payin its debts as %ell as $rom deliverin any
property belonin to it to any person $or its bene!t. )espondent, ho%ever, cannot invo&e
this Order %hich %as directed only upon 9WCC and is not applicable to him. #here$ore,
respondent, as surety o$ the loan is not e"empt $rom complyin %ith his obliation $or the
issuance o$ the chec&s.
W>E)E9O)E, the petition $or revie% on certiorari is GRANTE$. #he November .F, .00*
Decision and 3uust D, .00. )esolution o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. D.112 are
hereby RE2ERSE$ ")/ SET ASI$E. #he )esolution dated October .,, .000 o$ the
Department o$ @ustice directin the !lin o$ appropriate In$ormations $or violation o$ '.(. ..
aainst respondent )amon (. @acinto is hereby REINSTATE$ ")/ UPHEL$.
No costs.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. L0-4-C3 April 1-, 1C33
4OSE B. LE$ES%A, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Spo(#!# PACIFICO $EL%O ")/ SANCHA $EL%O ?"#
pri7"'! r!#po)/!)'#A, respondents.
T$e 'olicitor General for petitioner.
%uzel 0. 0emasuHay for respondent.

GUTIERRE., 4R., J.'
#his petition see&s to reverse the decision o$ the respondent Court o$ 3ppeals %hich a!rmed
the decision o$ the Court o$ 9irst Instance o$ Iloilo, adjudin the petitioner, %ho %as then
the (resident o$ the West 7isayas Collee liable $or damaes under 3rticle .1 o$ the Civil
Code o$ the (hilippines $or $ailure to raduate a student %ith honors.
#he $acts are not disputed.
3n orani?ation named Student :eadership Club %as $ormed by some students o$ the West
7isayas Collee. #hey elected the late 7iolets Delmo as the treasurer. In that capacity,
Delmo e"tended loans $rom the $unds o$ the club to some o$ the students o$ the school. =the
petitioner claims that the said act o$ e"tendin loans %as aainst school rules and
reulations. #hus, the petitioner, as (resident o$ the School, sent a letter to Delmo in$ormin
her that she %as bein dropped $rom the membership o$ the club and that she %ould not be
a candidate $or any a%ard or citation $rom the school.
Delmo as&ed $or a reconsideration o$ the decision but the petitioner denied it. Delmo, thus,
appealed to the OIce o$ the Director o$ the 'ureau o$ (ublic Schools.
#he Director a$ter due investiation, rendered a decison on 3pril *2, */DD %hich provided<
)ecords o$ the preliminary investiation conducted by one o$ the leal oIcers
o$ this OIce disclosed the $ollo%in< #hat 7ioleta Delmo %as the treasurer o$
the Student :eadership Club, an e"clusive student orani?ationG that pursuant
to 3rticle IW o$ the o$ the Constitution and 'y-:a%s o$ the club, it passed
)esolution No. ., authori?in the treasurer to disburse $unds o$ the Club to
student $or !nancial aid and other humanitarian purposesG that in compliance
%ith said resolution and as treasurer o$ the Club, 7ioleta Delmo e"tended loans
to some oIcers and members o$ the Club upon proper application duly
approved by the majority o$ the members o$ the E"ecutive 'oardG and that
upon receivin the report $rom -r. @esse Daoon, adviser o$ the $unds o$ the
Club, that OIce conducted an investiation on the matter and havin been
convinced o$ the uilt o$ 7iolets Delmo and the other oIcers and members o$
the Club, that OIce rendered the order or decision in Muestion. In justi$yin
that OIceQs order or decision, it is contended that approval by that OIce o$ the
Constitution and 'y-:a%s o$ the Club is necessary $or its eCectivity and validity
and since it %as never submitted to that OIce, the Club had no valid
constitution and 'y-:a%s and that as a conseMuence, )esolution No. . %hich
%as passed based on the Constitution and 'y-:a%s- is %ithout any $orce and
eCect and the treasurer, 7ioleta Delmo, %ho e"tended loans to some oIcers
and members o$ the Club pursuant thereto are illeal 4sic5, hence, she and the
other students involved are deemed uilty o$ misappropriatin the $unds o$ the
Club. On the other hand, )aclito Castaneda, Nestor 6ole? and 7ioleta Delmo,
(resident, Secretary and #reasurer o$ the Club, respectively, testi!ed that the
Club had adopted its Constitution and 'y-:a%s in a meetin held last October 2,
*/D,, and that pursuant to 3rticle I o$ said Constitution and 'y-:a%s, the
majority o$ the members o$ the E"ecutive 'oard passed )esolution No. ., %hich
resolution became the basis $or the e"tension on o$ loans to some oIcers and
members o$ the Club, that the Club honestly believed that its Constitution and
'y-:a%s has been approved by the superintendent because the adviser o$ the
Club, -r. @esse Daoon, assured the (resident o$ the Club that he %ill cause the
approval o$ the Constitution and 'y-:a%s by the SuperintendentG the oIcers o$
the Club have been inducted to oIce on October /,*/D, by the Superintendent
and that the Club had been li&e%ise allo%ed to cosponsor the Education Wee&
Celebration.
3$ter a care$ul study o$ the records, this OIce sustains the action ta&en by the
Superintendent in penali?in the adviser o$ the Club as %ell as the oIcers and
members thereo$ by droppin them $rom membership therein. >o%ever, this
OIce is convinced that 7iolets -. Delmo had acted in ood $aith, in her
capacity as Club #reasurer, in e"tendin loans to the oIcers and members o$
the Student partnership Club. )esolution No. . authori?in the Club treasurer to
dischare !nds to students in need o$ !nancial assistance and other
humanitarian purposes had been approved by the Club adviser, -r. @esse
Daoon, %ith the notation that approval %as iven in his capacity as adviser o$
the Club and e"tension o$ the SuperintendentQs personality. 3side $rom
misleadin the oIcers and members o$ the Club, -r. Daoon, had
unsatis$actorily e"plained %hy he $ailed to ive the Constitution and 'y-:a%s o$
the Club to the Superintendent $or approval despite his assurance to the Club
president that he %ould do so. With this !ndin o$ nelience on the part o$ the
Club adviser, not to mention la"ity in the per$ormance o$ his duties as such, this
OIce considers as too severe and un%arranted that portion o$ the Muestioned
order statin that 7ioleta Delmo =shall not be a candidate $or any a%ard or
citation $rom this school or any orani?ation in this school.= 7ioleta Delmo, it is
noted, has been a consistent $ull scholar o$ the school and she alone has
maintained her scholarship. #he decision in Muestion %ould, there$ore, set at
nauht all her sacri!ce and $rustrate her dreams o$ raduatin %ith honors in
this yearQs commencement e"ercises.
In vie% o$ all the $oreoin, this OIce believes and so holds and hereby directs
that appellant 7ioleta. -. Delmo, and $or that matter all other Club members or
oIcers involved in this case, be not deprived o$ any a%ard, citation or honor
$rom the school, i$ they are other%ise entitled thereto. 4)ollo, pp. .F-205
On 3pril .1, */DD, the petitioner received by mail the decision o$ the Director and all the
records o$ the case. On the same day, petitioner received a teleram statin the $ollo%in<
=3I)-3I: )ECO)DS DE:-O C3SE -ISSEN# #>3# O99ICE=
#he Director as&ed $or the return only o$ the records but the petitioner alleedly mistoo& the
teleram as orderin him to also send the decision bac&. On the same day, he returned by
mail all the records plus the decision o$ the Director to the 'ureau o$ (ublic Schools.
#he ne"t day, the petitioner received another teleram $rom the Director order him to
$urnish Delmo %ith a copy o$ the decision. #he petitioner, in turn, sent a niht letter to the
Director in$ormin the latter that he had sent the decision bac& and that he had not retained
a copy thereo$..
On -ay 2, */DD, the day o$ the raduation, the petitioner received another teleram $rom
the Director orderin him not to deprive Delmo o$ any honors due her. 3s it %as impossible
by this time to include DelmoQs name in the proram as one o$ the honor students, the
petitioner let her raduate as a plain student instead o$ bein a%arded the :atin honor o$
-ana Cum :aude.
#o delay the matter $urther, the petitioner on -ay ,, */DD, %rote the Director $or a
reconsideration o$ the latters= decision because he believed that Delmo should not be
allo%ed to raduate %ith honors. #he Director denied the petitionerQs reMuest.
On @uly *., */DD, the petitioner !nally instructed the )eistrar o$ the school to enter into the
scholastic records o$ Delmo the honor, =-ana Cum :aude.=
On @uly 20, */DD, Delmo, then a minor, %as joined by her parents in Ka action $or damaes
aainst the petitioner. Durin the pendency o$ the action, ho%ever, Delmo passed a%ay, and
thus, an 3mended and Supplemental Complaint %as !led by her parents as her sole and only
heirs.
#he trial court a$ter hearin rendered judment aainst the petitioner and in $avor o$ the
spouses Delmo. #he court said<
:et us o to speci!c bades o$ the de$endants 4no% petitioners5 bad $aith. (er
investiation o$ 7ioleta DelmoQs appeal to Director 7italiano 'ernardino o$ the
'ureau o$ (ublic Schools 4E"hibit : it %as the de$endant %ho inducted the
oIcers o$ the Student :eadership Club on October /, */D,. In $act the Club %as
allo%ed to cosponsor the Education Wee& Celebration. 4E"h. =:=5. I$ the
de$endant he not approve o$ the constitution and by-la%s o$ the Club, %hy did
he induct the oIcers into oIce and allo% the Club to sponsor the Education
Wee& Celebration=Z It %as throuh his o%n act that the students %ere misled to
do as they did. Coupled %ith the de$endants tacit reconition o$ the Club %as
the assurance o$ -r. @emm Daoon, Club 3dviser, %ho made the students
believe that he %as actin as an e"tension o$ -r. :edesmaQs personality.
4E"hibit =:=5.
3nother bade o$ the de$endanQts %ant o$ ood $aith is the $act that, althouh,
he &ae% as early as 3pril .1,*/DD that per on o$ r 'ernardino, E"hibit =:,= he
%as directed to ive honors to -iss Delmo, he &ept Id in$ormation to . >e told
the Court that he &ne% that the letter o$ Director 'ernardino directed him not to
deprive -iss Delmo the honors due her, but she 4sic5 says that he has not
!nished readin the letter-decision, E"hibit =:,= o$ Director 'ernardino 0, him to
ive honors to -iss Delmo. 4#sn, 9eb. ,, */1+, testimony o$ -r. :edesma, pp. .
22-2,5. It could not be true that he has not !nished readin the letter-decision,
E"h. =:,= because said letter consisted o$ only three paes, and the portion
%hich directed that -iss Delmo =be not deprived o$ any a%ard, citation or honor
$rom the school, i$ other%ise entitled thereto is $ound at the last pararaph o$
the same. >o% did he &no% the last pararaph i$ he did not read the letter.
De$endants actuations reardin -iss DelmoQs cam had been one o$ bias and
prejudice. When his action %ould $avor him, he %as deliberate and aspect to
the utter prejudice and detriment o$ -iss Delmo. #hus, althouh, as early as
3pril .1, */DD, he &ne% o$ the e"oneration o$ -iss Delino by Director
'ernardino, he %ithheld the in$ormation $rom -iss Delmo. #his is eloMuently
dramati?ed by E"h. =**= and E"h. =*2= On 3pril ./,*/DD, Director 'ernardino
cabled him to $urnish 7ioleta Delmo copy o$ the Decision, E"h. =:,= but instead
o$ in$ormin -iss Delmo about the decision, since he said he mailed bac& the
decision on 3pril .F,*/DD, he sent a niht letter on 3pril ./,*/DD, to Director
'ernardino, in$ormin the latter that he had returned the decision 4E"h. =l2=5,
toether %ith the record. Why a niht letter %hen the matter %as o$ utmost
urency to the parties in the case, because raduation day %as only $our days
aheadZ 3n e"amination o$ the telerams sent by the de$endant sho%s that he
had been sendin ordinary teleram and not niht letters. 4E"h. =,=, E"hibit
=1=5. 3t least, i$ the de$endant could not $urnish a copy o$ the decision, 4E"h.
=:=5, to -iss Delmo, he should have told her about it or that -iss DelmoQs
honors and citation in the commencement be announced or indicated. 'ut -r.
:edesma is one %ho cannot admit a mista&e. 7ery unentlemanly this is home
out by his o%n testimony despite his &no%lede that his decision to deprive
-iss Delmo o$ honors due to her %as overturned by Director 'ernardino, he on
his %ron belie$. #o Muote the de$endant,* believed that she did not deserve
those honors4#sn 9eb. ,, */1+, p. +2,Empasi?ed supplied5. Despite the teleram
o$ Director 'ernardino %hich the de$endant received hours be$ore the
commencement e"ecutory on -ay 2-+,*/DD, he did not obey Director
'ernardino because he said in his testimony that he %ould be embarrassment .
#an 9eb ,,*/1+, (. +D5. Evidently, he &ne% only his embarrassment and not that
o$ r 'ernardino %hose order %as bein Karantly and %antonly disrearded by
bim 3nd certainly, not the least o$ -iss DelmoQs embarrassment. >is acts spea&
eloMuently o$ ho bad $aith and unjust o$ mind%arped by his delicate sensitivity
$or havin been challened by -iss Delmo, a mere student.
""" """ """
9inally the de$endantQs behaviour relative to -iss s case smac&s o$
contemptuous arroance, oppression and abuse o$ po%er. Come to thin& o$ it.
>e re$used to obey the directive o$ 'e o and instead, chose to $ein inorance
o$ it.= 4)e%ard on 3ppeal, p. 1.-1D5.
#he trial court a%arded (.0,000.00 to the estate o$ 7ioleta Delmo and (*0,000.00 to her
parents $or moral damaesG (,,000.00 $or nominal damaes to 7ioletaQs estateG e"emplary
damaes o$ (*0,000.00 and (.,000.00 attorneyQs $ees.
On appeal, the Court o$ 3ppeals aIrmed the decision. >ence, this petition.
#he issues raised in this petition can be reduced to the sole Muestion o$ %hether or not the
respondent Court o$ 3ppeals erred in aIrmin the trial courtQs !ndin that petitioner is liable
$or damaes under 3rticle .1 o$ the Ne% Civil Code.
We !nd no reason %hy the !ndins o$ the trial and appellate courts should be reversed. It
cannot be disputed that 7ioleta Delmo %ent throuh a pain$ul ordeal %hich %as brouht
about by the petitionerQs nelect o$ duty and callousness. #hus, moral damaes are but
proper. 3s %e have aIrmed in the case o$ 4(rudenciado v. 3lliance #ransport System, Inc.,
*+F SC)3 ++0, ++F5<
#here is no arument that moral damaes include physical suCerin, mental
anuish, $riht, serious an"iety, besmirched reputation, %ounded $eelins,
moral shoc&, social humiliation, and similar injury. #houh incapable o$
pecuniary computation, moral damaes may be recovered i$ they are the
pro"imate result o$ de$endantQs %ronly act or omission.= 4(eople v. 'aylon, *./
SC)3 D. 4*/F+5.
#he Solicitor-6eneral tries to cover-up the petitionerQs deliberate omission to in$orm -iss
Delmo by statin that it %as not the duty o$ the petitioner to $urnish her a copy o$ the
DirectorQs decision. 6rantin this to be true, it %as nevertheless the petitionerQs duty to
en$orce the said decision. >e could have done so considerin that he received the decision
on 3pril .1, */DD and even thouh he sent it bac& %ith the records o$ the case, he
undoubtedly read the %hole o$ it %hich consisted o$ only three paes. -oreover, the
petitioner should have had the decency to meet %ith -r. Delmo, the irlQs $ather, and in$orm
the latter, at the very least o$ the decision. #his, the petitioner li&e%ise $ailed to do, and not
%ithout the attendant bad $aith %hich the appellate court correctly pointed out in its
decision, to %it<
#hird, assumin that de$endant could not $urnish -iss Delmo o$ a copy o$ the
decision, he could have used his discretion and plain common sense by
in$ormin her about it or he could have directed the inclusion o$ -iss DelmoQs
honor in the printed commencement proram or announced it durin the
commencement e"ercises.
9ourth, de$endant despite receipt o$ the teleram o$ Director 'enardino hours
be$ore the commencement e"ercises on -ay 2-+, */DD, disobeyed his superior
by re$usin to ive the honors due -iss Delmo %ith a lame e"cuse that he
%ould be embarrassed i$ he did so, to the prejudice o$ and in complete
disreard o$ -iss DelmoQs rihts.
9i$th, de$endant did not even e"tend the courtesy o$ meetin -r. (aci!co
Delmo, $ather o$ -iss Delmo, %ho tried several times to see de$endant in his
oIce thus -r. Delmo suCered e"treme disappointment and humiliation.
""" """ """
De$endant, bein a public oIcer should have acted %ith circumspection and
due reard to the rihts o$ -iss Delmo. Inasmuch as he e"ceeded the scope o$
his authority by de!antly disobeyin the la%$ul directive o$ his superior,
Director 'ernardino, de$endant is liable $or damaes in his personal
capacity. . . . 4)ollo, pp- ,1-,F5
'ased on the undisputed $acts, e"emplary damaes are also in order. In the same case o$
Prudenciado v. Alliance Transport 'ystem !nc., supra., at p. +,0, %e ruled<
#he rationale behind e"emplary or corrective damaes is, as the name implies,
to provide an e"ample or correction $or the public ood 4:ope?, et al. v. (an
3merican World 3ir%ays, *D SC)3 +2*5.
>o%ever, %e do not deem it appropriate to a%ard the spouses Delmo damaes
in the amount o$ (*0,000.00 in their individual capacity, separately $rom and in
addition to %hat they are already entitled to as sole heirs o$ the deceased
7ioleta Delmo. #hus, the decision is modi!ed inso$ar as moral damaes are
a%arded to the spouses in their o%n behal$.
W>E)E9O)E, the petition is DIS-ISSED $or lac& o$ merit. #he decision o$ the Court o$
3ppeals is 399I)-ED %ith the sliht modi!cation as stated in the precedin pararaph. #his
decision is immediately e"ecutory.
SO O)DE)ED.
A/8. C"#! No. 7-4C A(*(#' 2C, 2003
AURELIO %. SIERRA, complainant,
vs.
4HOSEP @. LOPE., Ci'5 Pro#!&('or o+ %")il", EUFROCINO SULLA, 1
#'
A##i#'")' Ci'5
Pro#!&('or ?ACPA, ACP ALE=AN$ER T. @AP, ACP %ARLO CA%PANILLA, ")/ ACP
AR%AN$O 2ELASCO, respondents.
$ E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
#he instant controversy arose $rom a complaint $or dereliction o$ duty and ross inorance o$
the la% by 3urelio -. Sierra aainst City (rosecutor o$ -anila @hosep O. :ope?, *
st
3ssistant
City (rosecutor 43C(5 Eu$rocino Sulla, 3ssistant City (rosecutors 3le"ander Oap, -arlo
Campanilla and 3rmando 7elasco.
#he $acts o$ the case are as $ollo%s<
On @uly .1, .00D and 3uust *, .00D, complainant 3urelio -. Sierra !led several cases
be$ore the OIce o$ the City (rosecutor o$ -anila $or -isrepresentation throuh Deceit and
Syndicated :are Scale 9raud in :and #itlin %ith Conspiracy, :and 6rabbin, 9alsi!cation o$
(ublic Document and Economic Sabotae.
#hese cases %ere !rst assined to 3C( 3le"ander #. Oap. #he principal respondents therein,
namely< 3l$redo C. )amos, (resentacion )amos, 6eore S.T. #y, 3tty. Emmanuel :eonardo,
and a certain -r. Cayaban, did not appear durin the scheduled hearin. >o%ever, 3l$redo
and (resentacion )amos appeared in the mornin o$ that day ahead o$ the complainant in
%hich they submitted their respective counter-aIdavits, subscribed and s%orn to be$ore 3C(
Oap. #he respondents as&ed that they be allo%ed to submit their counter-aIdavits ahead o$
the scheduled hearin because they had an urent matter to attend to in the a$ternoon. In
the case o$ 6eore S.T. #y and -r. Cayaban, their respective counter-aIdavits %ere
submitted by their la%yers durin the scheduled hearin in the a$ternoon, already
subscribed and s%orn to be$ore a (asi (rosecutor. 3tty. :eonardo did not submit any
counter-aIdavit.
'ecause o$ 3C( Oap8s $ailure to reMuire the presence o$ respondents in said cases
simultaneously %ith the complainant, -r. Sierra as&ed $or the prosecutor8s inhibition. #he
cases %ere then re-raYed to the respondent 3C( -arlo Campanilla %ho li&e%ise did not
reMuire the presence o$ the respondents in the preliminary investiation. 'ecause o$ this, he
too %as as&ed to inhibit $rom the cases by complainant.
#he cases %ere then re-raYed to 3C( 3rmando 7elasco %ho also handled the cases in the
same manner as the t%o other prosecutors be$ore him. City (rosecutor @hosep O. :ope? and
*
st
3C( Eu$rocino 3. Sulla aIrmed the correctness o$ the manner in %hich their investiatin
prosecutors handled the cases.
On 3pril .D, .001, Sierra !led a complaint %ith the Supreme Court $or dereliction o$ duty and
ross inorance o$ the la% aainst City (rosecutor :ope?, *
st
3C( Sulla, 3C( Oap, 3C(
Campanilla, and 3C( 7elasco.
In his complaint, Sierra raises the $ollo%in Muestions o$ la%< 4*5 %hether the parties must
appear toether be$ore the investiatin prosecutor durin preliminary investiationG 4.5
%hether the counter-aIdavits o$ the respondents should be s%orn to only be$ore the
investiatin prosecutorG and 425 %hether the investiatin prosecutor erred in denyin the
reMuest o$ the complainant $or clari!catory Muestionin.
#he Supreme Court #hird Division then issued a )esolution dated @uly .,, .00F reMuirin
respondents to comment on the complaint.
In compliance %ith the >onorable Court8s order, respondents !led their Comment dated
-arch 1, .00F statin that they handled the cases properly and in accordance %ith %hat %as
provided by la%. #hey also arued that they had not committed any dereliction o$ duty and
ross inorance o$ the la%.
We !nd no merit in the complaint.
)ule **., particularly Section 2 o$ the )ules o$ Court, lays do%n the basic procedure in
preliminary investiation, as $ollo%s<
Sec. 2. (rocedure. P #he preliminary investiation shall be conducted in the $ollo%in
manner<
4a5 #he complaint shall state the address o$ the respondent and shall be accompanied
by the aIdavits o$ the complainant and his %itnesses, as %ell as other supportin
documents to establish probable cause. #hey shall be in such number o$ copies as
there are respondents, plus t%o 4.5 copies $or the oIcial !le. #he aIdavits shall be
subscribed and s%orn to be$ore any prosecutor or overnment oIcial authori?ed to
administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, be$ore a notary public, each o$
%hom must certi$y that he personally e"amined the aIants and that he is satis!ed
that they voluntarily e"ecuted and understood their aIdavits.
4b5 Within ten 4*05 days a$ter the !lin o$ the complaint, the investiatin oIcer shall
either dismiss it i$ he !nds no round to continue %ith the investiation, or issue a
subpoena to the respondent attachin to it a copy o$ the complaint and its supportin
aIdavits and documents.
#he respondent shall have the riht to e"amine the evidence submitted by the
complainant %hich he may not have been $urnished and to copy them at his e"pense.
I$ the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be reMuired to speci$y those %hich
he intends to present aainst the respondent, and these shall be made available $or
e"amination or copyin by the respondent at his e"pense.
Objects as evidence need not be $urnished a party but shall be made available $or
e"amination, copyin, or photoraphin at the e"pense o$ the reMuestin party.
4c5 Within ten 4*05 days $rom receipt o$ the subpoena %ith the complaint and
supportin aIdavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-aIdavit
and that o$ his %itnesses and other supportin documents relied upon $or his de$ense.
#he counter-aIdavits, shall be subscribed and s%orn to and certi!ed as provided in
pararaph 4a5 o$ this section, %ith copies thereo$ $urnished by him to the complainant.
#he respondent shall not be allo%ed to !le a motion to dismiss in lieu o$ a counter-
aIdavit.
4d5 I$ the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or i$ subpoenaed, does not submit
counter-aIdavits %ithin the ten 4*05 day period, the investiatin oIcer shall resolve
the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
4e5 #he investiatin oIcer may set a hearin i$ there are $acts and issues to be
clari!ed $rom a party or a %itness. #he parties can be present at the hearin but
%ithout the riht to e"amine or cross-e"amine. #hey may, ho%ever, submit to the
investiatin oIcer Muestions %hich may be as&ed to the party or %itness concerned.
#he hearin shall be held %ithin ten 4*05 days $rom submission o$ the counter-
aIdavits and other documents or $rom the e"piration o$ the period $or their
submission. It shall be terminated %ithin !ve 4,5 days.
4$5 Within ten 4*05 days a$ter the investiation, the investiatin oIcer shall
determine %hether or not there is suIcient round to hold the respondent $or trial.
#his provision o$ the )ules does not reMuire a con$rontation bet%een the parties. (reliminary
investiation is ordinarily conducted throuh submission o$ aIdavits and supportin
documents, throuh the e"chane o$ pleadins.
In +odis 'r. v. 'andiganbayan
*
%e ruled that -
4the Ne% )ules on Criminal (rocedure5 do not reMuire as a condition sine Mua non to
the validity o$ the proceedins 4 in the preliminary investiation5 the presence o$ the
accused $or as lon as eCorts to reach him %ere made, and an opportunity to
controvert evidence o$ the complainant is accorded him. #he obvious purpose o$ the
rule is to bloc& attempts o$ unscrupulous respondents to th%art the prosecution o$
oCenses by hidin themselves or by employin dilatory tactics.
Since con$rontation bet%een the parties is not imperative, it $ollo%s that it is not necessary
that the counter-aIdavit o$ respondent be s%orn to be$ore the investiatin prosecutor
himsel$. It can be s%orn to be$ore another prosecutor. In $act, this is speci!cally provided in
pararaph 4c5 o$ Sec. 2, %hich states that the =counter-aIdavit shall be subscribed and
s%orn to and certi!ed as provided in pararaph 4a5 o$ this section " " "=G and pararaph 4a5,
provides<
the aIdavits shall be subscribed and s%orn to be$ore any prosecutor or overnment
oIcial or in their absence or unavailability, be$ore a notary public " " ".
:astly, %e hold that the investiatin prosecutors did not abuse their discretion %hen they
denied the reMuest o$ the complainant $or the conduct o$ clari!catory Muestionin. ;nder
pararaph 4e5 o$ Section 2 above, the conduct o$ clari!catory Muestionin is discretionary
upon the prosecutor. Indeed, %e already held in Eebb v. 0e %eon
.
that the decision to call
%itnesses $or clari!catory Muestions is addressed to the sound discretion o$ the investiator,
and the investiator alone.
;HEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is $ENIE$ $or lac& o$ merit.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 132310 $!&!8<!r C, 200C
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (etitioner,
vs.
4AN %ICHAEL TAN ")/ ARCHIE TAN, )espondents.
D E C I S I O N
ABA$, J.'
#he 9acts and the Case
#he $acts are based on the aIdavits o$ the %itnesses adduced at the preliminary
investiation o$ the case.
9rancisco ='obby= #an 4'obby5, a businessman, lived %ith his $amily and a bi household in a
compound on -.>. del (ilar St., -olo, Iloilo City. >is immediate $amily consisted o$ his %i$e,
Cynthia -arie 4Cindy5, and their si" children, namely, )aCy, Tristine, Tatrina, Taren,
Tatherine, and Tathleen. 'obby8s t%o older but illeitimate sons by another %oman,
respondents 3rchie and @an -ichael 4@an-@an5, also lived %ith him. Cindy treated them as her
stepsons.
#here %ere others in 'obby8s house< his aunt Conchita #an, his cousin Shirley Ooun,
Shirley8s dauhter Sheryl, eiht servants, and 7ini 6ulmatico, a $ormer $amily security uard
%ho %as trans$erred to another post on @anuary ., .00D a$ter bein cauht asleep on the
job. #he $amily had a $reMuent uest, -i&e Vayco, Cindy8s brother, and his side&ic& -iuel
Sola.
*

3t around D<00 p.m. on @anuary F, .00D, 'obby and )aCy, 'obby8s eldest son by Cindy, le$t
the house $or a coc&!ht. 3bout that time, 'obby8s other son, respondent 3rchie, drove out
%ith the rest o$ the $amily to o to mass. #hey returned around 1<*0 p.m. and had dinner.
#hey %ere joined by 'obby8s aunt Conchita, his cousin Shirley, and the latter8s dauhter
Sheryl. 3t about 1<+, p.m., 'obby and )aCy returned $rom the coc&!ht but did not join the
dinner, havin already eaten else%here. 'obby %ent up directly to the master8s bedroom on
the second Koor.
3$ter dinner, all the members o$ the $amily %ent to their respective rooms. Cindy joined her
husband in the master8s bedroom %ith their second to the younest, Tatherine, and her
nanny. Tatrina, one o$ the dauhters, %ent to the irls8 bedroom to study. Shirley8s dauhter
Sheryl %ent to the master8s bedroom at around F<*0 p.m. to let Cindy try the ne% pair o$
jeans iven to her by another cousin. Sheryl le$t a$ter%ards to o to her bedroom.
.
3t around F<2, p.m., 'orj, a blind masseur, and an escort arrived at the house $or 'obby8s
massae in his room. 3t around F<,, p.m., Emelita 6iray, the reular masseuse o$ Shirley
and Sheryl, arrived %ith her husband.
3bout /<20 p.m., Tristine, 'obby8s second to the oldest, %ent to her parents8 room to et a
bottle o$ shampoo and say oodniht.
2
'orj and his escort le$t 'obby8s residence at around
/<,2 p.m., $ollo%ed about an hour later by Emelita and her husband.
3round *0<20 p.m., Cindy8s stepson, respondent 3rchie, %ent to the arae and too& t%o
pairs o$ loves, still %rapped in plastic, $rom his car. 3rchie also pic&ed up a pac& o$
ciarettes that he le$t earlier %ith their security uard, )amel :obre?a, be$ore oin bac&
upstairs.
+
3t around *0<+, p.m., respondents 3rchie and @an-@an joined )aCy, 'obby8s oldest child by
Cindy, and their driver @ulito 6eronda in %atchin a D7D movie on )aCy8s laptop at the
carport. @an-@an %ent bac& to his room at around **<00 p.m. but 3rchie remained to !nish his
ciarette. >e, too, le$t a$ter%ards $or his room to chane.
,
'y **<,, p.m. )aCy turned oC the
video.
D
3 $e% minutes later or at *.<*1 a.m. o$ the ne"t day 4@anuary /, .00D5, %hile security uard
:obre?a %as ma&in his inspection rounds o$ the compound, he noticed that the lihts %ere
still on in the rooms o$ Cindy8s stepsons, respondents 3rchie and @an-@an.
3ccordin to respondents 3rchie and @an-@an, they climbed do%n the hih concrete $ence o$
the compound at about *.<+, a.m to o out. #hey too& a cab to Cal?ada 'ar, Camp @eCerson
Club, and Calte" Starmart.
1
#hey returned home at around 2<20 a.m.
)espondent @an-@an entered the house ahead o$ his brother. On reachin the door o$ his room
at the end o$ the hall%ay, he noticed his stepsister Tatherine, the second to the younest,
lyin on the Koor near the master8s bedroom. 3s @an-@an s%itched on the liht in his room, he
beheld her lyin on a pool o$ blood. >e Muic&ly stepped into the master8s bedroom and there
sa% his $ather, 'obby, lyin on the bed %ith his chest drenched in blood.
F
3lmost simultaneously, respondent 3rchie %ho had come into the house a$ter his brother
@an-@an noticed that the door o$ his room, %hich he loc&ed earlier, %as partly open. 3s he
%ent in and s%itched on the liht, he sa% his stepmother Cindy, lyin in her blood near the
%all belo% the air conditioner. >e then heard @an-@an shoutin to him that their $ather %as
dead. 3rchie immediately ran do%nstairs to call security uard :obre?a %hile his brother @an-
@an %ent around and a%a&ened the rest o$ the $amily. 'ecause :obre?a did not respond to
shouts, 3rchie ran to his room to rouse him up. >e told him %hat he discovered then
a%a&ened the other house-helps.
/
)espondent 3rchie then phoned police oIcer Nelson 3lacre, told him %hat had happened,
and reMuested him to come immediately. OIcer 3lacre arrived a$ter a $e% minutes %ith
some other oIcers. #hey Muestioned 3rchie and @an-@an and too& urine samples $rom them.
#he tests sho%ed them neative $or illeal dru use.
*0
3round +<.0 a.m., OIcer 3lacre rode %ith respondent 3rchie on the latter8s #oyota )av+ and
they drove to the house o$ Col. @ohn #arrosa, a $amily $riend. #hey then %ent to the house o$
-anolo Natal, 'obby8s coc&!ht llamador, to pic& him up be$ore drivin bac& to 'obby8s
residence.
**
-ean%hile, on hearin about the crime, the Criminal Investiation and Detection
6roup 4CID65 )eional Chie$ directed his o%n men to investiate the crime scene.
*.

On the a$ternoon o$ @anuary **, .00D, t%o days a$ter the remains o$ the victims %ere
brouht home $or the %a&e, 3tty. :eonardo E. @i? supposedly as&ed respondents 3rchie and
@an-@an, Cindy8s stepsons, to sin a statement that the police prepared. #he la%yer did not,
ho%ever, let them read the document or e"plain to them its contents. #hey sined it on 3tty.
@i?8s assurance that they %ould have the chance to read the statement later at the public
prosecutor8s oIce and correct any mista&es be$ore s%earin to the same. #he complainants
did not, ho%ever, present this statement durin the preliminary investiation nor did 3rchie
and @an-@an s%ear to it be$ore a public prosecutor.
*2
3nother t%o days later or on @anuary *2, .00D, police oIcers $rom the )eional CID6
submitted their investiation report to the City (rosecutor8s OIce o$ Iloilo City. #his pointed
to respondents 3rchie and @an-@an as principal suspects in the brutal &illin o$ their parents
and a youn stepsister.
*+
On @anuary *F, .00D police oIcer Eldy 'ebit o$ the CID6 !led a
complaint-aIdavit %ith the City (rosecutor8s OIce, accusin the t%o brothers o$ parricide
and double murder.
*,
#he parties submitted their aIdavits and pieces o$ evidence at the
preliminary investiation.
*D
On September ./, .00D the City (rosecutor8s OIce !led separate in$ormations $or t%o
murders and parricide aainst respondents 3rchie and @an-@an be$ore the )eional #rial Court
4)#C5 o$ Iloilo City in Criminal Cases 0D-D2020 to 0D-D202..
*1
On October 2, .00D respondents 3rchie and @an-@an !led a motion $or judicial determination
o$ probable cause %ith a prayer to suspend the issuance o$ %arrants o$ arrest aainst them
in the meantime.
*F
9urther, on October ,, .00D they as&ed the )#C to de$er $urther
proceedins in order to ive them the opportunity to Muestion the public prosecutor8s
resolution in the case be$ore the Secretary o$ @ustice.
*/
On October D, .00D the actin presidin jude o$ the )#C issued an order, directin the
prosecution to correct certain de!ciencies in its evidence aainst respondents.
.0
On October
.0, .00D, the City (rosecutor o$ Iloilo City !led a mani$estation, in$ormin the )#C o$ his
partial compliance %ith its order. >e also !led an urent e" parte motion $or clari!catory
e"ception.
.*
On December .2, .00F )osalinda 6arcia-Vayco, Cindy8s mother and court-appointed
uardian ad litem o$ her minor randchildren, opposed respondents 3rchie and @an-@an8s
petition $or revie% be$ore the Department o$ @ustice 4DO@5.
..
She pointed out that the t%o had
suIcient motive to commit the crimes o$ %hich they %ere chared. #hey openly sho%ed
disrespect to%ards their $ather, 'obby, and constantly had heated aruments %ith him. #hey
also nurtured ill $eelins and resentment to%ards Cindy, their stepmother, they bein
illeitimate children. #hey never accepted the $act that 'obby married Cindy rather than
their mother. #he National 'ureau o$ Investiation report classi!ed the crimes as motivated
by hatred.
.2

Cindy8s mother made capital o$ the absence o$ respondents 3rchie8s and @an-@an8s
!nerprints in any part o$ their o%n rooms, particularly the liht s%itches and the door&nobs.
She cited the Investiatin (rosecutor8s theory that either o$ the accused used the %et red
shirt hanin in @an-@an8s bathroom to erase all !nerprints at the crime scene, somethin
that $orensic science can justi$y.
.+

-oreover, %hile investiators %ere still e"aminin the crime scene, 'obby8s aunt Conchita
called a loc&smith to $orce open 'obby8s sa$es in the master8s bedroom as %ell as in his
oIce on De :eon Street. #his $act came to the sur$ace durin the preliminary investiation
o$ a complaint $or robbery that Conchita !led aainst Cindy8s brother, -i&e Vayco, his
side&ic& -iuel Sola, Natividad Vayco, and police superintendent 6umban o$ the CID6. #he
police surmised that Conchita brouht this criminal action to divert attention $rom the
murder case and $rom respondents 3rchie and @an-@an.
.,

:astly, nine days a$ter the victims8 burial, respondent 3rchie !led a petition $or the
settlement o$ 'obby and Cindy8s estate, nominatin Conchita as administratri" o$ the estate.
>e !led an e" parte motion $or her appointment as special administrator $or the meantime
%ithout consultin his hal$-siblins. #he estate court ranted the motion. 3rchie reportedly
continued %ith his nihtly bar hoppin even durin the %a&e o$ his $ather.
)espondents 3rchie and @an-@an8s de$ense is alibi. #hey claimed that they %ere a%ay %hen
the crimes too& place at the house. 'ased on Dr. :ebaMuin8s $orensic computation, ho%ever,
the victims probably died at about midniht, more or less. #he t%o %ere still at home %hen
the &illins happened.
On October .1, .00D the )#C, then temporarily presided over by @ude Narciso 3uilar,
$ound no probable cause aainst respondents 3rchie and @an-@an. @ude 3uilar thus ranted
their motion to suspend the issuance o$ %arrants $or their arrest and to de$er the
proceedins.
.D
#he t%o respondents then !led a motion to dismiss the case.
.1
On @anuary *.,
.001 the )#C issued an order, directin the City (rosecutor8s OIce to submit additional
evidence in the case but the latter oIce as&ed $or more time to comply.
.F
-ean%hile, the
DO@ issued a resolution dismissin respondents 3rchie and @an-@an8s petition $or revie%.
./
3$ter a ne% presidin jude, @ude 6lobert @ustalero, too& over the )#C, he issued an order
on -arch 20, .001 rantin the prosecution8s reMuest $or additional time %ithin %hich to
comply %ith the court8s order o$ @anuary *., .001.
20
On 3pril ., .001 the prosecutor8s oIce
!led its compliance and submitted its amended resolution in the case.
2*
#he petitioners
assailed this amended resolution and pointed out that the public prosecutor did not submit
any additional evidence.
2.
On 3pril .2, .001 @ude @ustalero reversed the order o$ the previous presidin jude. >e
$ound probable cause aainst respondents 3rchie and @an-@an this time and ordered the
issuance o$ %arrants $or their arrest.
22
Without see&in reconsideration o$ @ude @ustalero8s
order, 3rchie and @an-@an !led the present petition $or certiorari %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals
4C35 o$ Cebu City in C3-6.). CE'-S( 0.D,/.
2+
3$ter hearin, the C3 ranted the petition, set
aside the )#C order o$ 3pril .2, .001, and annulled the %arrants o$ arrest that @ude
@ustalero issued. #he C3 also dismissed the criminal cases aainst the respondents.
2,
#he
public prosecutor !led a motion $or reconsideration o$ the C38s decision throuh the OIce o$
the Solicitor 6eneral but the latter court denied it,
2D
hence, this petition.
#he Issues (resented
)espondents 3rchie and @an-@an present the $ollo%in issues $or resolution by this Court<
a5 Whether or not the C3 committed error in rulin that @ude @ustalero ravely
abused his discretion %hen he re-e"amined his predecessor8s previous !ndin that no
probable cause e"isted aainst respondents 3rchie and @an-@an despite the absence o$
ne% evidence in the caseG and
b5 Whether or not the C3 committed error in rulin that @ude @ustalero ravely
abused his discretion %hen he made a !ndin that there is probable cause to issue a
%arrant $or the arrest o$ the t%o.
#he Court8s )ulins
One. #he C3 pointed out that since the prosecution did not submit additional evidence
be$ore the )#C, its ne% presidin jude 4@ude @ustalero5 ravely abused his discretion %hen
he re-e"amined and reversed his predecessor8s !ndin o$ lac& o$ probable cause aainst
respondents 3rchie and @an-@an.
'ut the record sho%s that, althouh @ude 3uilar, the $ormer presidin jude, $ound no
probable cause aainst respondents 3rchie and @an-@an, he did not altoether close the
issue. In $act, he inored their motion to dismiss the case and even directed the City
(rosecutor8s OIce to submit additional evidence. #his indicates that he still had doubts
about his !ndin. -ean%hile, the DO@, loo&in at the evidence, aIrmed the City (rosecutor8s
decision to !le chares aainst 3rchie and @an-@an. 3$ter @ude @ustalero too& over, he ave
the prosecution the additional time it as&ed $or complyin %ith the court8s order. On 3pril .,
.001 the prosecution !led its compliance toether %ith its amended resolution in the case.
3ctually, there$ore, t%o ne% developments %ere be$ore @ude @ustalero< !rst, the DO@8s denial
o$ the appeal o$ the t%o accused and its !ndin that probable cause e"isted aainst them
and, t%o, the local prosecutor8s submittal, i$ not o$ some ne% evidence, o$ additional
aruments respectin the issue o$ probable cause. 6rave abuse o$ discretion implies an
irrational behavior. Surely, this cannot be said o$ @ude @ustalero %ho re-e"amined in the liht
o$ the ne% developments %hat in the !rst place appeared to be an unsettled position ta&en
by his predecessor.
What is more, the previous jude did not yet act on respondents 3rchie and @an-@an8s motion
to dismiss the criminal case aainst them. ConseMuently, the ne% jude still had $ull control
o$ the interlocutory orders that his predecessor had issued in the case, includin the order
!ndin not enouh evidence to justi$y the issuance o$ %arrants o$ arrest aainst them. #he
ne% jude could reconsider and recall such order either motu propio or on motion %hen the
circumstances %arranted.
#%o. #he C3 held that @ude @ustalero ravely abused his discretion %hen he made a !ndin
that there is probable cause to %arrant the arrest o$ 3rchie and @an-@an.
'ut %hat is probable causeZ (robable cause assumes the e"istence o$ $acts that %ould lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that
it %as li&ely committed by the person souht to be arrested.
21
It reMuires neither absolute
certainty nor clear and convincin evidence o$ uilt.
2F
#he test $or issuin a %arrant o$ arrest
is less strinent than that used $or establishin the uilt o$ the accused. 3s lon as the
evidence sho%s a prima $acie case aainst the accused, the trial court has suIcient round
to issue a %arrant $or his arrest.
>ere, admittedly, the evidence aainst respondents 3rchie and @an-@an is merely
circumstantial. #he prosecution evidence sho%s that they had motive in that they had been
at odds %ith their $ather and stepmother. #hey had opportunity in that they %ere still
probably home %hen the crime too& place. 3rchie too& t%o pairs o$ ne% loves $rom his car
late that evenin. Cindy %as apparently e"ecuted inside 3rchie8s room. #he separate rooms
o$ the t%o accused had, Muite curiously, been %iped clean even o$ their o%n !nerprints. 3
trial, unli&e preliminary investiations, could yield more evidence $avorable to either side
a$ter the interroations o$ the %itnesses either on direct e"amination or on cross-
e"amination. What is important is that there is some rational basis $or oin ahead %ith
judicial inMuiry into the case. #his Court does not subscribe to the C38s position that the
prosecution had nothin to o on %ith.
W>E)E9O)E, the Court )E7E)SES and SE#S 3SIDE the Court o$ 3ppeals8 decision dated
December */, .001 and resolution dated -arch .,, .00F, and 399I)-S and )EINS#3#ES the
)eional #rial Court8s order dated 3pril .2, .001.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 1C10BC No7!8<!r 1-, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (laintiC-3ppellee,
vs.
SULPICIO SONN@ BO@ TAN 5 PHUA, 3ccused-3ppellant.
D E C I S I O N
2ELASCO, 4R., J.'
#he Case
#his is an appeal $rom the October .D, .00/ Decision
*
o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35 in C3-6.).
C)->.C. No. 02.+, entitled (eople o$ the (hilippines v. Sulpicio Sonny 'oy #an y (hua, %hich
aIrmed the December *F, .001 Decision
.
in Criminal Case No. 0D-+.D o$ the )eional #rial
Court 4)#C5, 'ranch D, in -a&ati City. #he )#C $ound accused-appellant Sulpicio Sonny 'oy
#an y (hua uilty o$ violation o$ Section **, 3rticle II o$ )epublic 3ct No. 4)35 /*D, or the
Comprehensive Danerous Drus 3ct o$ .00..
#he 9acts
#he chare aainst accused-appellant stemmed $rom the $ollo%in In$ormation<
#hat on or about the .0th day o$ 9ebruary, .00D, in the City o$ -a&ati, (hilippines, a place
%ithin the jurisdiction o$ this >onorable Court, the above-named accused, not bein la%$ully
authori?ed to possess or other%ise use any danerous dru, and %ithout the correspondin
license or prescription, did then and there %ill$ully, unla%$ully and $eloniously have in his
possession, direct custody and control, *.0 tablets o$ 7alium *0 m %eihin a total o$
nineteen point si" 4*/.D5 rams, said tablets contain Dia?epam %hich is a danerous dru, in
violation o$ the above-cited la%.
Contrary to la%.
2
On -arch .*, .00D, accused-appellant %as initially arrained, and he pleaded =not uilty= to
the chare aainst him. >o%ever, on -arch .., .00D, his counsel de o!cio, 3tty. Clarence S.
Di?on, !led a motion to allo% accused-appellant to %ithdra% his earlier plea and $or
reinvestiation o$ the case. Seein as there %as no objection $rom the prosecution, the )#C
ranted the motion.
3$ter !ndin that there e"ists probable cause aainst accused-appellant $or violation o$ Sec.
**, 3rt. II o$ )3 /*D,, the prosecution !led on @uly **, .00D a motion to set the case $or
arrainment and trial.
+
#he motion %as ranted by the )#C.
,
#hus, on @uly *F, .00D, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de o!cio, 3tty. Eli?a '. Ou, re-
entered his previous plea o$ =not uilty= to the oCense chared.
D
Durin pre-trial, the parties entered into stipulation %ith reard to the 9inal Investiation
)eport and the 3c&no%ledment )eceipt issued by the -a&ati City (olice Station throuh
(olice OIcer . 4(O.5 )a$ael Castillo.
1
:i&e%ise, the parties stipulated as to the testimony o$
the $orensic chemist, (olice Senior Inspector )ichard 3llan '. -analip, %ho established the
e"istence o$ the reMuest $or dru test dated 9ebruary .0, .00D and the result dated 9ebruary
.., .00D,
F
yieldin positive result $or the presence o$ Dia?epam, a danerous dru.
/
3$ter the pre-trial con$erence, trial on the merits ensued.
Durin the trial, the prosecution presented as its %itness Senior (olice OIcer . 4S(O.5
Edmundo 6eronimo. #herea$ter, the de$ense counsel stipulated as merely corroborative the
testimonies o$ (O* 7ictoriano Cru?, @r., S(O* Carlo Huilala, and (O2 6iovanni 3vendano.
On the other hand, the de$ense presented as its sole %itness, Sonny 'oy, accused-appellant
himsel$.
9rom the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that on 9ebruary .0, .00D, at
around *<*, in the mornin, S(O. 6eronimo, S(O* Huilala, (O2 3vendano, and (O* Cru? o$
the -a&ati City (hilippine National (olice 4(N(5 conducted a manhunt operation aainst a
suspect in a robbery case involvin Torean nationals alon (. 'uros, 'aranay (oblacion,
-a&ati City.
*0
While on board their civilian vehicle, they chanced upon a male individual
sellin certain items to t%o $oreiners. #hey heard him say, =>ey @oe, %ant to buy 7alium *0,
Cialis, 7iaraZ=
**
Curious, they inMuired and the male individual told them that he %as sellin
7iara and Cialis, %hile, at the same time, sho%in them the contents o$ his ba %hich
yielded *.0 tablets o$ 7alium *0.
*.
#he male individual, %ho later turned out to be Sonny 'oy, %as immediately searched and
placed under arrest, a$ter %hich they in$ormed him o$ the nature o$ his apprehension and o$
his constitutional rihts. Sonny 'oy %as then brouht to the oIce o$ the Station 3nti-Illeal
Drus Special Operations #as& 9orce 4S3ID-SO#95, %here the items recovered $rom him %ere
mar&ed and inventoried by (O* Cru?. #he items %ere turned over to the duty investiator.
*2
In contrast, Sonny 'oy interposed the de$ense o$ denial. >e maintained that he %as merely
%atchin cars as a par&in boy alon (. 'uros %hen t%o men suddenly held and invited him
$or Muestionin.
*+
#hey as&ed him i$ he &ne% any dru pushers and, i$ he did, to identi$y
them. When he %as unable to do so, they chared him $or violation o$ Sec. **, 3rt. II o$ )3
/*D,, %hich is the subject o$ the instant case.
)ulin o$ the #rial Court
3$ter trial, the )#C $ound accused-appellant uilty o$ the crime. #he dispositive portion o$ its
December *F, .001 Decision reads<
W>E)E9O)E, in vie% o$ the $oreoin, judment is hereby rendered !ndin accused,
S;:(ICIO SONNO 'OO #3N y (>;3, 6;I:#O, beyond reasonable doubt o$ the chare $or
violation o$ Sec. ** 3rt. **, )3 /*D, and sentences him to suCer the penalty o$ :I9E
I-()ISON-EN# and to pay a !ne o$ 9our >undred #housand 4(+00,000.005.
" " " "
SO O)DE)ED.
*,
On appeal to the C3, accused-appellant disputed the lo%er court8s !ndin o$ his uilt beyond
reasonable doubt o$ the crime chared. >e arued that the prosecution $ailed to establish
every lin& in its chain o$ custody and that the %arrantless search and arrest done by the
police oIcers %ere illeal.
)ulin o$ the 3ppellate Court
On October .D, .00/, the C3 aIrmed the judment o$ the lo%er court !ndin that the
prosecution succeeded in establishin, %ith moral certainty, all the elements o$ illeal
possession o$ danerous drus. #he dispositive portion o$ the C3 Decision reads<
W>E)E9O)E, premises considered, the decision o$ the )eional #rial Court in Crim. Case No.
0D-+.D dated December *F, .001, !ndin accused-appellant Sulpicio Sonny 'oy #an y (hua,
uilty beyond reasonable doubt o$ violation o$ Section **, 3rticle II, )epublic 3ct No. /*D,,
other%ise &no%n as the Comprehensive Danerous Drus 3ct o$ .00., is 399I)-ED WI#>
-ODI9IC3#ION in that accused-appellant is sentenced to suCer the penalty o$ li$e
imprisonment and to pay a !ne o$ 9ive >undred #housand (esos 4(,00,000.005.
SO O)DE)ED.
*D

3ccused-appellant timely !led a notice o$ appeal $rom the decision o$ the C3.
#he Issues
3ccused-appellant assins the $ollo%in errors<
I.
#>E CO;)# 3 H;O 6)37E:O E))ED IN 3D-I##IN6 #>E ()O>I'I#ED D);6S IN
E7IDENCE DES(I#E #>E ()OSEC;#ION8S 93I:;)E #O ES#3':IS> E7E)O :INT IN I#S
C>3IN O9 C;S#ODO.
II.
#>E CO;)# 3 H;O 6)37E:O E))ED IN NO# 9INDIN6 #>E 3CC;SED-3((E::3N#8S
W3))3N#:ESS SE3)C> 3ND 3))ES# 3S I::E63:.
III.
#>E CO;)# 3 H;O 6)37E:O E))ED IN 9INDIN6 #>E 3CC;SED-3((E::3N# 6;I:#O
DES(I#E #>E ()OSEC;#ION8S 93I:;)E #O ()O7E >IS 6;I:# 'EOOND )E3SON3':E
DO;'#.
*1
Our )ulin
#he appeal has no merit.
C"i) o+ C(#'o/5 ;"# Prop!rl5 E#'"<li#!/
3ccused-appellant maintains in his 'rie$ that the police oIcers $ailed to mar&, inventory,
and photoraph the prohibited items alleedly sei?ed $rom him at the time o$ his
apprehension. 9urther, he contends that =the prosecution $ailed to establish ho% the
prohibited items, %hich %ere mar&ed by (O* Cru?, received and inventoried by (O. Castillo,
%ere turned over to (O* -endo?a $or delivery to the (N( Crime :aboratory $or
e"amination.=
*F
>e arues that =AtBo success$ully prove that the chain o$ custody %as
unbro&en, every lin& in the chain, meanin everyone %ho held and too& custody o$ the
specimen, must testi$y as to that deree o$ precaution underta&en to preserve it.=
*/
Such arument must $ail.
#he Implementin )ules and )eulations 4I))5 o$ )3 /*D, provides<
SEC#ION .*. C(#'o/5 ")/ $i#po#i'io) o+ Co):#&"'!/, S!iH!/ ")/Lor S(rr!)/!r!/
$")*!ro(# $r(*#, Pl")' So(r&!# o+ $")*!ro(# $r(*#, Co)'roll!/ Pr!&(r#or# ")/
E##!)'i"l C!8i&"l#, I)#'r(8!)'#LP"r"p!r)"li" ")/Lor L"<or"'or5 EJ(ip8!)'. P
#he (DE3 shall ta&e chare and have custody o$ all danerous drus, plant sources o$
danerous drus, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as %ell as
instrumentsJparaphernalia andJor laboratory eMuipment so con!scated, sei?ed andJor
surrendered, $or proper disposition in the $ollo%in manner<
4a5 #he apprehendin oIcerJteam havin initial custody and control o$ the drus shall,
immediately a$ter sei?ure and con!scation, physically inventory and photoraph the same in
the presence o$ the accused or the personJs $rom %hom such items %ere con!scated andJor
sei?ed, or hisJher representative or counsel, a representative $rom the media and the
Department o$ @ustice 4DO@5, and any elected public oIcial %ho shall be reMuired to sin the
copies o$ the inventory and be iven a copy thereo$G Pro7i/!/, '"' '! p5#i&"l
i)7!)'or5 ")/ po'o*r"p #"ll <! &o)/(&'!/ "' '! pl"&! 9!r! '! #!"r&
9"rr")' i# #!r7!/G or "' '! )!"r!#' poli&! #'"'io) or "' '! )!"r!#' oM&! o+ '!
"ppr!!)/i)* oM&!rL'!"8, 9i&!7!r i# pr"&'i&"<l!, i) &"#! o+ 9"rr")'l!##
#!iH(r!#G Pro7i/!/, +(r'!r, '"' )o)0&o8pli")&! 9i' '!#! r!J(ir!8!)'# ()/!r
1(#'i:"<l! *ro()/#, "# lo)* "# '! i)'!*ri'5 ")/ !7i/!)'i"r5 7"l(! o+ '! #!iH!/
i'!8# "r! prop!rl5 pr!#!r7!/ <5 '! "ppr!!)/i)* oM&!rL'!"8, #"ll )o' r!)/!r
7oi/ ")/ i)7"li/ #(& #!iH(r!# o+ ")/ &(#'o/5 o7!r #"i/ i'!8# " " ". 4Emphasis
supplied.5
Evidently, the la% itsel$ lays do%n e"ceptions to its reMuirements. #hus, contrary to the
assertions o$ accused-appellant, Sec. .* o$ the I)) need not be $ollo%ed %ith pedantic rior.
It is settled that non-compliance %ith Sec. .* does not render an accused8s arrest illeal or
ma&e the items sei?ed inadmissible.
.0
What is imperative is =the preservation o$ the interity
and the evidential value o$ the sei?ed items as the same %ould be utili?ed in the
determination o$ the uilt or innocence o$ the accused.=
.*
3s a mode o$ authenticatin evidence, the chain o$ custody rule reMuires that the admission
or presentation o$ an e"hibit, such as the sei?ed prohibited drus, be preceded by evidence
suIcient to support a !ndin that the matter in Muestion is %hat the proponent claims it to
be.
..
3s held by this Court in -alillin v. (eople, this %ould ideally include the testimonies o$
all persons %ho handled the specimen, vi?<
" " " $rom the moment the item %as pic&ed up to the time it is oCered into evidence, in such
a %ay that every person %ho touched the e"hibit %ould describe ho% and $rom %hom it %as
received, %here it %as and %hat happened to it %hile in the %itness8 possession, the
condition in %hich it %as received and the condition in %hich it %as delivered to the ne"t lin&
in the chain. #hese %itnesses %ould then describe the precautions ta&en to ensure that there
had been no chane in the condition o$ the item and no opportunity $or someone not in the
chain to have possession o$ the same.
.2
In the instant case, there %as substantial compliance %ith the la% and the interity o$ the
drus sei?ed %as preserved. #he testimony o$ S(O. 6eronimo cateorically established the
manner by %hich the prohibited drus %ere handled $rom the moment they %ere sei?ed
$rom accused-appellant up to the time they %ere turned over to the duty oIcer and
investiator at S3ID-SO#9, %ho, in turn, turned them over to the (N( Crime :aboratory $or
e"amination. 3ll this %as narrated by S(O. 6eronimo, as $ollo%s<
(rosecutor >enry -. Sala?ar<
H< -r. Witness, last 9ebruary .0, .00D, about *<*, in the early mornin, can you tell
us %here %ere youZ
S(O. Eduardo 6eronimo<
3< On that particular date and time, *<*, a.m., 9ebruary .0, .00D, %e are conductin
a manhunt operation aainst the suspect o$ a )obbery 'rea&-in on Torean Nationals.
H< 3nd %here %ere you conductin, -r. Witness, this $ollo% up operationZ
3< 3lon (. 'uros Street, 'aranay (oblacion, -a&ati City.
H< Can you tell us %ho %ere %ith you, -r. WitnessZ
3< S(O* Carlo C. Huilala, (O2 6iovanni (. 3vendano and (O* 7ictoriano @. Cru?, @r.
.+
" " " "
H< In this particular time, *<*, a.m., 9ebruary .0, .00D, you mentioned that you %ere
conductin a $ollo%-up operation reardin a )obbery 'rea&-in on Torean Nationals,
%here %ere you in particular at that timeZ
3< We %ere on board our issued civilian vehicle #amara% 9W %ith (late Number SED-
F/+.
H< Where %ere you positioned or located at that timeZ
3< We %ere on stop position in $ront o$ the -a&ati (alace >otel, more or less , meters
a%ay AsicB %e stopped.
H< On that position, -r. Witness, can you tell us i$ you can recall o$ any incident, %hich
cauht your attention at that timeZ
3< On that moment, %e %ere havin surveillance aainst the suspect on the )obbery
'rea&-in. We cauht the attention o$ one male person %ho %as sellin items to t%o 4.5
$oreiners.
H< >o% did you come to &no% -r. Witness, that this male person %as enaed in
sellin items to these t%o 4.5 male $oreinersZ
3< 3$ter %e sa% and heard male person named Sulpicio Sonny 'oy #an, %e
immediately alihted $rom our vehicle and accosted said person and brouht him near
our vehicle.
H< What did you hear $rom this male person, -r. Witness, %hich caused you to accost
him and brin him near your vehicleZ
3< We actually heard him sayin, =>ey @oe, %ant to buy 7alium *0, Cialis, 7iara=.
.,
" " " "
H< 3nd %hat did you tell this person %hen you accost him and brouht him near your
vehicleZ
3< We as&ed him %hat are those items he %as sellinZ
H< When you as&ed him %hat item %as he sellin at that time, %hat did he tell to your
roupZ
3< >e told us only 7iara, Cialis.
H< 3nd %hat did you do at that time a$ter he in$ormed you that he %as sellin 7iara
and CialisZ
3< >e sho%ed it to us, and then %e brouht him in $ront o$ our vehicle and he sho%ed
us the contents o$ his ba.
H< 3nd %hat did you !nd inside his ba at that timeZ
3< )iht on top o$ the hood o$ our vehicle he sho%ed us everythin and %e learned
that not only 7iara, Cialis but he has also 7alium *0, *.0 tablets.
.D
" " " "
H< No%, a$ter these items %hich you8ve just mentioned considerin o$ 7alium *0,
7iara, Cialis %ere brouht out $rom his ba and placed on top o$ the hood o$ you4r5
vehicle, %hat did you do ne"t at that timeZ
3< 3$ter seein the other drus, 7alium *0, %e eCected the arrest and %e brouht him
to S3ID-SO#9.
H< 3nd %hat happened a$ter you brouht this male person to the S3ID-SO#9Z
3< We turned over the suspect.
H< >o% about the items %hich you claimed to be %ith him at that time, %hat did you
do %ith themZ
3< We turned over the suspect as %ell as the evidence %e sei?ed $rom him.
H< 3$ter havin turned over these items, -r. Witness, %hat else did you doZ
3< 3$ter%ards, sir, %e e"ecuted our 3Idavit o$ 3rrest that the investiator reMuired.
H< >o% about the items, %hat did you do %ith these $rom %hich you recovered $rom
this male personZ
3< On 9ebruary .0, .00F, %e turned it over to the duty oIcer and to the investiator,
sir.
H< 'e$ore turnin it over, -r. Witness, %hat did you do %ith these itemsZ
3< We put mar&ins on them, sir.
H< Who mar&ed these items, -r. WitnessZ
3< One o$ my colleaueAsB, sir, (O* 7ictoriano Cru?.
H< Where %ere you at that time %hen (O* Cru? mar&ed these items recovered $rom
this male personZ
3< We %ere already at the oIce o$ S3ID-SO#9, riht in $ront o$ him, sir.
H< 3nd %hat mar&ins %ere placed by (O* Cru? on these itemsZ
3< >e put =To&oy= $or *.0 tablets o$ 7alium *0.
.1
H< >o% about the other items, -r. Witness, %hat mar&ins %ere placed by (O* Cru?Z
3< ETo&oy .8, ETo&oy 28, ETo&oy +8.
H< 3nd a$ter that, %hat else did you do at that timeZ
3< We le$t the suspect to the investiation and then %e brouht him to the jail.
H< In connection %ith the apprehension o$ this male person, can you recall havin
e"ecuted an aIdavit or any documentZ
3< We e"ecuted our @oint 3Idavit o$ 3rrest, sir.
.F
-oreover, it bears stressin that durin the September *F, .001 hearin, both parties
stipulated to the eCect that the testimony o$ (O* Cru?, as contained in the @oint 3Idavit o$
3rrest, is corroborative %ith that o$ all the other aIants.
./
Similarly, durin the pre-trial
con$erence, the parties stipulated on the testimony o$ (O. Castillo, the investiator %ho
issued the 3c&no%ledment )eceipt
20
o$ the sei?ed drus on behal$ o$ S3ID-SO#9 and the
9inal Investiation )eport
2*
on the incident. 3nd lastly, the parties also stipulated on the
testimony o$ the $orensic chemist %ho conducted the laboratory e"amination on the sei?ed
drus and issued (hysical Science )eport Nos. D-*.,-0DS
2.
and D#-*20-0DS,
22
%hich both
yielded positive results $or danerous drus. It %as, in $act, due to these stipulations that all
other testimonies %ere dispensed %ith, as areed to by both parties.
#here$ore, it is evidently clear that the chain o$ custody o$ the illicit dru $ound in accused-
appellant8s presence %as unbro&en.
;"rr")'l!## S!"r& ")/ Arr!#' ;!r! L!*"l ")/ 2"li/
9urther, accused-appellant challenes the leality o$ his %arrantless search and arrest $or
the !rst time in his appeal. >e arues that such %as illeal, since none o$ the instances
%herein a search and sei?ure may be done validly %ithout a %arrant %as present.
Such arument is untenable.
9irst o$ all, accused-appellant never raised this issue be$ore his arrainment. >e never
Muestioned the leality o$ his arrest until his appeal. On this alone, the contention must $ail.
It has been ruled time and aain that an accused is estopped $rom assailin any irreularity
%ith reard to his arrest i$ he $ails to raise this issue or to move $or the Muashal o$ the
in$ormation aainst him on this round <!+or! i# "rr"i*)8!)'.
2+
3ny objection involvin
the procedure by %hich the court acMuired jurisdiction over the person o$ the accused must
be made be$ore he enters his pleaG other%ise, the objection is deemed %aived.
2,
In the instant case, accused-appellant even reMuested a reinvestiation durin his initial
arrainment, and, as a result, his arrainment %as postponed. >e could have Muestioned the
validity o$ his %arrantless arrest at this time but he did not. >is arrainment %as then
rescheduled %here he entered a plea o$ not uilty and participated in the trial. #hus, he is
deemed to have %aived any Muestion as to any de$ect in his arrest and is li&e%ise deemed to
have submitted to the jurisdiction o$ the court.
What is more, Sec. ,, )ule **2 o$ the )ules on Criminal (rocedure clearly provides $or the
instances %hen a person may be arrested %ithout a %arrant, to %it<
Sec. ,. 3rrest %ithout %arrantG %hen la%$ul. P 3 peace oIcer or a private person may,
%ithout a %arrant, arrest a person<
4a5 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committin, or is attemptin to commit an oCenseG
4b5 When an oCense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal &no%lede o$ $acts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed itG and
4c5 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner %ho has escaped $rom a penal
establishment or place %here he is servin !nal judment or is temporarily con!ned
%hile his case is pendin, or has escaped %hile bein trans$erred $rom one
con!nement to another. 4Emphasis supplied.5
;ndoubtedly, the case at bar $alls under Sec. ,4a5 o$ )ule **2, that is, %hen the person to be
arrested is actually committin an oCense, the peace oIcer may arrest him even %ithout a
%arrant. >o%ever, a %arrantless arrest must still be preceded by the e"istence o$ probable
cause. (robable cause is de!ned as =a reasonable round o$ suspicion supported by
circumstances suIciently stron in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is uilty o$ the oCense chared.=
2D

In (eople v. -ariacos, the Court $urther e"pounded on the de!nition o$ probable cause<
It re$ers to the e"istence o$ such $acts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an oCense has been committed, and that the items, articles
or objects souht in connection %ith said oCense or subject to sei?ure and destruction by la%
are in the place to be searched.
#he rounds o$ suspicion are reasonable %hen, in the absence o$ actual belie$ o$ the
arrestin oIcers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably uilty o$
committin the oCense is based on actual $acts, i.e., supported by circumstances suIciently
stron in themselves to create the probable cause o$ uilt o$ the person to be arrested. 3
reasonable suspicion there$ore must be $ounded on probable cause, coupled %ith ood $aith
on the part o$ the peace oIcers ma&in the arrest.
21
>ere, the arrestin oIcers had suIcient probable cause to ma&e the arrest in vie% o$ the
$act that they themselves heard accused-appellant say, =>ey @oe, %ant to buy 7alium *0,
Cialis, 7iaraZ=
2F
%hich, in turn, prompted them to as& accused-appellant %hat he %as
sellin. When accused-appellant sho%ed them the items, they identi!ed *.0 tablets o$
7alium *0, a reulated dru. #he police oIcers then became obliated to arrest accused-
appellant, as he %as actually committin a crime in their presencePPpossession o$ a
danerous dru, a violation o$ Sec. **, 3rt. II o$ )3 /*D,. #here$ore, it is %ithout Muestion
that the %arrantless search and arrest o$ accused-appellant are leal and valid.
3ll thins considered, this Court sees no compellin reason to disturb the !ndins o$ the trial
court. #he prosecution succeeded in establishin, %ith moral certainty, all the elements o$
the crime o$ illeal possession o$ danerous drus< 4*5 the accused is in possession o$ an
item or object %hich is identi!ed to be a prohibited druG 4.5 such possession is not
authori?ed by la%G and 425 the accused $reely and consciously possessed the said dru.
2/
W>E)E9O)E, the appeal is $ENIE$. #he C3 Decision in C3-6.). C)->.C. No. 02.+, !ndin
accused-appellant Sulpicio Sonny 'oy #an y (hua uilty o$ the crime chared is 399I)-ED.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 13237-07B F!<r("r5 3, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiC-appellee,
vs.
RO%EO G. 4ALOS4OS, accused-appellant.
) E S O : ; # I O N
@NARES0SANTIAGO, J.'
#he accused-appellant, )omeo 9. @aloslos is a $ull-pleded member o$ Conress %ho is no%
con!ned at the national penitentiary %hile his conviction $or statutory rape on t%o counts
and acts o$ lasciviousness on si" counts
*
is pendin appeal. #he accused-appellant !led this
motion as&in that he be allo%ed to $ully dischare the duties o$ a Conressman, includin
attendance at leislative sessions and committee meetins despite his havin been
convicted in the !rst instance o$ a non-bailable oCense.
#he issue raised is one o$ the !rst impression.
Does membership in Conress e"empt an accused $rom statutes and rules %hich apply to
validly incarcerated persons in eneralZ In ans%erin the Muery, %e are called upon to
balance relevant and conKictin $actors in the judicial interpretation o$ leislative privilee in
the conte"t o$ penal la%.
#he accused-appellantQs =-otion #o 'e 3llo%ed #o Dischare -andate 3s -ember o$ >ouse o$
)epresentatives= %as !led on the rounds that R
*. 3ccused-appellantQs reelection bein an e"pression o$ popular %ill cannot be
rendered inutile by any rulin, ivin priority to any riht or interest R not even the
police po%er o$ the State.
.. #o deprive the electorate o$ their elected representative amounts to ta"ation
%ithout representation.
2. #o bar accused-appellant $rom per$ormin his duties amounts to his
suspensionJremoval and moc&s the rene%ed mandates entrusted to him by the
people.
+. #he electorate o$ the 9irst District o$ Vamboana del Norte %ants their voice to be
heard.
,. 3 precedent-settin ;.S. rulin allo%ed a detained la%ma&er to attend sessions o$
the ;.S. Conress.
D. #he >ouse treats accused-appellant as a bona "de member thereo$ and ures a co-
eMual branch o$ overnment to respect its mandate.
1. #he concept o$ temporary detention does not necessarily curtail the duty o$
accused-appellant to dischare his mandate.
F. 3ccused-appellant has al%ays complied %ith the conditionsJrestrictions %hen
allo%ed to leave jail.
#he primary arument o$ the movant is the =mandate o$ soverein %ill.= >e states that the
soverein electorate o$ the 9irst District o$ Vamboana del Norte chose him as their
representative in Conress. >avin been re-elected by his constituents, he has the duty to
per$orm the $unctions o$ a Conressman. >e calls this a covenant %ith his constituents made
possible by the intervention o$ the State. >e adds that it cannot be de$eated by insuperable
procedural restraints arisin $rom pendin criminal cases.
#rue, election is the e"pression o$ the soverein po%er o$ the people. In the e"ercise o$
suCrae, a $ree people e"pects to achieve the continuity o$ overnment and the
perpetuation o$ its bene!ts. >o%ever, inspite o$ its importance, the privilees and rihts
arisin $rom havin been elected may be enlared or restricted by la%. Our !rst tas& is to
ascertain the applicable la%.
We start %ith the incontestable proposition that all top oIcials o$ 6overnment-e"ecutive,
leislative, and judicial are subject to the majesty o$ la%. #here is an un$ortunate
misimpression in the public mind that election or appointment to hih overnment oIce, by
itsel$, $rees the oIcial $rom the common restraints o$ eneral la%. (rivilee has to be
ranted by la%, not in$erred $rom the duties o$ a position. In $act, the hiher the ran&, the
reater is the reMuirement o$ obedience rather than e"emption.
#he immunity $rom arrest or detention o$ Senators and members o$ the >ouse o$
)epresentatives, the latter customarily addressed as Conressmen, arises $rom a provision
o$ the Constitution. #he history o$ the provision sho%s that privilee has al%ays been
ranted in a restrictive sense. #he provision rantin an e"emption as a special privilee
cannot be e"tended beyond the ordinary meanin o$ its terms. It may not be e"tended by
intendment, implication or eMuitable considerations.
#he */2, Constitution provided in its 3rticle 7I on the :eislative Department.
Sec *,. #he Senators and -embers o$ the >ouse o$ )epresentatives shall in all cases
e"cept treason, $elony, and breach o$ the peace be privileed $rom arrest durin their
attendance at the sessions o$ Conress, and in oin to and returnin $rom the
same, . . .
'ecause o$ the broad coverae o$ $elony and breach o$ the peace, the e"emption applied
only to civil arrests. 3 conressman li&e the accused-appellant, convicted under #itle Eleven
o$ the )evised (enal Code could not claim parliamentary immunity $rom arrest. >e %as
subject to the same eneral la%s overnin all persons still to be tried or %hose convictions
%ere pendin appeal.
#he */12 Constitution broadened the privilee o$ immunity as $ollo%s<
3rt. 7III, Sec. /. 3 -ember o$ the 'atasan (ambansa shall, in all oCenses punishable
by not more than si" years imprisonment, be privileed $rom arrest durin his
attendance at its sessions and in oin to and returnin $rom the same.
9or oCenses punishable by more than si" years imprisonment, there %as no immunity $rom
arrest. #he restrictive interpretation o$ immunity and intent to con!ne it %ithin care$ully
de!ned parameters is illustrated by the concludin portion o$ the provision, to %it<
. . . but the 'atasan (ambansa shall surrender the member involved the custody o$
the la% %ithin t%enty $our hours a$ter its adjournment $or a recess or $or its ne"t
session, other%ise such privilee shall cease upon its $ailure to do so.
#he present Constitution adheres to the same restrictive rule minus the obliation o$
Conress to surrender the subject Conressman to the custody o$ the la%. #he reMuirement
that he should be attendin sessions or committee meetins has also been removed. 9or
relatively minor oCenses, it is enouh that Conress is in session.
#he accused-appellant arues that a member o$ ConressQ $unction to attend sessions is
underscored by Section *D 4.5, 3rticle 7I o$ the Constitution %hich states that R
4.5 3 majority o$ each >ouse shall constitute a Muorum to do business, but a smaller
number may adjourn $rom day to day and may compel the attendance o$ absent
-embers in such manner, and under such penalties, as such >ouse may provide.
>o%ever, the accused-appellant has not iven any reason %hy he should be e"empted $rom
the operation o$ Section **, 3rticle 7I o$ the Constitution. #he members o$ Conress cannot
compel absent members to attend sessions i$ the reason $or the absence is a leitimate one.
#he con!nement o$ a Conressman chared %ith a crime punishable by imprisonment o$
more than si" months is not merely authori?ed by la%, it has constitutional $oundations.
3ccused-appellantQs reliance on the rulin in Aguinaldo v. 'antos
.
, %hich states, inter alia,
that R
#he Court should never remove a public oIcer $or acts done prior to his present term
o$ oIce. #o do other%ise %ould be to deprive the people o$ their riht to elect their
oIcers. When a people have elected a man to oIce, it must be assumed that they
did this %ith the &no%lede o$ his li$e and character, and that they disrearded or
$orave his $ault or misconduct, i$ he had been uilty o$ any. It is not $or the Court, by
reason o$ such $ault or misconduct, to practically overrule the %ill o$ the people.
%ill not e"tricate him $rom his predicament. It can be readily seen in the above-Muoted rulin
that the 3uinaldo case involves the administrative removal o$ a public oIcer $or acts done
prior to his present term o$ oIce. It does not apply to imprisonment arisin $rom the
en$orcement o$ criminal la%. -oreover, in the same %ay that preventive suspension is not
removal, con!nement pendin appeal is not removal. >e remains a conressman unless
e"pelled by Conress or, other%ise, disMuali!ed.
One rationale behind con!nement, %hether pendin appeal or a$ter !nal conviction, is public
sel$-de$ense. Society must protect itsel$. It also serves as an e"ample and %arnin to others.
3 person chared %ith crime is ta&en into custody $or purposes o$ the administration o$
justice. 3s stated in )nited 'tates v. Gustilo,
2
it is the injury to the public %hich State action
in criminal la% see&s to redress. It is not the injury to the complainant. 3$ter conviction in the
)eional #rial Court, the accused may be denied bail and thus subjected to incarceration i$
there is ris& o$ his abscondin.
+
#he accused-appellant states that the plea o$ the electorate %hich voted him into oIce
cannot be supplanted by un$ounded $ears that he miht escape eventual punishment i$
permitted to per$orm conressional duties outside his reular place o$ con!nement.
It %ill be recalled that %hen a %arrant $or accused-appellantQs arrest %as issued, he Ked and
evaded capture despite a call $rom his colleaues in the >ouse o$ )epresentatives $or him to
attend the sessions and to surrender voluntarily to the authorities. Ironically, it is no% the
same body %hose call he initially spurned %hich accused-appellant is invo&in to justi$y his
present motion. #his can not be countenanced because, to reiterate, aside $rom its bein
contrary to %ell-de!ned Constitutional restrains, it %ould be a moc&ery o$ the aims o$ the
StateQs penal system.
3ccused-appellant arues that on several occasions the )eional #rial Court o$ -a&ati
ranted several motions to temporarily leave his cell at the -a&ati City @ail, $or oIcial or
medical reasons, to %it<
a5 to attend hearins o$ the >ouse Committee on Ethics held at the 'atasan Comple",
Hue?on City, on the issue o$ %hether to e"pelJsuspend him $rom the >ouse o$
)epresentativesG
b5 to undero dental e"amination and treatment at the clinic o$ his dentist in -a&ati
CityG
c5 to undero a thorouh medical chec&-up at the -a&ati -edical Center, -a&ati CityG
d5 to reister as a voter at his hometo%n in Dapitan City. In this case, accused-
appellant commuted by chartered plane and private vehicle.
>e also calls attention to various instances, a$ter his trans$er at the Ne% 'ilibid (rison in
-untinlupa City, %hen he %as li&e%ise allo%edJpermitted to leave the prison premises, to
%it.
a5 to join =livin-out= prisoners on =%or&-volunteer proram= $or the purpose o$ *5
establishin a mahoany seedlin ban& and .5 plantin mahoany trees, at the N'(
reservation. 9or this purpose, he %as assined one uard and allo%ed to use his o%n
vehicle and driver in oin to and $rom the project area and his place o$ con!nement.
b5 to continue %ith his dental treatment at the clinic o$ his dentist in -a&ati City.
c5 to be con!ned at the -a&ati -edical Center in -a&ati City $or his heart condition.
#here is no sho%in that the above privilees are peculiar to him or to a member o$
Conress. Emerency or compellin temporary leaves $rom imprisonment are allo%ed to all
prisoners, at the discretion o$ the authorities or upon court orders.
What the accused-appellant see&s is not o$ an emerency nature. 3llo%in accused-
appellant to attend conressional sessions and committee meetin $or !ve 4,5 days or more
in a %ee& %ill virtually ma&e him $ree man %ith all the privilee appurtenant to his position.
Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellantQs status to that o$ a special
class, it also %ould be a moc&ery o$ the purposes o$ the correction system. O$ particular
relevance in this reard are the $ollo%in observations o$ the Court in Martinez v. Morfe<
,
#he above conclusion reached by this Court is bolstered and $orti!ed by policy
considerations. #here is, to be sure, a $ull reconition o$ the necessity to have
members o$ Conress, and li&e%ise deleates to the Constitutional Convention,
entitled to the utmost $reedom to enable them to dischare their vital responsibilities,
bo%in to no other $orce e"cept the dictates o$ their conscience o$ their conscience.
Necessarily the utmost latitude in $ree speech should be accorded them. When it
comes to $reedom $rom arrest, ho%ever, it %ould amount to the creation o$ a
privileed class, %ithout justi!cation in reason, i$ not%ithstandin their liability $or a
criminal oCense, they %ould be considered immune durin their attendance in
Conress and in oin to and returnin $rom the same. #here is li&ely to be no dissent
$rom the proposition that a leislator or a deleate can per$orm his $unctions
eIciently and %ell, %ithout the need $or any transression o$ the criminal la%. Should
such an un$ortunate event come to pass, he is to be treated li&e any other citi?en
considerin that there is a stron public interest in seein to it that crime should not
o unpunished. #o the $ear that may be e"pressed that the prosecutin arm o$ the
overnment miht unjustly o a$ter leislators belonin to the minority, it suIces to
ans%er that precisely all the sa$euards thro%n around an accused by the
Constitution, solicitous o$ the rihts o$ an individual, %ould constitute an obstacle to
such an attempt at abuse o$ po%er. #he presumption o$ course is that the judiciary
%ould remain independent. It is trite to say that in each and every mani$estation o$
judicial endeavor, such a virtue is o$ the essence.
#he accused-appellant avers that his constituents in the 9irst District o$ Vamboana del
Norte %ant their voices to be heard and that since he is treated as bona "de member o$ the
>ouse o$ )epresentatives, the latter ures a co-eMual branch o$ overnment to respect his
mandate. >e also claims that the concept o$ temporary detention does not necessarily
curtail his duty to dischare his mandate and that he has al%ays complied %ith the
conditionsJrestrictions %hen he is allo%ed to leave jail.
We remain unpersuaded.56#p$i5.n7t
No less than accused-appellant himsel$ admits that li&e any other member o$ the >ouse o$
)epresentatives =AhBe is provided %ith a conressional oIce situated at )oom N-.*+, North
Win 'uildin, >ouse o$ )epresentatives Comple", 'atasan >ills, Hue?on City, manned by a
$ull complement o$ staC paid $or by Conress. #hrouh AanB inter-department coordination,
he is also provided %ith an oIce at the 3dministration 'uildin, Ne% 'ilibid (rison,
-untinlupa City, %here he attends to his constituents.= 3ccused-appellant $urther admits
that %hile under detention, he has !led several bills and resolutions. It also appears that he
has been receivin his salaries and other monetary bene!ts. Succinctly stated, accused-
appellant has been discharin his mandate as a member o$ the >ouse o$ )epresentative
consistent %ith the restraints upon one %ho is presently under detention. 'ein a detainee,
accused-appellant should not even have been allo%ed by the prison authorities at the
National (enitentiary to per$orm these acts.
When the voters o$ his district elected the accused-appellant to Conress, they did so %ith
$ull a%areness o$ the limitations on his $reedom o$ action. #hey did so %ith the &no%lede
that he could achieve only such leislative results %hich he could accomplish %ithin the
con!nes o$ prison. #o ive a more drastic illustration, i$ voters elect a person %ith $ull
&no%lede that he suCerin $rom a terminal illness, they do so &no%in that at any time, he
may no loner serve his $ull term in oIce.
In the ultimate analysis, the issue be$ore us boils do%n to a Muestion o$ constitutional eMual
protection.
#he Constitution uarantees< =. . . nor shall any person be denied the eMual protection o$
la%s.=
D
#his simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be treated ali&e both in
rihts enjoyed and responsibilities imposed.
1
#he orans o$ overnment may not sho% any
undue $avoritism or hostility to any person. Neither partiality not prejudice shall be
displayed.
Does bein an elective oIcial result in a substantial distinction that allo%s diCerent
treatmentZ Is bein a Conressman a substantial diCerentiation %hich removes the accused-
appellant as a prisoner $rom the same class as all persons validly con!ned under la%Z
#he per$ormance o$ leitimate and even essential duties by public oIcers has never been
an e"cuse to $ree a person validly in prison. #he duties imposed by the =mandate o$ the
people= are multi$arious. #he accused-appellant asserts that the duty to leislative ran&s
hihest in the hierarchy o$ overnment. #he accused-appellant is only one o$ .,0 members
o$ the >ouse o$ )epresentatives, not to mention the .+ members o$ the Senate, chared
%ith the duties o$ leislation. Conress continues to $unction %ell in the physical absence o$
one or a $e% o$ its members. Dependin on the e"iency o$ 6overnment that has to be
addressed, the (resident or the Supreme Court can also be deemed the hihest $or that
particular duty. #he importance o$ a $unction depends on the need to its e"ercise. #he duty
o$ a mother to nurse her in$ant is most compellin under the la% o$ nature. 3 doctor %ith
uniMue s&ills has the duty to save the lives o$ those %ith a particular aYiction. 3n elective
overnor has to serve provincial constituents. 3 police oIcer must maintain peace and
order. Never has the call o$ a particular duty li$ted a prisoner into a diCerent classi!cation
$rom those others %ho are validly restrained by la%.
3 strict scrutiny o$ classi!cations is essential lest %ittinly or other%ise, insidious
discriminations are made in $avor o$ or aainst roups or types o$ individuals.
F
#he Court cannot validate bades o$ ineMuality. #he necessities imposed by public %el$are
may justi$y e"ercise o$ overnment authority to reulate even i$ thereby certain roups may
plausibly assert that their interests are disrearded.
/
We, there$ore, !nd that election to the position o$ Conressman is not a reasonable
classi!cation in criminal la% en$orcement. #he $unctions and duties o$ the oIce are not
substantial distinctions %hich li$t him $rom the class o$ prisoners interrupted in their $reedom
and restricted in liberty o$ movement. :a%$ul arrest and con!nement are ermane to the
purposes o$ the la% and apply to all those belonin to the same class.
*0
Imprisonment is the restraint o$ a manQs personal libertyG coercion e"ercised upon a person
to prevent the $ree e"ercise o$ his po%er o$
locomotion.
**
-ore e"plicitly, =imprisonment= in its eneral sense, is the restraint o$ oneQs liberty. 3s a
punishment, it is restraint by judment o$ a court or la%$ul tribunal, and is personal to the
accused.
*.
#he term re$ers to the restraint on the personal liberty o$ anotherG any prevention
o$ his movements $rom place to place, or o$ his $ree action accordin to his o%n pleasure and
%ill.
*2
Imprisonment is the detention o$ another aainst his %ill deprivin him o$ his po%er o$
locomotion
*+
and it =AisB somethin more than mere loss o$ $reedom. It includes the notion o$
restraint %ithin limits de!ned by %all or any e"terior barrier.=
*,
It can be seen $rom the $oreoin that incarceration, by its nature, chanes an individualQs
status in society.
*D
(rison oIcials have the diIcult and o$ten than&less job o$ preservin the
security in a potentially e"plosive settin, as %ell as o$ attemptin to provide rehabilitation
that prepares inmates $or re-entry into the social mainstream. Necessarily, both these
demands reMuire the curtailment and elimination o$ certain rihts.
*1
(remises considered, %e are constrained to rule aainst the accused-appellantQs claim that
re-election to public oIce ives priority to any other riht or interest, includin the police
po%er o$ the State.
W>E)E9O)E, the instant motion is hereby DENIED.
SO O)DE)ED.
Iapunan Panganiban Juisumbing Purisima Pardo -uena and 0e %eon (r. ((. concur.
0avide (r. C.(. and also in separate opinion o$ @ustice )eyes.
-ellosillo (. I concur in the main and separate opinion.
Melo (. I join the majority as %ell as the separate opinion.
Puno (. I concur %ith the main and separate opinion.
9itug (. I concur in both the ponencia and the separate opinion.
Mendoza (. I concur in this as %ell as in the separate opinion o$ @ustice 6on?aa-)eyes.
GonzagaH+eyes @., See separate concurrin opinion.
S!p"r"'! Opi)io)#
GON.AGA0RE@ES, (. concurrin opinionG
9or resolution in this case is a motion !led by accused-appellant )omeo 6. @alosjos, %ho has
been convicted by the trial court o$ t%o counts o$ statutory rape and si" counts o$ acts o$
lasciviousness, %hich judment is currently pendin appeal be$ore this Court. 3s a member
o$ the >ouse o$ )epresentatives, accused-appellant claims that his constituents are deprived
o$ representation by reason o$ his incarceration pendin appeal o$ the judment o$
conviction and that he should there$ore be allo%ed to dischare his leislative $unctions,
includin attendance o$ leislative sessions and committee meetins.
I concur in the ponencia o$ my colleaue -adame @ustice Consuelo Onares-Santiao in
holdin that accused-appellantQs motion is bere$t o$ any leal merit.
#he 'ill o$ )ihts provides R
3ll persons, except t$ose c$arged #it$ oGenses punis$able by reclusion perpetua
#$en evidence of guilt is strong, shall, be$ore conviction, be bailable by suIcient
sureties, or be released on reconi?ance as may be provided by la%. #he riht to bail
shall not be impaired even %hen the privilee o$ the %rit o$ $abeas corpus is
suspended. E"cessive bail shall not be reMuired.
*
4emphasis supplied5
#his constitutional provision denyin the riht to bail $or oCenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua %hen the evidence o$ uilt is stron is reiterated in )ule **+ o$ the )ules o$
Criminal (rocedure, viz R
Sec. 1. Capital oGense or an oGense punis$able by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment not bailable. R No person chared %ith a capital oCense, or an oCense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or li$e imprisonment, %hen evidence o$ uilt is
stron, shall be admitted to bail reardless o$ the stae o$ the criminal prosecution.
#he trial court $ound accused-appellant uilty o$ the crime o$ statutory rape, %hich is
punishable by reclusion perpetua. In People v. 0ivina
.
%e held that the trial courtQs judment
o$ conviction imports that the evidence o$ uilt o$ the crime chared is stron.
;nMuestionably, the continued incarceration o$ accused-appellant is a valid and
constitutionally mandated curtailment o$ his rihts to provisional liberty pendin appeal o$
his conviction.
Neither may the constitutional provision rantin immunity $rom arrest to leislators provide
leal justi!cation $or accused-appellantQs motion. #he Constitution states that R
3 Senator o$ -ember o$ the >ouse o$ )epresentatives shall, in all oCenses punishable
by not more than si" years imprisonment, be privileed $rom arrest %hile the
Conress is in session. No -ember shall be Muestioned nor be held liable in any other
place $or any speech or debate in the Conress or in any committee thereo$.
2
I aree %ith the ponencia that to allo% accused-appellant to attend leislative sessions
%ould constitute an unjusti!ed broadenin o$ the privilee $rom the arrest besto%ed by the
Constitution upon members o$ Conress. Neither the leislative history o$ this provision nor
the eneral principles o$ oIcial immunity support an e"panded interpretation o$ such
privilee.
;nli&e the present Constitution, the */2, Constitution
+
limited the privilee $rom arrests to
=all cases e"cept treason, $elony, and breach o$ the peace.= #his provision %as ta&en $rom
the (hilippine 3utonomy 3ct o$ */*D, %hich %as in turn based upon the 3merican
Constitution. In accordance %ith 3merican precedents, the %ord =treason, $elony and breach
o$ the peace= have been construed to include all indictable oCenses.
,
#hus, under the */2,
Constitution the $reedom $rom arrest only encompassed civil arrest.
;nder the */12
D
and the */F1 Constitution, the privilee %as broadened to include arrests
$or crimes punishable by imprisonment o$ si" years or less. Despite the e"pansion o$ the
privilee, the rationale $or rantin members o$ Conress immunity $rom arrest remained
the same R to ensure that they are not prevented $rom per$ormin their leislative duties.
1

In $act, the */FD Constitutional Commission rejected the proposal o$ one o$ its members to
e"pand the scope o$ the parliamentary immunity to include searches because, unli&e arrest,
it %as not demonstrated that the conduct o$ searches %ould prevent members o$ Conress
$rom discharin their leislative $unctions.
F
It is a %ell-established principle that oIcial immunity is a necessary adjunct to the viorous
and eCective per$ormance o$ oIcial $unctions. -embers o$ Conress in particular, %ho are
called upon to e"ercise their discretion and judment in enactin la%s responsive to the
needs o$ the people, %ould certainly be impeded in the e"ercise o$ their leislative $unctions
i$ every dissatis!ed person could compel them to vindicate the %isdom o$ their enactments
in an action $or damaes or Muestion their oIcial acts be$ore the courts.
/
It %as never the intention o$ the $ramers o$ the */12 and */F1 Constitutions to shield a
member o$ Conress $rom the conseMuences o$ his %rondoin. #hus, despite the %idenin
o$ its scope to include criminal oCenses, the privilee $rom arrest is still circumscribed by the
nature or the ravity o$ the oCenses o$ %hich the accused is chared. >ence, the
commission o$ serious crimes, i.e., crimes punishable by aYictive penalties or %ith capital
punishment, does not $all %ithin the scope o$ the constitutional privilee. 3 member o$
Conress could only invo&e the immunity $rom arrest $or relatively minor oCenses,
punishable at most by correctional penalties. 3s enunciated in Martinez v. Morfe,
*0
=%hen it
comes to $reedom $rom arrest, it %ould amount to the creation o$ a privileed class, %ithout
justi!cation in reason, i$ not%ithstandin their liability $or a criminal oCense, they %ould be
considered immune durin their attendance in Conress and in oin to and returnin $rom
the same=
#he accused-appellant, havin been convicted o$ statutory rape %hich is punishable by
reclusion perpetua, an aYictive penalty, is obviously not entitled to the privilee o$
parliamentary immunity and, proceedin $rom the above stated rationale $or leislative
immunity, a liberal construction o$ the constitutional privilee is not in order.
It should also be mentioned that, under the $actual circumstances o$ this case, the
applicability o$ this privilee $rom arrest to accused-appellant is already moot and academic.
#he constitutional provision contemplates that stae o$ the criminal process at %hich
personal jurisdiction is souht to be acMuired over the accused by means o$ his arrest.
3ccused-appellant is no loner at the point o$ merely bein arrested. 3s a matter o$ $act, he
has already been arrested, tried and convicted by the trial court.
3ccused-appellantQs contention that his re-election constitutes a rene%al o$ his mandate and
that such an e"pression o$ the popular %ill should not be rendered inutile by even the police
po%er o$ the State is hollo%. In Aguinaldo v. Comelec,
**
Aguinaldo v. 'antos
*.
and in 'alalima
v. Guingona
*2
%e laid do%n the doctrine that a public oIcial cannot be removed $or
administrative misconduct committed durin a prior term, since his re-election to oIce
operates as a condonation o$ the oIcerQs previous misconduct to the e"tent o$ cuttin oC
the riht to remove there$or. #his doctrine o$ $oriveness or condonation cannot apply to
criminal acts %hich the re-elected oIcial may have committed durin his previous term.
*+

#he administrative liability o$ a public oIcer is separate and distinct $rom his penal
liability.56#p$i5.n7t
(enal la%s are obliatory upon all %ho live or sojourn in (hilippine territory. Since the
Constitution itsel$ provides $or the immunities $rom the eneral application o$ our criminal
la%s %hich a Senator or -ember o$ the >ouse o$ )epresentatives may enjoy, it $ollo%s that
any e"pansion o$ such immunities must similarly be based upon an e"press constitutional
rant.
I vote to deny the motion.
G.R. No. 11-407 A(*(#' 23, 1CC-
%IGUEL P. PA$ERANGA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS ")/ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

REGALA$O, J.'
#he adverse decision in this case promulated by respondent Court o$ 3ppeals in C3-
6.). S( No. 2..22 on November .+, *//2, as %ell as its resolution o$ 3pril .D, *//+
denyin the motion $or reconsideration thereo$, are challened by petitioner -iuel (.
(aderana in this appeal by certiorari throuh a petition %hich raises issues centerin
mainly on said petitionerQs riht to be admitted to bail.
On @anuary .F, *//0, petitioner %as belatedly chared in an amended in$ormation as
a co-conspirator in the crime o$ multiple murder in Criminal Case No. FD-2/ o$ the
)eional #rial Court, 'ranch *F o$ Caayan de Oro City $or the &illin o$ members o$
the 'uca $amily sometime in */F+ in 6inoo City o$ %hich petitioner %as the mayor
at the time. #he oriinal in$ormation, !led on October D, */FD %ith the )eional #rial
Court o$ 6inoo City,
1
had initially indicted $or multiple murder eiht accused
suspect, namely, 9elipe 6alarion, -anuel Sabit, Cesar Sabit, @ulito 3mpo, Eddie #orion,
@ohn Doe, (eter Doe 3nd )ichard Doe as the alleed conspirators in the indiscriminate
slayin o$ the spouses )omeo and @uliet 'uca and their son, )omeo, @r. >o%ever, only
one o$ the accused, 9elipe 6alarion, %as apprehended, tried and eventually convicted.
6alarion later escaped $rom prison. #he others have remained at lare up to the
present.
2
In a bi?arre t%ist o$ events, one 9eli?ardo 4=Ely=5 )o"as %as implicated in the crime. In
an amended in$ormation dated October D, */FF, he %as chared as a co-accused
therein. 3s herein petitioner %as his $ormer employer and thus &ne% him %ell, )o"as
enaed the $ormerQs services as counsel in said case. Ironically, in the course o$ the
preliminary investiation therein, said accused, in a sined aIdavit dated -arch 20,
*/F/ but %hich he later retracted on @une .0, *//0, implicated petitioner as the
supposed mastermind behind the massacre o$ the 'uca $amily.
3
#hen, upon the inhibition o$ the City (rosecutor o$ Caayan de Oro City $rom the case
per his resolution o$ @uly 1, */F/, the Department o$ @ustice, at the instance o$ said
prosecutor, desinated a replacement, State (rosecutor >enric& 9. 6inoyon, $or
purposes o$ both the preliminary investiation and prosecution o$ Criminal Case No.
FD-2/. (ursuant to a resolution o$ the ne% prosecutor dated September D, */F/,
petitioner %as !nally chared as a co-conspirator in said criminal case in a second
amended in$ormation dated October D, *//.. (etitioner assailed his inclusion therein
as a co-accused all the %ay to this Court in 6.). No. /D0F0 entitled =3tty. -iuel (.
(aderana vs. >on. 9ran&lin -. Drilon, >on. Silvestre >. 'ello III, 3tty. >enric& 9.
6inoyon, >elen '. Canoy and )ebecca '. #an.= In an en banc decision promulated
on 3pril */, *//*, the Court sustained the !lin o$ the second amended in$ormation
aainst him.
4
;nder this bac&drop, the trial o$ the base %as all set to start %ith the issuance o$ an
arrest %arrant $or petitionerQs apprehension but, be$ore it could be served on him,
petitioner throuh counsel, !led on October .F, *//. a motion $or admission to bail
%ith the trial court %hich set the same $or hearin on November ,, *//.. (etitioner
duly $urnished copies o$ the motion to State (rosecutor >enric& 9. 6inoyon, the
)eional State (rosecutorQs OIce, and the private prosecutor, 3tty. 'enjamin
6uimon. On November ,, *//., the trial court proceeded to hear the application $or
bail. 9our o$ petitionerQs counsel appeared in court but only 3ssistant (rosecutor
Erlindo 3bejo o$ the )eional State (rosecutionQs OIce appeared $or the prosecution.
-
3s petitioner %as then con!ned at the Caayan Capitol Collee 6eneral >ospital due
to =acute costochondritis,= his counsel mani$ested that they %ere submittin custody
over the person o$ their client to the local chapter president o$ the interated 'ar o$
the (hilippines and that, $or purposes o$ said hearin o$ his bail application, he
considered bein in the custody o$ the la%. (rosecutor 3bejo, on the other hand,
in$ormed the trial court that in accordance %ith the directive o$ the chie$ o$ their
oIce, )eional State prosecutor @esus Vo?obrado, the prosecution %as neither
supportin nor opposin the application $or bail and that they %ere submittin the
same to the sound discretion o$ the trail jude.
B
;pon $urther inMuiries $rom the trial court, (rosecutor 3bejo announced that he %as
%aivin any $urther presentation o$ evidence. On that note and in a resolution dated
November ,, *//., the trial court admitted petitioner to bail in the amount o$
(.00,000.00. #he $ollo%in day, November D, *//., petitioner, apparently still %ea&
but %ell enouh to travel by then, manaed to personally appear be$ore the cler& o$
court o$ the trial court and posted bail in the amount thus !"ed. >e %as therea$ter
arrained and in the trial that ensued, he also personally appeared and attended all
the scheduled court hearins o$ the case.
7
#he subseMuent motion $or reconsideration o$ said resolution !led t%enty 4.05 days later on
November .D, *//. by (rosecutor 6inoyon %ho alleedly received his copy o$ the petition
$or admission to bail on the day a$ter the hearin, %as denied by the trial court in its
omnibus order dated -arch ./, *//2. On October *, *//2, or more than si" 4D5 months later,
(rosecutor 6inoyon elevated the matter to respondent Court o$ 3ppeals throuh a special
civil action $or certiorari. #hus %ere the resolution and the order o$ the trial court rantin
bail to petitioner annulled on November .+, *//2, in the decision no% under revie%, on the
round that they %ere tainted %ith rave abuse o$ discretion.
3
)espondent court observed in its decision that at the time o$ petitionerQs application
$or bail, he %as not yet =in the custody o$ the la%,= apparently because he !led his
motion $or admission to bail be$ore he %as actually arrested or had voluntarily
surrendered. It $urther noted that apart $rom the circumstance that petitioner %as
chared %ith a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua the evidence o$ uilt %as
stron as borne out by the $act that no bail %as recommended by the prosecution, $or
%hich reasons it held that the rant o$ bail %as doubly improvident. :astly, the
prosecution, accordin to respondent court, %as not aCorded an opportunity to
oppose petitionerQs application $or bail contrary to the reMuirements o$ due process.
>ence, this appeal.
(etitioner arues that, in accordance %ith the rulin o$ this Court in 'antiago vs.
9as.uez etc., et al.,
C
his !lin o$ the a$oresaid application $or bail %ith the trial court
eCectively con$erred on the latter jurisdiction over his person. In short, $or all intents
and purposes, he %as in the custody o$ the la%. In petitionerQs %ords, the =invocation
by the accused o$ the courtQs jurisdiction by !lin a pleadin in court is suIcient to
vest the court %ith jurisdiction over the person o$ the accused and brin him %ithin
the custody o$ the la%.=
(etitioner oes on to contend that the evidence on record neates the e"istence o$
such stron evidence as %ould bar his provisional release on bail. 9urthermore, the
prosecution, by reason o$ the %aiver by (rosecutor 3bejo o$ any $urther presentation
o$ evidence to oppose the application $or bail and %hose representation in court in
behal$ o$ the prosecution bound the latter, cannot leally assert any claim to a denial
o$ procedural due process. 9inally, petitioner points out that the special civil action $or
certiorari %as !led in respondent court a$ter an unjusti!able lenth o$ time.
On the undisputed $acts , the leal principles applicable and the eMuities involved in
this case, the Court !nds $or petitioner.
*. Section * o$ )ule **+, as amended, de!nes bail as the security iven $or the release
o$ a person in custody o$ the la%, $urnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon
his appearin be$ore any court as reMuired under the conditions speci!ed in said )ule.
Its main purpose, then, is to relieve an accused $rom the riors o$ imprisonment until
his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial.
10
3s bail is intended to
obtain or secure oneQs provisional liberty, the same cannot be posted be$ore custody
over him has been acMuired by the judicial authorities, either by his la%$ul arrest or
voluntary surrender.
11
3s this Court has put it in a case =it %ould be inconruous to
rant bail to one %ho is $ree.=
12
#he rationale behind the rule is that it discouraes and prevents resort to the $ormer
pernicious practice %hereby an accused could just send another in his stead to post
his bail, %ithout reconi?in the jurisdiction o$ the court by his personal appearance
therein and compliance %ith the reMuirements there$or.
13
#hus, in Celiciano vs.
Pasicolan etc., et al.,
14
%here the petitioner %ho had been chared %ith &idnappin
%ith murder %ent into hidin %ithout surrenderin himsel$, and shortly therea$ter !led
a motion as&in the court to !" the amount o$ the bail bond $or his release pendin
trial, the Supreme Court cateorically pronounced that said petitioner %as not eliible
$or admission to bail.
3s a paramount reMuisite then, only those persons %ho have either been arrested,
detained, or other %ise deprived o$ their $reedom %ill ever have occasion to see& the
protective mantle e"tended by the riht to bail. #he person see&in his provisional
release under the auspices o$ bail need not even %ait $or a $ormal complaint or
in$ormation to be !led aainst him as it is available to =all persons=
1-
%here the
oCense is bailable. #he rule is, o$ course, subject to the condition or limitation that the
applicant is in t$e custody of t$e la#.
1B
On the other hand, a person is considered to be in the custody o$ the la% 4a5 %hen he
is arrested either by virtue o$ a %arrant o$ arrest issued pursuant to Section D, )ule
**., or by %arrantless arrest under Section ,, )ule **2 in relation to Section 1, )ule
**. o$ the revised )ules on Criminal (rocedure, or 4b5 %hen he has voluntarily
submitted himsel$ to the jurisdiction o$ the court by surrenderin to the proper
authorities.
17
in this liht, the rulin, visHaHvis the $acts in 'antiago vs. 9as.uez etc.,
et al.,
13
should be e"plained.
In said case, the petitioner %ho %as chared be$ore the Sandianbayan $or violation o$
the 3nti-6ra$t and Corrupt (ractices 3ct, !led throuh counsel %hat purported to be
an =;rent *xHparte -otion $or 3cceptance o$ Cash 'ail 'ond.= Said petitioner %as at
the time con!ned in a hospital recuperatin $rom serious physical injuries %hich she
sustained in a major vehicular mishap. ConseMuently, she e"pressly souht leave
=that she be considered as havin placed hersel$ under the jurisdiction o$ 4the
Sandianbayan5 $or purposes o$ the reMuired trial and other proceedins.= On the
basis o$ said exHparte motion and the peculiar circumstances obtainin in that
incident, the Sandianbayan authori?ed petitioner to post a cash bail bond $or her
provisional liberty %ithout need o$ her personal appearance in vie% o$ her physical
incapacity and as a matter o$ humane consideration.
When the Sandianbayan later issued a hold departure order aainst her, she
Muestion the jurisdiction o$ that court over her person in a recourse be$ore this Court,
on the round that =she neither been arrested nor has she voluntarily surrendered,
aside $rom the $act that she has not validly posted bail since she never personally
appeared be$ore said court= In rejectin her aruments, the Court held that she %as
clearly estopped $rom assailin the jurisdiction o$ the Sandianbayan $or by her o%n
representations in the urent ex parte motion $or bail she had earlier reconi?ed such
jurisdiction. 9urthermore, by actually postin a cash bail %as accepted by the court,
she had eCectively submitted to its jurisdiction over her person. Nonetheless, on the
matter o$ bail, the Court too& pains to reiterate that the same cannot be posted be$ore
custody o$ the accused has been acMuired by the judicial authorities either by his
arrest or voluntary surrender.
In the case o$ herein petitioner, it may be conceded that he had indeed !led his
motion $or admission to bail be$ore he %as actually and physically placed under arrest.
>e may, ho%ever, at that point and in the $actual ambience there$ore, be considered
as bein constructively and leally under custody. #hus in the li&e%ise peculiar
circumstance %hich attended the !lin o$ his bail application %ith the trail court, $or
purposes o$ the hearin thereo$ he should be deemed to have voluntarily submitted
his person to the custody o$ the la% and, necessarily, to the jurisdiction o$ the trial
court %hich therea$ter ranted bail as prayed $or. In $act, an arrest is made either by
actual restraint o$ the arrestee or merely by $is submission to t$e custody o$ the
person ma&in the arrest.
1C
#he latter mode may be e"empli!ed by the so-called
=house arrest= or, in case o$ military oCenders, by bein =con!ned to Muarters= or
restricted to the military camp area.
It should be stressed herein that petitioner, throuh his counsel, emphatically made it
&no%n to the prosecution and to the trail court durin the hearin $or bail that he
could not personally appear as he %as then con!ned at the nearby Caayan Capitol
Collee 6eneral >ospital $or acute costochondritis, and could not then obtain medical
clearance to leave the hospital. #he prosecution and the trial court, not%ithstandin
their e"plicit &no%lede o$ the speci!c %hereabouts o$ petitioner, never li$ted a !ner
to have the arrest %arrant duly served upon him. Certainly, it %ould have ta&en but
the slihtest eCort to place petitioner in the physical custody o$ the authorities, since
he %as then incapacitated and under medication in a hospital bed just over a
&ilometer a%ay, by simply orderin his con!nement or placin him under uard.
#he undeniable $act is that petitioner %as by then in the constructive custody o$ the
la%. 3pparently, both the trial court and the prosecutors areed on that point since
they never attempted to have him physically restrained. #hrouh his la%yers, he
e"pressly submitted to physical and leal control over his person, !rstly, by !lin the
application $or bail %ith the trail courtG secondly, by $urnishin true in$ormation o$ his
actual %hereaboutsG and, more importantly, by uneMuivocally reconi?in the
jurisdiction o$ the said court. -oreover, %hen it came to his &no%lede that a %arrant
$or his arrest had been issued, petitioner never made any attempt or evinced any
intent to evade the clutches o$ the la% or concealed his %hereabouts $rom the
authorities since the day he %as chared in court, up to the submission application $or
bail, and until the day o$ the hearin thereo$.
3t the hearin, his counsel oCered proo$ o$ his actual con!nement at the hospital on
account o$ an acute ailment, %hich $acts %ere not at all contested as they %ere easily
veri!able. 3nd, as a mani$estation o$ his ood $aith and o$ his actual reconition o$ the
authority o$ trial court, petitionerQs counsel readily in$ormed the court that they %ere
surrenderin custody o$ petitioner to the president o$ the Interated 'ar o$ the
(hilippines, -isamis Oriental Chapter.
20
In other %ords, the motion $or admission to
bail %as !led not $or the purpose or in the manner o$ the $ormer practice %hich the
la% proscribes $or the bein deroatory o$ the authority and jurisdiction o$ the courts,
as %hat had happened in Celiciano. #here %as here no intent or stratey employed to
obtain bail in absentia and thereby be able to avoid arrest should the application
there$ore be denied.
.. Section *2, 3rticle III o$ the Constitution lays do%n the rule that be$ore conviction, all
indictees shall be allo%ed bail, e"cept only those chared %ith oCenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua %hen the evidence o$ uilt is stron. In pursuance thereo$, Section + o$
)ule **+, as amended, no% provides that all persons in custody shall, be$ore conviction by a
reional trial court o$ an oCense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or li$e
imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter o$ riht. #he riht to bail, %hich may be
%aived considerin its personal nature
21
and %hich, to repeat, arises $rom the time one is
placed in the custody o$ the la%, sprins $rom the presumption o$ innocence accorded every
accused upon %hom should not be inKicted incarceration at the outset since a$ter trial he
%ould be entitled to acMuittal, unless his uilt be established beyond reasonable doubt.
22
#hus, the eneral rule is that prior to conviction by the reional trial court o$ a criminal
oCense, an accused is entitled to be released on bail as a matter o$ riht, the present
e"ceptions thereto bein the instances %here the accused is chared %ith a capital oCense
or an oCense punishable by reclusion perpetua or li$e imprisonment
23
and the evidence o$
uilt is stron. ;nder said eneral rule, upon proper application $or admission to bail, the
court havin custody o$ the accused should, as a matter o$ course, rant the same a$ter a
hearin conducted to speci!cally determine the conditions o$ the bail in accordance %ith
Section D 4no%, Section .5 o$ )ule **+. On the other hand, as the rant o$ bail becomes a
matter o$ judicial discretion on the part o$ the court under the e"ceptions to the rule, a
hearin, mandatory in nature and %hich should be summary or other%ise in the discretion o$
the court,
24
is reMuired %ith the participation o$ both the de$ense and a duly noti!ed
representative o$ the prosecution, this time to ascertain %hether or not the evidence o$ uilt
is stron $or the provisional liberty o$ the applicant.
2-
O$ course, the burden o$ proo$ is on the
prosecution to sho% that the evidence meets the reMuired Muantum.
2B
Where such a hearin is set upon proper motion or petition, the prosecution must be ive an
opportunity to present, %ithin a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may %ant to
introduce be$ore the court may resolve the application, since it is eMually entitled as the
accused to due process.
27
I$ the prosecution is denied this opportunity, there %ould be a
denial o$ procedural due process, as a conseMuence o$ %hich the courtQs order in respect o$
the motion or petition is void.
23
3t the hearin, the petitioner can riht$ully cross-e"amine
the %itnesses presented by the prosecution and introduce his o%n evidence in rebuttal.
2C

When, eventually, the court issues an order either rantin or re$usin bail, the same should
contain a summary o$ the evidence $or the prosecution, $ollo%ed by its conclusion as to
%hether or not the evidence o$ uilt is stron.
30
#he court, thouh, cannot rely on mere
aIdavits or recitals o$ their contents, i$ timely objected to, $or these represent only hearsay
evidence, and thus are insuIcient to establish the Muantum o$ evidence that the la%
reMuires.
31
In this appeal, the prosecution assails %hat it considers to be a violation o$ procedural due
process %hen the court belo% allo%ed 3ssistant (rosecutor Erlindo 3bejo o$ the )eional
State (rosecutorQs OIce to appear in behal$ o$ the prosecution, instead o$ State (rosecutor
>enric& (. 6inoyon %ho is claimed to be the sole overnment prosecutor e"pressly
authori?ed to handle the case and %ho received his copy o$ the motion only on the day a$ter
the hearin had been conducted. 3ccordinly, the prosecution no% insists that (rosecutor
3bejo had no authority at all to %aive the presentation o$ any $urther evidence in opposition
to the application $or bail and to submit the matter to the sound discretion o$ the trial court.
In addition, they arue that the prosecution %as not aCorded =reasonable time= to oppose
that application $or bail.
We disaree. 9irstly, it is undisputed that the OIce o$ the )eional State (rosecutor acted as
the collaboratin counsel, %ith State (rosecutor >enric& 6inoyon, in Criminal Case No. FD-
2/ on the basis o$ an authority $rom then Chie$ State (rosecutor 9ernando de :eon %hich
%as sent throuh radio messae on @uly *0, *//. and duly received by the OIce o$ the
)eional State (rosecutor on the same date. #his authori?ation, %hich %as to be continuin
until and unless it %as e"pressly %ithdra%n, %as later con!rmed and then %ithdra%n only on
@uly *., *//2 by then Secretary o$ @ustice 9ran&lin -. Drilon. #his %as done a$ter one
)ebecca 'uca-tan Muestioned the authority o$ )eional State (rosecutor @esus Vo?obrado
and State (rosecutor II Erlindo 3bejo to enter their appearance as collaboratin overnment
prosecutors in said criminal case.
32
It %as in $act by virtue o$ this arranement that the
same (rosecutor Vo?obrado and (rosecutor (erseverando 3rana entered their appearance as
collaboratin prosecutor in the previous hearin in said case.
33
>ence, on the strenth o$
said authority and o$ its receipt o$ the notice o$ the hearin $or bail, the )eional State
(rosecutorQs OIce, throuh (rosecutor 3bejo, could validly represent the prosecution in the
hearin held on November ,, *//..
Secondly, althouh it is no% claimed that (rosecutor 3bejo %as alleedly not $amiliar
%ith the case, he nonetheless %as e"plicitly instructed about the position o$ the
)eional State (rosecutorQs OIce on the matter. (rosecutor Vo?obrado, %hose oIce
received its copy o$ the motion on the very day %hen it %as sent, that is, October .F,
*//., duly instructed (rosecutor 3bejo to mani$est to the court that the prosecution
%as neither supportin nor opposin the application $or bail and that they %ere
submittin the matter to its sound discretion. Obviously, %hat this meant %as that the
prosecution, at that particular posture o$ the case, %as %aivin the presentation o$
any countervailin evidence. When the court a .uo souht to ascertain %hether or not
that %as the real import o$ the submission by (rosecutor 3bejo, the latter readily
ans%ered in the aIrmative.
#he $ollo%in e"chanes bear this out<
()OSEC;#O) E):INDO 3'E@O<
I %as in$ormed to appear in this case just no% Oour >onor.
CO;)#<
Where is your Chie$ o$ OIceZ Oour oIce received a copy o$ the
motion as early as October .F. #here is an element o$ urency
here.
()OSEC;#O) 3'E@O<
I am not a%are o$ that, Oour >onor, I %as only in$ormed just no%.
#he one assined here is State (rosecutor (erseverando 3rena, @r.
%ho un$ortunately is in the hospital attendin to his sic& son. I do
not &no% about this but be$ore I came I received an instruction
$rom our Chie$ to relay to this court the stand o$ the oIce
reardin the motion to admit bail. #hat oIce is neither
supportin nor opposin it and %e are submittin to the sound
discretion o$ the >onorable Court.
CO;)#<
(lace that mani$estation on record. 9or the record, 9iscal 3bejo,
%ould you li&e to $ormally enter your appearance in this matterZ
()OSEC;#O) 3'E@O<
Oes, Oour >onor. 9or the overnment, the )eional State
(rosecutorQs OIce represented by State (rosecutor Erlindo 3bejo.
CO;)#<
'y that mani$estation do you %ant the Court to understand that in
eCect, at least, the prosecution is dispensin %ith the presentation
o$ evidence to sho% that the uilt o$ the accused is stron, the
denial . . .
()OSEC;#O) 3'E@O<
I am amenable to that mani$estation, Oour >onor.
CO;)#<
9inal inMuiry. Is the (rosecution %illin to submit the incident
covered by this particular motion $or resolution by this courtZ
()OSEC;#O) 3'E@O<
Oes, Oour >onor.
CO;)#<
Without presentin any $urther evidenceZ
()OSEC;#O) 3'E@O<
Oes, Oour >onor.
34
It is $urther evident $rom the $oreoin that the prosecution, on the instructions o$
)eional State prosecutor Vo?obrado, had no intention at all to oppose the motion $or
bail and this should be so not%ithstandin the statement that they %ere =neither
supportin nor opposin= the motion. What is o$ sini!cance is the mani$estation that
the prosecution %as =submittin 4the motion5 to the sound discretion o$ the >onorable
Court.= 'y that, it could not be any clearer. #he prosecution %as dispensin %ith the
introduction o$ evidence en contra and this it did at the proper $orum and stae o$ the
proceedins, that is, durin the mandatory hearin $or bail and a$ter the trial court
had $ully satis!ed itsel$ that such %as the position o$ the prosecution.
2. In /erras Tee$anDee vs. 0irector of Prisons,
3-
it %as stressed that %here the trial
court has reasons to believe that the prosecutorQs attitude o$ not opposin the
application $or bail is not justi!ed, as %hen he is evidently committin a ross error or
a dereliction o$ duty, the court, in the interest o$ @ustice, must inMuire $rom the
prosecutor concerned as the nature o$ his evidence to determine %hether or not it is
stron. 3nd, in the very recent administrative matter +e< Cirst !ndorsement 0ated (uly
A5 5<<A of /on. Cernando de %eon, C$ief 'tate Prosecutor 0epartment of (usticeG
Alicia A. -aylon City Prosecutor of 0agupan City vs. (udge 0eodoro 'ison
3B
the
Court, citin Tucay vs. 0omagas etc.,
37
held that %here the prosecutor interposes no
objection to the motion o$ the accused, the trial court should nevertheless set the
application $or hearin and $rom there diliently ascertain $rom the prosecution
%hether the latter is really not contestin the bail application.
No irreularity, in the conte"t o$ procedural due process, could there$ore be attributed
to the trial court here as reards its order rantin bail to petitioner. 3 revie% o$ the
transcript o$ the stenoraphic notes pertinent to its resolution o$ November ,, *//.
and the omnibus order o$ -arch ./, *//2 abundantly reveals scrupulous adherence to
procedural rules. 3s summari?ed in its a$orementioned order, the lo%er court
e"hausted all means to convince itsel$ o$ the propriety o$ the %aiver o$ evidence on
the part o$ the prosecution. -oreover, the omnibus order contained the reMuisite
summary o$ the evidence o$ both the prosecution and the de$ense, and only a$ter
si$tin throuh them did the court conclude that petitioner could be provisionally
released on bail. (arenthetically, there is no sho%in that, since then and up to the
present, petitioner has ever committed any violation o$ the conditions o$ his bail.
3s to the contention that the prosecutor %as not iven the opportunity to present its
evidence %ithin a reasonable period o$ time, %e hold other%ise. #he records indicate
that the )eional State (rosecutorQs OIce duly received its copy o$ the application $or
bail on the very same day that the it %as !led %ith the trial court on October .F,
*//.. Counted $rom said date up to the day o$ the hearin on November ,, *//., the
prosecution had more than one 4*5 %ee& to muster such evidence as it %ould have
%anted to adduce in that hearin in opposition to the motion. Certainly, under the
circumstances, that period %as more than reasonable. #he $act that (rosecutor
6inoyon received his copy o$ the application only on November D, *//. is beside the
point $or, as already established, the OIce o$ the )eional State (rosecutor %as
authori?ed to appear $or the (eople.
+. What !nally militates aainst the cause o$ the prosecutor is the indubitably
unreasonable period o$ time that elapsed be$ore it Muestioned be$ore the respondent
court the resolution and the omnibus order o$ the trial court throuh a special civil
action $or certiorari. #he Solicitor 6eneral submits that the delay o$ more than si" 4D5
months, or one hundred eihty-$our 4*F+5 days to be e"act, %as reasonable due to the
attendant diIculties %hich characteri?ed the prosecution o$ the criminal case aainst
petitioner. 'ut then, the certiorari proceedin %as initiated be$ore the respondent
court lon a$ter trial on the merits o$ the case had ensued in the court belo% %ith the
active participation o$ prosecution la%yers, includin (rosecutor 6inoyon. 3t any
rate, the de!nitive rule no% in that the special civil action $or certiorari should not be
instituted beyond a period o$ the three months,
33
the same to be rec&oned by ta&in
into account the duration o$ time that had e"pired $rom the commission o$ the acts
complained to annul the same.
3C
3CCO)DIN6:O, the judment o$ respondent Court o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. 2..22,
promulated on November .+, *//2, annullin the resolution dated November ,, *//. and
the omnibus order dated -arch ./, *//2 o$ the )eional #rial Court o$ Caayan de Oro City,
as %ell as said respondent courtQs resolution o$ 3pril .D, *//+ denyin the motion $or
reconsideration o$ said judment, are hereby )E7E)SED and SE# 3SIDE. #he a$oresaid
resolution and omnibus order o$ the )eional #rail Court rantin bail to petitioner -iuel (.
(aderana are hereby )EINS#3#ED.
SO O)DE)ED.
G.R. No. 17C317 4()! 27, 2003
ANTONIO F. TRILLANES I2, petitioner,
vs.
HON. OSCAR PI%ENTEL, SR., IN HIS CAPACIT@ AS PRESI$ING 4U$GE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT0 BRANCH 143, %A6ATI CIT@G GEN. HER%OGENES ESPERON, 2ICE A$%.
ROGELIO I. CALUNSAG, %GEN. BEN4A%IN $OLORFINO, AN$ LT. COL. LUCIAR$O
OBENA, respondents.
$ E C I S I O N
CARPIO %ORALES, J.:
3t the %ee hours o$ @uly .1, .002, a roup o$ more than 200 heavily armed soldiers led by
junior oIcers o$ the 3rmed 9orces o$ the (hilippines 439(5 stormed into the Oa&%ood
(remier 3partments in -a&ati City and publicly demanded the resination o$ the (resident
and &ey national oIcials.
:ater in the day, (resident 6loria -acapaal 3rroyo issued (roclamation No. +.1 and 6eneral
Order No. + declarin a state o$ rebellion and callin out the 3rmed 9orces to suppress the
rebellion.
*
3 series o$ neotiations Muelled the teemin tension and eventually resolved the
impasse %ith the surrender o$ the militant soldiers that evenin.
In the a$termath o$ this event$ul episode dubbed as the =Oa&%ood Incident,= petitioner
3ntonio 9. #rillanes I7 %as chared, alon %ith his comrades, %ith coup d&etat de!ned under
3rticle *2+-3 o$ the )evised (enal Code be$ore the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ -a&ati. #he
case %as doc&eted as Criminal Case No. 02-.1F+, =People v. Capt. Milo 0. Maestrecampo et
al.K
Close to $our years later, petitioner, %ho has remained in detention,
.
thre% his hat in the
political arena and %on a seat in the Senate %ith a si"-year term commencin at noon on
@une 20, .001.
2
'e$ore the commencement o$ his term or on @une .., .001, petitioner !led %ith the )#C,
-a&ati City, 'ranch *+F, an =Omnibus -otion $or :eave o$ Court to be 3llo%ed to 3ttend
Senate Sessions and )elated )eMuests=
+
4Omnibus -otion5. 3mon his reMuests %ere<
4a5 #o be allo%ed to o to the Senate to attend all oIcial $unctions o$ the Senate
4%hether at the Senate or else%here5 particularly %hen the Senate is in session, and
to attend the reular and plenary sessions o$ the Senate, committee hearins,
committee meetins, consultations, investiations and hearins in aid o$ leislation,
caucuses, staC meetins, etc., %hich are normally held at the Senate o$ the
(hilippines located at the 6SIS 9inancial Center, (asay City 4usually $rom -ondays to
#hursdays $rom F<00 a.m. to 1<00 p.m.5G
4b5 #o be allo%ed to set up a %or&in area at his place o$ detention at the -arine 'ri,
-arine 'arrac&s -anila, 9ort 'oni$acio, #aui City, %ith a personal des&top computer
and the appropriate communications eMuipment 4i.e., a telephone line and internet
access5 in order that he may be able to %or& there %hen there are no sessions,
meetins or hearins at the Senate or %hen the Senate is not in session. #he costs o$
settin up the said %or&in area and the related eMuipment and utility costs can be
chared aainst the budetJallocation o$ the OIce o$ the accused $rom the SenateG
4c5 #o be allo%ed to receive members o$ his staC at the said %or&in area at his place
o$ detention at the -arine 'ri, -arine 'arrac&s -anila, 9ort 'oni$acio, #aui City, at
reasonable times o$ the day particularly durin %or&in days $or purposes o$
meetins, brie!ns, consultations andJor coordination, so that the latter may be able
to assists 4sic5 him in the per$ormance and dischare o$ his duties as a Senator o$ the
)epublicG
4d5 #o be allo%ed to ive intervie%s and to air his comments, reactions andJor opinions
to the press or the media reardin the important issues aCectin the country and the
public %hile at the Senate or else%here in the per$ormance o$ his duties as Senator to
help shape public policy and in the liht o$ the important role o$ the Senate in
maintainin the system o$ chec&s and balance bet%een the three 425 co-eMual
branches o$ 6overnmentG
4e5 With prior notice to the >onorable Court and to the accused and his custodians, to
be allo%ed to receive, on #uesdays and 9ridays, reporters and other members o$ the
media %ho may %ish to intervie% him andJor to et his comments, reactions andJor
opinion at his place o$ con!nement at the -arine 'ri, -arine 'arrac&s -anila, 9ort
'oni$acio, #aui City, particularly %hen there are no sessions, meetins or hearins
at the Senate or %hen the Senate is not in sessionG and
4$5 #o be allo%ed to attend the orani?ational meetin and election o$ oIcers o$ the
Senate and related activities scheduled in the mornin 4/<00 or *0<00 a.m.5 o$ .2 @uly
.001 at the Senate o$ the (hilippines located at the 6SIS 9inancial Center, (asay City.
,
'y Order o$ @uly .,, .001,
D
the trial court denied all the reMuests in the Omnibus -otion.
(etitioner moved $or reconsideration in %hich he %aived his reMuests in pararaphs 4b5, 4c5
and 4$5 to thus trim them do%n to three.
1
#he trial court just the same denied the motion by
Order o$ September *F, .001.
F
>ence, the present petition $or certiorari to set aside the t%o Orders o$ the trial court, and $or
pro$ibition and mandamus to 4i5 enjoin respondents $rom bannin the Senate staC, resource
persons and uests $rom meetin %ith him or transactin business %ith him in his capacity
as SenatorG and 4ii5 direct respondents to allo% him access to the Senate staC, resource
persons and uests and permit him to attend all sessions and oIcial $unctions o$ the Senate.
(etitioner preliminarily prayed $or the maintenance o$ the status .uo ante o$ havin been
able hitherto to convene his staC, resource persons and uests
/
at the -arine 'ri.
Impleaded as co-respondents o$ @ude Oscar (imentel, Sr. are 39( Chie$ o$ StaC, 6en.
>ermoenes Esperon 4Esperon5G (hilippine Navy8s 9la OIcer-in-Command, 7ice 3dmiral
)oelio CalunsaG (hilippine -arines8 Commandant, -ajor 6en. 'enjamin Dolor!noG and
-arine 'arrac&s -anila Commandin OIcer, :t. Col. :uciardo ObeUa 4ObeUa5.
(etitioner later mani$ested, in his )eply o$ 9ebruary .D, .00F, that he has, since November
20, .001, been in the custody o$ the (hilippine National (olice 4(N(5 Custodial Center
$ollo%in the $oiled ta&e-over o$ the -anila (eninsula >otel
*0
the day be$ore or on November
./, .001.
Such chane in circumstances thus dictates the discontinuation o$ the action as aainst the
above-named military oIcers-respondents. #he issues raised in relation to them had ceased
to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination thereo$ %ould be %ithout
practical value and use. -ean%hile, aainst those not made parties to the case, petitioner
cannot as& $or relie$s $rom this Court.
**
(etitioner did not, by %ay o$ substitution, implead the
police oIcers currently e"ercisin custodial responsibility over himG and he did not
satis$actorily sho% that they have adopted or continued the assailed actions o$ the $ormer
custodians.
*.
(etitioner reiterates the $ollo%in rounds %hich mirror those previously raised in his -otion
$or )econsideration !led %ith the trial court<
I.
#>E @;)IS();DENCE CI#ED 'O #>E >ONO)3':E CO;)# 3 H;O IS C:E3):O
IN3((:IC3':E #O #>E INS#3N# C3SE 'EC3;SE O9 #>E 9O::OWIN6 )E3SONS<
3.
;N:ITE IN #>IS C3SE, #>E 3CC;SED IN #>E @3:OS@OS C3SE W3S 3:)E3DO
CON7IC#ED 3# #>E #I-E >E 9I:ED >IS -O#ION. IN #>E INS#3N# C3SE,
3CC;SEDJ(E#I#IONE) >3S NO# 'EEN CON7IC#ED 3ND, #>E)E9O)E, S#I::
EN@OOS #>E ()ES;-(#ION O9 INNOCENCEG
'.
#>E 3CC;SED IN #>E @3:O@OS 4SIC5 C3SE W3S C>3)6ED WI#> #WO 4.5
CO;N#S O9 S#3#;#O)O )3(E 3ND SIW 4D5 CO;N#S O9 3C#S O9
:3SCI7IO;SNESS, C)I-ES IN7O:7IN6 -O)3: #;)(I#;DE. >E)EIN
3CC;SEDJ(E#I#IONE) IS C>3)6ED WI#> #>E O99ENSE O9 =CO;( D8E#3#=, 3
C>3)6E W>IC> IS CO--ON:O )E63)DED 3S 3 (O:I#IC3: O99ENSEG
C.
#>E 3CC;SED IN #>E @3:OS@OS C3SE 3##E-(#ED #O 9:EE ()IO) #O 'EIN6
3))ES#ED. #>E 3CC;SEDJ (E#I#IONE) 7O:;N#3)I:O S;))ENDE)ED #O #>E
3;#>O)I#IES 3ND 36)EED #O #3TE )ES(ONSI'I:I#O 9O) >IS 3C#S 3#
O3TWOODG
II.
6EN. ES(E)ON DID NO# O7E));:E #>E )ECO--END3#ION O9 #>E -3)INE ')I68S
CO--3NDIN6 O99ICE) #O 3::OW (E#I#IONE) #O 3##END #>E SEN3#E SESSIONSG
III.
3CC;SEDJ(E#I#IONE) S;'-I#S #>3# #>E 93C# #>3# #>E (EO(:E, IN #>EI)
SO7E)EI6N C3(3CI#O, E:EC#ED >I- #O #>E (OSI#ION O9 SEN3#O) O9 #>E )E(;':IC
()O7IDES #>E ()O(E) :E63: @;S#I9IC3#ION #O 3::OW >I- #O WO)T 3ND SE)7E
>IS -3ND3#E 3S 3 SEN3#O)G
- 3ND -
I7.
-O)EO7E), #>E)E 3)E ENO;6> ()ECEDEN#S #O 3::OW :I'E)3: #)E3#-EN# O9
DE#EN#ION ()ISONE)S W>O 3)E >E:D WI#>O;# '3I: 3S IN #>E C3SE O9 9O)-E)
()ESIDEN# @OSE(> =E)3(= ES#)3D3 3ND 9O)-E) 3)-- 6O7. N;) -IS;3)I.
*2
#he petition is bere$t o$ merit.
In attemptin to stri&e a distinction bet%een his case and that o$ @alosjos, petitioner chieKy
points out that $ormer )ep. )omeo @alosjos 4@alosjos5 %as already convicted, albeit his
conviction %as pendin appeal, %hen he !led a motion similar to petitioner8s Omnibus
-otion, %hereas he 4petitioner5 is a mere detention prisoner. >e asserts that he continues to
enjoy civil and political rihts since the presumption o$ innocence is still in his $avor.
9urther, petitioner illustrates that @alosjos %as chared %ith crimes involvin moral turpitude,
i.e., t%o counts o$ statutory rape and si" counts o$ acts o$ lasciviousness, %hereas he is
indicted $or coup d&etat %hich is rearded as a =political oCense.=
9urthermore, petitioner justi!es in his $avor the presence o$ noble causes in e"pressin
leitimate rievances aainst the rampant and institutionali?ed practice o$ ra$t and
corruption in the 39(.
In sum, petitioner8s "rst round posits that there is a %orld o$ diCerence bet%een his case
and that o$ @alosjos respectin the type o$ oCense involved, the stae o$ !lin o$ the motion,
and other circumstances %hich demonstrate the inapplicability o$ (alos1os.
*+
3 plain readin o$. (alos1os suests other%ise, ho%ever.
#he distinctions cited by petitioner %ere not elemental in the pronouncement in (alos1os that
election to Conress is not a reasonable classi!cation in criminal la% en$orcement as the
$unctions and duties o$ the oIce are not substantial distinctions %hich li$t one $rom the class
o$ prisoners interrupted in their $reedom and restricted in liberty o$ movement.
*,
It cannot be ainsaid that a person chared %ith a crime is ta&en into custody $or purposes
o$ the administration o$ justice. No less than the Constitution provides<
3ll persons, e"cept those chared %ith oCenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
%hen evidence o$ uilt is stron, shall, be$ore conviction, be bailable by suIcient
sureties, or be released on reconi?ance as may be provided by la%. #he riht to bail
shall not be impaired even %hen the privilee o$ the %rit o$ $abeas corpus is
suspended. E"cessive bail shall not be reMuired.
*D
4;nderscorin supplied5
#he )ules also state that no person chared %ith a capital oCense,
*1
or an oCense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or li$e imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail %hen
evidence o$ uilt is stron, reardless o$ the stae o$ the criminal action.
*F
#hat the cited provisions apply eMually to rape and coup d&etat cases, both bein punishable
by reclusion perpetua
*/
is beyond cavil. Within the class o$ oCenses covered by the stated
rane o$ imposable penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to the political comple"ion o$
or moral turpitude involved in the crime chared.
In the present case, it is uncontroverted that petitioner8s application $or bail and $or release
on reconi?ance %as denied.
.0
#he determination that the evidence o$ uilt is stron,
%hether ascertained in a hearin o$ an application $or bail
.*
or imported $rom a trial court8s
judment o$ conviction,
..
justi!es the detention o$ an accused as a valid curtailment o$ his
riht to provisional liberty. #his accentuates the proviso that the denial o$ the riht to bail in
such cases is =reardless o$ the stae o$ the criminal action.= Such justi!cation $or
con!nement %ith its underlyin rationale o$ public sel$-de$ense
.2
applies eMually to detention
prisoners li&e petitioner or convicted prisoners-appellants li&e @alosjos.
3s the Court observed in Ale1ano v. Cabuay,
.+
it is impractical to dra% a line bet%een
convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees $or the purpose o$ maintainin jail securityG and
%hile pre-trial detainees do not $or$eit their constitutional rihts upon con!nement, the $act
o$ their detention ma&es their rihts more limited than those o$ the public.
#he Court %as more emphatic in People v. /on. Maceda<
.,
3s a matter o$ la%, %hen a person indicted $or an oCense is arrested, he is deemed
placed under the custody o$ the la%. >e is placed in actual restraint o$ liberty in jail so
that he may be bound to ans%er $or the commission o$ the oCense. >e must be
detained in jail durin the pendency o$ the case aainst him, unless he is authori?ed
by the court to be released on bail or on reconi?ance. :et it be stressed that all
prisoners %hether under preventive detention or servin !nal sentence can not
practice their pro$ession nor enae in any business or occupation, or hold oIce,
elective or appointive, %hile in detention. #his is a necessary conseMuence o$ arrest
and detention.
.D
4;nderscorin supplied5
#hese inherent limitations, ho%ever, must be ta&en into account only to the e"tent that
con!nement restrains the po%er o$ locomotion or actual physical movement. It bears notin
that in (alos1os, %hich %as decided en banc one month a$ter Maceda, the Court reconi?ed
that the accused could someho% accomplish leislative results.
.1
#he trial court thus correctly concluded that the presumption o$ innocence does not carry
%ith it the $ull enjoyment o$ civil and political rihts.
(etitioner is similarly situated %ith @alosjos %ith respect to the application o$ the presumption
o$ innocence durin the period material to the resolution o$ their respective motions. #he
Court in (alos1os did not mention that the presumption o$ innocence no loner operates in
$avor o$ the accused pendin the revie% on appeal o$ the judment o$ conviction. #he rule
stands that until a promulation o$ !nal conviction is made, the constitutional mandate o$
presumption o$ innocence prevails.
.F
In addition to the inherent restraints, the Court notes that petitioner neither denied nor
disputed his areein to a consensus %ith the prosecution that media access to him should
cease a$ter his proclamation by the Commission on Elections.
./
(etitioner oes on to allee that unli&e @alosjos %ho attempted to evade trial, he is not a
Kiht ris& since he voluntarily surrendered to the proper authorities and such can be proven
by the numerous times he %as allo%ed to travel outside his place o$ detention.
SubseMuent events reveal the contrary, ho%ever. #he assailed Orders auured %ell %hen on
November ./, .001 petitioner %ent past security detail $or some reason and proceeded $rom
the courtroom to a posh hotel to issue certain statements. #he account, dubbed this time as
the =-anila (en Incident,=
20
proves that petitioner8s arument bites the dust. #he ris& that he
%ould escape ceased to be neither remote nor nil as, in $act, the cause $or $orebodin
became real.
-oreover, circumstances indicatin probability o$ Kiht !nd relevance as a $actor in
ascertainin the reasonable amount o$ bail and in cancelin a discretionary rant o$ bail.
2*
In
cases involvin non-bailable oCenses, %hat is controllin is the determination o$ %hether the
evidence o$ uilt is stron. Once it is established that it is so, bail shall be denied as it is
neither a matter o$ riht nor o$ discretion.
2.
(etitioner cannot !nd solace in Montano v. ,campo
22
to buttress his plea $or lee%ay because
unli&e petitioner, the therein petitioner, then Senator @ustiniano -ontano, %ho %as chared
%ith multiple murder and multiple $rustrated murder,
2+
%as able to rebut the stron evidence
$or the prosecution. Notatu dinum is this Court8s pronouncement therein that =i$ denial o$
bail is authori?ed in capital cases, it is only on the theory that the proo$ bein stron, the
de$endant %ould Kee, i$ he has the opportunity, rather than $ace the verdict o$ the jury.=
2,
3t
the time -ontano %as indicted, %hen only capital oCenses %ere non-bailable %here
evidence o$ uilt is stron,
2D
the Court noted the obvious reason that =one %ho $aces a
probable death sentence has a particularly stron temptation to Kee.=
21
(etitioner8s petition
$or bail havin earlier been denied, he cannot rely on Montano to reiterate his reMuests
%hich are a&in to bailin him out.
'econd, petitioner posits that, contrary to the trial court8s !ndins, Esperon did not overrule
ObeUa8s recommendation to allo% him to attend Senate sessions. (etitioner cites the
Comment
2F
o$ ObeUa that he interposed no objection to such reMuest but recommended that
he be transported by the Senate Sereant-at-3rms %ith adeMuate Senate security. 3nd
petitioner $aults the trial court $or deemin that Esperon, despite pro$essin non-obstruction
to the per$ormance o$ petitioner8s duties, Katly rejected all his reMuests, %hen %hat Esperon
only disallo%ed %as the settin up o$ a political oIce inside a military installation o%in to
39(8s apolitical nature.
2/
#he eCective manaement o$ the detention $acility has been reconi?ed as a valid objective
that may justi$y the imposition o$ conditions and restrictions o$ pre-trial detention.
+0
#he
oIcer %ith custodial responsibility over a detainee may underta&e such reasonable
measures as may be necessary to secure the sa$ety and prevent the escape o$ the
detainee.
+*
Nevertheless, %hile the comments o$ the detention oIcers provide uidance on
security concerns, they are not bindin on the trial court in the same manner that pleadins
are not impositions upon a court.
T$ird, petitioner posits that his election provides the leal justi!cation to allo% him to serve
his mandate, a$ter the people, in their soverein capacity, elected him as Senator. >e arues
that denyin his Omnibus -otion is tantamount to removin him $rom oIce, deprivin the
people o$ proper representation, denyin the people8s %ill, repudiatin the people8s choice,
and overrulin the mandate o$ the people.
(etitioner8s contention hines on the doctrine in administrative la% that =a public oIcial can
not be removed $or "/8i)i#'r"'i7! misconduct committed durin a prior term, since his
re-election to oIce operates as a condonation o$ the oIcer8s previous misconduct to the
e"tent o$ cuttin oC the riht to remove him there$or.=
+.
#he assertion is unavailin. #he case aainst petitioner is not administrative in nature. 3nd
there is no =prior term= to spea& o$. In a plethora o$ cases,
+2
the Court cateorically held that
the doctrine o$ condonation does not apply to criminal cases. Election, or more precisely, re-
election to oIce, does not obliterate a criminal chare. (etitioner8s electoral victory only
sini!es pertinently that %hen the voters elected him to the Senate, =they did so %ith $ull
a%areness o$ the limitations on his $reedom o$ action AandB " " " %ith the &no%lede that he
could achieve only such leislative results %hich he could accomplish %ithin the con!nes o$
prison.=
++
In once more debun&in the disen$ranchisement arument,
+,
it is opportune to %ipe out the
linerin misimpression that the call o$ duty con$erred by the voice o$ the people is louder
than the litany o$ la%$ul restraints articulated in the Constitution and echoed by
jurisprudence. #he apparent discord may be harmoni?ed by the overarchin tenet that the
mandate o$ the people yields to the Constitution %hich the people themselves ordained to
overn all under the rule o$ la%.
#he per$ormance o$ leitimate and even essential duties by public oIcers has never
been an e"cuse to $ree a person validly in prison. #he duties imposed by the =mandate
o$ the people= are multi$arious. #he accused-appellant asserts that the duty to
leislate ran&s hihest in the hierarchy o$ overnment. #he accused-appellant is only
one o$ .,0 members o$ the >ouse o$ )epresentatives, not to mention the .+ members
o$ the Senate, chared %ith the duties o$ leislation. Conress continues to $unction
%ell in the physical absence o$ one or a $e% o$ its members. " " " Never has the call o$
a particular duty li$ted a prisoner into a diCerent classi!cation $rom those others %ho
are validly restrained by la%.
+D
4;nderscorin supplied5
%astly, petitioner pleads $or the same liberal treatment accorded certain detention prisoners
%ho have also been chared %ith non-bailable oCenses, li&e $ormer (resident @oseph Estrada
and $ormer 6overnor Nur -isuari %ho %ere allo%ed to attend =social $unctions.= 9indin no
rhyme and reason in the denial o$ the more serious reMuest to per$orm the duties o$ a
Senator, petitioner harps on an alleed violation o$ the eMual protection clause.
In aruin aainst maintainin double standards in the treatment o$ detention prisoners,
petitioner e"pressly admits that he intentionally did not see& pre$erential treatment in the
$orm o$ bein placed under Senate custody or house arrest,
+1
yet he at the same time, ripes
about the rantin o$ house arrest to others.
Emerency or compellin temporary leaves $rom imprisonment are allo%ed to all prisoners,
at the discretion o$ the authorities or upon court orders.
+F
#hat this discretion %as ravely
abused, petitioner $ailed to establish. In $act, the trial court previously allo%ed petitioner to
reister as a voter in December .00D, !le his certi!cate o$ candidacy in 9ebruary .001, cast
his vote on -ay *+, .001, be proclaimed as senator-elect, and ta&e his oath o$ oIce
+/
on
@une ./, .001. In a seemin attempt to bind or t%ist the hands o$ the trial court lest it be
accused o$ ta&in a complete turn-around,
,0
petitioner larely ban&s on these prior rants to
him and insists on unendin concessions and blan&et authori?ations.
(etitioner8s position $ails. On the enerality and permanence o$ his reMuests alone,
petitioner8s case $ails to compare %ith the species o$ allo%able leaves. (aloslos succinctly
e"pounds<
" " " 3llo%in accused-appellant to attend conressional sessions and committee
meetins $or !ve 4,5 days or more in a %ee& %ill virtually ma&e him a $ree man %ith all
the privilees appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates
accused-appellant8s status to that o$ a special class, it also %ould be a moc&ery o$ the
purposes o$ the correction system.
,*
;HEREFORE, the petition is $IS%ISSE$.
SO OR$ERE$.
G.R. No. 12CB70 F!<r("r5 1, 2000
%ANOLET O. LA2I$ES, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALSG HON. ROSALINA L. LUNA PISON, 4(/*! Pr!#i/i)*
o7!r Br")& 107, RTC, >(!Ho) Ci'5G ")/ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
%EN$O.A, J.'
(etitioner -anolet :avides %as arrested on 3pril 2, *//1 $or child abuse under ).3. No. 1D*0
43N 3C# ()O7IDIN6 9O) S#)ON6E) DE#E))ENCE 3ND S(ECI3: ()O#EC#ION 363INS#
C>I:D 3';SE, EW(:OI#3#ION 3ND DISC)I-IN3#ION, ()O7IDIN6 (EN3:#IES 9O) I#S
7IO:3#ION, 3ND O#>E) (;)(OSES5. >is arrest %as made %ithout a %arrant as a result o$ an
entrapment conducted by the police. It appears that on 3pril 2, *//1, the parents o$
complainant :orelie San -iuel reported to the police that their dauhter, then *D years old,
had been contacted by petitioner $or an assination that niht at petitionerQs room at the
-etropolitan >otel in Diliman, Hue?on City. 3pparently, this %as not the !rst time the police
received reports o$ petitionerQs activities. 3n entrapment operation %as there$ore set in
motion. 3t around F<.0 in the evenin o$ 3pril 2, *//1, the police &noc&ed at the door o$
)oom 20F o$ the -etropolitan >otel %here petitioner %as stayin. When petitioner opened
the door, the police sa% him %ith :orelie, %ho %as %earin only a t-shirt and an under%ear,
%hereupon they arrested him. 'ased on the s%orn statement o$ complainant and the
aIdavits o$ the arrestin oIcers, %hich %ere submitted at the inMuest, an in$ormation $or
violation o$ 3rt. III, L,4b5 o$ ).3. No. 1D*0 %as !led on 3pril 1, *//1 aainst petitioner in the
)eional #rial Court, Hue?on City, %here it %as doc&eted as Criminal Case No. H-/1-
10,,0.56#p$i5.n7t
On 3pril *0, *//1, petitioner !led an =Omnibus -otion 4*5 9or @udicial Determination o$
(robable CauseG 4.5 9or the Immediate )elease o$ the 3ccused ;nla%$ully Detained on an
;nla%$ul Warrantless 3rrestG and 425 In the Event o$ 3dverse )esolution o$ the 3bove
Incident, >erein 3ccused be 3llo%ed to 'ail as a -atter o$ )iht under the :a% on Which >e
is Chared.
*
On 3pril ./, *//1, nine more in$ormations $or child abuse %ere !led aainst petitioner by the
same complainant, :orelie San -iuel, and by three other minor children, -ary 3nn
#ardesilla, @enni$er Catarman, and 3nnalyn #alintin. #he cases %ere doc&eted as Criminal
Case Nos. H-/1-10FDD to H-/1-10F1+. In all the cases, it %as alleed that, on various dates
mentioned in the in$ormations, petitioner had se"ual intercourse %ith complainants %ho had
been =e"ploited in prostitution and . . . iven money Aby petitionerB as payment $or the said
Aacts o$B se"ual intercourse.=
No bail %as recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner !led separate applications $or bail in the
nine cases.
On -ay *D, *//1, the trial court issued an order resolvin petitionerQs Omnibus -otion, as
$ollo%s<
W>E)E9O)E, IN 7IEW O9 #>E 9O)E6OIN6, this Court !nds that<
*. In Crim. Case No. H-/1-10,,0, there is probable cause to hold the accused under
detention, his arrest havin been made in accordance %ith the )ules. >e must
there$ore remain under detention until $urther order o$ this CourtG
.. #he accused is entitled to bail in all the above-entitled case. >e is hereby ranted
the riht to post bail in the amount o$ (F0,000.00 $or each case or a total o$
(F00,000.00 $or all the cases under the $ollo%in conditions<
a5 #he accused shall not be entitled to a %aiver o$ appearance durin the trial
o$ these cases. >e shall and must al%ays be present at the hearins o$ these
casesG
b5 In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall be
automatically cancelled and $or$eited, %arrants $or his arrest shall be
immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentiaG
c5 #he hold-departure Order o$ this Court dated 3pril *0, *//1 standsG and
d5 3pproval o$ the bail bonds shall be made only a$ter the arrainment to
enable this Court to immediately acMuire jurisdiction over the accusedG
2. :et these cases be set $or arrainment on -ay .2, *//1 at F<20 oQcloc& in the
mornin.
.
On -ay .0, *//1, petitioner !led a motion to Muash the in$ormations aainst him, e"cept
those !led in Criminal Case No. H-/1-10,,0 or H-/1-10FDD. (endin resolution o$ his motion,
he as&ed the trial court to suspend the arrainment scheduled on -ay .2, *//1.
2
#hen on
-ay .., *//1, he !led a motion in %hich he prayed that the amounts o$ bail bonds be
reduced to (+0,000.00 $or each case and that the same be done prior to his arrainment.
+
On -ay .2, *//1, the trial court, in separate orders, denied petitionerQs motions to reduce
bail bonds, to Muash the in$ormations, and to suspend arrainment. 3ccordinly, petitioner
%as arrained durin %hich he pleaded not uilty to the chares aainst him and then
ordered him released upon postin bail bonds in the total amount o$ (F00,000.00, subject to
the conditions in the -ay *D, *//1 order and the =hold-departure= order o$ 3pril *0, *//1.
#he pre-trial con$erence %as set on @une 1, *//1.
On @une ., *//1, petitioner !led a petition $or certiorari 4C3-6.). S( No. ++2*D5 in the Court
o$ 3ppeals, assailin the trial courtQs order, dated -ay *D, *//1, and its t%o orders, dated
-ay .2, *//1, denyin his motion to Muash and maintainin the conditions set $orth in its
order o$ -ay *D, *//1, respectively.
While the case %as pendin in the Court o$ 3ppeals, t%o more in$ormations %ere !led
aainst petitioner, brinin the total number o$ cases aainst him to *., %hich %ere all
consolidated.
On @une 20, *//1, the Court o$ 3ppeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion o$ %hich
reads<
W>E)E9O)E, considerin that the conditions imposed under Nos. .-a5 and .-b5,
,
o$
the -ay .2 Ashould be -ay *DB, *//1 Order, are separable, and %ould not aCect the
cash bond %hich petitioner posted $or his provisional liberty, %ith the sole modi!cation
that those a$oresaid conditions are hereby 3NN;::ED and SE# 3SIDE, the -ay *D,
-ay .2 and -ay .2, *//1 Orders are -3IN#3INED in all other respects.
D
#he appellate court invalidated the !rst t%o conditions imposed in the -ay *D, *//1 order
$or the rant o$ bail to petitioner but ruled that the issue concernin the validity o$ the
condition ma&in arrainment a prereMuisite $or the approval o$ petitionerQs bail bonds to be
moot and academic. It noted =that petitioner has posted the cash bondsG that %hen
arrained, represented by la%yers, he pleaded not uilty to each oCenseG and that he has
already been released $rom detention.= #he Court o$ 3ppeals thouht that the a$oresaid
conditions in the -ay *D, *//1 order %ere contrary to 3rt. III, L*+4.5 o$ the Constitution
%hich provides that =AaB$ter arrainment, trial may proceed not%ithstandin the absence o$
the accused provided that he has been duly noti!ed and his $ailure to appear is
unjusti!able.=
With respect to the denial o$ petitionerQs motion to Muash the in$ormations aainst him, the
appellate court held that petitioner could not Muestion the same in a petition $or certiorari
be$ore it, but %hat he must do %as to o to trial and to reiterate the rounds o$ his motion to
Muash on appeal should the decision be adverse to him.
>ence this petition. (etitioner contends that the Court o$ 3ppeals erred
1
R
*. In rulin that the condition imposed by respondent @ude that the approval o$
petitionerQs bail bonds =shall be made only a$ter his arrainment= is o$ no moment and
has been rendered moot and academic by the $act that he had already posted the bail
bonds and had pleaded not uilty to all the oCensesG
.. In not resolvin the submission that the arrainment %as void not only because it
%as made under compellin circumstance %hich le$t petitioner no option to Muestion
the respondent @udeQs arbitrary action but also because it emanated $rom a void
OrderG
2. In rulin that the denial o$ petitionerQs motion to Muash may not be impuned in a
petition $or certiorariG and
+. In not resolvin the leal issue o$ %hether or not petitioner may be validly chared
$or violation o$ Section ,4b5 o$ )3 No. 1D*0 under several in$ormations correspondin
to the number o$ alleed acts o$ child abuse alleedly committed aainst each private
complainant by the petitioner.
We %ill deal %ith each o$ these contentions althouh not in the order in %hich they are
stated by petitioner.
Cirst. 3s already stated, the trial courtQs order, dated -ay *D, *//1, imposed $our conditions
$or the rant o$ bail to petitioner<
a5 #he accused shall not be entitled to a %aiver o$ appearance durin the trial o$ these
cases. >e shall and must al%ays be present at the hearins o$ these casesG
b5 In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall be automatically
cancelled and $or$eited, %arrants $or his arrest shall be immediately issued and the
cases shall proceed to trial in absentiaG
c5 #he hold-departure Order o$ this Court dated 3pril *0, *//1 standsG and
d5 3pproval o$ the bail bonds shall be made only a$ter the arrainment to enable this
Court to immediately acMuire jurisdiction over the accusedG
#he Court o$ 3ppeals declared conditions 4a5 and 4b5 invalid but declined to pass upon the
validity o$ condition 4d5 on the round that the issue had become moot and academic.
(etitioner ta&es issue %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals %ith respect to its treatment o$ condition 4d5
o$ the -ay *D, *//1 order o$ the trial court %hich ma&es petitionerQs arrainment a
prereMuisite to the approval o$ his bail bonds. >is contention is that this condition is void and
that his arrainment %as also invalid because it %as held pursuant to such invalid condition.
We aree %ith petitioner that the appellate court should have determined the validity o$ the
conditions imposed in the trial courtQs order o$ -ay *D, *//1 $or the rant o$ bail because
petitionerQs contention is that his arrainment %as held in pursuance o$ these conditions $or
bail.
In reMuirin that petitioner be !rst arrained be$ore he could be ranted bail, the trial court
apprehended that i$ petitioner %ere released on bail he could, by bein absent, prevent his
early arrainment and thereby delay his trial until the complainants ot tired and lost
interest in their cases. >ence, to ensure his presence at the arrainment, approval o$
petitionerQs bail bonds should be de$erred until he could be arrained. 3$ter that, even i$
petitioner does not appear, trial can proceed as lon as he is noti!ed o$ the date o$ hearin
and his $ailure to appear is unjusti!ed, since under 3rt. III, L*+4.5 o$ the Constitution, trial in
absentia is authori?ed. #his seems to be the theory o$ the trial court in its -ay *D, *//1
order conditionin the rant o$ bail to petitioner on his arrainment.
#his theory is mista&en. In the !rst place, as the trial court itsel$ ac&no%leded, in cases
%here it is authori?ed, bail should be ranted be$ore arrainment, other%ise the accused
may be precluded $rom !lin a motion to Muash. 9or i$ the in$ormation is Muashed and the
case is dismissed, there %ould then be no need $or the arrainment o$ the accused. In the
second place, the trial court could ensure the presence o$ petitioner at the arrainment
precisely by rantin bail and orderin his presence at any stae o$ the proceedins, such as
arrainment. ;nder )ule **+, L.4b5 o$ the )ules on Criminal (rocedure, one o$ the conditions
o$ bail is that =the accused shall appear be$ore the proper court %henever so reMuired by the
court or these )ules,= %hile under )ule **D, L*4b5 the presence o$ the accused at the
arrainment is reMuired.
On the other hand, to condition the rant o$ bail to an accused on his arrainment %ould be
to place him in a position %here he has to choose bet%een 4*5 !lin a motion to Muash and
thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to Muash can be resolved, his
arrainment cannot be held, and 4.5 $oreoin the !lin o$ a motion to Muash so that he can
be arrained at once and therea$ter be released on bail. #hese scenarios certainly
undermine the accusedQs constitutional riht not to be put on trial e"cept upon valid
complaint or in$ormation suIcient to chare him %ith a crime and his riht to bail.
F
It is the condition in the -ay *D, *//1 order o$ the trial court that =approval o$ the bail bonds
shall be made only a$ter arrainment,= %hich the Court o$ 3ppeals should instead have
declared void. #he condition imposed in the trial courtQs order o$ -ay *D, *//1 that the
accused cannot %aive his appearance at the trial but that he must be present at the
hearins o$ the case is valid and is in accordance %ith )ule **+. 9or another condition o$ bail
under )ule **+, L.4c5 is that =#he $ailure o$ the accused to appear at the trial %ithout
justi!cation despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an e"press %aiver
o$ his riht to be present on the date speci!ed in the notice. In such case, trial shall proceed
in absentia.=
3rt. III, L*+4.5 o$ the Constitution authori?in trials in absentia allo%s the accused to be
absent at the trial but not at certain staes o$ the proceedins, to %it< 4a5 at arrainment and
plea, %hether o$ innocence or o$ uilt,
/
4b5 durin trial %henever necessary $or identi!cation
purposes,
*0
and 4c5 at the promulation o$ sentence, unless it is $or a liht oCense, in %hich
case the accused may appear by counsel or representative.
**
3t such staes o$ the
proceedins, his presence is reMuired and cannot be %aived. 3s pointed out in -or1a v.
Mendoza,
*.
in an opinion by @ustice, later Chie$ @ustice, EnriMue 9ernando, there can be no
trial in absentia unless the accused has been arrained.
;ndoubtedly, the trial court &ne% this. (etitioner could delay the proceedins by absentin
himsel$ $rom the arrainment. 'ut once he is arrained, trial could proceed even in his
absence. So it thouht that to ensure petitionerQs presence at the arrainment, petitioner
should be denied bail in the meantime. #he Ky in the ointment, ho%ever, is that such court
stratey violates petitionerQs constitutional rihts.
'econd. 3lthouh this condition is invalid, it does not $ollo% that the arrainment o$
petitioner on -ay .2, *//1 %as also invalid. Contrary to petitionerQs contention, the
arrainment did not emanate $rom the invalid condition that =approval o$ the bail bonds shall
be made only a$ter the arrainment.= Even %ithout such a condition, the arrainment o$
petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, althouh the condition $or the rant o$ bail to
petitioner is invalid, his arrainment and the subseMuent proceedins aainst him are valid.
T$ird. (etitioner concedes that the rule is that the remedy o$ an accused %hose motion to
Muash is denied is not to !le a petition $or certiorari but to proceed to trial %ithout prejudice
to his riht to reiterate the rounds invo&ed in his motion to Muash durin trial on the merits
or on appeal i$ an adverse judment is rendered aainst him. >o%ever, he arues that this
case should be treated as an e"ception. >e contends that the Court o$ 3ppeals should not
have evaded the issue o$ %hether he should be chared under several in$ormations
correspondin to the number o$ acts o$ child abuse alleedly committed by him aainst each
o$ the complainants.
In Tano v. 'alvador,
*2
the Court, %hile holdin that certiorari %ill not lie $rom a denial o$ a
motion to Muash, nevertheless reconi?ed that there may be cases %here there are special
circumstances clearly demonstratin the inadeMuacy o$ an appeal. In such cases, the
accused may resort to the appellate court to raise the issue decided aainst him. #his is
such a case. Whether petitioner is liable $or just one crime reardless o$ the number o$
se"ual acts alleedly committed by him and the number o$ children %ith %hom he had
se"ual intercourse, or %hether each act o$ intercourse constitutes one crime is a Muestion
that bears on the presentation o$ evidence by either party. It is important to petitioner as
%ell as to the prosecution ho% many crimes there are. 9or instance, i$ there is only one
oCense o$ se"ual abuse reardless o$ the number o$ children involved, it %ill not matter
much to the prosecution %hether it is able to present only one o$ the complainants. On the
other hand, i$ each act o$ se"ual intercourse %ith a child constitutes a separate oCense, it
%ill matter %hether the other children are presented durin the trial.
#he issue then should have been decided by the Court o$ 3ppeals. >o%ever, instead o$
remandin this case to the appellate court $or a determination o$ this issue, %e %ill decide
the issue no% so that the trial in the court belo% can proceed %ithout $urther delay.
(etitionerQs contention is that the *. in$ormations !led aainst him allee only one oCense o$
child abuse, reardless o$ the number o$ alleed victims 4$our5 and the number o$ acts o$
se"ual intercourse committed %ith them 4t%elve5. >e arues that the act o$ se"ual
intercourse is only a means o$ committin the oCense so that the acts o$ se"ual
intercourseJlasciviousness %ith minors attributed to him should not be subject o$ separate
in$ormations. >e cites the aIdavits o$ the alleed victims %hich sho% that their involvement
%ith him constitutes an =unbro&en chain o$ events,= i.e., the !rst victim %as the one %ho
introduced the second to petitioner and so on. (etitioner says that child abuse is similar to
the crime o$ lare-scale illeal recruitment %here there is only a sinle oCense reardless o$
the number o$ %or&ers illeally recruited on diCerent occasions. In the alternative, he
contends that, at the most, only $our in$ormations, correspondin to the number o$ alleed
child victims, can be !led aainst him.
3rt. III, L, o$ ).3. No. 1*D0 under %hich petitioner is bein prosecuted, provides<
Sec. , C$ild Prostitution and ,t$er 'exual Abuse. R Children, %hether male or $emale,
%ho $or money, pro!t, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or inKuence o$
any adult, syndicate or roup, indule in se"ual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be children e"ploited in prostitution and other se"ual abuse.
#he penalty o$ reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the $ollo%in<
" " " " " " " " "
4b5 #hose %ho commit the act o$ se"ual intercourse or lascivious conduct %ith a child
e"ploited in prostitution or subjected to other se"ual abuse.
#he elements o$ the oCense are as $ollo%s< 4*5 the accused commits the act o$ se"ual
intercourse or lascivious conductG 4.5 that said act is per$ormed %ith a child e"ploited in
prostitution or subjected to other se"ual abuseG and 425 the child,
*+
%hether male or $emale,
is or is deemed under *F years o$ ae. E"ploitation in prostitution or other se"ual abuse
occurs %hen the child indules in se"ual intercourse or lascivious conduct 4a5 $or money,
pro!t, or any other considerationG or 4b5 under the coercion or inKuence o$ any adult,
syndicate, or roup.
Each incident o$ se"ual intercourse and lascivious act %ith a child under the circumstances
mentioned in 3ir. III, L, o$ ).3. No. 1*D0 is thus a separate and distinct oCense. #he oCense
is similar to rape or act o$ lasciviousness under the )evised (enal Code in %hich each act o$
rape or lascivious conduct should be the subject o$ a separate in$ormation. #his conclusion is
con!rmed by 3rt. III, L,4b5 o$ ).3. No. 1*D0, %hich provides<
AtBhat %hen the victim is under t%elve 4*.5 years o$ ae, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under 3rticle 22,, pararaph 2, $or rape and 3rticle 22D o$ 3ct No. 2F*,,
as amended, the )evised (enal Code, $or rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
be< Provided, #hat the penalty $or lascivious conduct %hen the victim is under t%elve
4*.5 years o$ ae shall be reclusion temporal in its medium periodG
W>E)E9O)E, the decision o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals is SE# 3SIDE and another one is
)ENDE)ED declarin the orders dated -ay *D, *//1 and -ay .2, *//1 o$ the )eional #rial
Court, 'ranch *01, Hue?on City to be valid, %ith the e"ception o$ condition 4d5 in the second
pararaph o$ the order o$ -ay *D, *//1 4ma&in arrainment a prereMuisite to the rant o$
bail to petitioner5, %hich is hereby declared void.56#p$i5.n7t
SO O)DE)ED.