People vs.

Mariano GR L-40527 June 30, 1976

Facts: On December 18, 1974 the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an information against
Hermohenes Mariano for estafa, that respondent as liason officer of the Mayor of San Jose Del Monte,
Bulacan received and misappropriated the USAID/NEC. Respondent filed a motion to quash, he claims
that the items were the subject matter of an information filed against Mayor Nolasco for malversation
before a military commission. The court granted the motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
considering that the military commission had already taken cognizance of the malversation case.
Issue: Whether or not civil courts and military commissions exercise concurrent jurisdiction.
Ruling: No. Jurisdiction is the right of a judge to pronounce the sentence of a law in a case or issue
before him, acquired through due process of law. In People vs. Fontanilla, the court through Chief
Justice Fred Ruiz Castro categorically reiterated the settled rule that jurisdiction of a court is determined
by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. In the case at bar, the criminal
case was filed in the CFI of Bulacan on December 18, 1974, the law in force was the Judiciary act of
1948. General order no. 49 redefines the jurisdiction of military tribunals over certain offense and estafa
and malversation was not among them. Hence, there is no concurrent jurisdiction.
Crespo vs. Mogul GR L-53373 June 30, 1987
Facts: An information for estafa was filed against Mariano Crespo In the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena
City. When the case was set for arraignment, the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment. The
motion was denied. The case was elevated to the CA, and a restraining order was issued. On March 22,
1978 then undersecretary Macaraig reversed the resolution of the office of the Provincial Fiscal. A
motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence was filed by the fiscal which was denied by Judge Mogul.
CA lifted the restraining order.
Issue: WON the trial court may refuse to grant a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal and instead insist
on the arraignment.
Ruling: Yes, the judge may insist on the arraignment. The filing of a complaint or information in court
initiates a criminal action. The court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to
hear and determine a case. The Preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal is terminated upon the
filing of the information in the proper court. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
complaint or information is filed in court any disposition of the case as it is dismissal or the conviction or
acquittal of the accused rest in the sound discretion of this court. Wherefore the petition for certiorari is
dismissed.
Baltazar vs. Dimalanta A.C. no. 5424 October 11, 2005
Facts: Baltazar was the complainant in criminal case no G-4499 and G-5132 in the RTC of Guagua,
Pampanga. Atty. Norbin Dimalanta was the counsel for the accused Bartolome Cabrera. A motion to
defer arraignment was filed by Dimalanta, the court allows the accused to seek reinvestigation and the
office of the Ombudsman to submit a report after 30 days. On the scheduled arraignment Atty.
Dimalanta manifested that he has not yet received a resolution of his MR. Complainant contended that
respondent made false representation to the trial court to delay the arraignment. IBP ruled in favour of
the complainant.
Issue: WON Atty. Dimalanta violated the CPR.
Ruling: No. The Ombudsman A.O. no. 13-96 provides for the procedures for reinvestigation. That
petitions and motions are to be addressed to the court trying the case. When the trial court
directs/orders the conduct of reinvestigation, the same shall be undertaken by the prosecutor assigned
to prosecute the case. In the present case, the trial court ordered the Ombudsman to conduct a
reinvestigation within 30 days. The respondent did not file anymore a motion because the aforequoted
order already directed the Office of the Ombudsman. Significantly, complainant does not deny
respondents claim that the Ombudsman did not notify him to submit additional evidence.
People vs. Montesa GR no. 113302 September 29, 1995
Facts: On July 6, 1993 an information was filed with the RTC of Bulacan, charging private respondents
Apolonio Cruz and Bernarda Cruz with the crime of falsification of public documents. Private
respondents filed a petition for reinvestigation which was granted by the respondent judge. Assistant
provincial prosecutor Edsel Rutor presented what it considered new and relevant evidence which consist
of merely an affidavit of Feliza Constantino who declared that she was responsible for the falsified
document. Rutor recommended the dismissal of the case. Provincial prosecutor disagrees and wrote a
note, it was still submitted by Rutor. The respondent judge dismissed the case, on the basis of Rutors
resolution. An MR was denied by the respondent judge.
Issue: WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
on dismissing the case.
Ruling: Yes. The rule is settled that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any
disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the court. The resolution of Assistant Prosecutor Rutor recommending the dismissal of the
case never became final, for it was not approved by the Provincial Prosecutor. The findings and
conclusion of the Provincial Prosecutor, being the final disposition of the reinvestigation should have
been the sole and only basis for the respondent judges final action. His only option was to proceed with
the arraignment. Wherefore the instant petition is granted.
Tucay vs. Jugdge Domagas AM no. RTJ-95-1286 March 31, 1995
Facts: A petition for bail was filed on behalf of the accused Bernardo Ellamil, the petition was denied as
it did not bear the conformity of the provincial prosecutor. The following day, a second petition for bail
was filed by the accused, the petition contained the no objection by the Provincial prosecutor.
Without holding a hearing to determine whether the evidence of the prosecution was strong,
respondent judge issued an order in which he granted the bail and directed the release of the accused.
The wife of the victim filed a complaint. The office of the court administrator finds the respondent judge
grossly ignorant of the law in granting bail without a hearing.
Issue: WON respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct and grave
abuse of discretion.
Ruling: Yes. Although the provincial prosecutor had interposed no objection, respondent judge should
nevertheless have set the petition for hearing and diligently ascertained from the prosecution whether
the latter was not really contesting the bail application. Only after satisfying himself that the prosecution
did not wish to oppose the petition for bail for justifiable cause and taking into account the factors
enumerated in Rule 115, Sec 6 for fixing bail should respondent judge have granted the petition. The
respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law for which he should be fined.