Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LANTION
Facts:
The Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant for his arrest, and other
supporting documents for said extradition were attached along with
the request.
Charges include:
1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US
2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
4. False statement or entries
5. Election contribution in name of another
Issues:
1.
WON private is respondent entitled to the two basic due process rights
of notice and hearing. YES
Twin rights have been offered, but the right to exercise them
had not been claimed.
2.
WON this entitlement constitutes a breach of the legal commitments
and obligation of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Treaty? No.
The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual concern about the
suppression and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions.
c)
3.
WON theres any conflict between private respondents basic due
process rights & provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty. No.
Treaty can repeal statute and statute can repeal treaty. No conflict. Veil
of secrecy is lifted during trial. Request should impose veil at any
stage.
PEOPLE V LAGON
FACTS
On July 7 1976 a criminal action was filed with theCity Court of Roxas
charging Lagon with estafa forallegedly issuing a P4,232 check as
payment forgoods knowing she had insufficient funds.
However on Dec. 2, as the trial commenced, the City Courtdismissed
the information on the ground that thepenalty prescribed by law for
estafa was beyond thecourts authority to impose. Hence this petition
forreview.
ISSUE: WON the City Court had jurisdiction over the case
HELD: NO
PEOPLE V BERIALES
Facts:
Issues:
1.
2.
3.
Whether or not the trial court should hold the trial until after the
reinvestigation
Whether or not appellants were denied due process . YES
Whether or not the fiscal should be present during proceedings
Held:
1.
2.
3.
After the trial court granted the appellants motion for reinvestigation,
it became incumbent upon the court to hold in abeyance the
arraignment and trial of the case until the City Fiscal shall have
conducted and made his report on the result of such reinvestigation.
When the trial court ignored the appellants manifestations objecting to
the arraignment and trial of the case, it committed a serious
irregularity which nullifies the proceedings because such procedure is
repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution.
Although fiscal turns over active conduct of trial to private prosecutor,
he should be present during the proceedings. While there is nothing in
the rule of practice and procedure in criminal cases which denies the
right of the fiscal to turn over the active conduct of the trial to a
private prosecutor, nevertheless, his duty to direct and control the
prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during
the proceeding.
Constitutional due process was violated, thus, case remanded to CFI for
arraignment and trial.
Court should have held in abeyance the trial while the report on einvestigation was still pending.
Consistent disregard of the defense objection on the arraignment, trial,
presentation of private prosecutors evidence, and rendition of
judgment violates due process.
Prosecutor or Fiscal entrusted with the investigation is duty bound to
take charge until final termination.
They shall have direction and control of the criminal prosecution over
private prosecutors
ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis
of an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party, but without a
motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal.
HELD:
The court cites a similar case Crespo v. Mogul in its when it answered
that 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 the case.
When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the
arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either
voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the
Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the
purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists
warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon
the filing of the information in the proper court.
The rule is that once a complaint is filed, the disposition of the accused
rests in the sound discretion of the court.
The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court when the case has
been submitted to it as his jurisdiction ends in the direction and control
of the prosecution of the case.
Only the court can decide what the best direction is for the case, as it
is within its exclusive jurisdiction.
In this case, almost 10 years have elapsed since the date of the filing
of the information, hence it was not unusual that the victim could not
find his witnesses, the testimonies of whom are needed to convict the
accused.
The fiscal still believed that he could convict the accused without thee
testimonies in his MR!
PEOPLE V ILARDE
FACTS:
While the case was pending before the fiscal for investigation, he
died.
But in this case, the complainant was already dead. Although there
was an affidavit-complaint.
Now, the wife and the paramour moved to quash the information
alleging lack of jurisdiction upon the offense charged because
under Article 344 of the RPC, the requirement for the complaint of
adultery was not complied with citing the case of People vs.
Santos, 101 Phil. 798, where it was held that the complaint filed in
the fiscals office for a private crime is not the complaint
contemplated by law.
PEOPLE V MADALI
Facts:
Three years after Reynaldos death, the case was filed after an
alleged eyewitness, Mercy Villamor,surfaced and implicated the
accused-appellants.
HELD:
fact in favor of the accused and that the court erred in finding
credi-ble the testimonies of Mercy Villamor and Dr. Villaseor.
The complainant filed a Motion for Time to File Brief separate from
that which the OSG would file, byway of an answer to the brief of
accused-appellants. This motion was denied.
The OSG subsequentlyfiled a Manifestation recommending the
acquittal of accused-appellants. In view of the position takenby the
OSG, complainant filed a Memorandum for the Private
Complainant (after filing a Manifestationand Motion to File Brief)
which was noted by the Court.
Rule 122, Sec.1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides that any party may appeal from a judgment or final
order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. It
has been held that the wordparty in the provision includes not
only the government and the accused but other persons who may
be af-fected by the judgment.
The complainant has an interest in the civil liability arising from
the crime. Hence, in the prosecutionof the offense, the
complainants role is that of a witness for the prosecution.
Ordinarily, the appeal of the criminal cases involves as parties only
the accused, as appellants, andthe State, represented by the
SolGen, as the appellee. The participation of the private offended
partywould be a mere surplusage if the State were simply to
seek affirmation of a judgment of conviction.However, where the
OSG takes a contrary position and recommends, as in this
case, the acquittal of the accused, the complainants right to be
heard as regards indemnity and damages arises.
Nevertheless, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the accusedappellants conviction. Mercy Villamors testi-mony is riddled with
inconsistencies, improbabilities and uncertainties which relate
to material points. Evidence,to be believed, must not only proceed
from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself be credible.
arraignment.
The accused then filed a petition for Certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of
prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the CA.
The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction
and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded
prosecution by private persons. 19
The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the
authority to hear and determine the case.
ROBERTS v CA
FACTS
The petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition with application for a temporary restraining
order.
They contended therein that respondent Judge Asuncion had acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the aforementioned order.
The Court of Appeals then issued a resolution denying the application
for a writ of preliminary injunction.
PEOPLE v GUEVARRA
FACTS
-On or about April 8, 1980, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, several armed men
namely Jaime Guevarra y Arcega, Poncing Abergas, Dan Tolentino,
Baldo de Jesus, Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, Boy Pogi, Chotse Doe alias
Bernabe Sulaybar y Hernandez, and Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan
Saksak", entered the house of the sps Cruz and robbed them of P3000
and jewelry.
Thereafter, Luisito Cruz was threatened by the men and forced to give
the keys to his car by Vergel Bustamante.
The members of the household were then made to enter a room and
were tied.
After the robbery, Priscilla Cruz was forcibly boarded in her own car by
5 of her kidnappers where she was held at knife and gunpoint.
She was then told she was being held for ransom of P50k but they had
to stop in San Rafael Bulucan to hire a truck because the car broke
down.
However, she was left at Valenzuela Bulacan as the men said the
kidnapping did not materialize.
The five men then boarded a taxi and the truck driver later took her
home.
On the same night, Luisito reported the incident which led to the
detention of Vergel Bustamante who was positively identified by
Priscilla.
Bustamante denied the allegations and interposed the defense of alibi,
claiming to be in Caloocan at the time of the crime.
His defense was rejected considering the proximity of Gapan and
Caloocan and since witnesses had positively identified him.
After a separate trial for Poncing Abergas and Vergel Bustamante alias
"Dan Saksak," inasmuch as Dan Tolentino, who had previously entered
of plea of "not guilty" could not be served with subpoenas, and the
other accused were reported to have died, judgment was rendered
finding the accused Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak" guilty of the
crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention and sentenced to
suffer the death penalty, and to indemnify the offended party, Mrs.
Priscilla Cruz, in the amount of P5,000.00.
The accused Poncing Abergas, upon the other hand, was acquitted of
the charge.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES
1. WON TC erred in ordering the amendment of the information to include
Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak despite lack of proof that the 2 are 1 and
the same person. NO
2. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to justify the filing of the
amended information. NO
3. WON the TC erred in convicting Bustamante upon the prosecution witnesses
contradictory and improbable testimonies and the appellants extra- judicial
confession. NO
4. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom. NO
HELD
1.
NO.
The ff circumstances led the RTC judge of Nueva Ecija to believe that
Vergel Bustamante and Dan Saksak are one and the same person as
2.
3.
NO
4.
NO