Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Philippine National Polices Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence
Task Group (PNP ABRITG) composed of Task Force Habagat, then
headed by Police Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson killed
11 suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang along
Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City.
SPO2 Eduardo Delos Reyes of the Criminal Investigation
Command told the press that it was a summary execution, not a
shoot-out between the police and those who were slain. After
investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs
absolved all the police officers involved.
On review, however, the Office of the Ombudsman reversed the
finding and filed charges of murder against the police officers
involved before the Sandiganbayan. RTC of Quezon City ordered
the provisional dismissal of the cases for lack of probable cause
to hold the accused for trial following the recantation of the
principal prosecution witnesses and the desistance of the
private complainants. The case was reopened but the CA
rendered a Decision, granting Lacsons petition on the ground of
double jeopardy but on appeal to the SC, the latter directed the
RTC to try the case. It was re-raffled to branch 81 presided by
Judge Yadao. Yadao in 2003 junked the murder case against
Lacson and other police officials for lack of probable cause.Thus,
prosecution filed the present special civil action of certiorari.
YOUNG V. PEOPLE
On separate dates, Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force
[RAHTTF] of the PNP conducted surveillance operations at Jaguar
KTV bar in Cebu. In the entrapment operation, police officers,
acting as poseur customers, handed 15k worth of marked
money to the mamasang/ manager in exchange for sexual
service.
At the arranged signal, RAHTTF members raided the said bar,
resulting to multiple arrests, seizure of sexual paraphernalia,
recovery of marked money from one Jocelyn Balili and rescue of
146 women and minors. 6 women [AAA Group] who all worked
at Jaguar executed affidavits and identified the petitioner, Tico
and Ann as the owners. Criminal complaint for violation of RA
9208 was filed against them.
Vinson denied ownership of Jaguar and asserted that he had
sold his rights and interests therein to one Charles Theodore
Rivera pursuant to a Deed of Assignment. He is not the manager
nor owner of Jaguar, therefore he has no control of the 6
women. He was not even present during the raid. He raised
mistake in identity as defense. He was not the same person
identified by the women in their affidavits.
OCP found probable cause, ordered the indictment of the
petitioners. Receipt and marked money from Balili constituted
prima facie evidence that there was transaction to engage in
sexual service for a fee. Documentary evidence pertaining to
Jaguars business operations and positive identification of the
women sufficiently established petitioners as owners. While the
women retracted their statements, such retractions were found
to hold no probative value. Qualified the crime of trafficking for
being committed by syndicate.
Petitioners filed an omnibus motion for a judicial determination
of probable cause, praying that the issuance of corresponding
warrants of arrest be held in abeyance pending resolution
thereof, and the case be dismissed for lack of probable cause.
RTC granted omnibus motion and dismissed the case for lack
of probable cause. Affidavits of RAHTTF and the women failed to
show that petitioners had knowledge or participated in the
SOLIVEN V MAKASIAR
FACTS:
Luis Beltran is a columnist of Philippine Star while Max Soliven is
its publisher. Beltran wrote an article saying that Pres. Cory
Aquino hid under the bed during one of the coup attempts in
1987. Pres. Aquino thereafter filed a libel case against him and
Soliven.
ISSUE: WON the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated
when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest
without personally examining the complainant and the
witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause NO
RULING: What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself
of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the
existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and
the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be
unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation
of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and
deciding cases filed before their courts. It has not been shown
that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed
procedure. Thus, with regard to the issuance of the warrants of
arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
ROBERTS V CA
FACTS:
A Joint resolution was released after the investigations of
Prosecutors which recommended the filing of an information
against petitioners for violation of Art 318 of RPC. An
information for estafa was filed against the President (Roberts)
and Board of Directors of Pepsi Cola.
Private complaints alleged that Pepsi launched a Number Fever
Promotion and announced in all medias that all holders of
crowns and or caps of Pepsi, Miranda, Mountain Dew, and 7up
bearing the 3 digit number with different security codes to
prevent from tampering, will win the full amount of prize
enticing the public to buy Pepsi products.
But the said accused after their TV announcement that the
winning number was 349, failed to give the prize to
complainants who were able to buy pepsi with the number 349.
(These are two complainants who have the same numbered
crown with different security code in the crown so as to be a
measure against tampering or faking of crowns).
Petitioners filed with the Office of the city prosecutor a motion
for reconsideration of the Joint resolution alleging that (a) there
was fraud since it had always been clear that to be entitled to
the prize it must have the correct security code; (b) failed to
prove prima facie evidence of specific over criminal acts; (c)
compromise agreement is not an admission of guilt.
Petitioners filed with the DOJ petition for review the same
grounds. Case was raffled to RTC Quezon and Prosecutor filed an
Ex parte motion for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest while accused
filed to hold in Abeyance issuance of warrant of arrest since the
DOJ had take cognizance of the petition for review. RTC Judge
Asuncion issued warrant of arrest and denied the motions of
petitioners citing the case of Crespo v Mogul that the Sec of
Justice should refrain from entertaining a petition for review
when the information has already been filed. Petitioners filed
certiorari in CA contending that there was no probable cause to
hold them criminally liable. Petitioners claim that Judge
Asuncion has no basis to determine probable cause.
PEOPLE v. GREY
FACTS
An Information for Murder was filed against respondent Joseph
Grey, former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar; his son, respondent
Francis Grey; and two others for the death of Rolando Diocton
before the RTC of Gandara, Samar.
The Information was accompanied by other supporting
documents and a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Meanwhile, Presiding Judge Rosario Bandal denied the motion
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Judge Bandal found the
prosecutions evidence to be insufficient to link respondents to
the crime charged. She directed the prosecution to present,
within five days, additional evidence.
OKABE V GUTIERREZ
FACTS:
Maruyama sued Okabe for estafa. It was alleged in the
complaint that Maruyama entrusted to Okabe a sum of money
for the latter, who was engaged in the business of door to door
delivery, to remit to the Philippines. Okabe failed to remit such
amount. During the preliminary investigation, both Okabe and
Marumaya
were
given
the
chance
to
adduce
evidences/affidavits on their behalf.
The 2nd assistant city prosecutor found probable cause and
issued a resolution and the corresponding information.
Appended thereto was the Maruyamas complaint affidavit.
These documents were forwarded to the city prosecutor for
approval. Then the information was filed with the RTC of Pasay. A
warrant of arrest was issued but Okabe was able to post bail in
the amount of 40,000 thereby allowing her to freely leave the
Philippines for Japan. Upon the instance of the prosecution, a
hold-departure order was issued by the court.
10
On the other had, Sec 5 par. (b) Rule 113 necessitates two
requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an
offense has just been committed; and (2) the person making the
arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested had committed it.
Hence, there must be a large measure of immediacy between
the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest,
and if there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest
and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be
secured. In this case, the arrest came a day after the
consummation of the crime and not immediately after.
Aside from the sense of immediacy, it is also mandatory that the
person making the arrest must have personal knowledge of
certain facts indicating that the person to be taken into custody
has committed the crime. The arresting officer officers had no
personal knowledge of facts since they were not present and
were not actual eyewitnesses to the crim, and they became
aware of his identity as the driver only during custodial
investigation.
However the conspicuous illegality of del Rosario's arrest cannot
affect the jurisdiction of the courta quo because even in
instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a
jurisdictional defect and any objection thereto is waived when
the person arrested submits to arraignment without any
objection, as in this case.
Del Rosarios defense of irresistible force was proven clearly
since he was threatened and a gun was directly pointed at him.
In other wors, he was just an instrument acting involuntarily
against his will.
11
HOMAR V PEOPLE
FACTS:
Petitioner was found to possess one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing shabu. PO1 Eric Tan was the lone
witness for the prosecution. He testified that around 8:50 in the
evening, he and civilian agent Tangcoy were ordered to go to
the South Wing, Roxas Boulevard. While proceeding to the area
onboard a mobile hunter, they saw the petitioner crossing a "No
Jaywalking" portion of Roxas Boulevard. They immediately
accosted him and told him to cross at the pedestrian crossing
area.
The petitioner picked up something from the ground, prompting
Tangcoy to frisk him resulting in the recovery of a knife.
Thereafter, Tangcoy conducted a thorough search on the
petitioner's body and found and confiscated a plastic sachet
containing what he suspected as shabu. RTC convicted the
petitioner. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON there was a valid warrantless arrest in this caseNO
RULING: To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence of or within the view of
the arresting officer.
Aside from the bare testimony of Tan as quoted by the CA in its
decision, the prosecution did not proffer any other proof to
establish that the requirements for a valid in flagrante
delicto arrest were complied with. Particularly, the prosecution
failed to prove that the petitioner was committing a crime
(failed to specifically identify the area where the petitioner
allegedly crossed, failed to prove that the portion of Roxas
Boulevard where the petitioner crossed was indeed a "no
jaywalking" area, petitioner not charged for jaywalking).
12
PEOPLE V. DORIA
FACTS:
1. Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received
information that one Jun [Doria] was engaged in illegal
drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest him
in a buy-bust operation. He was arrested.
2. They frisked him but did not find the marked bills on him,
and upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house
of his associate Neneth [Gaddao], so he led the police
team to her house.
3. The team found the door open and a woman inside the
house. Jun identified her as Neneth, and she was
asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3
Manlangit looked over her house [he was still outside the
house]. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a
carton box under the dining table. One of the box s flaps
was open, and inside it was something wrapped in
plastic, and it appeared similar to the marijuana earlier
sold to him by Jun. His suspicion aroused, so he
entered the house and took hold of the box. He peeked
inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be
dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua recovered the
marked bills from Neneth and they arrested her. The
bricks were examined and they were found to be dried
marijuana leaves.
4. It turned out that Jun was Florencio Doria and Neneth was
Violeta Gaddao
5. Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with
violation of RA 6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972],
Section 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section
21 [Attempt and Conspiracy]. RTC convicted them.
ISSUE: WON warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao,
the search of her person and house, and the admissibility of the
pieces of evidence obtained therefrom are valid?
HELD:
13
PESTILOS V. GENEROSO
1. There was an altercation between the accused and Atty.
Generoso at 3:15 am at Brgy. Holy Spirit QC.
a. Atty. Generoso called the police and when they
came, they saw him badly beaten. He pointed the
petitioners as those who mauled him.
b. Officers invited the petitioners to go to the Police
station for investigation.
c. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor
found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso
with a bladed weapon but fortunately survived the
attack.
2. Petitioners were indicted for attempted murder.
3. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
Investigation on the ground that there was no lawful
arrest that took place.
a. No valid warrantless arrest since police officers
had no personal knowledge that they were the
perpetrators of the crime.
b. They [petitioners] were just invited to the police
station.
4. The RTC denied the motion and the CA affirmed the
denial.
ISSUE: WON petitioners validly arrested without warrant.
HELD:
YES, the petitioners were validly arrested without
warrant. Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that: When an offense has
just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
o An offense has just been committed;
o arresting officer has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
The Court's appreciation of the elements that "the
offense has just been committed" and ''personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to
14
#2 GO v. CA - MERCADO
TOPIC: Hot Pursuit
FACTS:
1. Petitioner entered a one-way street and travelled in the
opposite direction. Due to this, petitioners car nearly
collided with Maguans car.
2. Petitioner alighted from his car, walked over and shot
Maguan inside the car.
3. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take
down the plate number of the petitioners car.
4. The police arrived at the scene of the shooting and
retrieved an empty shell and one round of live
ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol.
5. Upon verification at the LTO, it showed that the car was
registered to Elsa Go.
6. The following day, the police returned to the scene of the
shooting to verify the identity of the petitioner through
the security guard petitioner was positively identified.
7. Police launched a manhunt for the petitioner.
8. The petitioner presented himself before the San Juan
Police Station to verify news reports that he was being
hunted by the police petitioner was detained.
9. That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for
frustrated homicide against the petitioners with the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor.
10.The Prosecutor informed the petitioner, in the presence of
his lawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to
preliminary investigation, but he must first sign a waiver
petitioner refused.
11.While the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and
before the information can be filed in court, the victim
Maguan dies of his gunshot wounds.
12.Prosecutor filed an information for murder before the RTC
and certified that no preliminary investigation had been
conducted because the accused did not sign a waiver.
13.Petitioner filed an omnibus motion for immediate release
and proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the
warrantless arrest of petitioner was unlawful and that no
preliminary investigation had been conducted before the
15
PETITION
AND
ORDERED
16
PEOPLE V TUDTUD
FACTS:
Toril Police Station, Davao City received a report from a
civilian asset named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel
Tudtud. Solier related that his neighbors have been
complaining about Tudtud, who was allegedly responsible
for the proliferation of marijuana in their area.
Members of the Intelligence Section conducted
surveillance in Soliers neighborhood. For 5 days, they
gathered information and learned that Tudtud was
involved in illegal drugs. According to his neighbors,
Tudtud was engaged in selling marijuana.
Solier informed the police that Tudtud headed to
Cotabato and would be back later that day with new
stocks of marijuana. Solier described Tudtud as bigbodied and short, and usually wore a hat.
The police thus awaited Tudtuds arrival. All wore civilian
clothes. About 8:00 p.m., 2 men disembarked from a bus
and helped each other carry a carton marked King
Flakes. Standing some 5 feet away from the men, the
officers observed that one of the men fit Tudtuds
description. The same man also toted a plastic bag.
They approached the suspects and identified themselves
as police officers. They informed them that the police had
received information that stocks of illegal drugs would be
arriving that night. The man who resembled Tudtuds
description denied that he was carrying any drugs. PO1
Desierto asked him if he could see the contents of the
box. Tudtud obliged, saying, it was alright. Tudtud
opened the box himself as his companion looked on. The
box yielded pieces of dried fish, beneath which were two
bundles, one wrapped in a striped plastic bag and
another in newspapers. PO1 Desierto asked Tudtud to
unwrap the packages. They contained what seemed to
the police officers as marijuana leaves.
The police thus arrested Tudtud and his companion. The
two did not resist.
Tudtud, denying the charges against them, cried frameup. RTC, convicted both accused.
17
12.
They told their neighbor, Tiyo Anong and Allan Aguillon
son of the owner of the boarding house about the
incident.
13.
Policemen arrived, they asked to describe the attacker,
but could only identify his voice and his eyes. They looked
for the man but they did not find him. Subsequently they
were taken to the police station at Bac-Up for
investigation.
14.
But, at Michelle's request, Erma and Teresa did not tell
the others about rape. She went home, Michelle found her
aunt and uncle. She embraced them and told her about
the rape. Michelle was again taken to the police, where
she was referred to the Women's Desk to report the rape.
15.
The following day, P03 Nicolas Tancinco went around
Margarita Extension and learned about the children
playing on the street. The description of the suspect fitted
a worker at a caf called Coffee Break Corner, about two
houses away from the boarding house.
16.
They went there, asked the Security and asked the
Owner, Fidel. told them that Escordial was his helper and
that the latter had gone home Negros Occidental.
17.
Based on the information they looked for Escordial.
They found Escordial at the basketball court and "invited"
him to go to the police station for questioning.
18.
At the Bacolod police station, Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa
Gellaver, Jason Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda were asked
whether Escordial was the same person they saw on the
night of the incident. They were taken one by one to the
jail cell and asked to point to the person that they had
seen that night. They picked Escordial out of four people
who were inside the jail cell.
19.
He was charged with rape & robbery with rape. When
arraigned pleaded not guilty to the charges, whereupon
the two cases were jointly tried.
20.
Trial Court = Guilty. Escordial appealed.
ISSUE: Whether the out-of-court identification in the show up
at the police station, made after the start of the custodial
investigation, may be used in court.
18
HELD:
1. While it cannot be denied that Escordial was deprived of
his right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel, he has not
shown that, as a result of his custodial interrogation, the
police obtained any statement from him whether
inculpatory or exculpatory - which was used in evidence
against him.
2. No uncounseled statement was obtained from Escordial
which should have been excluded as evidence against
him. However, Escordial was never assisted by counsel,
whether of his own choice or provided by the police
officers, from the time of his arrest in Pontevedra, Negros
Occidental to the time of his continued detention at the
Bacolod police station.
3. Although Escordial made no statement during this time,
this fact remains important insofar as it affects the
admissibility of the out-of-court identification of Escordial
by the prosecution witnesses, namely, Michelle Darunday,
Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa Gellaver, Mark Esmeralda, and
Jason Joniega.
4. As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of
counsel in a police line-up considering that such is usually
not a part of the custodial inquest.
5. However, the previous cases are different inasmuch as
Escordial, having been the focus of attention by the police
after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the
possible perpetrator of the crime, was already under
custodial
investigation
when
these
out-of-court
identifications were conducted by the police.
6. An out-of-court identification of an accused can be made
in various ways. In a show-up, the accused alone is
brought face to face with the witness for identification,
while in a police line-up, the suspect is identified by a
witness from a group of persons gathered for that
purpose.
7. During
custodial
investigation,
these
types
of
identification
have
been
recognized
as
"critical
confrontations of the accused by the prosecution" which
necessitate the presence of counsel for the accused. This
is because the results of these pre-trial proceedings
"might well settle the accused's fate and reduce the trial
itself to a mere formality."
8. The Court thus ruled that any identification of an
uncounseled accused made in a police line-up, or in a
show-up for that matter, after the start of the custodial
investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him.
9. Herein, Escordial was identified by Michelle Darunda in a
show-up and by Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa Gellaver, Jason
Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda in a police line-up on various
dates after his arrest.
10.
Having been made when Escordial did not have the
assistance of counsel, these out-of-court identifications
are inadmissible in evidence against him. Consequently,
the testimonies of these witnesses regarding these
identifications should have been held inadmissible for
being "the direct result of the illegal lineup 'come at by
exploitation of [the primary] illegality.'"
19
HELD:
1. Del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial
investigation. From the time he was invited" for
questioning at the house of the barangay captain, he was
already under effective custodial investigation, but he was
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Habeas Corpus is the proper remedy
where a warrant of arrest was issued without a
preliminary examination?
2. Service of notice.
HELD:
1. In a case where a warrant of arrest was assailed for an
alleged improper preliminary examination, the remedy
available is not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus but a
petition to quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for a
reinvestigation of the case by the respondent Municipal
30
31
3. See Doctrine No. 2. The trial court should not dismiss the
Information if there is no preliminary investigation, but
hold it in abeyance then conduct its own investigation or
ask the fiscal to reinvestigate.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed for being moot and
academic because detained pursuant to the Warrant of
Arrests issued in relation to the criminal case of Rebellion
filed against them.
32
33
34
35
36
People v. Villanueva.
1. Accused Appellant Rogelio Villanueva
Raped his
daughter Reseilleta.
a. Accused told her daughters to do the laundry in
a nearby water pump but Reseilleta was told to
stay. She was asked to remove her panty and
when she resisted, he poked a knife at her and
forced her to lie down. When she again resisted
and tried to free herself, accused grabbed an
iron bar, struck her back twice and he punched
her in the abdomen, for which she fainted.
i. Reseilleta fled.
b. When Reseilleta fled, Mary Joy was sexually
assaulted [she almost got raped] May joy Fled
as well and told her aunt about it. Mary Joy was
accompanied to her mother in Davao, and they
reported the incident together with Reseilleta.
2. Accused was found guilty by the trial court of rape
and sentenced him to death. [qualified by minority of
the victim and her relationship with the accused]
Hence, this automatic review.
3. Appellant capitalizes much on Reseilletas testimony
that she was unconscious during the rape. Appellant
contends that if Reseilleta was unconscious she would
be incapable of knowing or remembering what
transpired. Hence, her assertion that he removed her
clothes and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her
is highly suspect.
ISSUE:
1. WON Accused was guilty of the crime charged. YES.
2. WON the court erred in appreciating the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship. NO.
HELD:
FIRST ISSUE
Well settled is the rule that assessment of credibility of
witnesses is a function that is best discharged by trial
judge whose conclusion thereon are accorded much
weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on
SECOND ISSUE
Accused contends that in the event he is found guilty,
he should be convicted only of simple rape not
qualified. He argues that the information against him
failed to allege qualifying circumstance of relationship
between him and Reseilleta. NO
The qualifying circumstance of relationship of the
accused to the victim being father and daughter is so
alleged in the Information.
People v. Bali-Balita and People v. Rodriguez no longer
controlling.
There is no law or rule prescribing a specific location in
37
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the facts of omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the section or subsection of the statute punishing it (underscoring supplied).
38
39
40
action;
private
DOCTRINES:
1. The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a
crime, except in the following instances: (1) when, from the
nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no
civil liability arises in favor of a private offended party; and (2)
when, from the nature of the offense, the offended parties are
entitled to civil indemnity, but (a) they waive the right to
institute a civil action, (b) expressly reserve the right to do so
or (c) the suit has already been instituted. In any of these
instances, the private complainants interest in the case
disappears and criminal prosecution becomes the sole
function of the public prosecutor.
2. Election of remedies is the adoption of one of two or more
coexisting ones, with the effect of precluding a resort to the
others.
FACTS:
1.
Mary Ann Rodriguez (pet) issued a bouncing check to
Gladys Nocom (private resp.). Upon finding probable cause,
Asst. City Prosecutor of QC filed Informations for Estafa under
Art. 315 par. 2(d) as amended by PD 818 and for violation of
BP 22 (Bouncing Checks).
2. Estafa case was raffled to RTC-QC, presided by respondent
judge Ponferrada, while the BP 22 case was raffled to MeTCQC. Private prosecutor filed for Formal Entry of Appearance
with the Estafa case, but the accused filed his Opposition.
3. RTC held that the civil action for recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense is deemed instituted, unless
offended party (1) waives the civil action, (2) reserves the
right to institute it separately, or (3) institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action. Since, offended party had paid
filing fee for the Estafa case prior to the filing of the BP 22
case with MeTC, it allowed the private prosecutor to appear
and intervene in the proceedings. MR filed by pet also
denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
41
Petition
dismissed.
RTC
affirmed.
42
43
44
Issue:
WON any party may appeal from a final order or judgment
Held:
1. 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
word party in the provision includes not only the
government and the accused but other persons who
45
46
#7 ROCABERTE V. PEOPLE
FACTS:
1. The case at bar treats of the sufficiency of the
averment in the information of the time of the
commission of felony ascribed to petitioner.
2. The information filed against petitioner reads as
follows: That on or about the Period from 1977
to December 28,1983 . The accused conspiring,
confederating, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
take, steal and carry away sledge hammers, block
aluminums, steel plate.
3. The accused moved to quash the information alleging
that the time of commission of the felony charged
(check #2) was fatally defective that there:
a. There was so great a gap as to defy
approximation in the commission of one and the
same offense.
b. The variance is certainly unfair to the accused
for it violates their constitutional right to be
informed before the trial of the specific charge
against them and deprives them of the
opportunity to defend themselves.
4. Motion was denied. Accused filed an MR and presented
an alternative remedy which is Section 4, Rule 117 3.
Still it was denied by respondent judge.
ISSUE: WON the information should be amended?
HELD:
1. The rules of criminal procedure declare that:
a. A complaint or information is sufficient if it
states the name of the defendant; the
designation of the offense by the statute; the
acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense; the name of the offended party; the
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
47
R.
FACTS:
Respondent Victoria R. Arambulo, Emerenciana R.
Gungab, Reynaldo Reyes (Reynaldo), Domingo Reyes,
Rodrigo Reyes and Oscar Reyes (Oscar) are the heirs of
Spouses Pedro C. Reyes and Anastacia Reyes. Anaped
Estate Inc. was incorporated as part of the estate
planning or as conduit to hold the properties of the
estate of Pedro Reyes for and in behalf of his heirs.
HELD:
48
case that the present Anaped directors and officers were not
validly elected, then respondent Victoria may have every
right to refuse remittance of rental to Buban. Hence, the
essential element of misappropriation in estafa may be
absent in this case.
It appears from the record of the case that Victoria Arambulo
for the last twenty (20) years had been tasked with the
management and collection of rentals of the real properties
the Reyes siblings inherited from their parents, Ana and
Pedro Reyes. SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 is a petition filed by
Victoria and her brothers Domingo and Reynaldo questioning
the very authority of their elder siblings Rodrigo and
Emerenciana, as well as the Anaped Board of Directors and
Officers, including Buban to act for and in behalf of the
corporation.
Should respondents herein prevail in SEC Case No. 03-996259, then Buban, who does not own either by himself or in
behalf of Anaped which is the owner, the property heretofore
managed by Victoria, cannot demand remittance of the
rentals on the property and Victoria does not have the
obligation to turn over the rentals to Buban. Verily, the result
of SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 will determine the innocence or
guilt of respondents in the criminal case for estafa.
49
50
51
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) . . .
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2
above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but
only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced
either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which
the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the
criminal action and prior to its extinction, the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action.
In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is
deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal
case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 21 of the
Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a
possible privation of right by prescription.
52
53
54
55
56
Offices and the Balgos and Perez Law Office during trial,
and it was only after the prosecution rested its case that
SRMO entered its appearance as private prosecutor
representing the PCIB.
13.Since the ACCRA and Balgos and Perez Law Offices had
not withdrawn their appearance, SRMO had no personality
to appear as private prosecutor.
14.Under the Informations, the private complainant is Caltex
and not PCIB.
15.Petitioner averred that unless the Informations were
amended to change the private complainant to PCIB, his
right as accused would be prejudiced. Also, he pointed out
that the Informations can no longer be amended because
he had already been arraigned under the original
Informations.
16.PCIB, through SRMO, opposed the motion and contended
that the PCIB had re-credited the amount to Caltex;
hence, it had been subrogated to the rights and interests
of Caltex as private complainant.
17.Petitioner averred that the substitution of PCIB as private
complainant cannot be made by mere oral motion.
18.PCIB averred that the erroneous designation of the name
of the offended party is a mere formal defect which can
be cured by inserting the name of the offended party in
the Information.
19.Petitioner averred that the substitution of PCIB as private
complainant cannot be made by mere oral motion.
20.RTC granted the motion for substitution of PCIB as
private complainant for Caltex, but denied petitioners
motion to have the formal offer of evidence of SRMO
expunged from the record.
21.CA denied the petition to annul the orders of the RTC
and declared that when the PCIB restored the amount of
checks to Caltex, it was subrogated to the latters right
against petitioner. Moreover, the court declared that in
offenses against property, the designation of the name of
the offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as
long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or
information can be properly identified.
57
petitioner.
7. Petitioners argument on subrogation is misplaced. The
Court agrees with respondent PCIBs comment that
petitioner failed to make a distinction between legal and
conventional subrogation.
8. The present case involves legal subrogation that occurs
by operation of law, and without need of debtors
knowledge.
9. Thus, being subrogated to the right of Caltex, PCIB,
through counsel, has the right to intervene in the
proceedings, and under substantive laws is entitled to
restitution of its properties or funds, reparation, or
indemnification
10.Petitioners gripe that the charges against him should be
dismissed because the allegations in both Informations
failed to name PCIB as true offended party does not hold
water.
11.A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the
name of the accused; the designation of the offense by
the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party;
the approximate time of the commission of the offense;
and the place wherein the offense was committed.
12.The rules on criminal procedure require the complaint or
information to state the name and surname of the person
against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed or any appellation or nickname by which such
person has been or is known and if there is no better way
of Identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious
name
13.In case of offenses against property, the designation of
the name of the offended party is not absolutely
indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in
the complaint or information can be properly identified.
DISPOSITIVE: PETITION DENIED.
58
59