FRANCISCO R.
LLAMAS W/N the remedy to annulment of judgment may be
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.
149588
Facts:
this petition captioned as "Annulment of Judgment and
Certiorari, with Preliminary Injunction," petitioners
assail, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the trial
courts decision convicting them of "other form of
swindling" penalized by Article 316, paragraph 2, of
the Revised Penal Code
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its
Decision3 on June 30, 1994, finding petitioners guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its February 19,
1999 Decision4 in CA-G.R. CR No. 18270, affirmed the
decision of the trial court. In its December 22, 1999
Resolution,5 the appellate court further denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Assailing the aforesaid issuances of the appellate
court, petitioners filed before this Court, on February
11, 2000, their petition for review, docketed as G.R.
No. 141208.6 The Court, however, on March 13, 2000,
denied the same for petitioners failure to state the
material dates. Since it subsequently denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration on June 28,
2000,7 the judgment of conviction became final and
executory.
Issue:
appealed in criminal cases.
Ruling:
The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC
judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal
case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
itself does not permit such recourse, for it excluded
Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which have
suppletory application to criminal cases.
There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to
extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. As we
explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman, when there is
no law or rule providing for this remedy, recourse to it
cannot be allowed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
BARTOLOME TAMPUS and IDA MONTESCLAROS,
IDA MONTESCLAROS G.R. No. 181084
Facts:
The present appeal stems from two criminal cases: (1)
Criminal Case No. 013324-L charging Bartolome
Tampus (Tampus) and Ida as conspirators in the rape
of ABC4 on April 1, 1995 at 4:30 p.m.; and (2) Criminal
Case No. 013325-L charging Tampus of raping ABC
The offended party, ABC, is the daughter of appellant
Ida, and was 13 years old at the time of the incident.
Ida worked as a waitress in Bayanihan Beer House in
Mabini, Cebu City. On February 19, 1995, Ida and ABC
started to rent a room in a house owned by Tampus, a
barangay tanod. On April 1, 1995, about 4:30 p.m.,
ABC testified that she was in the house with Ida and
Tampus9 who were both drinking beer at that time.
They forced her to drink beer10 and after consuming
three and one-half (3 ) glasses of beer, she became
intoxicated and very sleepy.11 While ABC was lying on
the floor of their room, she overheard Tampus
requesting her mother, Ida, that he be allowed to
"remedyo"12 or have sexual intercourse with
her.13 Appellant Ida agreed and instructed Tampus to
leave as soon as he finished having sexual intercourse
with ABC. Ida then went to work, leaving Tampus alone
with ABC. ABC fell asleep and when she woke up, she
noticed that the garter of her panties was loose and
rolled down to her knees. She suffered pain in her
head, thighs, buttocks, groin and vagina, and noticed
that her panties and short pants were stained with
blood which was coming from her vagina. 14 When her
mother arrived home from work the following morning,
she kept on crying but appellant Ida ignored her.
On September 22, 1995, ABC filed two Complaints.
She accused Tampus of taking advantage of her by
having carnal knowledge of her, against her will, while
she was intoxicated and sleeping on April 1, 1995 at
4:30 p.m. She declared in her Complaint that this was
done in conspiracy with accused Ida who gave
permission to Tampus to rape her. And again, she
stated that on April 3, 1995, she was threatened with a
wooden club by Tampus, who then succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her, against her will.
The trial court convicted Tampus of two counts of rape,
as principal in Criminal Case No. 013324-L and
Criminal Case No. 013325-L. Appellant Ida was found
guilty as an accomplice in Criminal Case No. 013324-L
Pending resolution of the appeal before the Court of
Appeals, accused Tampus died on November 16,
200035and his appeal was dismissed by the Third
Division of this Court.36 Thus, the appeal before the
Court of Appeals dealt only with that of appellant Ida.
Issue:
W/N Ida Montesclaros is Solidarily Liable for the Civil
Indemnity
Ruling:
His share in the civil indemnity and damages cannot
be passed over to the accomplice, Ida, because
Tampus share of the civil liability has been
extinguished. And even if Tampus were alive upon the
promulgation of this decision, Ida would only have
been subsidiarily liable for his share of the civil
indemnity of P66,666.67. However, since Tampus civil
liability ex delicto is extinguished, Idas subsidiary
liability with respect to this amount is also eliminated,
following the principle that the accessory follows the
principal. Tampus obligation to pay P66,666.67 his
quota of the civil indemnity is the principal
obligation, for which Ida is only subsidiarily liable.
Upon the extinguishment of the principal obligation,
there is no longer any accessory obligation which
could attach to it; thus, the subsidiary liability of Ida is
also extinguished.

NILO HIPOS, SR. vs.
HONORABLE RTC JUDGE TEODORO A. BAY G.R.
Nos. 174813-15
On 15 December 2003, two Informations for the crime
of rape and one Information for the crime of acts of
lasciviousness were filed against petitioners Darryl
Hipos, Jaycee Corsio, Arthur Villaruel and two others
before Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, acting as a Family Court, presided by respondent
Judge Bay. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases
No. Q-03-123284, No. Q-03-123285 and No. Q-03-
123286. The Informations were signed by Assistant
City Prosecutor Ronald C. Torralba.
On 23 February 2004, private complainants AAA 1 and
BBB filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking Judge
Bay to order the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to
study if the proper Informations had been filed against
petitioners and their co-accused. Judge Bay granted
the Motion and ordered a reinvestigation of the cases.
On 19 May 2004, petitioners filed their Joint
Memorandum to Dismiss the Case[s] before the City
Prosecutor. They claimed that there was no probable
cause to hold them liable for the crimes charged.
On 10 August 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor
issued a Resolution on the reinvestigation affirming the
Informations filed against petitioners and their co-
accused in Criminal Cases No. Q-03-123284-86. The
Resolution was signed by Assistant City Prosecutor
Raniel S. Cruz and approved by City Prosecutor Claro
A. Arellano.
On 3 March 2006, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
Lamberto C. de Vera, treating the Joint Memorandum
to Dismiss the Case as an appeal of the 10 August
2004 Resolution, reversed the Resolution dated 10
August 2004, holding that there was lack of probable
cause. On the same date, the City Prosecutor filed a
Motion to Withdraw Informations before Judge Bay.
On 2 October 2006, Judge Bay denied the Motion to
Withdraw Informations in an Order of even date.
Issue:
W/N a writ of mandamus can compel a judge to grant
a motion to withdraw
Ruling:
In sum, petitioners resort to a Petition for Mandamus
to compel the trial judge to grant their Motion to
Withdraw Informations is improper. While mandamus is
available to compel action on matters involving
judgment and discretion when refused, it is never
available to direct the exercise of judgment or
discretion in a particular way or the retraction or
reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of
either.24 The trial court, when confronted with a Motion
to Withdraw an Information on the ground of lack of
probable cause, is not bound by the resolution of the
prosecuting arm of the government, but is required to
make an independent assessment of the merits of
such motion, a requirement satisfied by the the evidence against him. The CA affirmed the
respondent judge in the case at bar. judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC. Hence,
this petition. Lorenzo questions his conviction on the
People Of The Philippines
basis of reasonable doubt. The defense anchors its
Vs. claim on the failure of the prosecution to adopt the
required procedure under Section 21, Article II,
Paterno Lorenzo G.R. No. 184760 Republic Act No. 9165, on the custody and disposition
Facts: of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous
drugs.
Two (2) Informations were filed against accused-
appellant Paterno Lorenzo y Casas (Lorenzo) charging Issue:
him with violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of W/N prosecution discharged its burden of proving
Republic Act No. 9165. And One Conrado Estanislao y Lorenzos guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
Javier (Estanislao) was similarly charged in a different charged.
Information. Estanislao was accused of possessing
illegal drugs in violation of the provisions of Section Ruling:
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. After entering
PO1 Pineda testified that it was their confidential agent
their pleas of not guilty, the cases were
who purchased the shabu from accused-appellant and
consolidated, joint trial on the merits ensued. And the
that he only retrieved it from said informant. He
prosecution presented as its lone witness, Police
further testified that he marked the retrieved sachet of
Officer 1 (PO1) Noel P. Pineda, who was a 78 member
shabu together with the two other sachets of shabu
of the buy-bust team. Interposing the twin defenses of
that were allegedly seized from the accused, but it was
denial and frame-up, accused-appellant Lorenzo and
not certain when and where the said marking was
Estanislao stood before the witness stand and
done nor who had specifically received and had
presented their version of the facts. Interposing the
custody of the specimens thereafter.
twin defenses of denial and frame-up, accused-
appellant Lorenzo and Estanislao stood before the
The Court also observes that the prosecution did not
witness stand and presented their version of the facts.
present the poseur-buyer who had personal knowledge
On 5 October 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision
of the transaction. The lone prosecution witness was at
convicting Lorenzo for illegal possession and sale of
least four meters away from where accused-appellant
dangerous drugs, but acquitting Estanislao. Invoking
and the poseur-buyer were. From this distance, it was
his innocence, Lorenzo appealed his conviction to the
impossible for him to hear the conversation between
Court of Appeals, questioning the procedure followed
accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer.
by the police operatives in the seizure and custody of
The foregoing facts and circumstances create doubt as
to whether the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from
accused-appellant were the same ones that were
released to Camp Crame and submitted for laboratory
examination. We therefore find that this failure to
establish the evidences chain of custody is damaging
to the prosecutions case.19
In sum, the totality of the evidence presented in the
instant case failed to support accused-appellants
conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the
offense.
Accordingly, the presumption of innocence should
prevail.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
RENE BARON G.R. No. 185209
Facts:
Rene Baron y Tangarocan (appellant), Rey Villatima
(Villatima), and alias "Dedong" Bargo (Bargo) was
charged with the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide committed against Juanito Berallo
(Berallo). 79 Only the appellant was arrested, while
Villatima and Bargo remained at-large. Appellant
entered a plea of "not guilty" and denied any
participation in the crime. RTC rendered a Decision
finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Before
the appellate court, appellant alleged that the trial
court erred in finding him guilty as charged and in not
appreciating in his favor the exempting circumstance
of irresistible force and/or uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury. However, the same was
disregarded by the CA holding that all the requisites
for said circumstances were lacking. The appellate
court found that the alleged threat, if at all, was not
real or imminent. Appellant had every opportunity to
escape but did not take advantage of the same.
Issue:
Whether or not the circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to render a judgment of conviction against
for the commission of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide
Ruling:
Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is
committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the
robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with
homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property
belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with
the use of violence or intimidation against a person;
and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery,
the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense,
was committed. A conviction needs certainty that the
robbery is the central purpose and objective of the
malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the
robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life but the killing may occur before, during or
after the robbery.6
In this case, the prosecution successfully adduced
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the real intention
of the appellant and his companions was to rob the
victim. The appellant and his companions boarded the
tricycle of the victim pretending to be passengers.
Midway to their destination, one of the accused
declared a hold-up and at gun point, tied the hands of
the victim and brought him towards the sugarcane
field where he was stabbed to death. The victim was
divested of his wallet containing P1,250.00, a wrist
watch and ring. Emerging from the sugarcane
plantation, they boarded the tricycle of the victim,
detached the sidecar and dumped the same in a canal
beside the Martesan Bridge with the fatigue jacket of
one of the accused. They proceeded
to BarangayOringao, Kabankalan and hid the
motorcycle in the house of Villatimas aunt, Natividad.
Felixberto Abellana
vs.
People of The Philippines G.R. NO. 174654,
Facts:
Assailed before this Court are the February 22, 2006
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 78644 and its August 15, 2006 Resolution 2 denying
the motion for reconsideration thereto.
In 1985, petitioner extended a loan to private
respondents spouses Diaga and Saapia Alonto
(spouses Alonto),6secured by a Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage over Lot Nos. 6471 and 6472 located in Cebu
City.7 Subsequently, or in 1987, petitioner prepared a
Deed of Absolute Sale conveying said lots to him. The
Deed of Absolute Sale was signed by spouses Alonto in
Manila. However, it was notarized in Cebu City
allegedly without the spouses Alonto appearing before
the notary public.8 Thereafter, petitioner caused the
transfer of the titles to his name and sold the lots to
third persons
During arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of "not
guilty".12 After the termination of the pre-trial
conference, trial ensued.
trial court concluded that petitioner can only be held
guilty of Falsification of a Public Document by a private
individual under Article 172(1)14 in relation to Article
171(2)15 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not
estafa through falsification of public document as
charged in the Information.
On appeal, petitioner raised the issue of whether an
accused who was acquitted of the crime charged may
nevertheless be convicted of another crime or offense
not specifically charged and alleged and which is not
necessarily included in the crime or offense charged
CA affirmed the trial courts finding with respect to
petitioners civil liability.
Issue:
whether he could still be held civilly liable
notwithstanding his acquittal by the trial court and the
CA.
Ruling:
In view of the above discussion, there is therefore
absolutely no basis for the trial court and the CA to
hold petitioner civilly liable to restore ownership and
possession of the subject properties to the spouses
Alonto or to pay them P1,103,000.00 representing the
value of the properties and to pay them nominal
damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and
litigation expenses.
People Of The Philippines
Vs.
Danilo Asis Y Fonperada G.R. No. 142531
Facts:
For automatic review before this Court is the March 8,
2000 Decision of the RTC- Manila in Criminal Case No.
98-163090, finding Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert
Formento y Saricon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
robbery with homicide aggravated by abuse of
confidence, superior strength and treachery.
When arraigned on July 9, 1998, both appellants
pleaded not guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they were
assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but also by an
interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. After due
trial, appellants were found guilty and sentenced to
death. The RTC held that the "crime charged and
proved is robbery with homicide under Article 294, No.
1 of the Revised Penal Code." It ruled that "although no
witnesses to the actual killing and robbery were
presented, the circumstantial evidence including the
recovery of bloodstained clothing from both accused
definitely proved that the two (2) x x x committed the
crime."
Finally, the RTC also appreciated the aggravating
circumstances of abuse of confidence, superior
strength and treachery and thus sentenced both
appellants to the supreme penalty of death.
Hence, this automatic review
Issue:
W/N pieces of circumstantial evidence submitted by
the prosecution are insufficient to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system,
the overriding consideration is not whether the court
doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it
entertains a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. 62 Where
there is no moral certainty as to their guilt, they must
be acquitted even though their innocence may be
questionable. The constitutional right to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by
proof beyond reasonable doubt. 63
In the final analysis, the circumstances narrated by the
prosecution engender doubt rather than moral
certainty on the guilt of appellants.
In view of the above findings, we deem it unnecessary
to deal with the other issues raised by appellants.
MUNIB S. ESTINO
Vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. Nos. 163957-58
Facts:
For review before the Court under Rule 45 are the April
16, 2004 Decision1 and June 14, 2004 Resolution2 of
the Sandiganbayan in the consolidated Criminal Case
Nos. 26192 and 26193 entitled People of the
Philippines v. Munib S. Estino and Ernesto G.
Pescadera.
Estino was elected Vice-Governor of Sulu in the May
1998 elections along with Gov. Abdusakur Tan. On June
23, 1998, this Court issued a status quo order in G.R.
No. 133676, suspending the effects of the
proclamation of Gov. Tan and ordering Vice-Gov. Estino
to assume the position of Governor until further orders.
Thus, Estino acted as Governor of Sulu from July 27,
1998 up to May 23, 1999 when this Court lifted the
suspension order against Gov. Tan. Ernesto G.
Pescadera, on the other hand, was Provincial Treasurer
of Sulu during Estinos stint as Acting Governor. 3
Pursuant to Commission on Audit (COA)-ARMM Office
Order No. 99-165 dated August 26, 1999, a special
audit team was created upon the request of the
Provincial Government of Sulu. An audit of the
disbursement vouchers and payrolls for the period
starting July 27, 1998 up to May 23, 1999 was then
conducted by COA State Auditor II Mona U. Balabaran
and her team. The COA Special Audit Report stated
that there were anomalies in the payment of salary
differentials, allowances, and benefits, among others.
The Ombudsman then filed three informations against
petitioners
Petitioners pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged
in the informations.
The Sandiganbayan found petitioners not guilty with
regard to the charge of nonpayment of PERA, ACA,
cash gift, mid-year bonus, and clothing allowance. The
court found that the Provincial Government of Sulu did
operate under the 1998 reenacted budget which had
no appropriation for PERA and ACA. Petitioners were
not held liable for nonpayment of the Year-End Bonus
and Cash Gift because these may be given from May 1
to May 31 of each year, while Estino held office as
Acting Governor until May 23, 1999 and Pescadera was
the Provincial Treasurer until May 1999. As to the
clothing allowance, no evidence was presented as to
when it should be given to the employees. Payment for
the salary differentials for January to May 1999 could
not also be done since the 1999 budget was not yet
approved
As regards the RATA, the Sandiganbayan held that
petitioners defense of payment was an affirmative
allegation that required proof.
Issue:
Whether or not a new trial is proper in the
determination the guilt of the petitioners in non-
payment of RATA in violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019.
Ruling:
We resolve to grant petitioners a chance to prove their
innocence by remanding the case to the
Sandiganbayan for a new trial of Criminal Case No.
26192. Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the
conduct of a new trial before a judgment of conviction
becomes final when new and material evidence has
been discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at
the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment.20 Although the
documents offered by petitioners are strictly not newly
discovered, it appears to us that petitioners were
mistaken in their belief that its production during trial
was unnecessary. In their Supplemental Motion and/or
Motion for New Trial, they stressed that they no longer
presented the evidence of payment of RATA because
Balabaran testified that the subject of the charge was
the nonpayment of benefits under the 1999 budget,
without mention of the RATA nor the 1998 reenacted
budget. It seems that they were misled during trial.
They were precluded from presenting pieces of
evidence that may prove actual payment of the RATA
under the 1998 reenacted budget because the
prosecutions evidence was confined to alleged
nonpayment of RATA under the 1999 budget.
Rommel C. Briones
Vs.
People of The Philippines G.R. No. 156009
Facts:
This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the
decision dated July 17, 20021 and the resolution dated
November 13, 20022 of the Court of Appeals (CA)3 in
CA-G.R. CR No. 24127 finding petitioner Rommel C.
Briones (Briones) guilty of the crime of robbery
On January 8, 1998, a criminal information was filed
against Briones before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 257, Paraaque City, for robbery.
S/G Dabbin Molina (S/G Molina) is a security guard of
Fuentes Security and Allied Services owned by Johnny
Fuentes (Fuentes); in the course of his employment
with the security agency, S/G Molina was issued a .38
caliber revolver (firearm).
On January 6, 1998, at around 11:00 p.m., S/G Molina
and S/G George Gual (S/G Gual) were manning the
northwest gate of BF Homes Northwest, Paraaque.
Somewhere on Jakarta Street, they noticed Romulo
Bersamina, a homeowner, being mauled by four (4)
individuals, two (2) of whom were later identified as
Briones and his brother, Vicente Briones (Vicente), who
were both residents of BF Homes.
S/G Molina and S/G Gual approached the group to stop
the mauling; it was at this point that S/G Molina lost
his firearm to Briones. How he lost it whether there
was accompanying violence or intimidation is the
submitted issue in this case.
S/G Molina subsequently reported the incident to his
supervisor, Arthur Alonzo, and to SPO1 Manuel Plete.
The police arrested Briones after conducting an
investigation.
Briones denied any participation in the mauling and
the firearm grabbing, and claimed that he was in his
house when the incident happened.
The RTC ruled that Briones can only be held liable for
simple theft, as the elements of violence and
intimidation the attendant circumstances that must
be present in the crime of robbery were not duly
proven
The CA found Briones guilty of robbery under Article
293, in relation to paragraph 5 of Article 294, of the
Code, and not of theft; the CA ruled that force and
intimidation attended the taking of S/G Molinas
firearm, as Briones approached S/G Molina with the
intent of taking his firearm away
Briones thereafter filed an Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration, Motion for New Trial and Motion to
Dismiss, and Supplemental Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration, Motion for New Trial and Motion to
Dismiss. CA Denied the Same.
Issue:
Whether a new trial is justified under the
circumstances.
Ruling:
It has been repeatedly enunciated that "a client is
bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a
case and cannot be heard to complain that the result
might have been different if he proceeded differently.
A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such
grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening
cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as
new counsel could be employed who would allege and
show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently
diligent or experienced or learned. x x x Mistakes of
attorneys as to the competency of a witness, the
sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy of certain
evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of
proof, x x x failure to introduce certain evidence, to
summon witnesses, and to argue the case are not
proper grounds for a new trial, unless the
incompetency of counsel is so great that his client is
prejudiced and prevented from properly presenting his
case. [Emphasis supplied]25
From the facts, it does not appear that Briones was
denied competent legal representation in the
proceedings before the RTC.
Lastly, for new trial to be granted on the ground of
newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of the
following conditions must obtain: (a) the evidence
must have been discovered after trial; (b) the evidence
could not have been discovered at the trial even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) the evidence
is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and (d) the evidence must affect the
merits of the case and produce a different result if
admitted.26 In this case, although the firearm surfaced
after the trial, the other conditions were not
established.
Quintin B. Saludaga
Vs.
The Honorable Sandiganbayan G.R. NO. 184537
Facts:
Quintin Saludaga, municipal mayor of Lavesares,
Northern Samar and SPO2 Fiel Genio were charged in
the Sandiganbayan of violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A.3019) by 84
causing undue injury to the government. The
Sandiganbayan dismissed the information "for failure
of the prosecution to allege and prove the amount of
actual damages caused the government, an essential
element of the crime charged.
The Ombudsman directed the Office of the Special
Prosecutor to study the possibility of having the
information amended and re-filed with the
Sandiganbayan. The OSP re-filed the Information. Now,
charging the petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019, by giving unwarranted benefit to a
private person, to the prejudice of the government.
Aside from arguing that the second Information
constituted substituted Information and contained
substantial amendments, the petitioners also
highlighted that newly discovered evidence mandates
due re-examination of the finding of prima facie cause
to file the case which necessitates a new preliminary
investigation.
Issue:
W/N the presence of newly discovered evidence
necessitates a new preliminary investigation.
Ruling:
The case may be revived by the State within the time-
bar either by the refiling of the Information or by the
filing of a new Information for the same offense or an
offense necessarily included therein. There would be
no need of a new preliminary investigation. However,
in a case wherein after the provisional dismissal of a
criminal case, the original witnesses of the prosecution
or some of them may have recanted their testimonies
or may have died or may no longer be available and
new witnesses for the State have emerged, a new
preliminary investigation must be conducted before an
Information is refiled or a new Information is filed. A
new preliminary investigation is also required if aside
from the original accused, other persons are charged
under a new criminal complaint for the same offense
or necessarily included therein; or if under a new
criminal complaint, the original charge has been
upgraded; or if under a new criminal complaint, the
criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from that
as an accessory to that as a principal. The accused
must be accorded the right to submit counter-affidavits
and evidence.
No such circumstance is obtaining in this case,
because there was no modification in the nature of the
charged offense. Consequently, a new preliminary
investigation is unnecessary and cannot be demanded
by the petitioners
Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos
Vs.
People of The Philippines
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
assailing the July 14, 2008 Resolution1 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-08 CRM 0263,
denying the Motion for Preliminary Investigation filed
by the petitioners who were charged with a violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and the denial
of their Motion for Reconsideration done in open court
on August 13, 2008.
The accused, public officials, being the Municipal
Mayor and PNP Member of Lavezares, Northern Samar
enter into a Pakyaw Contract for the Construction of
Barangay Day Care Centers for Barangays Mac-arthur
and Urdaneta, Lavezares, Northern Samar, each in the
amount of FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
PESOS (P48,500.00), Philippine Currency, or a total
amount of NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P97,000.00), Philippine Currency, without conducting
a competitive public bidding, thus depriving the
government the chance to obtain the best, if not, the
most reasonable price, and thereby awarding said
contracts to Olimpio Legua, a non-license contractor
and non-accredited NGO, in violation of Sec. 356 of
Republic Act No. 7160 (The Local Government Code)
and COA Circular No. 91-368, to the damage and
prejudice of the government.
In a Resolution3 promulgated on June 14, 2002, the
Third Division granted petitioners Motion to Quash
and dismissed the information "for failure of the
prosecution to allege and prove the amount of actual
damages caused the government, an essential
element of the crime charged."
Ombudsman directed the Office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP) to study the possibility of having the
information amended and re-filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
Thus, the OSP re-filed the Information5 dated August
17, 2007, this time, docketed as Criminal Case No. SB-
08 CRM 0263, with the Fourth Division of the
Sandiganbayan, charging the petitioners for violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, by giving unwarranted
benefit to a private person, to the prejudice of the
government.
Issue:
W/N the introduction of new evidence warrants a new
trial
Ruling:
To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of
conviction on the basis of such evidence, it must be
shown that the evidence was "newly discovered"
pursuant to Section 2,10Rule 121 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, as amended.
Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must be
one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence,
have been discovered before the trial in the court
below.11 Movant failed to show that the defense
exerted efforts during the trial to secure testimonies
from police officers like Jurado, or other persons
involved in the investigation, who questioned or
objected to the apprehension of the accused in this
case. Hence, the belatedly executed affidavit of Jurado
does not qualify as newly discovered evidence that will
justify re-opening of the trial and/or vacating the
judgment. In any case, we have ruled that whatever
flaw that may have initially attended the out-of-court
identification of the accused, the same was cured
when all the accused-appellants were positively
identified by the prosecution eyewitness during the
trial.
Edgar Payumo
Vs.
Sandiganbayan GR No. 151911
Facts:
The petitions stem from the facts of Criminal Case No.
4219 involving a shooting incident that occurred on
February 26, 1980 at around 5:30 o'clock in the
afternoon in Sitio Aluag, Barangay Sta. Barbara, Iba,
Zambales. A composite team of Philippine
Constabulary (PC) and Integrated National Police (INP)
units allegedly fired at a group of civilians instantly
killing Amante Payumo and wounding Teofilo Payumo,
Barangay Captain of Sta. Barbara at Cabatuhan River;
Edgar Payumo, Reynaldo Ruanto; Crisanto Ruanto;
Apolinario Ruanto; and Exequiel Bonde. The following
were indicted for Murder with Multiple Frustrated and
Attempted Murder before the Sandiganbayan:
Domiciano Cabigao, Nestor Domacena, Rolando
Doblado, Ernesto Pampuan, Edgardo Prado, Romeo
Dominico, Rodolfo Erese, Ramon Garcia and Carlos
Pacheco.
Accused Rodolfo Erese, however, died before the
arraignment. When arraigned, the rest of the accused
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. [3] During the
trial, the accused interposed the defenses of lawful
performance of duty, self-defense, mistake of fact, and
alibi. They insisted that the incident was a result of a
military operation, and not an ambush as claimed by
the prosecution.
After four (4) years of trial, the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision[4] dated October
5, 1984, penned by Justice Romeo M. Escareal,
convicting the accused as co-principals in the crime of
Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of
its jurisdiction when it granted a new trial of Criminal
Case No. 4219
Ruling:
Rule 121, Section 2 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure enumerates the grounds for a new trial, to
wit:
Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a
new trial on any of the following grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused have been committed
during trial;
(b) That new and material evidence has been
discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at
the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment.
All told, the Court finds and so rules that the
Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division acted in excess of
its jurisdiction when it nullified the November 27, 1998
Decision and granted a new trial for Criminal Case No.
4219. There is excess of jurisdiction where the
respondent court, being clothed with the power to
determine the case, oversteps its authority as
determined by law. Accordingly, the assailed
Resolution dated October 24, 2001 must be set aside.
IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO
DE VILLA (Detained At The New Bilibid Prisons,
Muntinlupa City)
JUNE DE VILLA
Vs.
THE DIRECTOR, NEW BILIBID PRISONS G.R. No.
158802
Facts:
This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner
Reynaldo de Villa, joined by his son, petitioner-relator
June de Villa, seeks a two-fold relief: First, that
respondent Director of Prisons justify the basis for the
imprisonment of petitioner Reynaldo de Villa; and
second, that petitioner be granted a new trial.
Petitioner was found guilty of the rape of Aileen
Mendoza, his niece by affinity;. Petitioner is currently
serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison,
Muntinlupa City.
Aileen Mendoza charged petitioner Reynaldo de Villa
with rape in an information at the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City. When arraigned on January 26, 1995,
petitioner entered a plea of "not guilty
The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape,
On automatic review, CA affirmed petitioner's
conviction for rape.
Petitioner-relator in this case, June de Villa, is the son
of Reynaldo. He alleges that during the trial of the
case, he was unaware that there was a scientific test
that could determine once and for all if Reynaldo was
the father of the victim's child, Leahlyn.
Thus, petitioner's brief in People v. de Villa sought the
conduct of a blood type test and DNA test in order to
determine the paternity of the child allegedly material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or
conceived as a result of the rape.12 impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such
weight that that, if admitted, it would probably change
On March 16, 2001, Reynaldo de Villa filed a Motion for the judgment.52 It is essential that the offering party
Partial Reconsideration of the Decision, wherein he exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the
once more prayed that DNA tests be conducted. 13 The evidence before or during trial but nonetheless failed
Motion was denied with finality in a Resolution dated to secure it.53
November 20, 2001.
In this instance, although the DNA evidence was
Petitioner made efforts to extract DNA samples from
undoubtedly discovered after the trial, we nonetheless
individuals whom he deemed would produce the
find that it does not meet the criteria for "newly-
necessary requirements.
discovered evidence" that would merit a new trial.
After testing, the DNA Laboratory rendered a Such evidence disproving paternity could have been
preliminary report on March 21, 2003, which showed discovered and produced at trial with the exercise of
that Reynaldo de Villa could not have sired any of the reasonable diligence.
children whose samples were tested, due to the
absence of a match between the pertinent genetic
markers in petitioner's sample and those of any of the
other samples, including Leahlyn.
Hence, in the instant petition for habeas corpus.
Issue:
W/N a New Trial to Consider Newly Discovered
Evidence Is Proper and may be ordered by this Court in
view of the results of the DNA tests conducted
Ruling:
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered
evidence may be granted only if the following
requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was
discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not
have been discovered and produced at the trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is
Corazon Macapagal
Vs.
People of The Philippines G.R. No. 193217
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court assailing the Regional Trial
Court1(RTC) Decision dated November 25, 2008
convicting petitioner Corazon Macapagal of the crime
of Estafa;2 the Order denying her Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial;3 and the
Order4 dated June 29, 2010 denying her Notice of
Appeal,5 in Criminal Case No. 98-166722.
On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision
finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa for
misappropriating, for her own benefit, the total amount
of P800,000.00, which is the value of the unreturned
and unsold pieces of jewelry. 6 Petitioner received the
decision on
January 13, 2009 then she timely moved for
reconsideration, but was likewise denied in an Order
dated May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly
received on July 31, 2009. She supposedly filed a
Notice of Appeal7 on August 3, 2009, but the same was
denied on June 29, 2010 for having been filed out of
time.8
Aggrieved, petitioner comes directly before the Court
in this petition for review on certiorari
Issue:
W/N the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9,
Gravely Erred In Denying The Notice Of Appeal.
Ruling:
SEC. 2. Where to appeal. The appeal may be taken as
follows:
(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in
the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by
the Regional Trial Court; and
SEC. 3. How appeal taken. (a) The appeal to the
Regional Trial Court or to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of
its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice
of appeal filed with the court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from and by serving
a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be
taken within fifteen days from promulgation of the
judgment or from notice of the final order appealed
from x x x.
Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of appeal
signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. A
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
is a mode of appeal of a lower courts decision or final
order direct to the Supreme Court. However, the
questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not a
decision or final order from which an appeal may be
taken. The Rules of Court specifically provides that no
appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or
dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party can
elevate the matter through a special civil action under
Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of appeal
in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the
appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition merits an
outright dismissal
People of The Philippines
Vs.
Roldan Morales Y Midarasa G.R. No. 172873
Facts:
On appeal is the Decision5 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
promulgated on April 24, 2006 affirming in toto the
Decision6 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City, Branch 103 finding appellant Roldan Morales y
Midarasa guilty of the crimes of possession and sale of
dangerous drugs.
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel,
pleaded not guilty to both charges read in Filipino, a
language known and understood by him. 9 On motion of
the City Prosecutor, the cases were consolidated for
joint trial.10Trial on the merits ensued thereafter
On April 29, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision
finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drug.
The CA affirmed the Decision of the trial court in toto.
It found that contrary to the allegations of the
appellant, there was no instigation that took place
Appellant elevated the case to this Court via Notice of
Appeal.
Issue:
The issue in this case is the nature of Appeal in
Criminal Cases
Ruling:
At the outset, we draw attention to the unique nature
of an appeal in a criminal case: the appeal throws the
whole case open for review and it is the duty of the
appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in
the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned. On the basis of such review, we find the
present appeal meritorious.
Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly hold that the trial
courts findings of fact, especially when affirmed by
the CA, are, as a general rule, entitled to great weight
and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this rule
admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of
weight and substance with direct and material bearing
on the final outcome of the case have been
overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. After due
consideration of the records of this case, evidence
presented and relevant law and jurisprudence, we hold
that this case falls under the exception.
Rosie Quidet
Vs.
People of The Philippines G.R. No. 170289
Facts:
Jimmy, Andrew, and two others visited a friend in Looc,
Misamis Oriental. Along the way, they saw Taban,
together with Quidet and Tubo, come out of the house
of one Tomas Osep. Taban suddenly stabbed Andrew
on the chest with a knife. Jimmy tried to pacify Andrew
and Taban but the latter stabbed him in the abdomen.
Taban immediately fled. After Jimmy fell down, Tubo
threw a drinking glass at Andrews face while Quidet
boxed Andrews jaw. Tubo stabbed Jimmy who was
then lying face down on the ground twice on the back
with an ice pick after which he fled. Quidet boxed
Jimmys mouth. , Jimmy was declared dead by the
attending physician while Andrew sustained minor
injuries. The RTC found Quidet and Tubo guilty of
homicide for the death of Jimmy. Quidet, Tubo and
Taban were also pronounced guilty of frustrated
homicide for the misfortune of Andrew by the same
court.
From this judgment, only petitioner appealed to the
Court of Appeals. The Court of appeals dismissed the
appeal but reduced the penalty imposed over Taban
and Tubo because the crime committed against
Andrew was attempted and not frustrated homicide.
Issue:
W/N an appeal by a co-accused benefits his co-
accused who did not appeal.
Ruling:
Anent the penalty imposed on Taban and Tubo, in
Criminal Case No. 92-080, the CA correctly modified
the same. The crime committed was attempted
homicide and not frustrated homicide because the
stab wounds that Andrew sustained were not life-
threatening.28 Although Taban and Tubo did not appeal
their conviction, this part of the appellate courts
judgment is favorable to them, thus, they are entitled
to a reduction of their prison terms. 29 The rule is that
an appeal taken by one or more of several accused
shall not affect those who did not appeal except
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter.
Irenorio B. Balaba
Vs.
People of The Philippines G.R. No. 169519
Facts:
The Provincial Auditors Office conducted an
examination of the cash and accounts of the
accountable officers of the Municipality of Guindulman,
Bohol. It was discovered that there were cash
shortage, unaccounted cash tickets and an unrecorded
check payable to Balaba. Thus, an Information for
Malversation of Public Funds was filed against Balaba
with the trial court. After trial, the trial court found
Balaba guilty. Balaba hence filed a Notice of Appeal
where he indicated that he will file his appeal with the
Court of Appeals. Thereafter, he filed his appellants
brief with the CA. The CA dismissed his appeal
declaring that it has no jurisdiction over his appeal.
Balaba thus filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
asked that he be allowed to pursue his appeal with the
Sandiganbayan. The CA denied his Motion for
Reconsideration, thus, he filed his present petition with
the Supreme Court.
Issue:
W/N the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his
appeal instead of certifying the case to the proper
court
Ruling:
In this case, Balaba sought the correction of the error
in filing the appeal only after the expiration of the
period to appeal. The trial court promulgated its
Decision on 9 December 2002. Balaba filed his notice
of appeal on 14 January 2003. The Court of Appeals
issued the Decision declaring its lack of jurisdiction on
15 December 2004. Balaba tried to correct the error
only on 27 January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day
period to appeal from the decision of the trial court.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not commit any
error when it dismissed Balabas appeal because of
lack of jurisdiction