Professional Documents
Culture Documents
44 and 87, Judiciary Act (g) Over all crimes and offenses (c) All criminal cases arising
of 1948 (Rep. Act No. 296) committed on the high seas or under the laws relating to:
beyond the jurisdiction of any
Section 44. Original country, or within any of the (1) Gambling and management
jurisdiction. - Courts of First navigable waters of the or operation of lotteries;
Instance shall have original Philippines, on board a ship or
jurisdiction: water craft of any kind (2) Assaults where the intent to
registered or licensed in the kill is not charged or evident
(a) In all civil actions in which Philippines in accordance with upon the trial;
the subject of the litigation is the laws thereof. The
not capable of pecuniary jurisdiction herein conferred (3) Larceny, embezzlement and
estimation may be exercised by the Court estafa where the amount of
of First Instance in any money or property stolen,
province into which the ship or embezzled, or otherwise
(b) In all civil actions which
water craft upon which the involved, does not exceed the
involve the title to or
crime or offense was committed sum or value of two hundred
possession of real property, or
shall come after the pesos;
any interest therein, or the
commission thereof: Provided,
legality of any tax, impost or
That the court first lawfully (4) Sale of intoxicating liquors;
assessment, except actions of
taking cognizance thereof shall
forcible entry into and detainer
have jurisdiction of the same to
of lands or buildings, original (5) Falsely impersonating an
the exclusion of all other courts
jurisdiction of which is officer;
in the Philippines; and
conferred by this Act upon
justice of the peace courts and (6) Malicious mischief;
municipal courts; (h) Said courts and their judges,
or any of them, shall have the
power to issue writs of (7) Trespass on Government or
(c) In all cases in which the private property; and
injunction, mandamus,
demand, exclusive of interest,
certiorari, prohibition, quo
or the value of the property in (8) Threatening to take human
warranto and habeas corpus in
controversy, amounts to more life
their respective provinces and
than two thousand pesos;
districts, in the manner
provided in the Rules of Court. Said justices of the peace and
(d) In all actions in admiralty judges of municipal courts may
and maritime jurisdiction, also conduct preliminary
Section 87. Original
irrespective of the value of the investigations for any offense
jurisdiction to try criminal
property in controversy or the alleged to have been committed
cases. - Justices of the peace
amount of the demand; within their respective
and judges of municipal courts
of chartered cities shall have municipalities and cities,
(e) In all matters of probate, without regard to the limits of
original jurisdiction over:
both of testate and intestate punishment, and may release,
estates, appointment of or commit and bind over any
(a) All violations of municipal
guardians, trustees and person charged with such
or city ordinances committed
receivers, and in all actions for offense to secure his
within their respective
annulment of marriage, and in appearance before the proper
territorial jurisdictions;
all such special cases and court.
proceedings as are not
otherwise provided for; (b) All offenses in which the
penalty provided by law is Justices of the peace in the
imprisonment for not more than capitals of provinces may, by
(f) In all criminal cases in assignment of the respective
six months, or a fine of not
which the penalty provided by district judge in each case, have
more than two hundred pesos,
law is imprisonment for more like jurisdiction as the Court of
or both such fine and
than six months, or a fine of First Instance to try parties
imprisonment;
more than two hundred pesos; charged with an offense
committed within the province
in which the penalty provided irrespective of the amount of Condominium, a low-rise
by law does not exceed fine, and regardless of other condominium project. In
imprisonment for two years and imposable accessory or other November 1996, petitioner Ma.
four months, or a fine of two penalties, including the civil Luisa G. Dazon entered into a
thousand pesos, or both such liability arising from such contract[1] with Primetown for
imprisonment and fine, and, in offenses or predicated thereon, the purchase of Unit No. C-108
the absence of the district irrespective of kind, nature, of the said condominium
judge, shall have like value, or amount project. Petitioner made a
jurisdiction within the province thereof: Provided, downpayment and several
as the Court of First Instance to however, That in offenses installment payments, totaling
hear applications for bail. involving damage to property P1,114,274.30.[2] Primetown,
through criminal negligence however, failed to finish the
o Secs. 20 and 32 (2\, Batas they shall have exclusive condominium project. Thus, on
Pambansa Blg. 129 (1980), as original jurisdiction thereof. (as March 22, 1999, petitioner
amended by R.A, No. 7691) demanded for the refund of her
Section 20. Jurisdiction in payments from Primetown,
criminal cases. Regional Trial Dazon v. Yap, G.R. No. pursuant to Section 23[3] of
Courts shall exercise exclusive 157095,15 January 2010 Presidential Decree (PD) No.
original jurisdiction in all 957 (1976), otherwise known as
MA. LUISA G. DAZON, "The Subdivision and
criminal cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any PETITIONER, VS. Condominium Buyers'
court, tribunal or body, except KENNETH Y. YAP AND Protective Decree". Primetown
those now falling under the PEOPLE OF THE failed to refund petitioner's
exclusive and concurrent payments.
The primordial function of the
jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use
Sandiganbayan which shall On October 26,2000,
Regulatory Board (HLURB) is [4]
petitioner filed a criminal
hereafter be exclusively taken the regulation of the real estate
cognizance of by the latter complaint with the Office of the
trade and business. Though the City Prosecutor of Lapu-Lapu
agency's jurisdiction has been City against respondent as
Section 32. Jurisdiction of expanded by law, it has not president of Primetown for
Metropolitan Trial Courts, grown to the extent of violation of Section 23 in
Municipal Trial Courts and encompassing the conviction relation to Section 39[5] of PD
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and punishment of criminals. 957. Subsequently, after a
in criminal cases. Except in
finding of probable cause, an
cases falling within the The present Petition for Review Information[6] was filed with the
exclusive original jurisdiction on Certiorari assails the Orders RTC of Lapu-Lapu City
of Regional Trial Courts and of of the Regional Trial Court docketed as Criminal Case No.
the Sandiganbayan, the (RTC) of Lapu-Lapu City, 015331-L.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Branch 54 dated October 2,
Municipal Trial Courts, and 2002 and January 13,2003, Meanwhile, respondent, in
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts which granted the Motion to connection with the resolution
shall exercise: Withdraw Information filed by finding probable cause filed a
the public prosecutor and Petition for Review with the
(1) Exclusive original denied the motion for Department of Justice (DOJ).
jurisdiction over all violations reconsideration filed by On June 14,2002, the DOJ
of city or municipal ordinances petitioner, respectively. rendered a Resolution[8]ordering
committed within their the trial prosecutor to cause the
respective territorial Factual Antecedents withdrawal of the Information.
jurisdiction; and Hence, the prosecutor filed a
Respondent Kenneth Y. Yap Motion to Withdraw
(2) Exclusive original was the president of Primetown Information[9] with the RTC.
jurisdiction over all offenses Property Group, Inc.,
punishable with imprisonment (Primetown) the developer of The RTC disposed of the matter
not exceeding six (6) years Kiener Hills Mactan as follows:
Wherefore, in view of the the Information, hence its SCRA 72, the Supreme Court
foregoing, the Motion to directive to cause the had ruled that the Housing and
Withdraw Information filed by withdrawal of the Information. Land Use Regulatory Board
[the] public prosecutor is (HLURB) has exclusive
hereby granted. Accordingly, Our Ruling jurisdiction over cases
the information' filed against The petition has merit. involving real estate business
the herein accused is ordered The DOJ Resolution dated and practices under PD 957.
withdrawn and to be June This ruling is reiterated in
transmitted back to the City 14, 2002 which ordered the several subsequent cases, to
Prosecutor's Office of Lapu- withdrawal of the information name a few of them, Union
Lapu City. was based on the finding that Bank of the Philippines-versus-
the HLURB, and not the HLURB, G.R. No. 953364,
Furnish copies of this order to regular court, has jurisdiction June 29, 1992; C.T. Torres
Prosecutor Rubi, Attys. Valdez over the case. Enterprises vs. Hilionada, 191
and Pangan. SCRA 286; Villaflor vs. Court
Both the respondent[13] and the of Appeals, 280 SCRA 297;
[10]
SO ORDERED. Petitioner's OSG[14] agree with the Marina Properties Coip. vs.
motion for reconsideration was petitioner that the regular courts Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA
denied.[11] and not the HLURB have 273; and Raet vs. Court of
jurisdiction over the criminal Appeals, 295 SCRA 677. Of
Issue aspect of PD 957. The parties, significant relevance is the
however, disagree on the basis following pronouncement of
Hence, the present Petition for of the directive of the DOJ for the Supreme Court in Raet vs.
Review on Certiorari raising the withdrawal of the Court of Appeals (supra), as
the following issue: ''Whether Information. Was it, as argued follows:
or not a regional trial court has by petitioner, lack of
jurisdiction over a criminal jurisdiction of the RTC or was xxx The contention has merit.
action arising from violation of it, as argued by respondent, The decision in the ejectment
PD 957".[12] lack of probable cause? We suit is conclusive only on the
perused the DOJ Resolution question of possession of the
Petitioner's Arguments dated June 14, 2002 and we subject premises. It does not
Petitioner contends that find that the basis of the settle the principal question
jurisdiction is conferred by law resolution was, not that there involved in the present case,
and that there is no law was lack of probable cause but, namely, whether there was
expressly vesting on the the finding that it is the perfected contract of sale
HLUKB exclusive jurisdiction HLURB that has jurisdiction between petitioners and private
over criminal actions arising over Hie case. Pertinent respondent PVDHC involving
from violations of PD 957. portions of the said DOJ the units in question. Under
Resolution provide: 8(100) of E.O. No. 648 dated
Respondent's Arguments February 7, 1981, as amended
Respondent, on the other hand, The petition is impressed with by E.O. No. 90 dated December
contends that there is no error merit. 17, 1986 this question is for the
of law involved in this case and A perusal of the allegations in HLURB to decide. The said
that petitioner failed to give due the complaint-affidavit would provision of law gives that
regard to the hierarchy of courts show complainant's grievance agency the power to
by filing the present petition against respondent was the
directly with the Supreme failure of the latter's firm to Hear and decide cases of
Court instead of with the Court refund the payments she made unsound real estate business
of Appeals. He further argues for one of the units in the practices; claims involving
that the real issue is not of aborted Mactan condominium refijnd filed against project
jurisdiction but the existence of project in the total amount of owners, developers, dealers,
probable cause. The Secretary P1,114,274.30. brokers, or salesmen; and cases
of Justice, according to of specific performance.
respondent, found no probable As early as in the case of Solid
cause to warrant the filing of Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal, 177 This jurisdiction of the HLURB
is exclusive. It has been held to Sec. 1. In the exercise of its mentioned in the enumeration
extend to the determination of functions to regulate the real quoted above. The primordial
the question whether there is a estate trade and business and in function of the HLURB, after
perfected contract of sale addition to its powers provided all, is the regulation of the real
between condominium buyers for in Presidential Decree No. estate trade and business and
and [the] developer x x x. 957, the National Housing not the conviction and
Authority shall have the punishment of criminals. "It
In fine, the Rule of Law exclusive jurisdiction to hear may be conceded that the
dictates that we should yield to and decide cases of the legislature may confer on
this judicial declaration following nature: administrative boards or bodies
upholding the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial powers involving
the HLURB over cases of this a) Unsound real estate business the exercise of judgment and
nature. practices; discretion, as incident to the
performance of administrative
b) Claims involving refund and functions. But in so doing, the
Hence, there is a need for the any other claims filed by legislature must state its
Court to make a definite ruling subdivision lot or condominium intention in express terms that
on a question of law - the unit buyer against the project would leave no doubt, as even
matter of jurisdiction over the owner, developer, dealer, broker such quasi-judicial prerogatives
criminal aspect of PD 957. or salesman; and must be limited, if they are to
be valid, only to those
Jurisdiction over criminal c) Cases involving specific incidental to or in connection
actions performance of contractual and with the performance
arising from violations of PD statutory obligations filed by of administrative duties, which
957 buyers of subdivision lot or do not amount to conferment of
is vested in the regular courts. condominium unit against the jurisdiction over a matter
owner, developer, dealer, broker exclusively vested in the
Jurisdiction is" conferred by or salesman. (Italics supplied) courts".[21]
law and determined by the
material averments in the Administrative agencies being
complaint as well as the It is a settled rule of statutory
construction that the express tribunals of limited jurisdiction
character of the relief sought.15 can only wield such powers as
The scope and limitation of the mention of one thing in the law
means the exclusion of others are specifically granted to them
jurisdiction of the HLURB are by their enabling statutes. PD
well-defined.'6 Its precusor, the not expressly mentioned. This
rule is expressed in the familiar 957 makes the following
National Housing Authority specific grant of powers to the
(NHA),17 was vested under PD maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius[19]. Where a NHA (now HLURB) for the
957 with exclusive jurisdiction imposition
to regulate the real estate trade statute, by its terms, is
expressly limited to certain of administrative fines, and it
and business,18 specifically the also mentions penalties for
registration of subdivision or matters, it may not, by
interpretation or construction, criminal cases, to wit:
condominium projects and
dealers, brokers and salesmen be extended to others. The rule
Sec. 38. Administrative
of subdivision lots or proceeds from the premise that
Fines.- The Authority may
condominium units, issuance the legislature would not have
prescribe and impose fines not
and suspension of license to made specified enumerations in
exceeding ten thousand pesos
sell; and revocation of a statute had the intention been
for violations of the provisions
registration certificate and not to restrict its meaning and
of this Decree or any rule or
license to sell. Its jurisdiction to confine its terms to statute
regulation thereunder. Fines
was later expanded under PD had the intention been not to
shall be payable to the
1344 (1978) to include restrict its meaning and to
Authority and enforceable
adjudication of certain cases, to confine its terms to those
through writs of execution in
wit: expressly mentioned.
[20] accordance with the provisions
Noticeably, cases that are
of the Rules of Court (Italics
criminal in nature are not
supplied)
On the other hand, BP Big. 129 ASIDE. The said Court
Sec. 39. Penalties.- Any person states: is DIRECTED to proceed with
who shall violate any of the the arraignment of the
provisions of this Decree and/or Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in respondent and to hear the case
any rule or regulation that may Criminal Cases. - Regional with dispatch.
be issued pursuant to this Trial Courts shall exercise
Decree shall, upon conviction, exclusive original jurisdiction
be punished by a fine of not in all criminal cases not within o Palana v. People, G.R. No.
more than twenty thousand the exclusive jurisdiction of any L49995,28 September 2O07
(P20,000.00) pesos and/or court, tribunal or body, except
imprisonment of not more than those now falling under the ISIDRO PABLITO M.
ten years: Provided, That in the exclusive and concurrent PALANA, Petitioner,
case of corporations, jurisdiction of vs.
partnership, cooperatives, or the Sandiganbayan which shall PEOPLE OF THE
associations, the President, hereafter be exclusively taken PHILIPPINES Respondent.
Manager or Administrator or cognizance of by the latter.
the person who has charge of For review is the Decision of
the administration of the Based on the above-quoted the Court of Appeals in CA-
business shall be criminally provision, it is the RTC that has G.R. CR No. 21879 dated
responsible for any violation of jurisdiction over criminal cases September 17, 2001,1 affirming
this/Decree and/or the rules and arising from violations of PD the September 23, 1997
regulations promulgated 957. Decision of the Regional Trial
pursuant thereto, Court of Makati City, Branch
In the present case, the 63, in Criminal Case No. 91-
Having limited, under Section affidavit-complaint[23] alleges 5617 convicting petitioner
38 of PD 957, the grant of the violation of Section 23 Isidro Pablito Palana with
power to the former NHA, now oFTD 957 and asks for the violation of Batas Pambansa
HLURB, over the imposition of institution of a criminal action (B.P.) Blg. 22 otherwise known
fines to those which do not against respondent Yap, as as the "Bouncing Checks Law".
exceed ten thousand pesos, it is President of Primetown. The
clear that the power in relation Office of the City Prosecutor On August 19, 1991, petitioner
to criminal liability mentioned found probable cause for the was charged with violation of
in the immediately succeeding filing of an'Information for the B.P. Blg. 22 in an Information
provision, to impose, upon subject offense. The DOJ made which reads as follows:
conviction, fines above ten no reversal of such finding of
thousand pesos probable cause. Instead, it That on or about September
and/or imprisonment, was not directed the withdrawal of the 1987, in the Municipality of
conferred on it. Section 39, information on the erroneous Makati, Metro Manila,
unlike Section 38, premise that it is the HLURB Philippines, a place within the
conspicuously does not state which has jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of this Honorable
that it is the MIA that may case. However, as above- Court, the above-named
impose the punishment discussed, and contrary to the accused did, then and there,
specified therein. resolution of the Secretary of willfully, unlawfully and
Justice, it is not the HLURB but knowingly make or draw and
Not having been specifically the RTC that has jurisdiction to issue to Alex B. Carlos to apply
conferred with power to hear hear the said criminal action. on account or for the value the
and decide cases which are check described below:
criminal in nature, as well as to WHEREFORE, the petition
impose penalties therefor, we is GRANTED. The assailed Check 326317P
find that the HLURB has no October 2, 2002 and January :
No. R
jurisdiction over criminal 13, 2003 Orders of the
actions arising from violations Regional Trial Court of Lapu- Drawn : Asian
of PD 957. Lapu City, Branch 54, Against Savings
are REVERSED and SET Bank
Paseo de complainant.6 However, when Petitioner appealed but it was
Roxas the check was presented for dismissed by the Court of
Branch payment, it was dishonored by Appeals which affirmed the
the bank for insufficiency of trial courts decision in toto.12
In the funds. Subsequent demand
590,000
amount : notwithstanding, petitioner Both the trial court and the
.00
of failed to make good the said Court of Appeals found that the
dishonored check.7 check was issued as a guaranty
Postdat February
: for the loan, thereby rejecting
ed 15, 1988
Petitioner alleged that the petitioners "investment
Payabl Dr. Alex amounts given to him by theory". In ruling against the
:
e to B. Carlos private complainant was an existence of a partnership
investment by the latter who between them, the trial court
said accused well knowing that was his business partner. He noted that the so-called
at the time of issue, he did not argued that the subject check partnership venture, Palanas
have sufficient funds in or was not issued in September General Merchandising, was
credit with the drawee bank for 1987 to guarantee the payment registered on December 1, 1987
the payment in full of the face of a loan since his checking only in the name of
amount of such check when account was opened only on petitioner.13 The Court of
presented for payment within December 1, 1987.8 He claimed Appeals also held that the act of
(90) days from the date thereof, that private complainant cajoled lending money does not
was subsequently dishonored him to issue a check in his necessarily amount to an
by the drawee bank for the favor allegedly to be shown to a investment of capital.
reason Drawn Against textile supplier who would
Insufficient Funds and despite provide the partnership with the Hence, the instant petition
receipt of notice of such necessary raw materials. raising the following issues:
dishonor, the accused failed to Petitioner alleged that when the
pay said payee the face amount check was issued sometime in THE COURT OF APPEALS
of said check or make February 1988,9 complainant ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
arrangement for full payment knew that the same was not FINDING OF THE LOWER
within five (5) banking days funded.10 COURT DISREGARDING
after receiving notice.2 THE DEFENSE OF THE
After trial on the merits, the ACCUSED THAT THE
On January 30, 1992, the case Regional Trial Court rendered ISSUANCE OF THE
was archived due to petitioners on September 23, 1997 a SUBJECT ASIAN BANK
non-apprehension despite the Decision11 finding petitioner CHECK, WAS NOT FOR A
issuance of a warrant for his guilty as charged, the CONSIDERATION OR FOR
arrest.3 On June 27, 1995, the dispositive portion of which VALUE, AS THE ACCUSED
warrant of arrest was recalled reads: WAS ONLY TRICKED BY
and set aside4 after petitioner THE PRIVATE
posted the required bail. He Wherefore, this court finds the COMPLAINANT TO ISSUE
was arraigned on July 25, 1995 accused Isidro Pablito M. THE SAID CHECK AS A
when he pleaded not guilty to Palana guilty as charged and MEANS OF BINDING THE
the offense charged.5 sentences him to a prison term ACCUSED TO RETURN HIS
of Six (6) months and to INVESTMENT IN THE
Private complainant Alex B. indemnify the private PARTNERSHIP WHICH WAS
Carlos testified that sometime complainant the sum of THEN SUFFERING FROM
in September 1987, petitioner 590,000.00 plus legal interest BUSINESS REVERSALS.
and his wife borrowed money from filing of this case until full
from him in the amount of payment. THE COURT OF APPEALS
590,000.00. To secure the ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
payment of the loan, petitioner SO ORDERED. FINDINGS OF THE LOWER
issued a postdated check for the COURT THAT THE
same amount in favor of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
HAS JURISDICTION OVER Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of criminal action because its
THE CASE, DESPITE THE Metropolitan Trial Courts, jurisdiction is only for offenses
FACT THAT AT THE TIME Municipal Trial Courts and punishable with a fine of not
THE ACCUSED WAS Municipal Circuit Trial Courts more than 4,000.00.
ARRAIGNED ON JULY 25, in Criminal Cases. Except in
1995 R.A. 7691 EXPANDING cases falling within the The subsequent amendment of
THE JURISDICTION OF THE exclusive original jurisdiction B.P. 129 by R.A. No. 7691, "An
METROPOLITAN TRIAL of Regional Trial Courts and Act Expanding the Jurisdiction
COURT WAS ALREADY IN the Sandiganbayan, the of the Municipal Trial Courts,
EFFECT.14 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Municipal Trial Courts, and and the Metropolitan Trial
The issues to be resolved are: Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Court"19 on June 15, 1994
1) whether petitioner was guilty shall exercise: cannot divest the Regional Trial
of violation of B.P. Blg. 22; and Court of jurisdiction over
2) whether the Regional Trial 1 (2) Exclusive original petitioners case. Where a court
Court has jurisdiction over the jurisdiction over all offenses has already obtained and is
case. punishable with imprisonment exercising jurisdiction over a
of not exceeding four years controversy, its jurisdiction to
Petitioners argument that it is and two months, or a fine of proceed to the final
the Metropolitan Trial Court not more than four thousand determination of the cause is
and not the Regional Trial pesos, or both such fine and not affected by new legislation
Court which has jurisdiction imprisonment, regardless of placing jurisdiction over such
over the case pursuant to R.A. other imposable accessory or proceedings in another tribunal
7691 is without merit. other penalties, including the unless the statute expressly
civil liability arising from such provides, or is construed to the
It is hornbook doctrine that offenses or predicated thereon, effect that it is intended to
jurisdiction to try a criminal irrespective of kind, nature, operate on actions pending
action is determined by the law value or amount thereof: before its enactment. Indeed,
in force at the time of Provided, however, That in R.A. No. 7691 contains
the institution of the offenses involving damage to retroactive provisions.
action15 and not during the property through criminal However, these only apply to
arraignment of the accused. The negligence they shall have civil cases that have not yet
Information charging petitioner exclusive original jurisdiction reached the pre-trial stage.
with violation of B.P. Blg. 22 where the imposable fine does Neither from an express
was filed on August 19, 1991. not exceed twenty thousand proviso nor by implication can
At that time, the governing law pesos. it be construed that R.A. No.
determinative of jurisdiction is 7691 has retroactive application
B.P. Blg. 12916 which provides: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is to criminal cases pending or
punishable with imprisonment decided by the Regional Trial
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in of not less than 30 days but not Courts prior to its
criminal cases. Regional more than one year or by a fine effectivity.20 The jurisdiction of
Trial Courts shall exercise of not less than but not more the RTC over the case attached
exclusive original jurisdiction than double the amount of the upon the commencement of the
in all criminal cases not within check which fine shall in no action by the filing of the
the exclusive jurisdiction of any case exceed 200,000.00, or Information and could not be
court, tribunal or body, except both fine and imprisonment17 at ousted by the passage of R.A.
those now falling under the the discretion of the court. In No. 7691 reapportioning the
exclusive and concurrent the present case, the fine jurisdiction of inferior courts,
jurisdiction of the imposable is 200,000.00 the application of which to
Sandiganbayan which shall hence, the Regional Trial Court criminal cases is prospective in
hereafter be exclusively taken properly acquired jurisdiction nature.21
cognizance by the latter. over the case.18 The
Metropolitan Trial Court could After a careful review of the
not acquire jurisdiction over the records, this Court sustains
petitioners conviction for petitioner or as an investment in not a defense. The gravamen of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The the alleged partnership is a the offense punished under B.P.
elements of the offense factual question involving the Blg. 22 is the act of making or
penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 credibility of witnesses. Where issuing a worthless check or a
are as follows: (1) the accused the issue is one of credibility, check that is dishonored upon
makes, draws, or issues any the appellate court will not its presentment for payment.
check to apply on account or generally disturb the findings of The law has made the mere act
for value; (2) the accused the lower court considering that of issuing a bad check malum
knows at the time of issue that it is in a better position to settle prohibitum, an act proscribed
he does not have sufficient that issue since it had the by the legislature for being
funds in or credit with the advantage of hearing the deemed pernicious and inimical
drawee bank for the payment of witnesses and observing their to public welfare. Considering
such check in full upon its conduct during the trial, which the rule in mala prohibita cases,
presentment; and (3) the check circumstances carry great the only inquiry is whether the
is subsequently dishonored by weight in assessing their law has been breached.
the drawee bank for credibility. In the present case, Criminal intent becomes
insufficiency of funds or credit we see no reason to reverse the unnecessary where the acts are
or would have been dishonored finding of the trial court as prohibited for reasons of public
for the same reason had not the affirmed by the Court of policy, and the defenses of good
drawer, without any valid Appeals that the amount of the faith and absence of criminal
reason, ordered the bank to stop subject check was a loan and intent are unavailing.
payment. not an investment.23
The checks issued, even
Each element of the offense Upon issuance of a check, in assuming they were not
was duly proven by the the absence of evidence to the intended to be encashed or
prosecution. Petitioner admitted contrary, it is presumed that the deposited in a bank, produce
that at the time he issued the same was issued for valuable the same effect as ordinary
subject check, he knew that he consideration, which may checks. What the law punishes
does not have sufficient funds consist either in some right, is the issuance of a rubber
in or credit with the drawee interest, profit or benefit check itself and not the purpose
bank for payment of such accruing to the party who for which the check was issued
check. Consequently, when the makes the contract, or some nor the terms and conditions
check was presented for forbearance, detriment, loss or relating to its issuance. This is
payment, it was dishonored by some responsibility, to act, or not without good reasons. To
the drawee bank for labor, or service given, suffered determine the purpose as well
insufficiency of funds. or undertaken by the other side. as the terms and conditions for
Thereafter, he received demand Since it was established that which checks are issued will
letters to pay the amount of the petitioner received money from greatly erode the faith the
check from private complainant private complainant in various public reposes in the stability
but he did not comply with it.22 amounts,24 petitioner cannot and commercial value of
now claim that the checks were checks as currency substitutes,
In ruling that the amount of the not issued for value.25 and bring about havoc in the
check was for consideration or trading and banking
value, both the trial court and The allegation that the check communities. Besides, the law
the Court of Appeals upheld was intended to be shown to does not make any distinction
private complainants claim that potential suppliers is not a valid as to the kind of checks which
the check was issued as a defense. In Cueme v. are the subject of its provisions,
guaranty for the loan and People,26 the Court held thus: hence, no such distinction can
rejected petitioners be made by means of
"investment theory". The issue The allegation of petitioner that interpretation or application.
as to whether the amount of the the checks were merely What is important is the fact
subject check represents the intended to be shown to that petitioner deliberately
amount of the money loaned by prospective investors of her issued the checks in question
private complainant to corporation is, to say the least, and those checks were
dishonored upon presentment prospective suppliers, a defense imprisonment, petitioner is
for payment. which is not valid. ordered to pay a fine of
200,000.00.
Hence, the agreement Moreover, there is no merit in
surrounding the issuance of a petitioners allegation that o Morales v. Court of Appeals,
check is irrelevant to the private complainant knew that G.R. No' 126623,12
prosecution and conviction of the check is not funded. Both
the petitioner.27 the trial court and the Court of ERNESTO MORALES y
Appeals found that the subject DELA CRUZ, petitioner,
The alleged inconsistency in check was issued as guaranty vs.COURT OF APPEALS,
the date of issuance of the for payment of the loan hence, HON. ALFREDO J.
subject check is likewise was intended to apply for GUSTILO, as Presiding
immaterial.1wphi1 Issuance, account or for value. As such, it Judge of RTC, Pasay City,
as defined under the Negotiable was incumbent upon petitioner Branch 116 and PEOPLE OF
Instruments Law, is the first to see to it that the check is THE
delivery of the check.28 In the duly covered when presented
case at bar, the Information for payment. The key issue in this case is
alleged that the check was whether, in light of R.A. No.
postdated February 15, 1988 Pursuant to Supreme Court 7659 1 as interpreted in People
although issued in or about Administrative Circular No. 12- v. Simon, 2 and R.A. No.
September 1987. During trial, 2000, as clarified by 7691, 3 Regional Trial Courts
petitioner testified that the Administrative Circular No. 13- have jurisdiction over
Checking Account was opened 2001, the alternative penalty of violations of R.A. No. 6425,
only on December 1, 1987 and fine may be imposed in lieu of otherwise known as the
that the check was issued imprisonment considering that Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
sometime in February 1988. the prosecution failed to prove as amended, when the
or allege that petitioner is not a imposable penalty is not more
The rule is that a variance first-time offender.30 Hence, in than six (6) years.
between the allegation in the lieu of imprisonment, a fine of
information and proof adduced 200,000.00 shall be imposed The petitioner was charged with
during trial shall be fatal to the upon petitioner.31 the violation of Section 15 in
criminal case if it is material relation to Section 20 of R.A.
and prejudicial to the accused WHEREFORE, the assailed No. 6425, as amended by R.A.
so much so that it affects his decision of the Court of No. 7659, in an information
substantial rights.29 In a Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. filed before the Regional Trial
prosecution for violation of B.P. 21879 dated September 17, Court (RTC) of Pasay City on
22, the time of the issuance of 2001, finding petitioner 13 March 1996. The accusatory
the subject check is material ISIDRO PABLITO M. portion of the said information
since it forms part of the second PALANA guilty of violating reads as follows:
element of the offense that at Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, is
the time of its issuance, AFFIRMED with That on or about the 11th day of
petitioner knew of the MODIFICATION. Petitioner is March 1996, in Pasay, Metro
insufficiency of funds. However, ordered to pay private Manila, Philippines, and within
it cannot be said that petitioner complainant the amount of the jurisdiction of this
was prejudiced by such 590,000.00, representing the Honorable Court, the above-
variance nor was surprised by value of the check, with six named accused, Ernesto
it. Records show that petitioner (6%) percent interest from date Morales y De la Cruz, without
knew at the time he issued the of filing of the Information authority of law, did then and
check that he does not have until the finality of the decision, there wilfully, unlawfully and
sufficient funds in the bank to the amount of which, inclusive feloniously sell and deliver to
cover the amount of the check. of the interest, is subject to another 0.4587 grams of
Yet, he proceeded to issue the twelve percent (12%) interest, Metamphetamine
same claiming that the same from finality of the decision Hydrochloride (shabu), a
would only be shown to until fully paid. In lieu of regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4 6425, although punishable by a In his Comment to the petition,
penalty of less than six (6) the Solicitor General, inter alia,
The case was docketed as years, falls within the contended that this Court has
Criminal Case No. 96-8443 and jurisdiction of the Regional no jurisdiction over the petition
raffled to Branch 116 of the Trial Court. for it properly falls within the
said court. exclusive jurisdiction of the
His motion for the Supreme Court.
9
Upon his arraignment, the reconsideration of the order
petitioner entered a plea of not having been denied, 10 the We fully agree.
guilty. 5 Subsequently, on 30 petitioner filed with respondent
April 1996, the petitioner filed Court of Appeals a petition for Section 5, Article VIII of the
a Motion to Dismiss6 on the certiorari under Rule 65 of the Constitution provides:
ground that the RTC had no Rules of Court. 11 The case was
jurisdiction to try the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. Sec. 5. The Supreme Court
considering that pursuant to 40670. shall have the following
Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659 as powers; . . .
construed in People v. In its Comment 12 in CA-G.R.
7
Simon, the penalty imposable SP No. 40670, the Office of the (2) Review, revise, reverse,
for the offense charged should Solicitor General (OSG) agreed modify, or affirm on appeal
not exceed prision with the petitioner that the RTC or certiorari as the law or the
correccional or six (6) years had no jurisdiction to try the Rules of Court may provide,
and under R.A. No. 7691 it is criminal case. It, however, final judgments and orders of
the Metropolitan Trial Court asserted that the Court of lower courts in: . . .
which has jurisdiction over the Appeals had no jurisdiction
case. over the special civil action (c) All cases in which the
for certiorari, as the same jurisdiction of any lower court
In its Order 8 of 9 May 1996, involved only the question of is in issue. . . .
the RTC denied the motion. It jurisdiction of an inferior court,
held: hence, cognizable by the Section 17 of R.A. 5446
Supreme Court alone pursuant otherwise known as the
It is true that under the to Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Judiciary Act of 1948 says that
aforementioned provision, Bilang 129, in connection with the Supreme Court has
cases punishable with penalties Section 5(2)(c), Article VIII of exclusive jurisdiction to review,
of not more than six (6) years the 1987 Constitution and revise, reverse, modify or
are within the exclusive Section 17 of Republic Act No. affirm on certiorari final
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan 5440. The OSG then judgments and decrees of
Trial Courts. However, the recommended that the case be inferior courts in all cases in
exceptions are "cases falling elevated to the Supreme Court which the jurisdiction of any
within the exclusive original for disposition, or that the inferior court is on issue. It is
jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Appeals grant the hereby stressed that the issue in
Trial Court. . ." Under Section petition and set aside the the petition at bench is purely a
39 of Republic Act No. 6425, challenged order of the RTC question of jurisdiction which
the Dangerous Drugs Act of should it rule that it had is resolvable on the basis of the
1972, the Court of First jurisdiction over petition. records.
Instance now the Regional Trial
Court and the Juvenile and In its Resolution 13 of 8 August After the denial 14 on 13
Domestic Relations Court, 1996, the Court of Appeals September 1996 of his motion
which no longer exist, "shall dismissed the petition for reconsideration, 15 the
have concurrent original for certiorari for lack of petitioner came to this Court
jurisdiction over all cases jurisdiction over the action. via this petition for review
involving offenses punishable Explaining its ruling, it wider Rule 45 of the Rules of
under this Act." It is therefore declared: Court raising the following
clear that this case, which is a issues:
violation of Republic Act No.
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE Court and not to an original exception provided for in the
COURT OF APPEALS HAS action under Rule 65 of the opening sentence of Section 32
JURISDICTION TO Rules of Court. of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by
ENTERTAIN A PETITION Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691. It
FOR CERTIORARI UNDER As regards the second issue, the submits that Section 39 of R.A.
RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF petitioner asserts that the RTC No. 6425 was repealed by
COURT WHERE THE ISSUE below has no jurisdiction over Section 6 of R.A. No. 7691,
IS THE JURISDICTION OF the offense charged considering which provides:
RESPOND NT RTC JUDGE that only 0.4587 grams of
TO TRY THE ALLEGED methamphetamine Sec. 6. All laws, decrees, and
VIOLATION OF R.A. 6425; hydrochloride (shabu) is orders inconsistent with the
AND. involved. In light of Section 20 provisions of this Act shall be
of R.A. No. 7659, 19 as considered amended or
II. WHETHER OR NOT interpreted in People modified accordingly.
RESPONDENT RTC v. Simon 20 and further
JUDGE/COURT HAS explained in People In support of its submission, it
JURISDICTION TO TRY v. Santos 21 and Ordoez cites this Court's resolution
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF v. Vinarao, 22 the imposable in Gulhoran v. Escao, Jr. 23
SECTION 15, IN RELATION penalty therefor would not
TO SECTION 20, ART. III OF exceed prision correccional, The OSG further contends that
R.A. 6425, AS AMENDED, whose maximum period is six respondent Court of Appeals
INVOLVING ONLY 0.4587 (6) years. Hence, under R.A. was correct in dismissing the
GRAMS OF SHABU. No. 7691 exclusive original petition for certiorari for lack
jurisdiction therein is vested in of jurisdiction in view of
As to the first, the petitioner Metropolitan Trial Courts, Section 9(3) of B.P. Blg. 129;
insists that respondent Court of Municipal Trial Courts, and Sec. 5(2)(c) of Article VIII of
Appeals has concurrent original Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. the Constitution; and Section
jurisdiction with this Court over 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948,
petitions for certiorari under In its Comment on the petition, as amended by R.A. No. 5440.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court the OSG submits that all Nevertheless, it prays that this
involving decisions or orders of violations of R.A. No. 6425, as petition "be given due course
Regional Trial Courts pursuant further amended by R.A. No. and that Criminal Case No. 96-
to Section 9(1) 16 of B.P. Blg. 7659, which are punishable by 8443 be remanded to the proper
129 in relation to Section imprisonment not exceeding six metropolitan trial court for
5(1) 17 of Article VIII of the years now fall under the further proceedings."
Constitution. He cites De Jesus jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
v. Court of Appeals 18 wherein Trial Courts, Municipal Trial We resolved to give due course
this Court held that the original Courts, and Municipal Circuit to this petition.
jurisdiction of the Court of Trial Courts. Since on the basis
Appeals under Section 9 of B.P. of the quantity of the regulated The Court of Appeals erred in
Blg. 129 is concurrent with that drug involved in this case the holding that it had no
of the Supreme Court, and with penalty imposable does not jurisdiction over petitioner's
that of Regional Trial Courts exceed prision correccional, it special civil action
for writs enforceable within is the Metropolitan Trial Court for certiorariunder Rule 65 of
their respective regions. The of Pasay City which has the Rules of Court.
petitioner further maintains that jurisdiction over the case. It
Section 5(2)(c) of Article VIII disagreed with the opinion of Under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg.
of the Constitution and Section the RTC that violations of R.A. 129, the Court of Appeals has
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, No. 6425, as amended, still fall concurrent original jurisdiction
as amended by R.A. No. 5440, within the jurisdiction of the with the Supreme Court
relied upon by the Court RTC because the latter's pursuant to Section 5(1) of
Appeals are not applicable jurisdiction thereon mandated Article VIII of the Constitution
inasmuch as they relate to by Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425 and Section 17(1) of the
the appellate jurisdiction of this has been preserved by the Judiciary Act of 1948, and with
the Regional Trial Court court has acted without or in quantities of marijuana and
pursuant to Section 21(7) of excess of jurisdiction or with methamphetamine
B.P. Blg. 129 to issue writs grave abuse of discretion in hydrochloride for purposes of
of certiorari, mandamus, denying a motion to dismiss or imposing the maximum
prohibition, habeas corpus, to quash. 25 The petitioner penalties are not the same. For
and quo warranto. 24 These are believed that the RTC below the latter, if the quantity
original actions, not modes did so; hence, the special civil involved is 200 grams or more,
of appeals. action for certiorari before the the penalty of reclusion
Court of Appeals appeared to perpetua to death and a fine
Since what the petitioner filed be the proper remedy. ranging from P500,000 to P10
in CA-G.R. SP No. 40670 was million shall be imposed.
a special civil action The next most logical step then Accordingly, if the quantity
for certiorari under Rule 65, is for us to simply set aside the involved is below 200 grams,
the original jurisdiction of the challenged resolutions and to the imposable penalties should
Court of Appeals thereon is direct the Court of Appeals to be as follows:
beyond doubt. resolve on the merits the
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. a) reclusion temporal if the
This error of the Court of 40670. But, that would further quantity involved is
Appeals was due to its delay the case. Considering the from 134 to 199 grams;
misapplication of Section 5(2) special importance of the lone
(c) of Article VIII of the legal issue raised, which can be b) prision mayor if the
Constitution and of that portion resolved on the basis of the quantity involved is
of Section 17 of the Judiciary pleadings heretofore filed, and from 66 to 133 grams;
Act of 1948 vesting upon the the fact that this Court has
Supreme Court exclusive concurrent jurisdiction over c) prision correccional if the
jurisdiction to review, revise, petitioner's special action in quantity involved is 65
reverse, modify, or affirm CA-G.R. SP No. 40670, we grams or below.
on certiorari as the law or rules deem it more practical and in
of court may provide, final the greater interest of justice Clearly, the penalty which may
judgments and decrees of not to remand the case to the be imposed for the offense
inferior courts in all cases in Court of Appeals but, instead, charged in Criminal Case No.
which the jurisdiction of any to take direct cognizance 96-8443 would at most be
inferior court is in issue. It thereof and resolve it once and only prision
forgot that this constitutional for all. 26 correccional whose duration is
and statutory provisions pertain from six (6) months and one (1)
to the appellate We now address the second day to six (6) years. Does it
not original jurisdiction of issue. follow then that, as the
the Supreme Court, as correctly petitioner insists, the RTC has
maintained by the petitioner. Applying by analogy the ruling no jurisdiction thereon in view
An appellate jurisdiction refers in People v. Simon, 27 People of the amendment of Section 32
to a process which is but a v. De Lara, 28 People of B.P. Blg. 129 by R.A. No.
continuation of the original suit, 29
v. Santos, and Ordoez 7691, which vested upon
not a commencement of a new v. Vinarao, 30 the imposable Metropolitan Trial Courts,
action, such as that of a special penalty in this case which Municipal Trial Courts, and
civil action for certiorari. The involves 0.4587grams of shabu Municipal Circuit Trial Courts'
general rule is that a denial of a should not exceed prision exclusive original jurisdiction
motion to dismiss or to quash in correccional. We say over all offenses punishable
criminal cases is interlocutory by analogy because these cases with imprisonment not
and cannot be the subject of an involved marijuana, not exceeding six (6) years
appeal or of a special civil methamphetamine irrespective of the amount of
action for certiorari. hydrochloride (shabu). In fine and regardless of other
Nevertheless, this Court has Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as imposable accessory or other
allowed a special civil action amended by Section 17 of R.A. penalties? This section 32 as
for certiorari where a lower No. 7659, the maximum thus amended now reads:
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of thereon is retained by the the Judiciary Act of 1948 as
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Regional Trial Courts or the amended, or the Judiciary
Municipal Trial Courts and Sandiganbayan, as the case may Reorganization Act of 1980. In
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts be. short, the special law prevails
in Criminal Cases. Except in over the general law.
cases falling within the The aforementioned exception
exclusive original jurisdiction refers not only to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7691 can by no means
of Regional Trial Court and of B.P. Blg. 129 providing for the be considered another special
the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of Regional Trial law on jurisdiction but merely
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Courts in criminal cases,31 but an amendatory law intended to
Municipal Trial Courts, and also to other laws which amend specific sections of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts specifically lodge in Regional Judiciary Reorganization Act of
shall exercise: Trial Courts exclusive 1980. Hence, it does not have
jurisdiction over specific the effect of repealing or
(2) Exclusive original criminal cases, e.g., (a) Article modifying Article 360 of the
jurisdiction over all offenses 360 of the Revised Penal Code, Revised Penal Code; Section 57
punishable with imprisonment as amended by R.A. Nos. 1289 of the Decree on Intellectual
not exceeding six (6) years and 4363 on written defamation Property; and Section 39 of
irrespective of the amount of or libel; (b) Decree on R.A. No. 6425, as amended by
fine, and regardless of other intellectual Property (P.D. No. P.D. No. 44. In a manner of
imposable accessory or other 49, as amended), which vests speaking, R.A. No. 7691 was
penalties, including the civil upon Courts of First Instance absorbed by the mother law, the
liability arising from such exclusive jurisdiction over the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
offender or predicated thereon, cases therein mentioned 1980.
irrespective of kind, nature, regardless of the imposable
value or amount thereof: penalty; and (c) more That Congress indeed did not
Provided, however, That in appropriately for the case at intend to repeal these special
offenses involving damage to bar, Section 39 of R.A. No. laws vesting exclusive
property through criminal 6425, as amended by P.D. No. jurisdiction in the Regional
negligence, they shall have 44, which vests on Courts of Trial Courts over certain cases
exclusive original jurisdiction First Instance, Circuit Criminal is clearly evident from the
thereof. Courts, and the Juvenile and exception provided for in the
Domestic Relations Courts opening sentence of Section 32
The exception in the opening concurrent exclusive original of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by
sentence is of special jurisdiction over all cases R.A. No. 7691. These special
significance which we cannot involving violations of said Act. laws are not, therefore, covered
disregard. By virtue thereof, the by the repealing clause (Section
exclusive original jurisdiction Jurisdiction is, of course, 6) of R.A. No. 7691.
of the Metropolitan Trial conferred by the Constitution or
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, by Congress. Outside the cases Neither can it be successfully
and Municipal Circuit Trial enumerated in Section 5(2) of argued that Section 39 of R.A.
Courts in criminal cases does Article VIII of the Constitution, No. 6425, as amended by P.D.
not cover those cases which by Congress has the plenary power No. 44, is no longer operative
provision of law fall within the to define, prescribe and because Section 44 of B.P. Blg.
exclusive original jurisdiction apportion the jurisdiction of 129 abolished the Courts of
of Regional Trial Courts and of various courts. 32 Accordingly, First Instance, Circuit Criminal
the Sandiganbayan regardless Congress may, by law, provide Courts, and Juvenile and
of the prescribed penalty. that a certain class of cases Domestic Relations Courts.
Otherwise put, even if such should be exclusively heard and While, indeed, Section 44
cases are punishable by determined by one court. Such provides that these courts were
imprisonment not exceeding six would be a special law and to be "deemed automatically
years (i.e., prision must be construed as an abolished" upon the declaration
correccional, arresto mayor, exception to the general law on by the President that the
or arresto menor), jurisdiction, jurisdiction of courts, namely, reorganization provided in B.P.
Blg. 129 had been completed, expressly ruled that Regional Thereafter, in Circular No. 31-
this Court should not lose sight Trial Courts have the exclusive 97 dated 15 May 1997, the
of the fact that the Regional original jurisdiction over libel Court Administrator directed
Trial Courts merely replaced cases pursuant to Article 360 of Judges of "special courts for
the Courts of First Instance as the Revised Penal Code. In Kidnapping, Robbery,
clearly borne out by the last Administrative Order No. 104- Carnapping, Dangerous Drugs
two sentences of Section 44, to 96 this Court mandates that: and other Heinous Crimes" to
wit: comply with the aforesaid
LIBEL CASES SHALL BE amendment to Administrative
Upon such declaration, the said TRIED BY THE REGIONAL Order No. 104-96. To avoid any
courts shall be deemed TRIAL COURTS HAVING further confusion or
automatically abolished and the JURISDICTION OVER THEM misunderstanding, we hereby
incumbents thereof shall cease TO THE EXCLUSION OF declare that the term "regular
to hold office. The cases THE METROPOLITAN courts" found in the above
pending in the old Courts shall TRIAL COURTS, amendment refers exclusively
be transferred to the appropriate MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS to the Regional Trial Courts and
Courts constituted pursuant to IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL was not intended to include
this Act, together with the TRIAL COURTS AND Metropolitan Trial Courts,
pertinent functions, records, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL Municipal Trial Courts and
equipment, property and COURT. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
necessary personnel.
It likewise provides that In view of the foregoing, the
In short, there was a change in jurisdiction over cases Court hereby abandons the
name only from Courts of involving violations of resolution in Gulhoran
First Instance to Regional Trial intellectual property rights are v. Escao 36 where, through the
Courts. The Interim Rules and "confined exclusively to the Second Division, we ruled, in
Guidelines Relative to the Regional Trial Courts." effect, that Section 39 of R.A.
Implementation of B.P. Blg. No. 6425, as amended, was
129 promulgated by this Court The same Administrative Order repealed by virtue of the
on 11 January 1983 also recognizes that violations of repealing clause of R.A. No.
provides that the reference to RA. No. 6426, as amended, 7691.
the courts of first instance in regardless of the quantity
the Rules of Court shall be involved, are to be tried and The RTC then did not commit
deemed changed to the regional decided by the Regional Trial any error in denying petitioner's
trial courts. Courts therein designated as motion to dismiss Civil Case
special courts. As to the latter, No. 96-8443.
Consequently, it is not accurate this Court in its Resolution of
to state that the "abolition" of 15 April 1997 in A.M. No. 96- WHEREFORE, the petition is
the Courts of First Instance 11-421-RTC, 35 resolved as GRANTED, but only insofar as
carried with it the abolition of follows: the issue of jurisdiction of
their exclusive original respondent Court of Appeals in
jurisdiction in drug cases vested . . . to AMEND Administrative CA-G.R. SP No. 40670 is
by Section 39 of R.A. No. Order No. 104-96, dated concerned. The Resolutions of
6425, as amended by P. D. No. October 21, 1996, with respect 8 August and 13 September
44. If that were so, then so must only to the violation of the 1996 of the Court of Appeals
it be with respect to Article 360 Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are SET ASIDE, while the
of the Revised Penal Code and as amended, if the imposable challenged orders in Criminal
Section 57 of the Decree on penalty is reclusion perpetua to Case No. 96-8443 of the
Intellectual Property. On the death. Thus, if the imposable Regional Trial Court of Pasay
contrary, in the resolution of 19 penalty is below reclusion City, Branch 116, are
June 1996 in Caro v. Court of perpetua the drug related cases AFFIRMED. The trial court is
Appeals 33 and in the resolution will be raffled among the hereby DIRECTED to proceed
of 26 February 1997 in Villalon regular courts as ordinary with the trial of Criminal Case
v. Baldado, 34 this Court criminal cases.
No. 96-8443 with all reasonable equivalent to imprisonment of was filed by the private
dispatch. six (6) months and one (1) day prosecutor and the assistant
to four (4) years and two (2) provincial prosecutor of Ilagan,
o People v. Hon. Eduarte, G.R. months, well within the Isabela, with the offended party,
No. 88232,25 February 1990 exclusive original jurisdiction Alma T. Aggabao, being named
of the Municipal Trial Court, co-petitioner of the People of
PEOPLE OF THE and not of the Regional Trial the Philippines. The Court has
PHILIPPINES, petitioner, Court. The prosecution filed an already ruled that while it is the
vs.HON. HENEDINO P. opposition to the motion fiscal who represents the
EDUARTE, in his capacity as contending that the Regional People of the Philippines in the
Acting Presiding Judge of the Trial Court has jurisdiction over prosecution of offenses before
RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, the crime of concubinage the trial courts, when such
Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO because destierro, the criminal actions are brought to
and VILLA SURATOS, imposable penalty on the the Court of Appeals or to the
concubine [Art. 334, RPC] has Supreme Court, it is the
a duration of six (6) months and Solicitor General who must
Assailed in this petition is the
one (1) day to six (6) years represent the People of the
order of the Regional Trial
[Art. 27, RPC]. The trial court Philippines, not the fiscal [City
Court of Cabagan, Isabela,
sustained private respondent's Fiscal of Tacloban v. Espina,
Branch 22, dismissing the
position and granted the motion G.R. No. 83996, October 21,
criminal information for
to dismiss. 1988, 166 SCRA 614] nor the
concubinage filed against
private prosecutor, even with
private respondents, on the
Private prosecutor, together the conformity of the assistant
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
with the assistant provincial provincial prosecutor [People v.
The antecedent facts are as
prosecutor of Ilagan, Isabela, Dacudao, G.R. No. 81389,
follows:
filed on June 16, 1989 the February 21, 1989].
instant petition assailing the Nevertheless, considering that
Upon complaint by Alma T.
order of the trial court granting the Solicitor General has
Aggabao, the Office of the
the motion to dismiss the intervened in this case by filing
Provincial Fiscal of Cabagan,
criminal information against a motion for reconsideration of
Isabela filed on July 25, 1986
private respondents. In a the Court resolution dated July
with the Regional Trial Court of
resolution dated July 17, 1989, 17, 1989 denying the petition,
Cabagan, Isabela, Branch 22,
this Court denied the petition the Court has decided to forego
an information against private
due to late payment of docket technicalities and to resolve the
respondents Elvino Aggabao
and legal research fees and for issues raised. Moreover, since it
and Villa Suratos for the crime
lack of merit. The Solicitor is now apparent that the only
of concubinage [Annex "A" to
General filed a motion for petitioner in this case is the
the Petition; Rollo, p. 17.]
reconsideration of the order of People of the Philippines as
allegedly committed in
the Court denying the petition. represented by the Solicitor
September 1983. Upon being
Subsequently, the private General, payment of the legal
arraigned, private respondents
prosecutor filed a separate fees is not necessary in
entered a plea of not guilty
motion for reconsideration. In accordance with Rule 141, Sec.
[Annex "B" to the Petition;
these motions, the Solicitor 16 of the Revised Rules of
Rollo, p. 19]. The complainant
General and the private Court.
was represented before the trial
prosecutor submitted additional
court by a private prosecutor.
arguments to support their Petitioner first contends that
During the trial, private
position that the Regional Trial private respondents are
respondents filed a motion to
Court has jurisdiction over the estopped from raising the issue
dismiss on the ground of lack
crime of concubinage. of jurisdiction after the
of jurisdiction. They argued that
prosecution has rested its case
concubinage, under Art. 334 of
At the outset, it must be stated and the defense has started to
the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
that the petition is defective present its evidence.
is punishable with prision
since it was not filed by the Furthermore, petitioner
correccional in its minimum
Solicitor General. Instead, it complains that "it took two (2)
and medium periods, which is
years and six (6) months before
anyone to take (sic) notice of . . . a party can not invoke the exceptional case because of the
the jurisdictional infirmity jurisdiction of a court to secure presence of laches. The Court
[Petition, p. 5; Rollo, p. 12]. affirmative relief against his said:
Hence, according to petitioner, opponent and, after obtaining or
private respondents are barred failing to obtain such relief, A rule that had been settled by
from raising the issue of repudiate or question that same unquestioned acceptance and
jurisdiction, estoppel having jurisdiction (Dean vs. Dean, upheld in decisions so
already set in. 136 Or. 694, 86 A.L.R. 79). In numerous to cite is that the
the case just cited, by way of jurisdiction of a court over the
The contention is without merit. explaining the rule, it was subject-matter of the action is a
In our legal system, the further said that the question matter of law and may not be
question of jurisdiction may be whether the court had conferred by consent or
raised at any stage of the jurisdiction either of the agreement of the parties. The
proceedings [Rule 117, Sec. 8, subject- matter of the action or lack of jurisdiction of a court
Revised Rules on Criminal of the parties is barred from may be raised at any stage of
Procedure; U.S. v. Castanares, such conduct not because the the proceedings, even on
18 Phil. 210 (1911)]. It is true judgment or order of the court appeal. This doctrine has been
that in Vera v. People, G.R. No. is valid and conclusive as an qualified by recent
L-31218, February 18, 1970, 31 adjudication, but for the reason pronouncements which
SCRA 711 and in People v. that such a practice can not be stemmed principally from the
Munar, G.R. No. L-37642, tolerated obviously for ruling in the cited case
October 22, 1973, 53 SCRA reasons of public policy. of Sibonghanoy. It is to be
278, cases cited by the Solicitor regretted, however, that the
General and private prosecutor Furthermore, it has also been holding in said case had been
in their pleadings, the Court held that after voluntarily applied to situations which
held that jurisdiction cannot be submitting a cause and were obviously not
raised for the first time on encountering an adverse contemplated therein. The
appeal. However, these cases decision on the meats, it is too exceptional circumstance
can readily be distinguished late for the loser to question the involved in Sibonghanoy which
from the case at bar by the fact jurisdiction or power of the justified the departure from the
that the issue of jurisdiction court ... And in Littleton vs. accepted concept of non-
was raised only on appeal. In Burges, 16 Wyo. 58, the Court waivability of objection to
the instant case, the private said that it is not right for a jurisdiction has been ignored
respondents made the party who has affirmed and and, instead a blanket doctrine
jurisdictional challenge pending invoked the jurisdiction of a had been repeatedly upheld that
the trial and before the trial court in a particular matter to rendered the supposed ruling
court has rendered any secure an affirmative relief, to in Sibonghanoy not as the
judgment on the merits. afterwards deny that same exception, but rather the
jurisdiction to escape a penalty. general rule, virtually
Moreover, the ruling in Vera v. overthrowing altogether the
People and People v. In Calimlim v. Ramirez, G.R. time-honored principle that the
Munar that jurisdiction may not No. L-34362, November 19, issue of jurisdiction is not lost
be raised for the first time on 1982, 118 SCRA 399 [See also by waiver or by estoppel.
appeal, is the exception rather Dy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 68544,
than the general rule. October 27, 1986, 145 SCRA In Sibonghanoy, the defense of
211], the Court held that the lack of jurisdiction of the court
The doctrine in those cases was ruling in Tijam v. that rendered the questioned
first enunciated in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is an exception to ruling was held to be barred by
Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L- the general rule that the lack of estoppel by laches. It was ruled
21450, April 15, 1968, 23 jurisdiction of a court may be that the lack of jurisdiction
SCRA 29, 35-36, where the raised at any stage of the having been raised for the first
Court stated that: proceedings, even on appeal. time in a motion to dismiss
The Court stated further filed almost fifteen (15) years
that Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is an after the questioned ruling had
been rendered, such a plea may Art. 334. Concubinage. Any months and one (1) day to four
no longer be raised for being husband who shall keep a (4) years and two (2) months.
barred by laches. As defined in mistress in the conjugal Hence, as regards the husband,
said case, laches is "failure or dwelling, or, shall have sexual there is no question that
neglect, for an unreasonable intercourse, under scandalous concubinage is within the
and unexplained length of time, circumstances, with a woman exclusive original jurisdiction
to do that which, by exercising who is not his wife, or shall of the inferior courts. The
due diligence, could or should cohabit with her in any other problem concerns the
have been done earlier; it is place shall be punished concubine upon whom the
negligence or omission to assert by prision correccional in its imposable penalty is destierro.
a right within a reasonable minimum and medium periods.
time, warranting a presumption The Solicitor General and the
that the party entitled to assert The concubine shall suffer the private prosecutor point out that
has abandoned it or declined to penalty of destierro. (Emphasis the duration of destierro, which
assert it. supplied.) is between six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years
The circumstances of the According to Sec. 32 of B.P. [Art. 27, RPC], is beyond the
present case are very different Blg. 129, otherwise known as jurisdiction of the inferior
from Tijam v. Sibonghanoy No the Judiciary Reorganization courts to impose. Thus, they
judgment has yet been rendered Act of 1980, the Metropolitan conclude that either (1) the
by the trial court in this case. Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Regional Trial Courts and the
And as soon as the accused Courts and Municipal Circuit inferior courts have concurrent
discovered the jurisdictional Trial Courts (hereinafter jurisdiction over the crime of
defect, they did not fail or referred to as the inferior concubinage [Solicitor
neglect to file the appropriate courts) shall exercise General's Motion for
motion to dismiss. Hence, "[e]xclusive original Reconsideration, p. 11; Rollo,
finding the pivotal element of jurisdiction over all offenses p. 521; or (2) the Regional Trial
laches to be absent, the Court punishable with imprisonment Courts and the inferior courts
holds that the ruling in Tijam v. of not exceeding four years and have "split jurisdiction," the
Sibonghanoy, Vera v. two months, or a fine of not latter having jurisdiction over
People and People v. more than four thousand pesos, the crime as regards the
Munar does not control the or both such fine and husband and the former as
present controversy. Instead, imprisonment, regardless of regards the concubine [Private
the general rule that the other imposable accessory or Prosecutor's Motion for
question of jurisdiction of a other penalties, including the Reconsideration, p. 3; Rollo, p.
court may be raised at any stage civil liability arising from such 58].
of the proceedings, must apply. offenses or predicated thereon,
Private respondents are not irrespective of kind, nature, These propositions are both
estopped from questioning the value or amount thereof . . ." untenable. It has already been
jurisdiction of the trial court. On the other hand, the held by the Court in Uy Chin
"Regional Trial Courts shall Hua v. Dinglasan, 86 Phil. 617
Having disposed of the exercise exclusive original (1950) and People v. Santos, 87
procedural issue, the Court will jurisdiction in all criminal cases Phil. 687 (1950) that a crime
now proceed with the main not within the exclusive punishable with the penalty
issue of whether or not the jurisdiction of any court, of destierro is within the
Regional Trial Court has tribunal, or body. . ." [Sec. 20. jurisdiction of the inferior
original jurisdiction over the B.P. Blg. 129]. courts. This is so because in the
crime of concubinage. scale of penalties outlined in
The penalty imposable on the Art. 71, destierro comes
The crime of concubinage is husband who commits after arresto mayor. * And
penalized by Art. 334 of the concubinage since under the Judiciary Act of
Revised Penal Code which is prision correccional in its 1948 [Republic Act No. 296],
reads as follows: minimum and medium periods, crimes punishable with arresto
which ranges from six (6) mayor are within the
jurisdiction of the inferior the peace and judges of Hua v. Dinglasan and People v.
courts, it follows that crimes municipal courts of chartered Santos. It is quite evident that
punishable with destierro are cities had original jurisdiction among the important factors
also within the jurisdiction of over "all offenses in which the considered in the allocation of
such courts. In explaining its penalty provided by law is jurisdiction between the
conclusion that destierro is imprisonment for not more than Regional Trial Courts and the
lighter than arresto mayor and six months" [Sec. 87 (b)] while inferior courts are the gravity of
therefore cognizable by the Courts of First Instance had both the offense and the
inferior courts, the Court, in Uy original jurisdiction "in all imposable penalty. It is not,
Chin Hua v. criminal cases in which the therefore unreasonable to state
Dinglasan, supra at p. 619, penalty provided by law is that the legislature granted to
stated the following: imprisonment for more than six the Regional Trial Courts
months" [Sec. 44 (f)]. There jurisdiction over crimes whose
Destierro is not a higher being no mention in said Act of penalties are harsher than those
penalty than arresto mayor. crimes for which the penalty is vested in the inferior courts.
Arresto mayor means not imprisonment, these And since it is already a settled
imprisonment or complete aforecited cases were decided rule that destierro, by its nature,
deprivation of liberty, on the premise that "there exists is a lighter penalty than
whereas destierro means a gap in the law as to which imprisonment [Uy Chin Hua v.
banishment or only a court shall have original Dingalasan, supra], it follows
prohibition from residing jurisdiction over offenses that even under the Judiciary
within a radius of 25 kilometers penalized with destierro or Reorganization Act of 1980,
from the actual residence of the banishment" [Uy Chin Hua v. jurisdiction over crimes
accused for a specified length Dinglasan, supra, at p. 620]. punishable with destierro is
of time. The respective vested not in the Regional Trial
severities of arresto Under the Judiciary Courts but in the inferior
mayor and destierro must not Reorganization Act of 1980 courts.
be judged by the duration of (B.P. Blg. 129), the inferior
each of these penalties, but by courts shall exercise exclusive More particularly in this case,
the degree of deprivatin of original jurisdiction over "all the crime of concubinage has
liberty involved. Penologists offenses punishable with two penalties, one for the
have always imprisonment of not exceeding husband and another for the
considered destierro lighter four (4) years and two (2) concubine. The penalty for the
than arresto mayor. Such months [Sec. 32 (2)] while the husband, prision correccional i
criterion is reflected both in the Regional Trial Courts shall n its minimum and medium
old Spanish Penal Code and in have exclusive original periods, which ranges from six
our Revised Penal Code. In the jurisdiction" in all criminal (6) months and one (1) day to
graduated scale of article 71 the cases not within the exclusive four (4) years and two (2)
lawmaker has placed destierro jurisdiction of any court, months, is unquestionably
below arresto mayor. There is, tribunal or body" [Sec. 20]. within the jurisdiction of the
therefore, no basis in fact or in Ostensibly, Sec. 20 of B. P. Blg. inferior courts. Considering that
law for holding that destierro is 129 would grant to the Art. 344 of the Revised Penal
a higher penalty than arresto Regional Trial Courts Code states that "[t]he offended
mayor and that an offense jurisdiction over crimes party [in the crime of
penalized with destierro falls punishable with destierro, such concubinage] cannot institute
under the jurisdiction of the as concubinage, since destierro criminal prosecution without
court of first instance. is not an offense punishable including both the guilty
with imprisonment of not parties," it is clearly in the
The Court is well-aware of the exceeding four (4) years and interest of the orderly
fact that Uy Chin Hua v. two (2) months. However, the administration of justice that
Dinglasan and People Court, after a careful reading of the concubine be tried with the
v. Santos were decided under B.P. Blg. 129, is of the erring husband before the
the Judiciary Act of 1948 considered opinion that there inferior courts. The legislature
pursuant to which justices of was no intention to overturn the could not have intended to
doctrine laid down in Uy Chin allow the absurd situation
wherein the inferior court has MOBILIA PRODUCTS, in Japan, the same are coursed
jurisdiction over the crime of INC., Petitioners, vs. through Mobilia Philippines for
concubinage only as regards the HAJIME UMEZAWA, implementation and production,
husband while the Regional after which, the ordered items
Trial Court has jurisdiction over G.R. No. 149403. March 04, are shipped to Japan through
the same crime with respect to 2005 the mother company.
the concubine.
PEOPLE OF THE Mobilia Products Japan sent
In fine, the Court, after a PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, Hajime Umezawa to the
careful consideration of the vs. HON. JUDGE Philippines in order to head
pertinent laws, as well as the RUMOLDO R. Mobilia Products, Inc. as
jurisprudence on the matter, FERNANDEZ and HAJIME President and General Manager.
holds that the crime of UMEZAWA, To qualify him as such and as a
concubinage is within the Board Director, he was
exclusive original jurisdiction Before the Court are two entrusted with one nominal
of the inferior courts. The consolidated petitions: a share of stock.
Regional Trial Courts have no petition for review
original jurisdiction over the on certiorari filed by the Sometime in the last week of
said crime. Hence, the court a People of the Philippines, January 1995, Umezawa, then
quo committed no reversible docketed as G.R. No. 149403 the President and General
error in dismissing the criminal of the Resolution1 of the Court Manager of Mobilia Products,
information against private of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Inc., organized another
respondents. At any rate, No. 52440 which reversed its company with his wife Kimiko,
considering that the dismissal decision and granted the and his sister, Mitsuyo Yaguchi,
of the case by the court a petition for certiorari, to be known as Astem
quo on the ground of lack of prohibition and mandamus filed Philippines
jurisdiction is not a bar to by respondent Hajime Corporation, without the
another prosecution for the Umezawa; and the petition for knowledge of the Chairman
same offense [Rule 117, Secs. 6 review on certiorari docketed and Chief Executive Officer
and 7, Revised Rules on as G.R. No. 149357 filed by Susumo Kodaira and the
Criminal Procedure] and petitioner Mobilia Products, other members of the Board
considering further that the Inc. (MPI), the intervenor in the of Directors of Mobilia.
crime has not yet prescribed CA, assailing the same
[See Art. 90, RPC], the Resolution of the appellate The said company would be
offended wife is not precluded court. engaged in the same business as
from initiating the filing of Mobilia. Spouses Umezawa
another criminal information The Antecedents recruited Justin Legaspi, former
against private respondents Production Manager of
before the proper court. The antecedents were amply Mobilia, to act as Manager and
summarized by the Office of one Yoshikazu Hayano of
WHEREFORE, the Court the Solicitor General (OSG) in Phoenix Marble Corporation to
Resolved to DENY the petition the petition at bar, to wit: serve as investors [sic].
for lack of merit. The
reimbursement of the legal fees Mobilia Products, Inc. is a Pending formal organization,
paid by the private prosecutor corporation engaged in the Spouses Umezawa, Justin
for the filing of this petition is manufacture and export of Legaspi and Yoshikazu Hayano
hereby ORDERED. quality furniture which caters wanted to accelerate the market
only to the purchase orders potentials of Astem by
booked and placed through participating in the
Mobilia Products Japan, the International Furniture Fair
o Mobilia Products v. 1995 held at the Word Trade
mother company which does all
Umezawa, G'R. No. 1'49357,4 Centre of Singapore on March
the marketing and booking.
March 6 to 10, 1995.
After orders from customers are
booked at the mother company
One of the requirements of such President and General Manager, Legaspi. The foregoing
Fair was that the furniture unlawfully stole expensive furniture models were finally
exhibits must arrive and be furniture from Mobilias factory shipped for exhibition at the
received at Singapore not later worth 2,964,875.00. In order International Furniture Fair 95
than February 23, 1995. to avoid detection, the said in Singapore as furniture
Pressed for time, with less than furniture were loaded in the belonging to Astem Philippines
one month to prepare and while truck belonging to Dew Foam, Corporation.
Astem had yet no equipment with respondent Umezawa
and machinery, no staff and no personally supervising the Sometime in March 1995,
ready personnel, Umezawa, loading, the carting and based on orders booked for
with grave abuse of the spiriting away of the said Astem, Umezawa, with
confidence reposed on him as furniture. Thus, taking unfaithfulness and abuse of
President and General Manager advantage of his position as confidence reposed on him as
of Mobilia Products, Inc., and General Manager, he managed the President and General
in conspiracy with his wife, his to have the said furniture taken Manager of petitioner Mobilia,
sister Mitsuyo Yaguchi, out of the company premises ordered and caused the
Yoshikazu Hayano and Justin and passed the company guard manufacture of eighty-nine (89)
Legaspi, all with intent to gain without any problem and pieces of furniture with a total
for themselves and for their difficulty. value of 17,108,500.00. The
company Astem Philippines said pieces of furniture were
Corporation, stole prototype Further, on February 19, 1995, made with Mobilia supplies,
furniture from petitioner around 1 oclock in the materials and machineries, as
Mobilia so that the said pieces afternoon, respondent well as with Mobilia time and
of furniture would be presented Umezawa again loaded into his personnel, all of which were
and exhibited as belonging to motor vehicle, and took away under the administration and
Astem in the International from company premises under control of Umezawa as
Furniture Fair 95 in Singapore. the same irregular and unlawful President and General Manager.
circumstances, an expensive The said materials and supplies,
In order to avoid detection, three-seater sofa worth the time and labor, were
Umezawa contacted Henry 255,000.00. supposed to be used for the
Chua, the owner of Dew Foam, manufacture and production of
one of the suppliers of Mobilia, The taking out of the said quality furniture for the
for that the latter to load several furniture was effected in EXCLUSIVE USE of Mobilia.
pieces of prototype furniture violation of the standard However, Umezawa, in
into a Dew Foam truck and procedures established by violation of his duty to apply
store them at the Dew Foam petitioner corporation which the same for the use of Mobilia
warehouse. The first batch of requires that every shipment or and the duty to account for the
furniture was stolen on taking out of the furniture be same, converted their use for
February 8, 1995, when Mr. checked and reviewed by the benefit of Astem or for the
Henry Chua, upon the request Mobilias Production, Planning, use and benefit of Umezawa,
of respondent Umezawa, Inventory Costing and Control his wife and sister, Yoshikazu
caused to be loaded into his (PPICC) Division. All the Hayano and Legaspi, much to
Dew Foam truck two prototype foregoing furniture were the damage and prejudice of
sofa models worth transported to and stored at Mobilia Products.
500,000.00, after which, the Henry Chuas warehouse. After
same were spirited from the sometime, the foregoing The same furniture could also
Mobilia compound, then furniture were photographed for have been taken out of the
transported and stored in Henry slide photos at Photo Folio at company premises by
Chuas warehouse. the Reclamation Area, Cebu Umezawa and cohorts for
City and then finally catalogued shipment and delivery to Astem
Again, on February 18, 1995, for use in the Singapore Fair for customers had it not been for
Umezawa, with grave abuse of the use of Astem and its the timely discovery of the
confidence and taking supposed owners, namely: previous theft. 2
advantage of his position as spouses Umezawa, Hayano and
The Board of Directors of MPI, German leather sofa, worth - - - No. 6, Italian marble pedestal,
consisting of its Chairman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - worth - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Susumo Kodaira and members 208,125.00 150,000.00
Yasushi Kato and Rolando
Nonato, approved a Resolution 2) 1 set, Model No. 8, 2-seater 11) 1 piece, Model Column
on May 2, 1995 authorizing the
filing of a complaint against German leather sofa, worth - - - Standard No. 11, Italian marble
Umezawa for two counts of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - worth - - - - - - - - - - - -
qualified theft allegedly 315,000.00 93,750.00
committed on February 18 and
19, 1995. Attached to the 3) 1 set, Model No. 5, 2-seater 12) 1 piece, Model Table No. 1,
complaint was the Joint
Affidavit of Danilo Lallaban, German leather sofa, worth - - - Italian marble table, worth - - -
George del Rio and Yasushi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------
Kato. The case was docketed as 108,000.00 105,000.00
I.S. No. 95-275.
4) 1 set, Model No. 4, 2-seater 13) 1 piece, Model High Table
On May 15, 1995, the public
prosecutor filed an Information
German leather sofa, worth - - - No. 10, Italian marble, worth - -
for qualified theft against
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------
Umezawa with the Regional
277,500.00 187,500.00
Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-
Lapu City. The accusatory
portion of the Information, 5) 1 set, Model No. 6, 1-seater 14) 1 piece, Model Table No. 8,
docketed as Criminal Case No.
013231-L, reads: German leather sofa, worth - - - Italian marble table, worth - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------
That during or about the period 146,250.00 187,500.00
comprised between the 18th
and 19th day of February 1995, 6) 1 set, Model No. 2, 2-seater 15) 1 piece, Model Table No. 7
in the City of Lapu-Lapu,
Philippines, within the German leather sofa, worth - - - Italian marble table, worth - - -
jurisdiction of this Honorable - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------
Court, the accused, while being 225,000.00 187,500.00
then the President and General
Manager of Mobilia Products, 7) 1 set, Model No. 1, 2-seater 16) 1 piece, Model Table No. 5
Inc., a corporation engaged in
the manufacture and export of German leather sofa, worth - - - Italian marble table, worth - - -
furniture, holding office and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------
doing business in the Mactan 275,000.00 112,500.00
Export Processing Zone, Lapu-
Lapu City, with grave abuse of 8) 1 piece, Model Table No. 2, 17) 1 piece, Model Table No. 9,
the confidence reposed upon
him by his employer, with Italian marble table, worth - - - Italian marble table, worth - - -
intent to gain, did then and ----------------- -----------------
there willfully, unlawfully and 93,750.00 187,500.00
feloniously take, steal and carry
away from the corporations 9) 1 piece, Model Table No. 4, 18) 3-seater sofa, worth- - - - - -
factory in Mactan Export - - - - - - - - - - - - 255,000.00
Processing Zone, Lapu-Lapu
Italian marble table, worth - - -
City, expensive pieces of
----------------- with an aggregate value of
furniture, to wit:
105,000.00 3,219,875.00, Philippine
currency, without the consent of
1) 1 set, Model No. 3, 2-seater his employer, to the damage
10) 2 pieces, Model Pedestal
and prejudice of Mobilia Resolution issued by the three leather sofa, all valued at... .
Products, Inc., in the said alleged members of MPI Board 225,000.00
amount of 3,219,875.00. of Directors, authorizing the
filing of criminal complaints 2) 1 set, Model No. 1, 2-seater
Contrary to law.3 against him in behalf of the German
corporation.
On motion of the prosecution, leather sofa, all valued at. . . . . .
the trial court issued a writ of On January 3, 1996, the public . . 275,000.00
preliminary attachment prosecutor issued a Joint
covering the properties of Resolution finding probable with an aggregate value of
Umezawa. cause for qualified theft and 500,000.00 Philippine
one count of estafa against Currency, to the damage and
Umezawa then filed an Umezawa, and dismissing the prejudice of Mobilia Products,
Omnibus Motion to quash the case against the other accused. Inc.
information filed against him, The Prosecutor maintained his
the discharge of the writ of finding of probable cause CONTRARY TO LAW.4
attachment issued by the trial against Umezawa in Criminal
court, and to set the case for Case No. 013231-L. Another Information for estafa
preliminary investigation. MPI, was thereafter filed against the
the private complainant therein, On February 20, 1996, the same accused, docketed as
opposed the motion. public prosecutor filed an Criminal Case No. 013424-L.
Information for qualified theft The accusatory portion reads:
In the meantime on July 21, with the RTC of Lapu-Lapu
1995, MPI filed another City against Umezawa, That sometime in March 1995,
criminal complaint for qualified docketed as Criminal Case No. in the City of Lapu-Lapu,
theft against Umezawa, his wife 013423-L. The accusatory Philippines, within the
Kimiko Umezawa, Mitsuyo portion reads: jurisdiction of this Honorable
Yaguchi, Justin Legaspi, Court, the above-named
Yoshikazu Hayano and Henry That on the 8th day of February accused, by means of
Chua allegedly committed in 1995, in the City of Lapu-Lapu, unfaithfulness and abuse of
March 1995, with the Office of Philippines, within the confidence reposed upon him
the City Prosecutor. The case jurisdiction of this Honorable as the President and General
was docketed as I.S. No. 95- Court, the above-named Manager of Mobilia Products,
442. accused, while being the Inc., did then and there
President and General Manager willfully, unlawfully and
On July 25, 1995, the trial court of Mobilia Products, Inc., a feloniously misappropriate and
issued an Order in Criminal corporation engaged in the convert to his own personal use
Case No. 013231-L denying the manufacture and export of and benefit the amount of
omnibus motion. On joint quality furniture, whose Seventeen Million One
motion of Umezawa and the principal place of business is at Hundred Eight Thousand Five
public prosecutor, the trial court the Mactan Export Processing Hundred (17,108,500.00)
ordered a reinvestigation of the Zone, Lapu-Lapu City, with Pesos, Philippine Currency,
case. Conformably, the public intent to gain, without the which was the total value of the
prosecutor conducted a consent of his employer, and furnitures ordered and
reinvestigation of Criminal with grave abuse of confidence, manufactured by the accused or
Case No. 013231-L jointly with did then and there willfully, at his instance using Mobilia
I.S. No. 95-442. unlawfully and feloniously supplies, materials and
take, steal and carry away from machineries, as well as time
On September 25, 1995, the corporations factory the and personnel which were
Umezawa filed a petition with following expensive pieces of supposed to be for the exclusive
the Securities and Exchange furniture, to wit: use of Mobilia Products, Inc.
Commission (SEC), docketed but were converted for the use
as SEC Case No. 002919, for 1) 1 set, Model No. 2, 2-seater and benefit of the accused and
the nullification of the German Astem Philippines Corporation,
a company or firm engaged in was and should have been On January 29, 1999, the trial
the same business as that of included in the Information. He court issued a Joint
Mobilia Products, Inc., which also asserted that there was, Order8 dismissing the cases for
is, [in] the manufacture and likewise, no allegation in the lack of jurisdiction. It held that
production of quality furniture Informations as to who was the the dispute between the private
for export, owned by the owner of the articles stolen; complainant and the accused
accused, to the damage and hence, there was no offended over the ownership of the
prejudice of Mobilia Products, party. He noted that the properties subject of the
Inc. Informations merely alleged charges is intra-corporate in
that MPI was his employer. He nature, and was within the
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 further posited that there was exclusive jurisdiction of the
no valid charge against him SEC. It ruled that Umezawa, as
On April 25, 1996, Umezawa because the resolution a member of the board of
filed a motion for the authorizing the filing of the directors and president of MPI,
suspension of the proceedings cases against him was approved was also a stockholder thereof.
on the ground of the pendency by a mere minority of the While Umezawa claimed to be
of his petition with the SEC in members of the MPI Board of the bona fide owner of the
Case No. 002919. The trial Directors.6 properties subject of the
court, however, issued an Order Informations which he
on May 21, 1996, denying the Umezawa, likewise, filed a appropriated for himself, the
said motion. It held that the Motion to Quash7 the private complainant disputes
filing and the pendency of a Information in Criminal Case the same; hence, according to
petition before the SEC did not No. 013424-L on the ground the trial court, the conflicting
warrant a suspension of the that the facts alleged in the claims of the parties should be
criminal cases. Information did not constitute resolved by the SEC. The
the felony of estafa. He posited private and public prosecutors
On September 25, 1998, that the Information did not received their respective copies
Umezawa was arraigned and contain any allegation that any of the Joint Order on February
pleaded not guilty. demand was made for him to 2, 1999.
return the goods. Furthermore,
On September 30, 1998, the owner of the said articles The MPI, through the private
Umezawa filed anew a Joint was not specified. He noted that prosecutor, filed a motion for
Motion to Quash the as gleaned from the Joint reconsideration of the joint
Informations in Criminal Cases Affidavit of the witnesses for order of the court and for the
Nos. 013231-L and 013423-L, the prosecution, there was no reinstatement of the cases on
on the ground that the facts lawful private complainant. He February 15, 1999. The MPI
alleged therein did not reiterated that the MPI board relied on the following
constitute the felony of resolution authorizing the filing grounds:
qualified theft. Umezawa of the charge against him was
claimed that based on the Joint not approved by the majority of a. The Honorable Court has
Affidavit of the witnesses for the members of its board of jurisdiction and must exercise it
the prosecution submitted directors. Umezawa also over these cases;
during the preliminary alleged that the charge for
investigation, Yasushi Kato and estafa with abuse of confidence b. The above-entitled case is
George del Rio, MPI Vice- was already included in the not an intra-corporate
President and the head of the charge for qualified theft, controversy;
Upholstery Department, where it was alleged that he
respectively, the appropriate committed theft with abuse of and
charge should be estafa and not confidence; hence, the charge
qualified theft. Umezawa for estafa should be quashed, c. The accused could not claim
further claimed that for their otherwise, he would be placed ownership nor co-ownership of
failure to object to and resist his in double jeopardy. The motion the properties of private
alleged delictual acts, the said was duly opposed by the complainant corporation.9
witnesses were as guilty as he prosecution.
The MPI maintained that the The People of the Philippines, amounting to excess or lack of
trial court had jurisdiction over as the petitioner therein, raised jurisdiction.
the cases and cited Section 5 of the following issues:
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. On September 2, 1999, the CA
902-A, which provides the rules WHETHER OR NOT IT IS rendered judgment granting the
on cases over which the SEC THE LEGAL AND petition and nullifying the
has original and exclusive MINISTERIAL DUTY OF assailed Orders of the RTC. It
jurisdiction. A copy of the THE REGIONAL TRIAL ruled that the issue of
motion was served on the COURT TO TAKE ownership of the properties
public prosecutor for his COGNIZANCE AND subject of the Informations was
approval. However, the public JURISDICTION OF THESE not an intra-corporate dispute.
prosecutor did not affix his SUBJECT CRIMINAL It held that Umezawa, although
conformity to the motion, and CASES; president and general manager
instead opted to appear before of the MPI and a stockholder
the trial court during the WHETHER OR NOT THE thereof, was not a joint owner
hearing of the same. During the SECURITIES AND or co-owner of the personal
hearing, both the public and EXCHANGE COMMISSION properties subject of the
private prosecutors appeared. In HAS JURISDICTION OVER charges. It also held that the
support of his motion, the THE CRIMINAL CASES dispute between a private
private prosecutor argued that AGAINST RESPONDENT corporation and any of its
the trial of the case must be HAJIME UMEZAWA; stockholders relative to the
done in the presence of and ownership of properties does
under the control and WHETHER OR NOT not ipso facto negate the
supervision of the public RESPONDENT JUDGE jurisdiction of the RTC over the
prosecutor.10 COMMITTED GRAVE criminal cases under B.P. Blg.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION 129, as amended. It also
The trial court denied the AMOUNTING TO LACK OR declared that the material
motion in an Order dated April EXCESS OF JURISDICTION averments of the Informations
19, 1999. It held that the SEC, IN DISMISSING THE sufficiently charged qualified
not the trial court, had CRIMINAL CASES AND theft and estafa.
jurisdiction over intra-corporate DENYING PETITIONERS
controversies. It also ruled that MOTION FOR Umezawa filed a motion for the
the motion of the private RECONSIDERATION.11 reconsideration of the decision
complainant was pro forma, it of the CA. In a complete volte
appearing that the public The People asserted that the face, the appellate court issued
prosecutor had not approved controversy involving the a Resolution on August 8, 2001,
the same. criminal cases was not between granting the motion and
Umezawa and the other reversing its decision. It
The public prosecutor received stockholders of MPI, but one affirmed the ruling of the RTC
a copy of the Order on April 20, between him as the accused that the dispute between
1999. On April 26, 1999, the therein and the People of the Umezawa and the other
People of the Philippines, Philippines. It averred that stockholders and officers over
through the OSG, filed a under Section 20(b) of Batas the implementation of the
petition Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, the MPIs standard procedure is
for certiorari and mandamus wi RTC has exclusive jurisdiction intra-corporate in nature; hence,
th the CA against Presiding over the cases against within the exclusive jurisdiction
Judge Rumuldo R. Fernandez Umezawa. It also alleged that of the SEC. Citing Section 5(a)
and Umezawa, docketed as CA- in dismissing the criminal cases (b) of P.D. No. 902-A, and the
G.R. SP No. 52440. The CA against Umezawa on the ruling of this Court in Alleje v.
allowed the MPI to intervene as ground that it had no Court of Appeals,12 the
petitioner, and admitted its jurisdiction over the crimes appellate court ruled that based
petition- in-intervention. charged, the RTC committed on the material allegations of
grave abuse of its discretion the Solicitor General in the
petition before the CA, the SEC
had exclusive jurisdiction over THE COURT OF APPEALS the crimes charged in the said
the conflicting claims of the COMMITTED SERIOUS Informations; (c) whether the
parties. It likewise affirmed the ERRORS OF LAW AND Informations sufficiently charge
ruling of the RTC that the GRAVE ABUSE OF the felonies of qualified theft
absence of any allegation in the DISCRETION IN FINDING and estafa; and (d) if in the
Information that the MPI was THAT THE PETITION FOR affirmative, whether all the
the owner of the properties MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI elements of qualified theft and
subject of the Information is AND INJUNCTION WAS estafa are alleged in the
fatal. FILED OUT OF TIME AND Informations.
THAT PETITIONER HAS
The petitioner MPI filed the LOST ITS RIGHT TO On the first issue, the CA held
instant petition for review on APPEAL; that the Public Prosecutor failed
certiorari, raising the following to file a motion for the
issues: 2. THE COURT OF APEALS reconsideration of the trial
COMMITTED SERIOUS courts January 29, 1999 Joint
WHETHER OR NOT THE ERRORS OF LAW IN Order dismissing the cases, that
SECURITIES AND RULING THAT NOT ALL is, within fifteen days from
EXCHANGE COMMISSION THE ELEMENTS OF receipt of a copy of the said
HAS JURISDICTION OVER QUALIFIED THEFT AND order on February 2, 1999;
THE CRIMINAL CASES ESTAFA ARE PRESENT; neither did the People appeal
AGAINST UMEZAWA. the said Order within the period
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS therefor. Thus, according to the
WHETHER OR NOT ALL COMMITTED BLATANT CA, the People filed its petition
THE NECESSARY AND SERIOUS ERRORS OF for certiorari, prohibition
ELEMENTS OF THE LAW IN FINDING THAT THE and mandamus assailing the
CRIMES OF QUALIFIED SECURITIES AND January 29, 1999 Joint Order of
THEFT AND ESTAFAARE EXCHANGE COMMISSION the trial court only on April 26,
SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED (SEC) HAS JURISDICTION 1999, well beyond the 60-day
IN THE INFORMATIONS. OVER THE SUBJECT period therefor. The appellate
CRIMINAL CASES; court, likewise, held that the
EVEN filing of the motion for
ASSUMING ARGUENDO TH 4. THE COURT OF APPEALS reconsideration of the said Joint
AT THE FACTS ALLEGED COMMITTED SERIOUS Order by the private prosecutor
DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN ERRORS OF LAW AND without the conformity of the
OFFENSE THE CORRECT GRAVE ABUSE OF Public Prosecutor did not toll
RULING IS NOT TO DISCRETION IN GIVING the period for the People to file
DISMISS THE CASE BUT TO DUE COURSE TO THE PRO- its motion for reconsideration
ORDER AMENDMENT. FORMA MOTION FOR thereof, or to appeal therefrom,
RECONSIDERATION OF or to file a petition
WHETHER OR NOT THE UMEZAWA.14 for certiorari, prohibition or
STATE HS LOST ITS RIGHT mandamus. It ruled that, having
TO APPEAL. The two petitions were lost its right to appeal in due
consolidated in the Second course, the People was
Division of the Court. proscribed from filing a petition
WHETHER OR NOT THE
for certiorari, prohibition or
MOTION FOR
The threshold issues for mandamus. The CA declared
RECONSIDERATION OF
resolution are the following: (a) that the motion for
UMEZAWA IS PRO FORMA.13
whether or not the petition reconsideration filed by
for certiorari of the People of petitioner MPI of the Joint
The People of the Philippines Order of the RTC is pro forma,
filed a separate petition for the Philippines in the CA
assailing the January 29, 1999 the public prosecutor not
review on certiorari, contending having signified his written
that: Joint Order of the trial court
was time-barred; (b) whether conformity thereto.
the RTC has jurisdiction over
On the other hand, the of the public thereof until its final
petitioner People of the prosecutor.16 When the civil termination, for under the law,
Philippines insists that while action for civil liability is he assumes full responsibility
the public prosecutor did not instituted in the criminal action for his failure or success since
expressly conform to the pursuant to Rule 111 of the he is the one more adequately
motion for reconsideration of Rules on Criminal Procedure, prepared to pursue it to its
the January 29, 1999 Joint the offended party may termination.20 The prosecution
Order of the trial court filed by intervene, by counsel, in the of offenses is a public function.
the private prosecutor, through prosecution of the Indeed, the sole purpose of the
17
the public prosecutors offense. In Ramiscal, Jr. v. civil action is the resolution,
presence during the hearing of Sandiganbayan,18 we held that reparation or indemnification of
the said motion, his supervision under Section 16, Rule 110 of the private offended party for
and control over the private the Rules of Criminal the damage or injury he
prosecutor during the said Procedure, the offended party sustained by reason of the
hearing, he in effect adopted may intervene in the criminal delictual or felonious act of the
and conformed to the said action personally or by counsel, accused. 21 Under Article 104 of
motion for reconsideration. who will then act as private the Revised Penal Code, the
prosecutor for the protection of following are the civil liabilities
In his comment on the his interests and in the interest of the accused:
petitions, respondent Umezawa of the speedy and inexpensive
maintains that the motion for administration of justice. A ART. 104. What is included in
reconsideration of the joint separate action for the purpose civil liability. The civil
order of the trial court filed by would only prove to be costly, liability established in Articles
the private prosecutor did not burdensome and time- 100, 101, 102 and 103 of this
interrupt the period within consuming for both parties and Code includes:
which the People could appeal, further delay the final
citing the ruling of this Court disposition of the case. The 1. Restitution;
in Cabral v. Puno.15 The multiplicity of suits must be
respondent posits that the avoided. With the implied 2. Reparation of the damage
finding of the trial court, which institution of the civil action in caused;
was affirmed by the CA, that the criminal action, the two
the public prosecutor did not actions are merged into one 3. Indemnification for
conform to the motion for composite proceeding, with the consequential damages.
reconsideration of the private criminal action predominating
prosecutor, is binding on this the civil. The prime purpose of
Thus, when the offended party,
Court. The respondent also the criminal action is to punish
through counsel, has asserted
avers that the petitioner has no the offender in order to deter
his right to intervene in the
personality to file the petition. him and others from
proceedings, it is error to
Moreover, he insists that committing the same or similar
consider his appearance merely
whether the public prosecutor offense, to isolate him from
as a matter of tolerance.22
conformed to the private society, reform and rehabilitate
prosecutors motion for him or, in general, to maintain
social order.19 The public prosecutor may turn
reconsideration is a question of
over the actual prosecution of
fact which is not proper in a
the criminal case, in the
petition for review on certiorari. The intervention of the private
exercise of his discretion, but
offended party, through
he may, at any time, take over
The Courts Ruling counsel, and his prosecution of
the actual conduct of the trial.
the case shall be under the
However, it is necessary that
The contention of the petitioner control and supervision of the
the public prosecutor be present
People of the Philippines is not public prosecutor until the final
at the trial until the final
correct. All criminal actions termination of the case. A
termination of the case;
commenced by complaint or public prosecutor who has been
otherwise, if he is absent, it
information shall be prosecuted entrusted by law with the
cannot be gainsaid that the trial
under the direction and control prosecution of criminal cases is
duty-bound to take charge
is under his supervision and of the case or the acquittal of the cases is concerned, the
control.23 the accused, on the criminal period for the State to assail the
and civil aspects of the cases. said joint order was not
In a criminal case in which the suspended. Only the motion for
offended party is the State, the In the present case, only reconsideration filed by the
interest of the private petitioner MPI, through public prosecutor of the joint
complainant or the offended counsel, filed a motion for the order of dismissal of the cases
party is limited to the civil reconsideration of the trial could have tolled the period
liability arising therefrom. courts Joint Order dated within which the State could
Hence, if a criminal case is January 29, 1999, praying for appeal, insofar as the criminal
dismissed by the trial court or if the reinstatement of the cases aspect of the cases was
there is an acquittal, a insofar as the civil aspect concerned. The bare fact that
reconsideration of the order of thereof is concerned. The the public prosecutor appeared
dismissal or acquittal may be public prosecutor did not for the State during the hearing
undertaken, whenever legally approve nor conform to the said of the motion for
feasible, insofar as the criminal motion. Although petitioner reconsideration of petitioner
aspect thereof is concerned and MPI provided ample space for MPI does not amount to or
may be made only by the public the said conformity of the constitute his adoption of the
prosecutor; or in the case of an public prosecutor, the latter did said motion as that of the State.
appeal, by the State only, not do so; he merely appeared As ruled by this Court
through the OSG. The private during the hearing of the said in Cabral v. Puno:26
complainant or offended party motion with the private
may not undertake such motion prosecutor when the latter While it is true that the
for reconsideration or appeal on presented his oral arguments in offended party, Silvino San
the criminal aspect of the support of the said motion. Diego, through the private
case.24 However, the offended prosecutor, filed a motion for
party or private complainant The fact that the public reconsideration within the
may file a motion for prosecutor did not conform to reglementary fifteen-day
reconsideration of such the said motion, however, does period, such move did not stop
dismissal or acquittal or appeal not mean that the same is pro the running of the period for
therefrom but only insofar as forma. It must be stressed that appeal. He did not have the
the civil aspect thereof is the propriety and efficacy of the legal personality to appeal or
concerned.25 In so doing, the motion, insofar as the civil file the motion for
private complainant or offended aspect of the cases is reconsideration on his behalf.
party need not secure the concerned, is not dependent The prosecution in a criminal
conformity of the public upon the conformity of the case through the private
prosecutor. If the court denies public prosecutor. Hence, the prosecutor is under the
his motion for reconsideration, filing of the joint motion for direction and control of the
the private complainant or reconsideration effectively Fiscal, and only the motion for
offended party may appeal or suspended the running of the reconsideration or appeal filed
file a petition period for petitioner MPI to by the Fiscal could have
for certiorari or mandamus, if assail the joint order in the interrupted the period for
grave abuse amounting to CA via an appeal or a special appeal.27
excess or lack of jurisdiction is civil action
shown and the aggrieved party for certiorari or mandamus und We agree with the ruling of the
has no right of appeal or given er Rule 65 of the Rules of CA that the petition for
an adequate remedy in the Court. certiorari filed by the petitioner
ordinary course of law. People of the Philippines with
However, since the public the CA on April 26, 1999 was
The public and private prosecutor did not file any filed beyond the 60-day period
prosecutors are not precluded, motion for the reconsideration as provided in Section 4, Rule
whenever feasible, from filing a of the joint order nor conform 65 of the Rules of Court, 28 it
joint motion for the to the motion of petitioner MPI, appearing that the public
reconsideration of the dismissal insofar as the criminal aspect of prosecutor received a copy of
the joint order of the trial court questioned order amounts to an Section 32 thereof was later
on February 2, 1999, and, thus, oppressive exercise of judicial amended by Section 2 of
had only until April 3, 1999 authority. 31 Republic Act No. 7691, as
within which to file the said follows:
petition. On the second issue, the
petitioners assert that the CA Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of
Even then, the Court still holds erred in holding that the dispute Metropolitan Trial Courts,
that the CA erred in dismissing between it and the respondent is Municipal Trial Courts and
the petition of the People of the intra-corporate in nature; hence, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Philippines simply because the within the exclusive jurisdiction in Criminal Cases. Except in
public prosecutor erred in not of the SEC. As gleaned from cases falling within the
himself filing a motion for the material allegations of the exclusive original jurisdiction
reconsideration of the joint Informations, the RTC had of the Regional Trial Court and
order of the trial court, on his exclusive jurisdiction over the of the Sandiganbayan, the
perception that by being present crimes charged. Petitioner MPI Metropolitan Trial Courts, and
during the hearing of the further avers that even if there Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
motion for reconsideration of is no allegation in the shall exercise:
petitioner MPI, he thereby Informations identifying it as
adopted the said motion as that the owner of the personal (1) Exclusive original
of the States. The settled rule is properties described in the jurisdiction over all violations
that the State is not estopped by Informations, its ownership of of city or municipal ordinances
the mistakes of its officers and the properties can be inferred committed within their
employees. Indeed, in Cruz, Jr. from the other allegations. The respective territorial
v. Court of Appeals,29 the Court petitioners maintain that even if jurisdiction; and
declared: the Informations are deficient,
the remedy is the amendment of (2) Exclusive original
Estoppel does not lie against the Informations and not the jurisdiction over all offenses
the government because of the dismissal of the cases. punishable with imprisonment
supposedly mistaken acts or not exceeding six (6) years
omissions of its agents. As we For his part, the respondent irrespective of the amount of
declared in People v. avers that the assailed fine, and regardless of other
Castaeda, "there is the long Resolution of the CA is correct, imposable accessory or other
familiar rule that erroneous and that it is the appellate penalties, including the civil
application and enforcement of courts decision which is liability arising from such
the law by public officers do erroneous. offenses or predicated thereon,
not block subsequent correct irrespective of kind, nature,
application of the statute and We agree with the petitioners. value or amount thereof:
that the government is never Provided, however, That in
estopped by mistake or error on According to Section 20 of B.P. offenses involving damage to
the part of its agents." Blg. 129 property through criminal
negligence, they shall have
The Court also held in Chua v. SEC. 20. Jurisdiction in exclusive original jurisdiction
Court of Appeals:30 criminal cases. Regional thereof.
Trial Courts shall exercise
While ordinarily, certiorari exclusive original jurisdiction Case law has it that in order to
is unavailing where the appeal in all criminal cases not within determine the jurisdiction of the
period has lapsed, there are the exclusive jurisdiction of any court in criminal cases, the
exceptions. Among them are (a) court, tribunal or body, except complaint or Information must
when public welfare and the those now falling under the be examined for the purpose of
advancement of public policy exclusive and concurrent ascertaining whether or not the
dictates; (b) when the broader jurisdiction of the facts set out therein and the
interest of justice so requires; Sandiganbayan which shall prescribed period provided for
(c) when the writs issued are hereafter be exclusively taken by law are within the
null and void; or (d) when the cognizance of by the latter. jurisdiction of the court, and
where the said Information or the thing stolen is more than 1st. The penalty of prision
complaint is filed. It is settled 12,000 pesos but does not correccional in its maximum
that the jurisdiction of the court exceed 20,000 pesos; but if the period to prision mayor in its
in criminal cases is determined value of the thing stolen minimum period, if the amount
by the allegations of the exceeds the latter amount, the of the fraud is over 12,000
complaint or Information and penalty shall be the maximum pesos but does not exceed
not by the findings based on the period of the one prescribed in 22,000 pesos; and if such
evidence of the court after this paragraph and one year of amount exceeds the latter sum,
trial.32 Jurisdiction is conferred each additional ten thousand the penalty provided in this
only by the Constitution or by pesos, but the total of the paragraph shall be imposed in
the law in force at the time of penalty which may be imposed its maximum period, adding
the filing of the Information or shall not exceed twenty years. one year for each additional
complaint. Once jurisdiction is In such cases, and in 10,000 pesos; but the total
vested in the court, it is retained connection with the accessory penalty which may be imposed
up to the end of the litigation. penalties which may be shall not exceed twenty years.
Indeed, in People v. imposed and for the purpose of In such cases, and in
Purisima,33 this Court held that: the other provisions of this connection with the accessory
Code, the penalty shall be penalties which may be
In criminal prosecutions, it is termed prision imposed and for the purpose of
settled that the jurisdiction of mayor or reclusion temporal, as the other provisions of this
the court is not determined by the case may be. Code, the penalty shall be
what may be meted out to the termed prision mayor or
offender after trial or even by Article 310 of the Revised reclusion temporal, as the case
the result of the evidence that Penal Code further provides for may be.
would be presented at the the penalty for qualified theft:
trial, but by the extent of the Patently, then, based on the
penalty which the law Art. 310. Qualified theft. The material allegations of the
imposes for the misdemeanor, crime of theft shall be punished Informations in the three cases,
crime or violation charged in by the penalties next higher by the court a quo had exclusive
the complaint. If the facts two degrees than those jurisdiction over the crimes
recited in the complaint and respectively specified in the charged.
the punishment provided for by next preceding article, if
law are sufficient to show that committed by a domestic The bare fact that the
the court in which the servant, or with grave abuse of respondent was the president
complaint is presented has confidence, or if the property and general manager of the
jurisdiction, that court must stolen is motor vehicle, mail petitioner corporation when the
assume jurisdiction. matter or large cattle or consists crimes charged were allegedly
of coconuts taken from the committed and was then a
In Criminal Case No. 013231- premises of a plantation, fish stockholder thereof does not in
L, the value of the properties taken from a fishpond or itself deprive the court a quo of
subject of qualified theft is fishery or if property is taken its exclusive jurisdiction over
3,219,875.00, while in on the occasion of fire, the crimes charged. The
Criminal Case No. 013423-L, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic property of the corporation is
the value of the property was eruption, or any other calamity, not the property of the
pegged at 255,000.00. Under vehicular accident or civil stockholders or members or of
Article 309 of the Revised disturbance. its officers who are
Penal Code, the penalty for stockholders. 34 As the Court
theft when the value of the On the other hand, in Criminal held in an avuncular case:35
stolen property exceeds Case No. 013424-L for estafa,
22,000.00 is as follows: the amount of the fraud ... Properties registered in the
involved is 500,000.00, and name of the corporation are
1. The penalty of prision under Article 315 of the owned by it as an entity
mayor in its minimum and Revised Penal Code, the separate and distinct from its
medium periods, if the value of penalty for such crime is members. While shares of stock
constitute personal property, We also agree with the ruling of which are detrimental to the
they do not represent property the CA in its decision that the interest of stockholders,
of the corporation. The SEC (now the Regional Trial members or associates and
corporation has property of its Court) had no jurisdiction over directors of the corporation are
own which consists chiefly of the cases filed in the court a within the original and
real estate (Nelson v. Owen, quo. The appellate courts exclusive jurisdiction of the
113 Ala., 372, 21 So. 75; reliance in the assailed SEC. Taken in conjunction with
Morrow v. Gould, 145 Iowa, 1, Resolution issued by the Board Sec. 6 of the same law, it will
123 N.W. 743). A share of stock of Directors of the petitioner be gathered that the fraudulent
only typifies an aliquot part of corporation, on Section 5(b) of acts/schemes which the SEC
the corporations property, or P.D. No. 902, has no factual shall exclusively investigate
the right to share in its proceeds and legal basis. and prosecute are those "in
to that extent when distributed violation of any law or rules
according to law and equity Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A and regulations administered
(Hall & Faley v. Alabama provides that the SEC39 shall and enforced by the
Terminal, 173 Ala., 398, 56 So. have original and exclusive Commission" alone. This
235), but its holder is not the jurisdiction to hear and decide investigative and prosecutorial
owner of any part of the capital cases involving the following: powers of the SEC are further
of the corporation (Bradley v. "without prejudice to any
Bauder, 36 Ohio St., 28). Nor is (a) devices or schemes liability for violation of any
he entitled to the possession of employed by, or any acts of, the provision of The Revised Penal
any definite portion of its board of directors, business Code."
property or assets (Gottfried v. associates, its officers or
Miller, 104 U.S., 521; Jones v. partners, amounting to fraud From the foregoing, it can thus
Davis, 35 Ohio St., 474). The and misrepresentation which be concluded that the filing of
stockholder is not a co-owner may be detrimental to the the civil/intra-corporate case
or tenant in common of the interest of the public and/or of before the SEC does not
corporate property (Harton v. the stockholders, partners, preclude the simultaneous and
Johnston, 166 Ala., 317, 51 So., members of association or concomitant filing of a criminal
992) "36 organizations registered with action before the regular courts;
the Commission, and such that, a fraudulent act may
As early as the case of Fisher v. give rise to liability for
Trinidad,37 the Court already (b) controversies arising out of violation of the rules and
declared that "[t]he distinction intra-corporate or partnership regulations of the SEC
between the title of a relations, between and among cognizable by the SEC itself, as
corporation, and the interest of stockholders, members or well as criminal liability for
its members or stockholders in associates; between any or all violation of the Revised Penal
the property of the corporation, of them and the corporation, Code cognizable by the regular
is familiar and well-settled. The partnership or association of courts, both charges to be filed
ownership of that property is in which they are stockholders, and proceeded independently,
the corporation, and not in the members or associates, and may be simultaneously
holders of shares of its stock. respectively. with the other.41
The interest of each stockholder
consists in the right to a In Fabia v. Court of Thus, the filing of a petition in
proportionate part of the profits 40
Appeals, the Court explained the SEC for the nullification of
whenever dividends are that Section 5 of P.D. No. 902- the Resolution of May 2, 1995
declared by the corporation, A should be taken in issued by the Chairman and two
during its existence, under its conjunction with Section 6 of members of the Board of
charter, and to a like proportion the law. It then proceeded to Directors of petitioner MPI,
of the property remaining, upon explain: which authorized the filing of
the termination or dissolution criminal cases against
of the corporation, after In synthesis, Sec. 5 of PD 902- respondent Umezawa, was not
payment of its debts."38 A mandates that cases involving a bar to his prosecution for
fraudulent actions and devices estafa and qualified theft for his
alleged fraudulent and delictual matters that only the SEC can motions to quash of September
acts. The relationship of the resolve in the exercise of its 30, 1998 are fundamentally
party-litigants with each other adjudicatory or quasi-judicial rehash of the motion to quash
or the position held by powers." filed on May 29, 1995 and the
petitioner as a corporate officer culpable acts subject of the new
in respondent MPI during the As the Supreme Court further informations are virtually the
time he committed the crime ruled in the Torio case that "a same as the first information
becomes merely incidental and contrary interpretation would filed against Umezawa, there is
holds no bearing on distort the meaning and intent no conceivable reason why the
jurisdiction. What is essential is of P.D. 902-A, the law re- court a quo abandoned its
that the fraudulent acts are organizing the Securities and previous stand and controverted
likewise of a criminal nature Exchange Commission. The itself in regard the sufficiency
and hence cognizable by the better policy in determining of the informations.
regular courts.42 Thus, which body has jurisdiction
notwithstanding the fact that over a case would be to In our considered view, and as
respondent Umezawa was the consider not only the the court a quo had correctly
president and general manager relationship of the parties but held in its Order of May 26,
of petitioner MPI and a also the nature of the questions 1996, "even a SEC ruling
stockholder thereof, the latter raised in the subject of the voiding the resolution
may still be prosecuted for the controversy.44 authorizing the filing of
crimes charged. The alleged criminal charges versus the
fraudulent acts of respondent On the last issue, we find and accused Hajime Umezawa can
Umezawa in this case constitute so hold that the Informations have no bearing on the validity
the element of abuse of state all the essential elements of the informations filed in
confidence, deceit or fraudulent of estafa and qualified theft. It these three criminal cases as
means, and damage under was adequately alleged that pointed out by private
Article 315 of the Revised respondent Umezawa, being the complainant, the public
Penal Code on estafa.43 President and General Manager offenses of qualified theft and
of petitioner MPI, stole and estafa can [be] prosecuted de
We agree with the misappropriated the properties officio." The resolution of the
encompassing disquisitions of of his employer, more office of the prosecutor on the
the CA in its decision, to wit: specifically, petitioner MPI. As preliminary investigation as
expostulated by the CA in its well as the re-investigation
A dispute involving the decision: conducted on the letter-
corporation and its stockholders complaint filed by private
is not necessarily an intra- In any event, the allegations complainant company
corporate dispute cognizable in the informations, if sufficiently established prima
only by the Securities and hypothetically admitted, are facie case against the accused
Exchange Commission. Nor sufficient to bind Umezawa to and the legality or illegality of
does it ipso facto negate the the charges of qualified theft the constitution of the board
jurisdiction of the Regional and estafa. As aptly ruled by the which authorized the filing of
Trial Court over the subject court a quo in its Order of July the complaint does not
cases. The Supreme Court 25, 1995, all the elements of the materially affect either the
citing the case of Viray v. Court offense of qualified theft are informations filed against
of Appeals (G.R. No. 92481, present. There is no basis for Umezawa or the pending
191 SCRA 308 [1990]) in Torio claiming otherwise. criminal proceedings. As
v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. Furthermore, the private petitioners contend, the action
107293, March 2, 1994, 230 offended party, as well as the is now between the People of
SCRA 626) held: subject matter of the felonious the Philippines and herein
taking and the ownership private respondent.45
"It should be obvious that not thereof, have been adequately
every conflict between a indicated or identified leaving IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
corporation and its no room for any doubt on these FOREGOING, the petitions
stockholders involves corporate matters. Considering that the are GRANTED. The Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA- accomplices or accessories with the regular courts of competent
G.R. SP No. 52440 dated the public officers or employees jurisdiction; Provided, further,
August 8, 2001 is REVERSED including those employed in that, in cases within the
and SET ASIDE. The Decision government-owned or concurrent jurisdiction of the
of the Court of Appeals dated controlled corporations, they Sandiganbayan and the regular
September 2, 1999 is shall be tried jointly with said courts, where either the
AFFIRMED. public officers and employees. criminal or civil action is first
filed with the regular courts, the
o Sec, 4, Presidential Decree Where an accused is tried for corresponding civil or criminal
No. 1606, as amended by Rep. any of the above offenses and action, as the case may be, shall
Act the evidence is insufficient to only be filed with the regular
establish the offense charged, courts of competent
Section 4. Jurisdiction. The he may nevertheless be jurisdiction.
Sandiganbayan shall have convicted and sentenced for the
jurisdiction over: offense proved, included in that Excepted from the foregoing
which is charged. provisions, during martial law,
(a) Violations of Republic Act are criminal cases against
No. 3019, as amended, Any provision of law or the officers and members of the
otherwise, known as the Anti- Rules of Court to the contrary armed forces in the active
Graft and Corrupt Practices notwithstanding, the criminal service.
Act, and Republic Act No. action and the corresponding
1379; civil action for the recovery of o Sec. 7(b), Rep. Act No. 1-
civil liability arising from the L25, as amended by Rep. Act
(b) Crimes committed by public offense charged shall at all No. 9282
officers and employees times be simultaneously
including those employed in instituted with, and jointly Section 7. Section 7 of the
government-owned or determined in the same same Act is hereby amended to
controlled corporations, proceeding by, the read as follows:
embraced in Title VII of the Sandiganbayan, the filing of the
Revised Penal Code, whether criminal action being deemed "Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA
simple or complexed with other to necessarily carry with it the shall exercise:
crimes; and filing of the civil action, and no
right to reserve the filing of
"a. Exclusive appellate
such action shall be recognized;
(c) Other crimes or offenses jurisdiction to review by
Provided, however, that, in
committed by public officers or appeal, as herein provided:
cases within the exclusive
employees, including those
jurisdiction of the
employed in government- "1. Decisions of the
Sandiganbayan, where the civil
owned or controlled Commissioner of Internal
action had therefore been filed
corporations, in relation to their Revenue in cases involving
separately with a regular court
office. disputed assessments, refunds
but judgment therein has not
yet been rendered and the of internal revenue taxes, fees
The jurisdiction herein criminal case is hereafter filed or other charges, penalties in
conferred shall be original and with the Sandiganbayan, said relation thereto, or other
exclusive if the offense charged civil action shall be transferred matters arising under the
is punishable by a penalty to the Sandiganbayan for National Internal Revenue or
higher than prision consolidation and joint other laws administered by the
correccional, or its equivalent, determination with the criminal Bureau of Internal Revenue;
except as herein provided; in action, otherwise, the criminal
other offenses, it shall be action may no longer be filed "2. Inaction by the
concurrent with the regular with the Sandiganbayan, its Commissioner of Internal
courts. exclusive jurisdiction over the Revenue in cases involving
same notwithstanding, but may disputed assessments, refunds
In case private individuals are be filed and prosecuted only in of internal revenue taxes, fees
charged as co-principals, or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or other "7. Decisions of the Secretary civil action, and no right to
matters arising under the of Trade and Industry, in the reserve the filling of such civil
National Internal Revenue case of nonagricultural product, action separately from the
Code or other laws commodity or article, and the criminal action will be
administered by the Bureau of Secretary of Agriculture in the recognized
Internal Revenue, where the case of agricultural product,
National Internal Revenue commodity or article, involving "2. Exclusive appellate
Code provides a specific period dumping and countervailing jurisdiction in criminal
of action, in which case the duties under Section 301 and offenses:
inaction shall be deemed a 302, respectively, of the Tariff
denial; and Customs Code, and . Over peals from the
safeguard measures under judgments, resolutions or
"3. Decisions, orders or Republic Act No. 8800, where orders of the Regional Trial
resolutions of the Regional either party may appeal the Courts in tax cases originally
Trial Courts in local tax cases decision to impose or not to decided by them, in their
originally decided or resolved impose said duties. respected territorial jurisdiction.
by them in the exercise of their
original or appellate "b. Jurisdiction over cases "b. Over petitions for review of
jurisdiction; involving criminal offenses as the judgments, resolutions or
herein provided: orders of the Regional Trial
"4. Decisions of the Courts in the exercise of their
Commissioner of Customs in "1. Exclusive original appellate jurisdiction over tax
cases involving liability for jurisdiction over all criminal cases originally decided by the
customs duties, fees or other offenses arising from violations Metropolitan Trial Courts,
money charges, seizure, of the National Internal Municipal Trial Courts and
detention or release of property Revenue Code or Tariff and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
affected, fines, forfeitures or Customs Code and other laws in their respective jurisdiction.
other penalties in relation administered by the Bureau of
thereto, or other matters arising Internal Revenue or the Bureau "c. Jurisdiction over tax
under the Customs Law or of Customs: Provided, however, collection cases as herein
other laws administered by the That offenses or felonies provided:
Bureau of Customs; mentioned in this paragraph
where the principal amount o "1. Exclusive original
"5. Decisions of the Central taxes and fees, exclusive of jurisdiction in tax collection
Board of Assessment Appeals charges and penalties, claimed cases involving final and
in the exercise of its appellate is less than One million pesos executory assessments for
jurisdiction over cases (P1,000,000.00) or where there taxes, fees, charges and
involving the assessment and is no specified amount claimed penalties: Provided, however,
taxation of real property shall be tried by the regular That collection cases where the
originally decided by the Courts and the jurisdiction of principal amount of taxes and
provincial or city board of the CTA shall be appellate. Any fees, exclusive of charges and
assessment appeals; provision of law or the Rules of penalties, claimed is less than
Court to the contrary One million pesos
"6. Decisions of the Secretary notwithstanding, the criminal (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried
of Finance on customs cases action and the corresponding by the proper Municipal Trial
elevated to him automatically civil action for the recovery of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court
for review from decisions of the civil liability for taxes and and Regional Trial Court.
Commissioner of Customs penalties shall at all times be
which are adverse to the simultaneously instituted with, "2. Exclusive appellate
Government under Section and jointly determined in the jurisdiction in tax collection
2315 of the Tariff and Customs same proceeding by the CTA, cases:
Code; the filing of the criminal action
being deemed to necessarily
. Over appeals from the
carry with it the filing of the
judgments, resolutions or
orders of the Regional Trial On 7 February 2009, petitioner On 16 March 2009, however, as
Courts in tax collection cases filed two (2) Informations1 soon as public respondent
originally decided by them, in before the Regional Trial Court proceeded with the cases,
their respective territorial (RTC) of Iloilo City against Prosecutor Kenneth John
jurisdiction. petitions for private respondent John Rey Amamanglon filed a Motion to
review of the judgments, Prevendido for Violation of Transfer Case to a Branch of
resolutions or orders of the Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Competent Jurisdiction.5 He
Regional Trial Courts in the
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 questioned the jurisdiction of
Exercise of their appellate
or the Comprehensive public respondent to hear the
jurisdiction over tax collection
cases originally decided by the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. cases, citing Sec. 90 of R.A.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, The cases were raffled to 9165. Prosecutor Amamanglon
Municipal Trial Courts and Branch 36, a designated special also claimed that, as the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, court pursuant to R.A. 9165, prosecutor assigned to Branch
in their respective jurisdiction." presided by Judge Victor E. 37, he was not among the
Gelvezon. Soon after, however, prosecutors who had been
Sec. 90, Rep. Act No.9165 Judge Gelvezon disclosed that designated to handle cases
Coreen Gemarino, the exclusively involving violations
o Peoplev. Hon. Azarraga, Philippine Drug Enforcement of R.A. 9165.
G.R.Nos. L87717 Agency (PDEA) operative who
&187L27,L2 On the same day, respondent
conducted the entrapment
judge denied the motion on
PEOPLE OF THE operation against private
three grounds, to wit:
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, respondent, had close family
vs.HON. JOSE D. ties with him. Thus, in order to 1. This motion ought not to
AZARRAGA and JOHN preserve the integrity of the have been filed in this court for
REY PREVENDIDO, court, Judge Gelvezon issued lack of legal basis;
Respondents. an Order2 dated 17 February
2009 inhibiting himself from 2. This court is not without
In the present Petition for trying the case. The cases were jurisdiction to hear the instant
Prohibition with Prayer for then reassigned to the other case;
Temporary Restraining special court, Branch 25, 3. The matter about the
Order/Preliminary Mandatory presided by Judge Evelyn E. appearance of Trial Prosecutor
Injunction under Rule 65 of the Salao. Kenneth John Amamanglon
Rules of Court, petitioner
On 24 February 2009, Judge should have been addressed to
questions the legality of
Salao also issued an Order3 the Department concerned.6
Chapter V, Section 9 of A.M.
No. 03-8-02-SC or the whereby she inhibited herself Respondent judge thus set the
"Guidelines on the Selection for the reason that Coreen hearing on the Motion for
and Appointment of Executive Gemarino was a cousin; thus, Admission to Bail7 filed on 10
Judges and Defining Their the cases were endorsed to the February 2008. He directed the
Powers, Prerogatives and Office of the Executive Judge city prosecutor to assign an
Duties" issued by this Court on for reassignment. assistant city prosecutor to
27 January 2004, in relation to Citing Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. handle the case effective 20
Section 90 of the No. 03-8-02-SC, Executive March 2009.
Comprehensive Dangerous Judge Antonio M. Natino
Drugs Act of 2002. Prosecutor Amamanglon,
ordered the Clerk of Court to however, moved for a
forward the entire records of reconsideration8 of respondent
the cases to Branch 37 presided judges Order, contending that
The antecedent facts are as over by public respondent, the the trial court needed a special
follows: pairing judge of Branch 36, designation from this Court in
which was the special court that order to have jurisdiction over
originally handled the cases.4 the cases. Thus, Prosecutor
Amamanglon concluded, absent presided by Judge Fe Gallon- of writ of prohibition. However,
the special designation, Gayanilo. in the case at bar, since it is
respondent court should remand only the Supreme Court itself
the cases to the Office of the that can clarify the assailed
Executive Judge for re-raffling Absent a temporary restraining guidelines, petitioner is
to another court specially order from this Court, the trial exempted from this rule.
designated pursuant to R.A. court proceeded to hear the The petition, however, must
9165. To support its contention, cases. fail.
petitioner further cited this
Courts 11 October 2005 The present petition raises two The crux of the matter in the
Resolution in A.M. No. 05-9- (2) issues, to wit: present case is whether or not
03-SC, which clarified whether I. WHETHER OR NOT this Court violated Sec. 90 of
drug courts should be included RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS R.A. 9165 when it issued A.M.
in the regular raffle. JURISDICTION OVER THE 03-8-02-SC, particularly Chap.
DRUG CASES IN CRIMINAL V, Sec. 9, which prescribes the
Respondent judge denied the
CASE NOS. 09-68815/16 manner in which the executive
Motion for Reconsideration in
DESPITE HIS ASSIGNMENT judge reassigns cases in
its Order dated 20 March
TO A REGULAR COURT instances of inhibition or
2009.9 He held that A.M. No.
disqualification of judges
03-8-02-SC should be deemed II. WHETHER OR NOT A.M. sitting in special courts.
to have modified the NO. 03-8-02-SC IS IN Petitioner insists that should
designation of special courts for CONFORMITY WITH respondent judge (now Judge
drug cases. He declared that, SECTION 90 OF REPUBLIC Fe Gallon-Gayanilo of Branch
under the circumstances ACT NO. 9165, MANDATING 35) continue hearing and trying
enumerated in A.M. No. 03-8- THE DESIGNATION OF the case, it "would result in the
02-SC, Branch 37 itself became SPECIAL COURTS TO circumvention of the legislative
a special court. He further ruled EXCLUSIVELY TRY AND conferment of jurisdiction to a
that A.M. No. 05-9-03-SC was HEAR DRUG CASES12 court to exclusively try and
inapplicable.
At the outset, it is an hear drug offenses only."14
On 23 March 2009, the city established policy that parties Contrary to the assertion of
prosecutor endorsed the must observe the hierarchy of petitioner, this Court did not
assailed Orders of respondent courts before they can seek
judge to the Office of the commit any violation of R.A.
relief directly from this Court. 9165 when it issued the assailed
Solicitor General for the The rationale for this rule is guidelines. Rather, it merely
appropriate review and filing of twofold: (a) it would be an obeyed Article VIII, Sec. 5(5)
the necessary action.10 Thus, imposition upon the limited of the 1987 Constitution, which
on 24 March 2009, petitioner time of this Court; and (b) it mandates that the rules
filed the present petition before would inevitably result in a promulgated by this Court
this Court. delay, intended or otherwise, in should provide a simplified and
On 27 March 2009, while the the adjudication of cases, which inexpensive procedure for the
Petition for Prohibition was in some instances, had to be speedy disposition of cases, in
pending, respondent judge remanded or referred to the conformity with the right of all
issued an Order11 inhibiting lower court as the proper forum persons to a speedy disposition
himself from hearing the case under the rules of procedure, or of their cases before all judicial,
after private respondent alleged as better equipped to resolve quasi-judicial, or administrative
that the former was biased for the issues because this Court is bodies.15 As this Court stated
the prosecution. The cases were not a trier of facts.13 It is only in San Ildefonso Lines v. Court
thereafter transferred to Branch for special and compelling of Appeals,16 there must be a
35, also a regular court, reasons that this Court shall renewed adherence to the time-
exercise its primary jurisdiction honored dictum that procedural
over the extraordinary remedy
rules are designed not to defeat, xxx xxx xxx judge is mandated to assign the
but to safeguard, the ends of drug case to a regular court in
(3) cases involving violations
substantial justice. the following order: first, to the
of the Dangerous Drugs Act, pairing judge of the special
Petitioner grounds its assertion or ... court where the case was
on Sec. 90 of R.A. 9165, which
is disqualified or voluntarily originally assigned; and,
states:
inhibits himself/herself from second, if the pairing judge is
Jurisdiction. The Supreme hearing a case, the following likewise disqualified or has
Court shall designate special guidelines shall be observed: inhibited himself, then to
courts from among the existing another regular court through a
xxx xxx xxx raffle. Under these exceptional
Regional Trial Courts in each
judicial region to exclusively (ii) Where there are more than circumstances, this Court
try and hear cases involving two special courts of the same designated the regular court,
violations of this Act. The nature in the station, the ipso facto, as a special court
number of courts designated in Executive Judge shall but only for that case. Being a
each judicial region shall be immediately assign the case by "designated special court," it is
based on the population and the raffle to the other or another likewise bound to follow the
number of cases pending in special court of the same relevant rules in trying and
their respective jurisdiction. nature. In case the Presiding deciding the drug case pursuant
Judge of the other special court to R.A. 9165.
xxx xxx xxx
is also disqualified or inhibits Petitioner also contends that the
Trial of the case under this himself/herself, the case shall legislative intent of R.A. 9165
Section shall be finished by the be forwarded to the pairing is "to make use of the expertise
court not later than sixty (60) judge of the special court which of trial judges in complicated
days from the date of the filing originally handled the said case. and technical rules of the
of the information. Decision on If the pairing judge is also special drug law." Thus,
said cases shall be rendered disqualified or inhibits petitioner suggests that in
within a period of fifteen (15) himself/herself, the case shall instances in which all the
days from the date of be raffled to the other regular judges of special courts have
submission of the case for courts. At the next raffle, an inhibited themselves or are
resolution. additional case shall be otherwise disqualified, the
assigned to the disqualified or venue for the affected drug
Petitioner interprets the above inhibiting judge/s to replace the cases should be transferred to
provision to mean that a court case so removed from the nearest station that has
must be specifically designated his/her/their court... (Emphasis designated special courts.
by the Supreme Court as a supplied.)
special court. But what is Chap.
V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02- Under R.A. 9165, Congress
SC if not an express empowered this Court with the Petitioners suggestion is ill-
designation of a special court? full discretion to designate advised. To subscribe to this
special courts to hear, try and suggestion is to defeat the
Chap. V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03- purpose of the law.
decide drug cases. It was
8-02-SC provides: Undoubtedly, petitioners
precisely in the exercise of this
Raffle and re-assignment of discretionary power that the unwarranted suggestion would
cases in special courts where powers of the executive judge entail the use of precious
judge is disqualified or were included in Chap. V, Sec. resources, time and effort to
voluntarily inhibits 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC vis- transfer the cases to another
himself/herself from hearing -vis Sec. 5(5) of Article VIII station. On the other hand, the
case. (a) Where a judge in a of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, assailed guidelines provide for
court designated to try and in cases of inhibition or a much more practical and
decide disqualification, the executive expedient manner of hearing
and deciding the cases. To It is further declared the policy common rationale, that is, to
reiterate, over and above of the State to provide effective "expeditiously resolve criminal
utilizing the expertise of trial mechanisms or measures to re- cases involving violations of
judges, the rationale behind integrate into society R.A. 9165," especially in the
Sec. 90 of R.A. 9165 and Chap. individuals who have fallen light of the strict time frame
V, Sec. 9 of A.M. No. 03-8-02- victims to drug abuse or provided in Sec. 90 of R.A.
SC is to effect an efficient dangerous drug dependence 9165. Both provide for the
administration of justice and through sustainable programs guidelines regarding the
speedy disposition of cases, as of treatment and rehabilitation. assignment of drug cases to
well as to breathe life into the (Emphasis supplied.) special courts. Thus, A.M. No.
policy enunciated in Sec. 2 of 05-9-03-SC provides for the
As a matter of fact, this Court
R.A. 9165, to wit: exemption of special courts
also issued similar guidelines from the regular raffle under
Declaration of policy. It is the with regard to environmental normal circumstances, while
policy of the State to safeguard cases,17 election cases A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC provide
the integrity of its territory and involving elective municipal for the assignment of drug
the well-being of its citizenry officials,18 and cases that cases to special courts except
particularly the youth, from the involve killings of political under special circumstances
harmful effects of dangerous activists and members of that would warrant
drugs on their physical and media.19 Foremost in its mind reassignment to a regular court.
mental well-being, and to is the speedy and efficient
defend the same against acts or administration of justice. Moreover, the exemption of
omissions detrimental to their special courts from the regular
Petitioner further points out that
development and preservation. raffle was not established as an
this Court issued A.M. No. 05-
In view of the foregoing, the ironclad rule.1avvphi1 A.M.
9-03-SC to define the phrase
State needs to enhance further No. 05-9-03-SC does in fact
"to exclusively try and hear
the efficacy of the law against allow special courts to acquire
cases involving violations of
dangerous drugs, it being one jurisdiction over cases that are
this Act" to mean "...[c]ourts
of today's more serious social not drug cases. In the interest of
designated as special courts for
ills. justice, executive judges may
drug cases shall try and hear recommend to the Supreme
Toward this end, the drug-related cases only, i.e., Court the inclusion of drug
government shall pursue an cases involving violations of courts in the regular raffle, and
intensive and unrelenting RA 9165, to the exclusion of this Court has the discretion to
campaign against the other courts." Hence, petitioner approve the recommendation,
trafficking and use of submits, drug cases should not as the Resolution states:
dangerous drugs and other be assigned to regular courts
similar substances through an according to the procedure WHEREFORE, Executive
integrated system of planning, provided in A.M. No. 03-8-02- Judges and presiding judges of
implementation and SC; in other words, the two special courts for drug cases
enforcement of anti-drug abuse issuances contradict each other. shall hereby observe the
policies, programs, and following guidelines:
Again, this Court disagrees.
projects. The government shall
xxx xxx xxx
however aim to achieve a
balance in the national drug 4. If, in the opinion of
control program so that people Petitioner underestimates the Executive Judges, the caseload
with legitimate medical needs rule-making power of this of certain drug courts allows
are not prevented from being Court. Nothing in A.M. No. 05- their inclusion in the regular
treated with adequate amounts 9-03-SC or in A.M. No. 03-8- raffle without adversely
of appropriate medications, 03-SC suggests that they affecting their ability to
which include the use of contradict each other. In fact, expeditiously resolve the drug
dangerous drugs. both were issued with a cases assigned to them and their
inclusion in the regular raffle The sentence, however, shall be Dangerous Drugs Act, as
becomes necessary to suspended without need of amended;
decongest the caseload of other application pursuant to
branches, the concerned Ptesidential Decree No. 603, j) Violations of Republic Act
Executive Judges shall otherwise known as the "Child No. 7610, otherwise known as
recommend to this Court the and Youth Welfare Code"; the "Special Protection of
inclusion of drug courts in their Children Against Child Abuse,
jurisdiction in the regular raffle. b) Petitions for guardianship, Exploitation and
custody of children, habeas Discrimination Act," as
The concerned drug courts shall
corpus in relation to the latter; amended by Republic Act No.
remain exempt from the regular
7658; and
raffle until the recommendation
c) Petitions for adoption of
is approved. (Emphasis
children and the revocation k) Cases of domestic violence
supplied.) thereof; against:
(2) Oversee the operational SECTION 8. Office of the All provincial/city prosecution
activities of the Department; Chief State Prosecutor.The offices shall continue to
Office of the Chief State discharge their functions under
(3) Coordinate the programs Prosecutor shall have the existing law.
and projects of the Department following functions:
for efficient and effective All provincial and city
administration; (1) Assist the Secretary in the prosecutors and their assistants
performance of powers and shall be appointed by the
(4) Serve as deputy for the functions of the Department President upon the
Secretary; relative to its role as the recommendation of the
prosecution arm of the Secretary.
(5) Perform, when so government;
designated, the powers and
functions of the Secretary, (2) Implement the provisions of
during the latters absence or laws, executive orders and r Sec.24and 35, Rep. Act
incapacity; and rules, and carry out the policies, No.6975
plans, programs and projects of
(6) Perform such other the Department relative to the Section 24. Powers and
functions as may be provided investigation and prosecution of Functions. The PNP shall
by law or assigned by the criminal cases; have the following powers and
Secretary to promote efficiency functions:
and effectiveness in the (3) Assist the Secretary in
delivery of frontline services. exercising supervision and (a) Enforce all laws and
control over the National ordinances relative to the
SECTION 7. Legal Staff. Prosecution Service as protection of lives and
The Legal Staff shall have the constituted under P.D. No. 1275 properties;
following functions:
(b) Maintain peace and order capabilities and all necessary on their medical, chemical,
and take all necessary steps to material means of resources. biological and physical nature.
ensure public safety;
Section 35. Support Units. There shall be likewise be
(c) Investigate and prevent The PNP shall be supported by established regional and city
crimes, effect the arrest of administrative and operational crime laboratories as may be
criminal offenders, bring support units. The necessary in all regions and
offenders to justice and assist in administrative support units cities of the country.
their prosecution; shall consist of the Crime
Laboratory, Logistic Unit, (2) Logistic Unit. Headed by
(d) Exercise the general powers Communications Unit, a Director with the rank of
to make arrest, search and Computer Center, Finance chief superintendent, the
seizure in accordance with the Center and Civil Security Unit. Logistics Unit shall be
Constitution and pertinent laws; The operational support units responsible for the
shall be composed of the procurement, distributions and
(e) Detain an arrested person Maritime Police Unit, Police management of all the logistical
for a period not beyond what is Intelligence Unit, Police requirements of the PNP
prescribed by law, informing Security Unit, Criminal including firearms and
the person so detained of all his Investigation Unit, Special ammunition.
rights under the Constitution; Action Force, Narcotics units,
Aviation Security Unit, Traffic Communications Unit.
(f) Issue licenses for the Management Unit, the Medical Headed by a Director with the
possession of firearms and and Dental Centers and the rank of chief superintendent,
explosives in accordance with Civil Relations Unit. To the Communications Unit shall
law; enhance police operational be responsible for establishing
efficiency and effectiveness, the an effective police
(g) Supervise and control the Chief of the PNP may communications network.
training and operations of constitute such other support
security agencies and issue units as may be necessary Computer Center. Headed by
licenses to operate security subject to the approval of the a Director with the rank of
agencies, and to security guards Commission: Provided, That no chief superintendent, the
and private detectives, for the support unit headed by a chief Computer Center shall be
practice of their professions; superintendent or a higher rank responsible for the design,
and can be created unless provided implementation and
by law. maintenance of a database
(h) Perform such other duties system for the PNP.
and exercise all other functions Administrative Support Units.
as may be provided by law. (1) Crime Laboratory. There (5) Finance Center. Headed
shall be established a central by a Director with the rank of
Crime Laboratory to be headed chief superintendent, the
In addition, the PNP shall
by a Director with the rank of Finance Center shall be
absorb the office of the
chief superintendent, which responsible for providing
National Action Committee on
shall provides scientific and finance services to the PNP.
Anti-Hijacking (NACAH) of
technical investigative aid and
the Department of National
support to the PNP and other (6) Civil Security Unit.
Defense, all the functions of the
government investigative Headed by a Director with the
present Philippine Air Force
agencies. rank of chief superintendent,
Security Command
(PAFSECOM), as well as the the Civil Security Unit shall
police functions of the Coast It shall also provide crime provide administrative services
Guard. In order to perform its laboratory examination, and general supervision over
powers and functions evaluation and identification of organization, business
efficiently and effectively, the physical evidences involved in operation and activities of all
PNP shall be provided with crimes with primary emphasis organized private detectives,
adequate land, sea, and air watchmen, security guard
agencies and company guard highly placed or professional rank of chief superintendent,
houses. criminal syndicates and the Traffic Management Unit
organizations. shall enforce traffic laws and
The unit shall likewise regulations.
supervise the licensing and This unit shall likewise
registration of firearms and investigate all major cases (9) Medical and Dental Centers.
explosives. involving violations of the Headed by a Director with the
Revised Penal Code and rank of chief superintendent,
The approval applications for operate against organized crime the Medical and Dental Centers
licenses to operate private groups, unless the President shall be responsible for
security agencies, as well as the assigns the case exclusively to providing medical and dental
issuance of licenses to security the National Bureau of services for the PNP.
guards and the licensing of Investigation (NBI).
firearms and explosives, shall (10) Civil Relations Units.
be decentralized to the PNP (5) Special Action Force. Headed with a Director with the
regional offices. Headed by a Director with the rank of chief superintendent,
rank of chief superintendent, the Civil Relations Unit shall
(b) Operational Support Units. the Special Action Force shall implement plans and programs
(1) Maritime Police Unit. function as a mobile strike that will promote community
Headed by a Director with the force or reaction unit to and citizens' participation in the
rank of chief superintendent, augment regional, provincial, maintenance of peace and order
the Maritime Police Unit shall municipal and city police forces and public safety.
perform all police functions for civil disturbance control,
over Philippine territorial counterinsurgency, hostage- r Republic Act No. 757, as
waters and rivers. taking rescue operations, and amended
other special operations.
(2) Police Intelligence Unit. o Cabarrus, Jr. v. BernaS A.C.
Headed by a Director with the (6) Narcotics Unit. Headed by No. 4634, 24 September L997
rank of chief superintendent, a Director with the rank of
the Police Intelligence Unit chief superintendent, the JESUS CABARRUS,
shall serve as the intelligence Narcotics Unit shall enforce all JR., complainant, vs.JOSE
and counterintelligence laws relative to the protection ANTONIO S.
operating unit of the PNP. of the citizenry against BERNAS, respondent.
dangerous and other prohibited
(3) Police Security Unit. drugs and substances. On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus
Headed by a Director with the Cabarrus, Jr. filed an
rank of chief superintendent, (7) Aviation Security Unit. administrative complaint for
Police Security Unit shall Headed by a Director with the disbarment against Atty. Jose
provide security for rank of chief superintendent, Antonio Bernas for alleged
government officials, visiting the Aviation Security Unit, in violations of Article 172 of the
dignitaries and private coordination with airport Revised Penal Code and Code
individuals authorized to be authorities, shall secure all the of Professional Responsibility.
given protection. country's airports against In his complaint-
offensive and terroristic acts affidavit1 dated August 12,
(4) Criminal Investigation Unit. that threaten civil aviation, 1996, complainant alleged as
Headed by a Director with the exercise operational control and follows:
rank of chief superintendent, supervision over all agencies
the Criminal Investigation Unit involved in airport security A. That on April 16, 1996,
shall undertake the monitoring, operation, and enforce all laws respondent Ramon B. Pascual,
investigation and prosecution of and regulations relative to air Jr., subscribed under oath
all crimes involving economic travel protection and safety. before Marie Lourdes T. Sia
sabotage, and other crimes of Bernas, a notary public in
such magnitude and extent as to (8) Traffic Management Unit. Makati City, wife of lawyer
indicate their commission by Headed by a Director with the Jose Antonio Bernas, a
verification and certification of gleaned from paragraphs 15, any court, including the
non-forum shopping which was 16, and 22; Supreme Court, the Court of
appended to a complaint for Appeals, or any other Tribunal
reconveyance of property and D. That contrary to the tenor, or agency." Where verification-
damages, denominated as Civil import and meanoing (sic) of certification was placed under
Case No. 65646, filed before the allegation under 1-B of the oath and was conveniently
the Regional Trial Court in instant complaint, respondent notarized by the wife of the
National Capital Region, RTC, and his counsel Jose Antonio counsel of respondent in both
which case was raffled to RTC Bernas caused the preparation cases at Branch 159 of the RTC
Branch 159 in Pasig City. A and filing of a criminal in Pasig and at the NBI, an
photocopy of said complaint is complaint for falsification of a agency within the ambis (sic)
hereto attached and marked as public document on April 11, and purview of the circulus
Annexex (sic) A, A-1, A-3, A-4, 1996, (three days before the (sic) of the Supreme Court
A-5 and A-6; filing of the aforecited Civil prohibiting forum shopping.
Case) at the AOED of the
B. That as basis for the instant National Bureau of F. That Jose Antonio Bernas,
complaint for falsification of Investigation if (sic) Taff (sic) the counsel on record of the
public document, I am hereto Ave., a xerox copy of said respondents in Civil Case No.
quoting verbatim, the test (sic) complaint is hereto attached 65646 is the same lawyer who
of Annex A-6, the verification and marked as Annex "B". instigated a criminal complaint
and certification of non-forum at the NBI for forgery and
shopping which states: D-1. That as stated in Annex respondents themselves
"B", the gravaman of the conspired and confabulated
Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., under affidavit complaint of the with each other in facilitating
oath, depose and states: respondent is forgery, the same and insuring the open, blatant
legal issue in Civil Case No. and deliberate violation of Art.
He is the plaintiff in this case, 65646; 172 of the Revised Penal Code
and certify that he cause the which states:
preparation of the foregoing D-2. That as early as August 14,
pleading, the content of which 1995, respondent counsel, Jose Art. 172. Falsification by
are true to his personal Antonio Bernas filed a written private individual and use of
knowledge and that he has not complaint at the NBI for the falsified documents. The
commenced any other action or same cause of action which was penalty of prision
proceeding involving the same reiterated in another letter correccional in its medium and
issues in any court, including submitting to the NBI standard maximum periods and a fine of
the Supreme Court, the Court specimen signatures dated not more than P5,000 pesos
of Appeals, or any other October 1995, copies of said shall be imposed upon:
tribunal or agency. If he should letter complaint are hereto
learn that a similar action of attached and marked as 1. Any private individual who
(sic) proceeding has been filed Annexes (sic) "C". shall commit any of the
or is pending before the falsifications enumerated in the
Supreme Court or any other E. That respondent Ramon B. next preceding article in any
Tribunal agency, he undertake Pascual, Jr., on the basis of public or official document or
to report to (sic) that fact within Annexes A, B, C, D, inclusive letter of exchanged (sic) or any
Five (5) days from notice to of submarkings knowingly other kind of commercial
this notice (sic) to this subverted and perverted the document; and
Honorable Court. Emphasis truth when he falsify certified
supplied. (sic) and verified under oath in 2. Any person who, to the
the verification and certification damage of a third party, or with
C. That the cause of action of non-forum shopping, that: the intent to cause such
relied upon by the respondent damage, shall in any private
in Civil Case No. 65646 is He has not commenced any document commit any of the
fraud, facilitated by forgery as other action or proceeding acts of falsification enumerated
involving the same issues in in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall false, fraudulent, misleading, prosecutorial functions or
knowingly introduce in deceptive, undignified, self- quasi-judical powers and is
evidence in any judicial laudatory or unfair statement or incapable of granting relief or
proceeding or to the damage of claim regarding his qualified remedy. The NBI cannot be an
another or who, with the intent (sic) or legal services. agency contemplated by the
to cause such damage, shall use circular.
any of the false documents CANON 10. A LAWYER
embraced in the next preceding OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS The core issue to be resolved
article, or in any of the AND GOOD FAITH TO THE here is whether respondent
foregoing subdivisions of this COURT. Atty. Bernas transgressed
article, shall be punished by the Circular No. 28-91, Revised
penalty next lower in degree. In his Comment,2 respondent Circular No. 28-91, and
Jose Antonio Bernas avers that Administrative Circular No. 04
G. That Atty. Jose Antonio he has not committed forum - 94 on forum shopping.
Bernas should be disbarred for shopping because the criminal
having instigated, abetted and action is not an action that After a careful scrutiny of the
facilitated the perversion and involves the same issue as those records, we find the
subversion of truth in the said in a civil action and both suits administrative complaint bereft
verification and certification of can exist without constituting of merit and should be
non-forum shopping. Contrary forum shopping so long as the dismissed.
to Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, civil aspect has not been
Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the prosecuted in the criminal case. There is forum-shopping
Code of Professional He emphasized that forum whenever, as a result of an
Responsibility for Lawyers, the shopping only exists when adverse opinion in one forum, a
pertinent provisions of which identical reliefs are issued by party seeks a favorable opinion
are herein below quoted and a the same parties in multiple (other than by appeal
copy of said code is hereto fora. or certiorari) in another.
attached and marked as Annex Therefore, a party to a case
"E"; In his Supplemental resorts to forum shopping
Comment,3 respondent further because "by filing another
CANON 1. A. LAWYER contends that neither he or his petition involving the same
SHALL UPHOLD THE client Pascual has commenced essential facts and
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE any criminal action. Pascual circumstances, . . . ,
LAWS OF THE LAND merely requested the NBI to respondents approached two
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR assist in the investigation or different fora in order to
LAW AND LEGAL prosecution, and left it to the increase their chances of
PROCESSES. NBI to determine whether the obtaining a favorable decision
filing of an endorsement to the or action.4 In this case, there is
or decietful (sic) conduct.) at prosecutor, who would no forum shopping to speak of.
defiance of the law or at determine probable cause, Atty. Bernas, as counsel of Mr.
lessening confidence in the would be appropriate. It was Pascual, Jr., merely requested
legal system. only upon request of the NBI the assistance of the NBI to
that he assisted Ramon Pascual investigate the alleged fraud
CANON 3. A. LAWYER IN in drafting an affidavit- and forgery committed by Mr.
MAKING KNOWN HIS complaint for falsification of Jesus Cabarrus.5 The filing of a
LEGAL SERVICES SHALL public documents against civil case for reconveyance and
USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, complainant. Likewise, damages before the Regional
FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND respondent by counsel reiterates Trial Court of Pasig City does
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION that the letter transmitted to the not preclude respondent to
OF (sic) STATEMENT OF NBI cannot constitute an action institute a criminal action. The
FACTS. or proceeding because the rule allows the filing of a civil
NBI's functions are merely case independently with the
Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall investigatory and informational criminal case without violating
not use or permit the use of any in nature. NBI has no the circulars on forum
shopping. It is scarcely or possession of all firearms as investigation of crimes upon its
necessary to add that Circular well as of test bullets fired own initiative and as public
No. 28-91 must be so therefrom; welfare may require. It renders
interpreted and applied as to assistance when requested in
achieve the purposes projected (d) To give technical aid to all the investigation or detection of
by the Supreme Court when it prosecuting and law- crimes which precisely what
promulgated that Circular. enforcement officers and Atty. Bernas sought in order to
Circular No. 28-91 was entities of the Government as prosecute those persons
designed to serve as an well as the courts that may responsible for defrauding his
instrument to promote and request its services; client.
facilitate the orderly
administration of justice and (e) To extend its services, The courts, tribunals and
should not be interpreted with whenever properly requested in agencies referred to under
such absolute literalness as to the investigation of cases of Circular No. 28-91, Revised
subvert its own ultimate and administrative or civil nature in Circular No. 28-91 and
legitimate objective or the goal which the Government is Administrative Circular No. 04-
of all rules of procedure interested; 94 are those vested with
which is to achieve substantial judicial powers or quasi-
justice as expeditiously as (f) To undertake the instruction judicial powers and those who
possible.6 and training of representative not only hear and determine
number of city and municipal controversies between adverse
Adjunct to this, Act No. 157 7, peace officers at the request of parties, but to make binding
specifically section 1 hereof their respective superiors along orders or judgments. As
provides, viz: effective methods of crime succinctly put it by R.A. 157,
investigation and detection in the NBI is not performing
Sec. 1. There is hereby created order to insure greater judicial or quasi-judicial
a Bureau of Investigation under efficiency in the discharge of functions. The NBI cannot
the Department of Justice their duties; therefore be among those
which shall have the following forums contemplated by the
functions: (g) To establish and Circular that can entertain an
maintain an up-to-date action or proceeding, or even
(a) To undertake investigation scientific crime laboratory and grant any relief, declaratory or
of crimes and other offenses to conduct researches in otherwise.
against the laws of the furtherance of scientific
Philippines, upon its initiative knowledge in criminal WHEREFORE, premises
and as public interest may investigation; considered, the instant
require; complaint is hereby
(h) To perform such other DISMISSED.
(b) To render assistance, related functions as the
whenever properly requested in Secretary of Justice may assign o Atty. Dizon v. Atty.
the investigation or detection of from time to time. Lambino, A.C. No. 5968, 9
crimes and other offenses; August 2006
Explicitly, the functions of the
(c) To act as a national National Bureau of ATTY. ORLANDO V.
clearing house of criminal and Investigations are merely DIZON, Complainant,
other informations for the investigatory and informational vs. ATTY. MARICHU C.
benefit and use of all in nature. It has no judicial or LAMBINO, Respondent.
prosecuting and law- quasi-judicial powers and is
enforcement entities of the incapable of granting any relief ATTY. MARICHU C.
Philippines, identification to a party. It cannot even LAMBINO, Complainant,
records of all persons without determine probable cause. It is vs. ATTY. ORLANDO V.
criminal convictions, records of an investigative agency whose DIZON, Respondent.
identifying marks, findings are merely
characteristics, and ownership recommendatory. It undertakes
The killing during a rumble on students were allowed to go constitutes violation of Code of
December 8, 1994 of back to their dormitories, with Professional Responsibility.
University of the Philippines Atty. Villamor undertaking to
(UP) graduating student Dennis accompany them to the NBI the 2. Whether the act of Atty.
Venturina, the chairperson of following morning. Dizon in trying to arrest the
the UP College of Public student-suspects constitutes
Administration Student The two student-suspects were violation of the Code of
Council, drew the then eventually indicted in court. Professional Responsibility.
Chancellor of UP Diliman
Roger Posadas to seek the Hence, spawned the filing of a By Report and
assistance of the National complaint by Atty. Dizon Recommendation submitted to
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). against Atty. Lambino before the Board of Governors of the
the Integrated Bar of the IBP on June 20, 2005, CBD
Acting on the request of Philippines (IBP), for violation Investigating Commissioner
Chancellor Posadas, Atty. of Canon 1, Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of Siegfrid B. Mison
Orlando Dizon, then Chief of the Code of Professional recommended the dismissal of
the Special Operations Group Responsibility, docketed the complaint against Atty.
(SOG) of the NBI, together as CBD Case No. 346. Lambino in light of a finding
with his men, repaired to the that she "acted within her
Office of Col. Eduardo Bentain, Atty. Dizon had earlier filed a official duties as she
head of the UP Security Force criminal complaint also against safeguarded the rights of the
on December 12, 1994. Atty. Lambino, together with students in accordance with the
Chancellor Posadas and Vice schools substitute parental
As two student-suspects in the Chancellor Torres-Yu and Col. authority" and "within the
killing, Francis Carlo Taparan Bentain, before the bounds of the law as the NBI
and Raymundo Narag, were at Ombudsman, for violation of agents had no warrants of
the time in the office of Col. P.D. 1829 which makes it arrest."
Bentain, Atty. Dizon requested unlawful for anyone to obstruct
to take them into his custody. the apprehension and With respect to the complaint
Atty. Marichu Lambino, Legal prosecution of criminal against Atty. Dizon, the
Counsel of UP Diliman, who offenses. Commissioner recommended to
repaired to the Office of Col. reprimand him for violating the
Bentain, advised against Atty. Atty. Lambino in turn charged Code of Professional
Dizons move, however, he not Atty. Dizon before the IBP with Responsibility in "recklessly
being armed with a warrant for violation of the Code of tr[ying] to arrest" the suspects
their arrest. Professional Responsibility, without warrant.
specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
Chancellor Posadas and Vice 1.02, and 1.03; Canon 6, Rules The IBP Board of Governors,
Chancellor for students Rosario 6.01 and 6.02; and Canon 8, by Resolution of October 22,
Torres-Yu, who also repaired to Rule 8.01, docketed as CBD 2005, adopted and approved the
the office of the colonel, joined Case No. 373. Commissioners Report. The
Atty. Lambino in opposing the IBP thereupon transferred to
turn-over of the suspects to The administrative cases were, this Court its Notice of
Atty. Dizon, despite the latters on motion of Atty. Lambino, Resolution, together with the
claim that under its Charter the consolidated. Before the IBP records of the cases which this
NBI was authorized to make Commission on Bar Discipline Court noted by Resolution of
warrantless arrests. (CBD), the issues were defined February 1, 2006.
as follows:
The suspects lawyer, one Atty. As earlier stated, the issue
Villamor, later also showed up 1. Whether the act of Atty. against Atty. Lambino is
at the office of Col. Bentain and Lambino in refusing to turn whether she violated the
after what appeared to be a over the suspected students to Canons of Professional Ethics
heated discussion between Atty. the group of Atty. Dizon in "refusing to turn over the
Dizon and the UP officials, the
suspected students to the group In the main, Atty. Dizon WHEREFORE, CBD Case No.
of Atty. Dizon." invoked Section 1 (a) of 346 against Atty. Marichu C.
Republic Act 157 (The NBI Lambino is DISMISSED.
When the complaint of Atty. Charter) which empowers the
Dizon before the Ombudsman NBI "to undertake Atty. Orlando V. Dizon is, in
against Chancellor Posadas, investigations of crimes and CBD Case No. 373, found
Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu and other offenses against the laws guilty of violation of Canon 1
Atty. Lambino was elevated on of the Philippines, upon its own of Rule 1.02 of the Code of
Certiorari and Prohibition, this initiative and as public interest Professional Responsibility and
Court addressing in the may require"5 and to make is REPRIMANDED and
negative the two issues raised arrests. The invocation does not WARNED that a repetition of
therein, to wit: impress. Said section does not the same or similar infraction
grant the NBI the power to shall be dealt with more
(1) Whether the attempted make warrantless arrests. The severely.
arrest of the student suspects by NBI Charter clearly qualifies
the NBI could be validly made the power to make arrests to be Let a copy of this Decision be
without a warrant; and (2) "in accordance with existing furnished the Office of the Bar
Whether there was probable laws and rules." Confidant, the National Bureau
cause for prosecuting petitioner of Investigation, and the
for violation of P.D. No. 1829. Members of the investigation Department of Justice.
x x x,1 staff of the Bureau of
Investigation shall be peace SO ORDERED.
held that the objection of the officers, and as such have the
said UP officials to the arrest of following powers: o Sec. 11 (3), Ll (4), & L5,
the students "cannot be Rep. Act No. 6770
construed as a violation of P.D. (a) To make arrests, searches
No. 1829, Sec. 1 (c) without and seizures in accordance The Office of the Special
rendering it with existing laws and rules.6 Prosecutor shall be composed
2
unconstitutional," they having of the Special Prosecutor and
"a right to prevent the arrest [of x x x x (Emphasis supplied) his prosecution staff. The
the students] at the time Office of the Special Prosecutor
because their attempted arrest By persisting in his attempt to shall be an organic component
was illegal."3 arrest the suspected students of the Office of the
without a warrant, Atty. Dizon Ombudsman and shall be under
Indeed, Atty. Lambino was violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 the supervision and control of
legally justified in advising of the Code of Professional the Ombudsman.
against the turn over of the Responsibility which provides:
suspects to Atty. Dizon, there
(4) The Office of the Special
being no basis for him to effect CANON 1 A LAWYER
Prosecutor shall, under the
a warrantless arrest. Atty. SHALL UPHOLD THE supervision and control and
Dizons administrative CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
upon the authority of the
complaint against her must then LAWS OF THE LAND AND Ombudsman, have the
be dismissed. PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
following powers:
LAW AND LEGAL
Respecting the complaint PROCESSES.
(a) To conduct preliminary
against Atty. Dizon, this Court,
investigation and prosecute
also in Posadas v. Ombudsman, xxxx criminal cases within the
held that "[f]or the failure of the
jurisdiction of the
NBI agents to comply with the Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not Sandiganbayan;
constitutional and procedural counsel or abet activities
requirements, . . . their attempt aimed at defiance of the
to arrest [the two student- (b) To enter into plea
law or at lessening confidence
suspects] without a warrant was bargaining agreements; and
in the legal system. (Emphasis
illegal."4 supplied).
(c) To perform such other fine, censure, or prosecution, (7) Determine the causes of
duties assigned to it by the and ensure compliance inefficiency, red tape,
Ombudsman. therewith; or enforce its mismanagement, fraud, and
disciplinary authority as corruption in the Government,
The Special Prosecutor shall provided in Section 21 of this and make recommendations for
have the rank and salary of a Act: provided, that the refusal their elimination and the
Deputy Ombudsman. by any officer without just observance of high standards of
cause to comply with an order ethics and efficiency;
Section 15. Powers, Functions of the Ombudsman to remove,
and Duties. The Office of suspend, demote, fine, censure, (8) Administer oaths, issue
the Ombudsman shall have the or prosecute an officer or subpoena and subpoena duces
following powers, functions employee who is at fault or tecum, and take testimony in
and duties: who neglects to perform an act any investigation or inquiry,
or discharge a duty required by including the power to examine
(1) Investigate and prosecute on law shall be a ground for and have access to bank
its own or on complaint by any disciplinary action against said accounts and records;
person, any act or omission of officer;
any public officer or employee, (9) Punish for contempt in
office or agency, when such act (4) Direct the officer accordance with the Rules of
or omission appears to be concerned, in any appropriate Court and under the same
illegal, unjust, improper or case, and subject to such procedure and with the same
inefficient.t has primary limitations as it may provide in penalties provided therein;
jurisdiction over cases its rules of procedure, to furnish
cognizable by the it with copies of documents (10) Delegate to the Deputies,
Sandiganbayan and, in the relating to contracts or or its investigators or
exercise of this primary transactions entered into by his representatives such authority
jurisdiction, it may take over, at office involving the or duty as shall ensure the
any stage, from any disbursement or use of public effective exercise or
investigatory agency of funds or properties, and report performance of the powers,
Government, the investigation any irregularity to the functions, and duties herein or
of such cases; Commission on Audit for hereinafter provided;
appropriate action;
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at (11) Investigate and initiate the
its own instance, any officer or (5) Request any government proper action for the recovery
employee of the Government, agency for assistance and of ill-gotten and/or unexplained
or of any subdivision, agency information necessary in the wealth amassed after February
or instrumentality thereof, as discharge of its responsibilities, 25, 1986 and the prosecution of
well as any government-owned and to examine, if necessary, the parties involved therein.
or controlled corporations with pertinent records and
original charter, to perform and documents; The Ombudsman shall give
expedite any act or duty priority to complaints filed
required by law, or to stop, (6) Publicize matters covered against high ranking
prevent, and correct any abuse by its investigation of the government officials and/or
or impropriety in the matters mentioned in those occupying supervisory
performance of duties; paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) positions, complaints involving
hereof, when circumstances so grave offenses as well as
(3) Direct the officer concerned warrant and with due prudence: complaints involving large
to take appropriate action provided, that the Ombudsman sums of money and/or
against a public officer or under its rules and regulations properties.
employee at fault or who may determine what cases may
neglect to perform an act or not be made public: provided, C. The Accused
discharge a duty required by further, that any publicity
law, and recommend his issued by the Ombudsman shall
removal, suspension, demotion, be balanced, fair and true;
o Secs. 14 & 16-D, Chapter 5, The Chief Public Attorney, o Garcia v. Court of Appeals,
Title lll, Book lV, Deputy Chief Public Attorneys, G.R. No. 11-9063, 27 January
Administrative Regional Public Attorneys and 1997
Assistant Regional Public
Code of 1987, as amended by Attorneys shall be appointed by JOSE G. GARCIA, petitioner,
Rep. Act No.9406 the President upon the vs.COURT OF APPEALS,
recommendation of the PEOPLE OF THE
Public Attorneys Office Secretary. PHILIPPINES and ADELA
TEODORA P. SANTOS,
SECTION 14. Public D. The Offended Party
Attorneys Office (PAO).The The issue here is whether the
Citizens Legal Assistance Sec. 12, Rule L10
Court of Appeals committed
Office (CLAO) is renamed reversible error in affirming the
Public Attorneys Office (PAO). Section 12. Name of the trial court's order granting the
It shall exercise the powers and offended party. The motion to quash the
functions as are now provided complaint or information must information for bigamy based
by law for the Citizens Legal state the name and surname of on prescription.
Assistance Office or may the person against whom or
hereafter be provided by law. against whose property the
On 28 August 1991, petitioner
offense was committed, or any
Jose G. Garcia filed with the
SECTION 15. Organizational appellation or nickname by
(Quezon City Prosecutor's
Structure.The PAO shall which such person has been or
Office an "Affidavit of
consist of the following is known. If there is no better
Complaint"1 charging his wife,
constituent units: way of identifying him, he must
private respondent Adela
be described under a fictitious
Teodora P. Santos alias "Delia
(1) Office of the Chief Public name.
Santos," with Bigamy,
Attorney and two (2) Deputy Violation of C.A. No. 142, as
Chief Public Attorneys; (a) In offenses against property, amended by R.A. No. 6085,
if the name of the offended and Falsification of Public
(2) Five (5) line divisions in the party is unknown, the property Documents. However, in his
Central Office, namely: must be described with such letter of 10 October 1991 to
Administrative, Financial and particularity as to properly Assistant City Prosecutor
Management, Special and identify the offense charged. George F. Cabanilla, the
Appealed Cases, Legal petitioner informed the latter
Research and Statistics, and (b) If the true name of the of that he would limit his action to
Field Services Divisions; and the person against whom or bigamy.2
against whose properly the
(3) Regional and offense was committed is After appropriate proceedings,
Provincial/District Offices. thereafter disclosed or Assistant Prosecutor Cabanilla
ascertained, the court must filed on 8 January 1992 with
cause the true name to be
SECTION 16. The Chief the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
inserted in the complaint or
Public Attorney and Other PAO of (Quezon City an
information and the record.
Officials.The PAO shall be information,3 dated 15
headed by a Chief Public November 1991, charging the
Attorney and shall be assisted (c) If the offended party is a private respondent with Bigamy
by two (2) Deputy Chief Public juridical person, it is sufficient allegedly committed as follows:
Attorneys. Each PAO Regional to state its name, or any name
Office established in each of or designation by which it is That on or before the 2nd day
the administrative regions of known or by which it may be of February, 1957, in Quezon
the country shall be headed by identified, without need of City, Philippines, and within the
a Regional Public Attorney who averring that it is a juridical jurisdiction of this Honorable
shall be assisted by an Assistant person or that it is organized in Court, the above-named
Regional Public Attorney. accordance with law. (12a) accused, being previously
united in lawful marriage with
REYNALDO QUIROCA, and The private respondent 5. At the time the respondent
without the said marriage quoted7 the petitioner's married the herein complainant
having been dissolved, (or testimony in Civil Case No. 90- she never informed him that she
before the absent spouse has 52730 as follows: was previously married to a
been declared presumptively certain REYNALDO
dead by a judgment rendered in the private respondent? QUIROCA" on December 1,
the proper proceedings), did 1951 wherein she used the
then and there wilfully, A That she has been married name of "ADELA SANTOS"
unlawfully and feloniously previously in case I don't know which was part of her true
contract a second marriage with it. But she said she has been name "ADELA TEODORA P.
JOSE G. GARCIA, which previously married, in fact I SANTOS" as per her genuine
marriage has [sic] discovered in saw her husband Rey, a few Baptismal Certificate issued by
1989, to the damage and days ago and they said, "Baka the Parish of San Guillermo,
prejudice of the said offended magkasama pa silang muli." Bacolor, Pampanga, a copy of
party in such amount as may be the said Baptismal Certificate is
awarded under the provisions A'ITY. EVANGELISTA: hereto attached as ANNEX
of the Civil Code. "D";
Q When did Eugenia R.
CONTRARY TO LAW. Balingit told [sic] that private 6. . . .
respondent was already married
The information was docketed to another man? 7. These facts were discovered
as Criminal Case No. Q-92- only by the herein complainant
27272 and assigned to Branch A That was when I told her that in the year 1974 where they
83 of the said court. On 2 we are Separating now. I told separated from each other
March 1992, the private her in tagalog, "na because of her illicit relations
respondent filed a Motion to maghihiwalay na kami ni Delia with several men continued use
Quash alleging prescription of ngayon." "Ang unang tanong of her alias name "DELIA",
the offense as ground therefor. niya sa akin, "si Rey ba ang without proper authority from
She contended that by the dahilan," ang alam ko po, Rey the Courts; and committing a
petitioner's admissions in his ang dating boyfriend niya, kaya series of fraudulent acts; her
testimony given on 23 January ang sabi ko, "hindi po, Mario, previous marriage to a certain
1991 in Civil Case No. 90- ang panga!an," napabagsak po "Reynaldo Quiroca" is
52730, entitled "Jose G. Garcia siya sa upuan, sabi niya, "hindi evidenced by a certification
v. Delia S. Garcia," and in his na nagbago." issued by the Local Civil
complaint filed with the Civil Registrar of Manila, a copy of
Service Commission (CSC) on Q When was that when you which is hereto attached as
16 October 1991, the petitioner came to know from Eugenia ANNEX "F",9
discovered the commission of Balingit, the judicial guardian,
the offense as early as 1974. that private respondent was In its 29 June 1992 order, 10 the
Pursuant then to Article 91 of already married to another man trial court granted the motion to
the Revised Penal Code when she married you? quash and dismissed the
(RPC),4 the period of criminal case, ruling in this
prescription of the offense wise:
A That was when the affair was
started to run therefrom. Thus,
happening and I found out.
since bigamy was punishable This court believes that since
by prision mayor,5 an afflictive the penalty prescribed under
penalty6 which prescribed in Q What year?
Article 349 of the Revised
fifteen years pursuant to Article Penal Code for the offense of
92 of the RPC, then the offense A 1974.8
bigamy is prision mayor, which
charged prescribed in 1989, or is classified as an afflictive
fifteen years after its discovery The portion of the complaint penalty under Article 25 of the
by the petitioner. filed on 16 October 1991 before same Code, then said offense
the CSC which the private should prescribe in fifteen (15)
respondent alluded to, reads as years as provided in Article 92
follows:
of the Code. The complainant and Departures as having the contended therein that: (a) the
having discovered the first following travel records: trial court erred in quashing the
marriage of the accused to one information on the ground of
Reynaldo Quiroca in 1974 Departed for HKG on 06/03/77 prescription; and (b) the
when he was informed of it by aboard PR counsel for the accused was
one Eugenia Balingit, the Arrived from HKG on 07/02/77 barred from filing the motion to
offense charged has already aboard PA quash the information against
prescribed when the Arrived from SYD on 07/09/77 the accused.14 As to the first,
information was filed in this aboard PR the petitioner argued that
case on November 15, 1991. Arrived from GUM on bigamy was a public offense,
The argument presented by the 06/14/80 aboard PA hence "the offended party is not
prosecution that i was difficult Arrived from MEL on 07/17/81 the first or second (innocent)
for the complainant to obtain aboard PR spouse but the State whose
evidence of the alleged first Arrived from TYO on 05/20/83 law/policy was transgressed."
marriage, hence, the aboard PA He tried to distinguish bigamy
prescriptive period should be Departed for HKG on 09/22/83 from private offenses such as
counted from the time the aboard PR adultery or concubinage "where
evidence was secured will not Arrived from SIN on 09/28/83 the private complainant
hold water. Article 91 of the aboard PR is necessarily the offended
Revised Penal Code Departed for TYO on 04/30/84 party," thus, the prescriptive
specifically provides, thus: aboard PA period for the former should
Arrived from SFO on 07/03/84 commence from the day the
"The period of prescription aboard PA State, being the offended party,
shall commence to run from the Departed for TYO on 11/19/84 discovered the offense, which
day on which the crime is aboard PA in this case was on 28 August
discovered. . . ." Departed for TYO on 08/05/85 1991 when the petitioner filed
aboard PA his complaint before the
it did not state "on the day Departed for TYO on 11/1 7/86 Prosecutor's Office. The
sufficient evidence was aboard UA petitioner added that the
gathered," thus this Court Arrived from LAX on 12/12/87 "interchanging use" in Article
cannot change the requirements aboard UA 91 of the RPC of the terms
of the law. Departed for LAX on 11/30/87 "offended party," "authorities,"
aboard UA and "their agents" supports his
The petitioner moved for Departed for CHI on 11/14/88 view that the State is the
reconsideration of the above aboard UA offended party in public
order on 26 August 1992,11 to offenses.
which he filed "numerous" The trial court disallowed
supplements thereto, focusing reconsideration of its 29 June Additionally, the petitioner
on the private respondent's 1992 order, finding "no urgent referred to the general rule
many trips abroad which the or justifiable reason to disturb stated
petitioner claimed suspended or set [it] aside." As to the in People v. Alagao15 "that in
the running of the prescriptive sojourns abroad of the private resolving the motion to quash a
period. These trips were respondent as shown in the criminal complaint or
enumerated in the certification, the trial court held information[,] the facts alleged
certification12 issued by that the same "is not that kind in the complaint or information
Associate Commissioner of absence from the Philippines should be taken as they are."
Ramon M. Morales of the which will interrupt the period The information in this case
Bureau of Immigration (BID), of prescription of the offense mentioned that the bigamy was
which reads as follows: charged. . ."13 discovered in 1989. He
admitted, however, that this
This is to certify that the name The petitioner then appealed to rule admits of exceptions, such
GARCIA/DELIA/S. appears in the Court of Appeals which as when the ground for the
the Bureau's files of Arrivals docketed the appeal as CA- motion to quash is prescription
G.R. CR No. 14324. He of the offense, as provided in
Section 4 of the old Rule 117 of
the Rules of Criminal in the sense contemplated by extinguish[ed]' by the
Procedure. Nonetheless, he law. At best, the petitioner prescription of the crime, which
advanced the view that this theorized, the discovery only is a mode of extinguishing
exception is no longer available referred to the "initial, criminal liability." Thus,
because of the implied repeal of unconfirmed and prescription is not deemed
Section 4, as the amended Rule uninvestigated raw, hearsay waived even if not pleaded as a
117 no longer contains a similar information" which he received defense.18
provision under the rule on from Balingit.
motions to quash; and that Undaunted, the petitioner is
granting there was no repeal, Finally, the petitioner reiterated now before us on a petition for
the private respondent failed to that the prescriptive period was review on certiorari to annul
introduce evidence to "support interrupted several times by the and set aside the decision of the
her factual averment in her private respondent's numerous Court of Appeals and to compel
motion to quash," which is trips abroad. the respondent court to remand
required by Rule 117. He the case to the trial court for
further asserted that the factual As regards his second further proceedings. He submits
bases of the motion to contention, the petitioner the following assignment of
quash, viz., the petitioner's argued that the counsel for the errors:
testimony in Civil Case No. 90- private respondent had already
52730 and his complaint filed stated that he represented only I
with the CSC are not Delia S. Garcia and not Adela
conclusive because the Teodora P. Santos. BIGAMY IS A PUBLIC
testimony is hearsay evidence, Consequently, the private OFFENSE, CONSEQUENTLY,
hence inadmissible, while the respondent's counsel could not PRESCRIPTION SHOULD
complaint is vague, particularly ask for the quashal of the HAVE BEEN COUNTED
the following portion quoted by information in favor of Adela FROM THE TIME THE
the private respondent: Teodora P. Santos alias Delia STATE DISCOVERED ITS
Santos. The petitioner opined COMMISSION;
7. These facts where discovered that the counsel for the private
only by the herein complainant respondent should have sought II A MOTION TO QUASH
in the year 1974 when they a dismissal of the case in favor
separated from each other of Delia Garcia alone. CANNOT ALSO GO
because of her illicit relations BEYOND WHAT IS STATED
with several men continued use The Court of Appeals gave IN THE INFORMATION;
of her alias name "DELIA", credence to the private
without proper authority from respondent's evidence and III
the Courts; and committing a concluded that the petitioner
series of fraudulent acts; her discovered the private
previous marriage to a certain BY THEMSELVES, THE
respondent's first marriage in FACTUAL BASES OF THE
"Reynaldo Quiroca" is 1974. Since the information in
evidenced by a certification MOTION TO QUASH ARE
this case was filed in court only NOT ALSO CONCLUSIVE;
issued by the Local Civil on 8 January 1992, or eighteen
Registrar of Manila, a copy of years after the discovery of the
which is hereto attached a IV
offense, then the 15-year
ANNEX "F"; prescriptive period had
certainly lapsed.16 It further ASSUMING THE
The petitioner alleged that the held that the quashal of an PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
phrase "These facts" in said information based on STARTED IN 1974, SAID
paragraph 7 does not clearly prescription of the offense PERIOD HOWEVER WAS
refer to his discovery of the could be invoked before or after INTERRUPTED SEVERAL
private respondent's first arraignment and even on TIMES.
marriage. Moreover, he doubted appeal,17 for under Article 89(5)
whether the term "discovered" of the RPC, the criminal We notice that except for the
in the said paragraph was used liability of a person is "totally first two pages of the petition,
the deletion of a few
paragraphs, the substitution of crime is discovered by the criminal action is instituted, the
the term "petitioner" for offended party, the authorities, civil action for the recovery of
"appellant," and the deletion of or their agents. . . ." This rule civil liability is impliedly
the contention on the' counsel makes no distinction between a instituted with a criminal
for the private respondent being public crime and a private action, unless the offended
barred from filing a motion to crime. In both cases then, the party waives the civil action,
quash, the herein petition is a discovery may be by the reserves his right to institute it
reproduction of the Appellant's "offended party, the authorities, separately, or institutes the civil
Brief filed by the petitioner or their agents." action prior to the criminal
with the Court of Appeals. action.
Verily then, the instant petition Article 91 does not define the
is a rehash of an old tale. term "offended party." We find Such civil action includes
However, the Court of Appeals its definition in Section 12, recovery of indemnity under
failed to sufficiently address Rule 110 of the Rules of Court the Revised Penal Code, and
several issues raised by the as "the person against whom or damages under Articles 32, 33,
petitioner, most probably against whose property, the 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
prompting him to seek redress offense was committed.19 The of the Philippines arising from
from this Court. said Section reads as follows: the same act or omission of the
accused. . . .
We resolved to give due course Sec. 12. Name of the offended
to the petition and required the party. A complaint or It is settled that in bigamy, both
parties to submit their information must state the the first and the second spouses
respective memoranda. The name and surname of the may be the offended parties
Office of the Solicitor General person against whom or against depending on the
was the last to submit a whose property the offense was circumstances. 21