People v.

Monje
G.R. No. 1466698; September 27, 2002
Facts:
Herein accused is to face the penalty of death for the rape and murder of a
15-year old. The lower court convicted accused based on “weak evidence”
presented during the trial were primarily based on circumstantial evidence presented
by a witness tricycle driver who testified the following facts: at the time of the rape
and murder incident, the witness saw the accused with the 15-year old victim back-
riding on a tricycle heading towards a rice field at around 11 o’clock in the evening,
but by 2 o’clock of the morning later, witness saw Monje travelling without anymore
the victim; the victim’s decomposing body was found in the same rice field three
days later. Moreover, the case points to the fact that accused herein went home to
Cagayan two weeks after he had known that an Information has been issued
implicating him of the crime.
It was during the wake of the victim that said witness told the mother of the
same of what he was able to witness that fateful night. However, the tricycle driver
failed and refused to testify again this time in court in all 4 scheduled hearings of the
case. The accused contended that he was not afforded adequate opportunity to
cross-examine the witness, and that there was weak evidence for the prosecution for
merely presenting circumstantial evidence which failed to establish the link of the
accused to the crime.
Issue:
WON failure to appear of the principal witness to a criminal case will result to
the acquittal of the accused
Held:
Yes. The Court expressed that no matter how much it wants to punish
perpetrators and give justice to victims and their families, the protection provided by
the Bill of Rights is to be upheld most of all. The accused, under Article III, Sec. 14
(2) of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 115, Sec. 1 (f) of the Rules of Court that all
accused may be afforded the right to meet the witnesses face to face and to have
them cross-examined by the same to ascertain the truthfulness of their testimonies.
The general rule it that testimonies given by a witness without being cross-examined
is that it is to be stricken of the records of the case.
The testimony of the tricycle driver to the mother of the victim and on his
affidavit cannot be given credence by the Court to convict the accused since the
same was never presented in court and had been subject to questioning and
verification by the defense, not to mention that there are no another reliable evidence
that can overturn the presumption of innocence vested by the Constitution.
Domingo, Jose Paulino M. Sec. Salvador S. Panelo
JD – 2 Criminal Procedure
 Osorio v. Desierto
G.R. No. 156652; October 13, 2005

Facts:
Herein petitioner appeals to the Court for grave abuse of discretion
committed by the Office of the Ombudsman for not conducting a clarificatory hearing
despite lacking evidence to determine whether there is a sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that the crime of Malversation has been committed
and petitioner, as the Principal of Dr. Cecilio Putong National High School, is
probably guilty thereof.
Respondent on the other hand has appreciated the following evidence in
order to have probable cause and hold petitioner for trial, to wit: the Audit Report of
the COA and that of the NBI – on the non-remittance to the school of the earnings of
the sale of old newspapers, and the issuance of a memorandum whereby students
were charged more than the allowable fees for their membership with Boy and Girl
Scouts of the Philippines.
Moreover, respondent Ombudsman contended that clarificatory hearings are
at the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor under Rule 112, Sec. 3 (e)
and are not mandatory pronouncements of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
WON clarificatory hearings are needed in this case
Held:
No. Under the aforementioned Rule, the investigating prosecutor “may” set a
hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. In this
case, aside from the fact that said form of hearing during the preliminary
investigation is merely based on the discretion of the Ombudsman, the latter has
already laid out that the Reports of the NBI and COA are sufficient enough to prove
that the accused should be held for trial as there exists a reasonable belief that the
crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. Hence, the
conduct of a clarificatory hearing for the instant case shall be unnecessary.

DOMINGO, Jose Paulino M. Criminal Procedure

JD - 2 Sec. Salvador S. Panelo
 Aguinaldo and Perez v Ventus and Joson
G.R. No. 176033 | 11 March 2015

Facts: Respondent’s filed their complaint-affidavit against herein petitioners for the crime of
Estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 of the RPC. In December 2002, petitioners allegedly connived to
induce respondents to give them the amount of P260,000 in consideration for a pledge for
two (2) motor vehicles – which was later on found misrepresented in the name of one of
herein petitioners, where in fact, the same was owned by one Levita De Castro who runs a
car rental service.

In 2003, the Assistant City Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the

indictment of both herein petitioners for the same crime to be filed in the RTC of Manila.
Case was docketed therein as a criminal case entitled “People v Aguinaldo and Perez”. They
also filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Office of the City Prosecutor, which was later
then denied by the same, hence the subsequent issuance of warrants against petitioners
and setting of the case for arraignment.

Petitioners then filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a petition for review, by
virtue of Sec. 1 of Dept. Circular 70 under the same agency. Since the petition for review
was filed after such issuance and setting was had, the parties filed an Urgent Motion to
Cancel Arraignment and Suspend Further Proceedings (for 60 days, as per Sec. 11 [c], Rule
116, RC) until the review before the DOJ is resolved with finality. The court granted the
same.

After the sixty (60) day period, the court issued a issued an order reinstating the case
and issuance of the warrants for petitioners. They contended the petition for review has not
yet reached finality at DOJ so the 60-day suspension rule must be relaxed until such has
been resolved. Lower court denied their motion, as well as the Petition for Certiorari at CA
for the same matter. Hence, the present case.

Issue: WON the 60-day suspension rule may be relaxed in the interest of orderly and
speddy administration of Justice.

Held: No. Although the rules of procedure are to be liberally construed, the provisions on
reglamentary periods are to be strictly applied. The such rules do not exist for the
convenience of the litigants, and they are not to be triffled with lightly or overlooked by the
mere expedience of invoking “substantial justice”.

Such delay in the resolution ofthe DOJ does not extend the 60-day period prescribed
under the Rules of Court. Moreover, part of the delay in the proceedings can be imputed to
the petitioners as they also delayed the DOJ petition for review when they only complied to
submit pertinent pleadings thereto six (6) months after they have received a letter instructing
them of the same.

Petition denied. Case remanded to the trial court to try the case on its merits.

DOMINGO, Jose Paulino M. Criminal Procedure

JD - 2 Sec. Salvador S. Panelo

Canceran v. People
G.R. No. 206442 | 01 July 2015
Facts: On October 2002, herein accused is being prosecuted for the crime of “Frustrated
Theft” under Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code for unlawfully taking two (2) large Magic
Flakes boxes but is nevertheless filled with boxes of “Ponds White Beauty Cream” totalling
to the amount of P28,627.30 Ororama Mega Center, Cagayan De Oro City.

As the case progressed, the RTC convicted him instead of the crime of
Consummated Theft as the 2007 case of Valenzuela v People enunciated the doctrine that
Theft may only be committed in its Attempted or Consummated stage. The Court of Appeals
modified the trial court’s ruling on the penalty by reducing accused penalty.

Accused filed present petition seeking acquital for the penalty handed down for a
crime he was not charged with nor stated in the Information, to which he has a right to be
informed of.

Issue: Whether or not Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of theft as it was not
charged in the information as according to Sec. 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

Held: No. Since there is no frustrated stage of Theft, the accused must only be tried and
convicted for the attempted stage of said crime for the following reasons:

(1) an accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged
in the complaint or information and on which he was tried and that an accused cannot be
convicted in the courts of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on
which he is tried, or necessarily included therein (US v Campo); and,

(2) what is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense
charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated as these are mere conclusions
of law made by the prosecutor; the controlling one must be description of the crime
charged and the particular facts therein recited (Domingo v Rayala).

Petition is partially granted. The Court reduced the sentence of the accused to the
indeterminate prison term ranging from Four (4) Months of Arresto Mayor, as minimum, to
Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months of Prision Correccional, as maximum.

ACABO, Albert J.
2016-80044
Criminal Procedure
Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

PEOPLE VS. CRISPIN BILLABER

Facts:
Private complainant Elizabeth Genteroy was introduced to accused Crispin Billaber by her friends.
The accused told Genteroy that he could help her acquire the necessary papers and find her a job
abroad. Genteroy introduced the accused to Raul Durano. The accused offered Durano a job as his
personal driver in the U.S. Durano and Genteroy paid the accused and asked for receipt, but the
accused said that it was not necessary since they will leave together.Meanwhile, Genteroy introduced
the accused to TersinaOnza and offered a job abroad. Thereafter, the accused instructed the three
private complainants, Genteroy, Durano and Onza to meet him at the airport on the agreed date,
however, the accused failed to show up.Durano chanced upon the accused at the canteen. A
commotion ensued when Durano tried to stop the accused from leaving. A police officer brought both
Durano and the accused to the PNP station. The prosecution offered in evidence a certificate from the
POEA stating that the accused was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for employment
abroad. The accused denied receiving money from private complainants and interposed a defense of
frame-up and extortion against Durano.

Issues:
1) Whether or not the trial court erred in not considering that the accused arrested without
warrant
2) Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Held:
1) It appears that accused-appellant was brought to the police station, together with the
complainant Durano, not because of the present charges but because of the commotion that
ensued between the two at the canteen. At the police station, Durano and the other
complainants then executed statements charging appellant with illegal recruitment and estafa.
As to whether there was an actual arrest or whether, in the commotion, the appellant
committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit an offense, have been
rendered moot.

2) Appellant did not allege any irregularity in a motion to quash before entering his plea, and is
therefore deemed to have waived any question of the trial court’s jurisdiction over his person.

ACABO, Albert J.
2016-80044
Criminal Procedure
Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

MELBA QUINTO VS. DANTE ANDRES and RANDYVER PACHECO

Facts:
An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court that the accused Dante Andres and Randyver
Pacheco, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously attack, assault, and maul Wilson Quinto inside a culvert where the three were fishing,
causing Wilson Quinto to drown and die. The respondents filed a demurer to evidence which the trial
court granted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It also held that it could not hold the
respondents liable for damages because of the absence of preponderant evidence to prove their
liability for Wilson’s death. The petitioner appealed the order to the Court of Appeals insofar as the
civil aspect of the case was concerned. The CA ruled that the acquittal in this case is not merely based
on reasonable doubt but rather on a finding that the accused-appellees did not commit the criminal
acts complained of. Thus, pursuant to the above rule and settled jurisprudence, any civil action ex
delicto cannot prosper. Acquittal in a criminal action bars the civil action arising therefrom where the
judgment of acquittal holds that the accused did not commit the criminal acts imputed to them.

Issue:
Whether or not the extinction of respondent’s criminal liability carries with it the extinction of their
civil liability.

Held:
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives
the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others
from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate
him or, in general, to maintain social order. The sole purpose of the civil action is the restitution,
reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by
reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However,
the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission from where the civil liability may arise does not exist. In
this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill
the deceased and as held by the the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce
preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that
the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages.