Criminal Procedure

Case Digest

1. Asistio vs. People of the Philippines, 756 SCRA 256 (2015)

Synopsis:
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is “filed after the
prosecution had rested its case,” and when the same is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond
reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of
the accused.” The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case not for
insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Notably, the RTC
did not decide the case on the merits, let alone resolve the issue of Asistio’s guilt or innocence
based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution. This being the case, the RTC Order of
dismissal does not operate as an acquittal, hence, may still be subject to ordinary appeal under
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

2. Navaja vs. De Castro, 759 SCRA 487

Synopsis:
In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has
jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients
occurred. In cases of falsification of private documents, the venue is the place where the
document is actually falsified, to the prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice a third person,
regardless whether or not the falsified document is put to the improper or illegal use for which it
was intended.

3. Sumbilia vs. Matrix Finance Corp. 760 SCRA 532

Synopsis:
Petitioner acknowledged the procedural lapse of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court instead of an ordinary appeal before the CA. The effects of her erroneous filing
of the Motion for Reconsideration to challenge the MeTC Decision finding her guilty of six counts of
violation of BP 22, knowing that her conviction had already attained finality, petitioner seeks the
relaxation of the rules of procedure so that the alleged erroneous penalty imposed by the MeTC
can be modified to make it in accord with existing law and jurisprudence. The right to appeal
being a mere statutory privilege can only be exercised in accordance with the rules, and the lost
appeal cannot be resurrected through the present remedial recourse of a petition for review on
certiorari. The MeTC Decision dated January 14, 2009, which is already final and executory, may
still be modified.

4. Jadewell Parking Systems Inc. vs. Lidua, Oct.7, 2013

Synopsis:
As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information toll
the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. The respondent
judge was correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277
(1992), the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also featured similar facts and
issues with the present case. In that case, the offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The
Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.

5. People vs. Pangilinan, June 13, 2012

Synopsis:
 Pangilinan filed an “Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information and to Defer the Issuance of
Warrant of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City. She alleged that her criminal liability has
been extinguished by reason of prescription. The prescription shall be interrupted when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law
that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year
or by a fine for its violation, it therefore prescribes in four (4) years in accordance with the afore
cited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of
proceedings against the guilty person.

6. Ampatuan Jr. vs. De Lima, April 3, 2013

Synopsis:
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the Government whose
principal power and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. In matters
involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to
compel respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot be
used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the
retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. As such,
respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the letter-request of petitioner, but
may not be compelled to act in a certain way such as to grant or deny such letter-request.

7. Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, Sept.11, 2013

Synopsis:
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged because the crim cases were
filed within the purview of SEC. 4(C) of RA 8242 and both complaints were initially filed by the
PCGG pursuant to its mandate. In resolving the issue of prescription, the ff. must be considered: 1)
The period of prescription for the offense; 2) The time when the period of prescriptions starts to run;
and 3) The time when the prescriptive period is interrupted. The statute of limitations runs only upon
discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right which will support a cause of action. In other words,
the court would decline to apply the statute of limitations where the plaintiff does not know or has
no reasonable means of knowing the existence of the cause of action.

8. Metrobank vs. Reynaldo, Aug.9, 2010

Synopsis:
In a preliminary investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime has been committed
and whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. In this case, as analyzed by the
prosecutor, a prima facie case of estafa exists against respondents. As perused by her, the facts as
presented in the Complaint-Affidavit of the auditor are reasonable enough to excite her belief that
respondents are guilty of the crime complained of. A compromise or settlement entered into after the
commission of the crime does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa. The Secretary of Justice,
however, may review or modify the resolution of the prosecutor.

9. People vs. Bayabos, Feruary 18, 2015

Synopsis:
That the case against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence
of trial of the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter; or even the latter’s
acquittal, especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. Failure to
aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of
the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing.

10. People vs. Cinco, Dec.4, 2009

Synopsis:
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived. Furthermore, even granting that indeed there has been an
 irregularity in the arrest of the appellant, it is deemed cured by his voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the trial court over his person. Thus, appellant is deemed to have waived his
constitutional protection against illegal arrest when he actively participated in the
arraignment and trial of this case. It is clear from the above provision that in offenses against
property, the materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party would depend on
whether or not the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently described and identified.

11. Senador vs. People, March 6, 2013

Synopsis:
Senador was charged with estafa, a crime against property that does not absolutely require as
indispensable the proper designation of the name of the offended party. Rather, what is
absolutely necessary is the correct identification of the criminal act charged in the information. In
case of an error in the designation of the offended party in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec.
12 of the Rules of Court mandates the correction of the information, not its dismissal: SEC. 12(a) In
offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown, the property must be
described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged. (b) If the true name
of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed is thereafter
disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or
information and the record.

12. Albert vs. Sandiganbayan, February 26, 2009,

Synopsis:
The rules mandate that after a plea is entered, only a formal amendment of the Information
may be made but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused.
The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no
longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might
have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended. On the other hand, an
amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in
the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime
charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime.

13. Union Bank of the Phils. vs. People of the Phils. February 28, 2012
Synopsis:
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for
making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. Tomas filed a Motion to Quash,
citing that the venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court, where the Certificate was
submitted and used, and not the MeTC-Makati City, where the Certificate was subscribed, that
has jurisdiction over the perjury case. MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and the proper court
to take cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners. Venue is an essential element of
jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be
instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. In determining the
venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it,
Section 10 and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the court where the
offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place.

14. People vs. Vidana, Oct.23, 2013

Synopsis:
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of both larceny and embezzlement based on the
same course of conduct. The Court of Appeal struck Defendant’s larceny conviction, holding that
a defendant cannot be convicted of both larceny and embezzlement for the same course of
conduct because they not “different offenses” within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code 954. The
Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) larceny and embezzlement are different statements of the
 same offense within the meaning of section 954; and (2) section 954 does not permit multiple
convictions for different statements of the same offense.

15. People vs. Abrencillo, November 28, 2012

Synopsis:
The RTC as the trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanour and conduct of
AAA when she incriminated the accused by her recollection of the incident in court. The personal
observation of AAA's conduct and demeanour enabled the trial judge to discern whether she was
telling the truth or inventing it. The trial judge's evaluation, which the CA affirmed, now binds the
Court, leaving to the accused the burden to bring to the Court's attention facts or circumstances
of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted by the lower courts but would
materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.

16. Mendez vs. People, July 11, 2014

Synopsis:
Accused was found guilty of raping his 16 year old step daughter. He assails the defective
information. The failure of the information to state that the accused raped the victim “through
force or intimidation” is not a fatal omission in this case because the complaint alleged the
ultimate fact that the accused raped the victim “by means of force”. So at the outset, the
appellant could have readily ascertained that he was being accused of rape committed through
force, a charge that sufficiently complies with Art 335. However, since the information alleges that
the victim was his daughter, when in truth the actual relationship of the appellant with the victim is
that of stepfather and stepdaughter, the appellant can be held liable only for simple rape.

17. Ocampo vs. Abando, February 11, 2014

Synopsis:
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is conducted to protect the innocent from
the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. While the right to have a preliminary
investigation before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a substantive right and a
component of due process in the administration of criminal justice. "The essence of due process is
reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense." What is
proscribed is lack of opportunity to be heard. Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to
present one’s own side of the story cannot claim denial of due process.