of 50

Criminal Procedure Case Digests

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law | Downloads: 18 | Comments: 0
376 views

Criminal Procedure Case Digests

Comments

Content

20. People v. Relova Facts: 5 Feb 1, 1975 - Police searched the ice plant owned by Opulencia; they discovered electric wiring, devices and contraptions had been installed without necessary authority fro city govt ! "ov #$, 1975 - %sst& 'ity Fi(cal filed info against Opulencia for violation of a city ordinance which prohibits unauthori)ed wiring installations& 7 Opulencia pleaded not guilty and filed otion to dis iss on the ground that the cri e had alrdy prescribed *offense charged was a light felony w+c prescribes # os fro discovery thereof&, - .ower court dis issed the case 9 %cting 'ity Fiscal filed another info for theft of electric power 1/ Opulencia filed 0otion to 1uash upon the ground of double 2eopardy 11 3udge 4elova granted otion and dis issed the case& 1# 0otion for 4econ denied, hence this appeal Issue: 5O" there was double 2eopardy Ratio Decidendi: % person who was charged for violating a city ordinance for having installed a etering device to lower his electric bills which was dis issed for prescription of the offense ay not be charged again for theft of electric power under the 4P' Reasons: 16 7he second sentence of %rt& 89 :ec& ## e bodies an e(ception to the gen& Proposition; the consti protection, against double 2eopardy is available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different fro the offense charged subse<uently under a national statute such as the 4P', provided that both offenses spring fro the sa e act or set of acts 1$ 5here an offense is punished by different sections of a statute or different statutes, the in<uiry, for purposes of double 2eopardy is on the identity of offenses charged =>7 where an offense is penali)ed by an ordinance and a statute, the in<uiry is on the identity of acts. :ince the dis issal of the case against Opulencia for violation of an ordinance alrdy a ounted to an ac<uittal, he can no longer charged with an offense punishable under a statute which arise fro the sa e act& 21. People v. City Court of Manila Facts: 15 Oct& 17, 197# - ?iolito dela 'ru) figured in an accident 1! Oct& [email protected] an info for serious physical in2uries thru recAless i prudence *:P848, was filed against private respondent driver of the trucA 17 Oct& 1- @ the victi died 1- Oct& #/ @ private respondent was arraigned on the charge of :P848; he pleaded guilty 19 Oct #$ @ an info for ho icide thru recAless i prudence *B48, was filed against priv& 4esp& #/ "ov& 17 @ city court of 0la dis issed above info on the ground of double 2eopardy Issue: 5O" there was double 2eopardy Ratio Decidendi: 5here the victi of an accident died # days prior to the arraign ent of the accused who pleaded guilty to an info for :P848, he can no longer be charged with B48 as no new fact supervened after the arraign ent& Reasons: #1 Molo v. People – held that where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction the injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.

## %bove case not applicable in the instant case bec& there was no supervening event 23 (kasi nga patay na si iolito nung na!convict si "apay for #P$%$, if it were the other way around, i.e. na!convict muna si "apay &ago namatay si iolito, walang dou&le jeopardy kc may supervening event na' Dispositive Portion: Order of dis issal of lower court affir ed& 24 22. Gal an v. !andi"an#ayan Facts: #5 %ug& #1, 19-6 @ "inoy %<uino was assassinated while inside the pre ises of the 0la 8ntl %irport& #! 6 hours after the incident, the ilitary investigators reported that the an who shot %<uino was a co unist-hired gun an C the latter was gunned down in turn by the ilitary *a few days later, said gun an would be identified as 4olando Dal an, #7 0arcos established a Fact Finding =oard *the %grava =oard, to investigate the case #- Oct #6 E #$, 19-$ @ after 1#5 days of hearing the testi onies of 19$ witnesses recorded in #/677 pages of transcript, the %grava =oard ca e up with a inority and a2ority report, both contending that the Ailling was not a co unist plot but a ilitary conspiracy& $ 0inority report @ ! persons who were at the service stairs as plotters, and Den& .uther 'ustodio was essential to the i ple entation of the plan $ 0a2ority report @ #! persons headed by gen Fabian 9er, all acting in conspiracy with one another in the pre editated Ailling of "inoy % "ov 11, 19-5 @ :aturnina Dal an and 4eynaldo Dal an together with #9 other petitioners, charged the 7anodbayan and the :andiganbayan of serioud irregularities constituting istrial and resulting in the iscarriage of 2ustice for want of due process of law; they prayed for a 74O, a nullification of the proceedings and a re-trial before an i partial tribunal by an unbiased prosecutor % "ov 1-, 19-5 @ a 9-to-# vote of the := granted the 74O % "ov #-, 19-5 @ the sa e 9-to-# ratio dis issed the petition and lifted the 74O % "ov& #9, 19-5 @ the petitioners filed a otion for recon based on the lacA of legal ground for the dis issal % ?ec 5 @ all of the accused were ac<uitted C even though Dal an was not on trial, he was, in effect, convicted as the assassin of "inoy % 0ar !, 19-! @ the 0la 7i es published an article entitled F%<uino 7rial % :ha G, which had for its conte(t the revelations of ?eputy 7anodbayan 0anuel Berrera that the graft court were convinced by 0arcos to whitewash the cri inal cases % 3une 5 @ :' appointed a 6- e ber co ission *9as<ue) 'o ission, to hear and receive evidence of the charges of collusion and pressure % 3uly 61 @ the 9as<ue) 'o ission sub itted its report with an affir ation of the Fsecret eetingG held in 0alacaHang, wherein 0arcos ordered 3ustice Pa aran to handle the case *without raffling the case first, and for the entire tribunal to have all of the accused ac<uitted Issue*a ong others,: 5O" a call for a re-trial of the case would be tanta ount to double 2eopardy Ratio Decidendi: 5here the court lacAed 2urisdiction to conduct a fair trial, double 2eopardy does not attach& Reasons: #9 "o court whose presiding 2ustice received Forders or suggestionsG fro a President whose decree ade it possible to refer a case to his court can be an i partial tribunal 6/ 3urisdiction over cases shld be deter ined by law and not by the pre-selection of the I(ecutive, which could be too easily transfor ed into a eans of predeter ining the

outco e of individual cases 3( ) dictated, coerced, and scripted verdict of ac*uittal is a void judgment+ in legal contemplation, it neither &inds nor &ars anyone+ such judgment is a lawless thing which can &e treated as an outlaw. People vs Garcia& 'vylyn *hindi naAasa a sa nu bering but this is before PP. vs =urgos, "ature; Facts; %pril 5, 1991; "%4'O0, 'ebu received infor ation fro an infor er that accused was engaged in the sale of ari2uana& 0a2or Isa Bassan, co anding officer, instructed :gt& =asilio :arong to conduct surveillance& 7he latter perfor ed surveillance and witnessed the accused in the act of selling ari2uana& :arong reported activities to Bassan& %pril 1/, 1991; :arong conducted another surveillance for the purpose of a buy-bust operation& : yielded positive results& Bassan for ed a buy-bust tea co posed of :gt& :aron as poseur-buyer and other "%4'O0 officers& 6# arAed #/ peso bill %pril 1#, 1991, 1#;6/ p ; tea posted the selves and waited until accused approached :arong and asAed hi if he wanted to buy ari2uana& :arong said yes and accused asAed hi to wait for awhile and when she retuned, she handed hi 15 sticAs of ari2uana cigaretters& :arong s elled the sticAs and when he was sure that they were ari2uana sticAs, he scratched his head *signal, and the other e bers of the tea arrested accused and recovered the #/ peso arAed bill& '8' 'eballos, evidence custodian conducted field test; positive P"P 'ri e .ab; positive ?efense; was playing bingo with o and neighbors when a an placed his ar s around her shoulders and led her $/ & away fro her house& 66 went with an co) he thought she was a relative or friend 6$ another an alighted fro "%4'O0 vehicle and showed her ari2uana and asAed her if she had so e, she said no 65 an frisAed her, tooA P55 and brought her to office of "%4'O0 Procedure; %pril 1!, 1991; accused was charged with violation of 6! :ec $, %rticle #, 4% !$#5 67 47', 'ebu 47' ruled; 6- guilty 69 .8 J#/thou $/ :ei)ed ob2ectes to be burned in the presence of "%4'O0 reps, prosecution, court 8ssue; 1& 5O" ob2ects in evidence were planted evidence Beld; "O $1 she only clai ed that they have Kear arls of planted evidenceL $# ear arAs are the result of nor al handling of evidence $6 because sale was sufficiently established, there was actually no need to present the cigarettes and the bill $ssue, -./ there was a valid arrest and search 0eld, 1es

%atio, $f an accused is caught in flagrante in a &uy!&ust operation, then she could &e lawfully arrested without a warrant and searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may &e used as proof of the commission of the offense (#ection 2(a', %ule ((3 and section (2, rule (23' ?ispositive portion; ?I'8'8O" %FF840I? with odification as to penalty&

5BI4IFO4I, the challenged decision of =ranch 5 of the 4egional 7rial 'ourt of 'ebu in 'ri inal 'ase "o& '=>-#1!56 is hereby %FF840I?, sub2ect to the odification of the penalty& %ccused-%ppellant I9I.M" D%4'8% M ?I.80% is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeter inate penalty ranging fro :i( *!, onths of arresto ayor as ini u to :i( *!, years of prision correccional as a(i u & (. People vs )ur"os "ature; %ppeal fro the decision of the 47' of ?avao del :ur Facts; One 'esar 0asa loA surrendered to the authorities at the ?avao del :ur 'onstabulary B1& Be testified that 4uben =urgos forcibly recruited hi as e ber of "P%& =urgos threatened hi with the use of a firear & 0asa loA attended the se inar where =urgos spoAe about his e bership with the "P% and the organi)ationLs desire to overthrow the govern ent& Pursuant to this infor ation, P'-8"P plowing the field when they arrived& e bers went to house of accused& %ccused was

Pat& =ioco called accused and asAed hi about the firear & %ccused denied possession of said firear but later, his wife pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground& %fter the recovery of said firear , accused pointed to a stocA pile of cogon where the officers recovered; $$ arron notebooA $5 pa phlets; %ng =yan, Pahayagan ng Paritdo No unista ng Pilipinas ets %ccused ad itted that firear unit& R*C: convicted 8ssue; 5O" warrantless arrest was valid Beld; "O 4atio; "ot under the conditions provided in rules $! 7he officer arresting a person who has 2ust co itted, is co itting, or is about to co it an offense ust have personal Anowledge of that fact& $7 7he test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator $- >nder :ection !*b,, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that a person to be arrested has co itted a cri e; a cri e ust in fact or actually have been co itted first& 8ssue; 5O" search was valid Beld; "O 4atio; 8f an arrest without a warrant is unlawful at the o ent it is happened or is discovered afterwards can aAe it lawful& was issued to hi by "estor 3i ines, tea leader of sparro

ade, generally nothing that

$9 7here was to waiver to search in case at bar& 7o constitute waiver, 6 re<uisites ust concur; 5/ that the right e(ists 51 that the person involved had Anowledge, actual or constructive, of the e(istence of such right 5# that said person had an actual intention to relin<uish the right Others; 56 denied of right to counsel during custodial interrogation 5$ counsel was only called when accused subscribed under oath his state ent 0asa loALs testi ony was uncorroborated& Be was an interested witness& 5anted trade-off; e bership with 'ivil Bo e ?efense Force& ?isposition& 3>?D0I"7 4I9I4:I? %"? :I7 %:8?I& %'1>877I?& +. People vs ,ruta& ,pril -& 1../ "ature; %ppeal fro a decision of the 47', Olongapo 'ity, =r 76 Facts; =ased on the testi onies of P+.t& Irnesto %bello, Officer-in-charge *"%4'O0, olongapo and P+.t& 3ose ?o ingo; ?ece ber 16, 19--; %bello was tipped off by F=en2ieG that a certain %ling 4osa was arriving fro =aguio 'ity the ff day with a large volu e of ari2uana& Paello asse bled tea and they proceeded the ne(t day to 5est =a2ac-=a2ac, Olongapo 'ity and deployed the selves near P"= building& 9ictory .iner =us $7$ arrived and # fe ales and 1 who was then carrying traveling bag& ale got off& 8nfor ant pointed at %ling 4osa

"%4'O0 approached accused and introduced the selves as "%4'O0 agents& %bello asAed accused about contents of her bag and accused handed it to the for er& 8nspection; dried ari2uana leaves pacAed in a plastic bag arAed 'asA NatutaA&

%gents confiscated bag and ticAet and brought accused to "%4'O0 office where a receipt of Property :ei)ed was prepared for confiscated leaves& P'+8"P 'ri .ab; positive

Procedure; Prosection rested its case after presentation of testi onies of arresting officers and technical report& ?efense did not present evidence but instead; Filed a ?e urrer to evidence allegeging that; 55 illegal search and sei)ure 5! inad issibility of aterials sei)ed as evidence 7rial court denied de urrer to Ividence and did not rule on the illegality of search and sei)ure and inad issibility of evidence& %ccused testified on her behalf; 57 2ust ca e fro theater after watching =alweg 5- was erely helping old wo an to carry shoulder bag when she was approached by

agents 59 she did not Anow wo an personally and she averred that old wo an was nowhere to be found after her arrest Prosecution ade for al offer of evidence& ?efense filed 'o ent and+or Ob2ection to ProsecutionLs Offer of Ividence !/ contested ad issibility of the ite s sei)ed as they were allegedly the product of an unreasonable search and sei)ure 47'; conviction for transporting - Ailos and 5// gra s of ari2uana !1 section $, article # of 4% !$#5 !# .8 J #/ thou without subsidiary i prison ent in case of insolvency 8ssue; 5O" there was a valid warrantless arrest and search Beld; "o 4atio; 8f probable cause is not established then a warrantless arrest and search incident to such warrantless arrest is invalid& !6 no P' because accused was not even acting suspiciously !$ officers had reasonable ti e to get warrant !5 search was ade on street, not on oving vehicle !! not in plain view !7 not stop and frisA !- not under e(igent and e ergency circu stances !9 not a waiver when she consented; o 7he lacA of ob2ection to the search is not tanta ount to a waiver of her consti rights or a voluntary sub ission to a warrantless search o 7o constitute valid waiver, there ust be an actual intention to relin<uish right& "o valid arrest under sec 5, rule 116 7/ when in his presence, the person to be arrested has co itted, is actually co itting, or is atte pting to co it an offense 71 accused was erely crossing street 7# no P' to establish that she was co itting cri e at that ti e $f an arrest is incipiently illegal, then the su&se*uent search is similarly illegal, it &eing not incidental to a lawful arrest. 3>?De0I"7 4I9I4:I? %"? :I7 %:8?I, %''>:I? %'1>877I? %"? O4?I4I? 4I.I%:I?& 0. Go 1! C, "ature; Petition for review on certiorari Facts; *based on findings of :an 3uan Police, Ildon 0aguan was driving along 5ilson :treet heading towards P Duevarra :t while petitioner entered 5ilson :t and started traveling in the wrong direction *1-way street,& 7heir cars erely bu ped each& Petitioner alighted fro his car, walAed over, shot 0aguan, and left the scene& Police arrived shortly and retrieved an e pty shell and one round of live a unition& :ecurity guard at nearby resto tooA down petitionerLs car plate nu ber& 7he ff day, petitioner went to 'ravings =aAeshop and optained i pression of the credit card used by petitioner& 7ogether with that and the positive identification by the baAeshopLs guard of the 4olito Do, the police launched a anhunt& On 3uly -, ! days after the incident, petitioner and his # lawyers went to police station to verify reports that police was hunting hi & Procedure; Police detained hi and filed a co plaint for frustrated ho icide&

1st %ssistant Provincial Prosecutor 8gnacio infor ed hi of his right to avail hi self of his right to preli investigation but that he ust 1st sign a waiver of the provisions of %rticle 1#5 of 4P'& Be refused& 5hile co plaint was still with Prosecutor, 0aguan died of his gunshot wounds& 3uly 9, 1991 Prosecutor filed infor ation for frustrated ho icide before 47'& "O bail& Prosecutor certified that no preli investigation had been conducted because accused did not sign a waiver of the provisions o %rticle 1#5& 3uly 11, 199# 'ounsel for petitioner filed with prosecutor an o nibus otion for i ediate release and proper preli inary investigation; 76 unlawful arrest 7$ no preli inary investigation Provincial Prosecutor interposed no o&jection to petitioner &eing granted provisional li&erty on a cash &ond of (44thou. >rgent e(-parte otion to e(pedite action on bail reco endation& 5udge approved cash &ond and petitioner was released. 5uly (2 Prosecutor; otion for leave to conduct P8 and that proceedings be suspended& "ranted and cancelled )ugust (2 arraignment until after the conclusion of P$. 5uly (3 )nother .rder issued motu proprio, (. grant of &ail was recalled and petitioner was given 67 hours to surrender himself 2. grant for leave to conduct P$ cancelled 3. motion for immediate release and P$ was treated as petition for &ail and set for hearing Petitioner filed petition for certiorari, prohibition and anda us before :'; 75 info was null and void for lacA of P8 7! oved for suspension of all proceedings pending resolution by :' of this petitioner enied &y respondent judge. 5uly (8 Petitioner surrendered hi self to police& 3uly #6 'ourt, by resolution, re anded above petition to '%& 3uly #$ PI74*petitioner,; otion to restrain his arraign ent at '%& %ugust 19

3udge; co it ent order to ad it PI74 into the 4i)al Provincial 3ail& PI74 was arraigned but because of his refusal to enter plea, trial court entered for hi a plea of not guilty& 'ri inal case was set for continuous hearings& %ugust #6 PI74; petition for habeas corpus in '% 77 public respondentsL failure to 2oin issues in the petition for certiorari earlier filed by hi , after a lapse of ore than a onth, thus prolonging his detention, he was entitled to be released on habeas corpus& %ugust #7 '% issued write of habeas corpus& Petition for certiorari, prohibition and for B' were consolidated& %ugust 6/ '% denied otion to restrain his arraign ent on the ground that acade ic& :epte ber # anda us and petition oot and

otion had beco e

7rial co enced and prosecution presented its 1st witness& :epte ber 19 '% dis issed # petitions& :epte ber #6

PI74 filed present petition for review on certiorari& 3udge was ordered to hold in abeyance the hearing of the cri inal case until further orders& 8ssue; 5O" a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by :an 3uan Police Beld; "O 4atio; 5arrantless arrests are valid only when; *a, 5hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co co itting, or is atte pting to co it an offense; itted, is actually

*b, 5hen an offense has 2ust been co itted and he has probable cause to believe based on personal Anowledge of facts or circu stances that the person to be arrested has co itted it; and 7- :ec 5*a,; "% o %rresting officers were not present when shooting occurred

79 :ec 5*b,; "% o o o o 'ri e hss not been 3>:7 'O00877I? KarrestL was effected only ! days after shooting officers had no personal Anowledge that the cri e had been co info was fro witnesses itted

8ssue; 5O" petitioner had effectively waived his right to preli inary investigation Beld; "O 4atio; 4>.I; if the case has been field in court without a preli inary investigation having been first conducted, the accused ay within 5 days fro the ti e he learns of the filing of the infor ation, asA for a preli inary investigation with the sa e right to adduce evidence in his favor in the anner prescribed in this rule& -/ not applicable to case at bar -1 accused was not arrested, he was not surrendering hi self at the police station 4>.I; Once a co plaint or infor ation is filed in 'ourt, any disposition of the case such as its dis issal or the conviction or ac<uittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of 'ourt& -# petitionerLs o nibus otion filed with prosecutor and prosecutorLs subse<uent otion for leave to conduct P8; effect was as if petitionerLs o nibus otion was field with trial court 4>.I; 8f an accused fails to invoAe that right to preli inary investigation before or at the ti e of entering a plea at arraign ent, then he is dee ed to have waive such right& -6 "% to case at bar -$ Do had vigorously insisted on his right -5 %t the ti e of arraign ent, was at '% with petition for certiorari, prohibition, and anda us& Posting of bail here was not waiver of right to P8; -! o nibus otion was both for release on bail and for P8 -7 thus clai ed his right to P8 before 2udge approved cash bond and ordered his release

?isposition; D4%"7 the petition for review on certiorari Provincial prosecutor ordered to; -- conduct P8 within 15 days -9 trial on erits of cri inal case in 47'; :>:PI"?I? 9/ petitioner released upon posting of cash bond of 1//thou 'ru) concurs& "O waiver of P8& 8nsistent de and for P8 Dutierre) concurs& Follow the rules& 3 DriHo-%<uino dissents& "O need to conduct P8& 8t would be supererogatory& 4ight to P8 not a consti right& %bolition of death penalty did not aAe right to bail absolute so accused released pending hearing of petition for bail&

ay not be

/. People vs )aello "ature; Facts; =arangay 'aptain Iusta<uio =or2a woAe up at 5 a on October 1/, 199/ and found his front door open and their tv issing& Be told his wife about the incident and they went to #nd floor to checA on their daughter& 91 ## yr old vernonica =or2a was found bloodied and dead 9# her roo Ls window was open 'aptain su oned authoritities& issing;

7hey later discovered that the ff& were also 'assette player 'a era 3ewelry

P'+8"P 'ri e .ab; cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shocA and he orrhage secondary to ultiple stab wounds !p that sa e day; Police recovered tv fro house of Iugenio 7agifa, husband of accusedLs sister 96 was brought to station for <uestioning 9$ :inu paang salaysay; pointed to accused as person who placed tv under stairs

October 16, 199/ at 5;6/; 95 accused was captured and brought to police station 9! ade oral ad ission of his participation in cri e 5as endorsed to the 'ri inal 8nvestigation ?ivision for for al investigation& %sAed if he could understand, read and write 7agalog; yes 'ould not afford counsel so was assigned to %tty& %ber Deneroso of P%O 97 accused said he co itted robbery but denied having Ailled victi 9- he alleged that his co panion Derry could have Ailled her because he was the one who stayed on #nd floor

Police conducted for al investigation where accused gave his state ent& Procedure; 8nfor ation was filed with 47', Pasig on October 1-, 199/ 99 accused 3ohn % et =aello F7otongG 1// 4obbery with Bo icide %rraign ent on "ove ber 16, 199/; 1/1 entered plea of not guilty 8ssue; 5O" the accused was given the right to counsel during the custodial investigation Beld; yes 4atio; :ee facts& 1/# 4ight to counsel was in co pliance with par 1, section 1#, article 6 of consti; o %ny person under investigation for the co ission of an offense shall have the right to be infor ed of his right to re ain silent and to have co petent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice& 8f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he ust be provided with one& 7hese rights cannot be waived e(cept in writing and in the presence of counsel& $f a person cannot afford the services of counsel, then must &e provided with one. 0ay other issues pa pero Kto 3>?D0I"7 %FF840I?& 65& ?I .% '%0%4% vs& I"%DI $1 :'4% 1 7he *0oot and %cade ic,FactsO; "ove ber 7, 19!- - 7hen 0agsaysay 0isa is Oriental 0ayor de la 'a ara was arrested and detained at the Provincial 3ail of %gusan, for his alleged participation in the Ailling of fourteen and the wounding of twelve other laborers of the 7irador .ogging 'o&, on %ugust #1, 19!-& 1- days later, the Provincial Fiscal of %gusan filed with the 'F8 a cases of ultiple frustrated urder and for ultiple urder against petitioner, his co-accused 7agunan and Dalgo& 3anuary 1$, 19!9- %n application for bail filed by petitioner with the lower court, pre ised on the assertion that there was no evidence to linA hi with such fatal incident of %ugust #1, 19!-& Be liAewise aintained his innocence& 4espondent 3udge started the trial of petitioner on February #$, 19!9, the prosecution resting its case on 3uly 1/, 19!9& %s of the ti e of the filing of the petition, the defense had not presented its evidence& %ugust 1/, 197/- 3udge Inage issued an order granting petitionerPs application for bail, ad itting that there was a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that petitioner would flee even if he had the opportunity, but fi(ed the a ount of the bail bond at the e(cessive a ount of P1,195,#//&// *P-$/,///&// for the 1$ counts of ultiple urder plus P655,#//&// for the 1# counts of ultiple frustrated urder&, 7here was a otion for reconsideration to reduce the a ount& Inage however re ained ada ant& ?e la 'a ara then files a petition for certiorari assailing InageLs order and prays for its nullification& 0arch 5, 1971- Inage answers that set forth the circu stances concerning the issuance of the above order and the other incidents of the case, which, to his ind, would disprove any charge that he was guilty of grave abuse of discretion& 8t stressed, oreover, that the challenged order would find support in circulars of the ?epart ent of 3ustice given sanction by this 'ourt& Be sought the dis issal of the petition for lacA of erit& 0arch 61, 1971- both ?e la 'a ara and Inage did not appear at the hearing with ?e la 'a ara, una&

upon written otion was given 6/ days to sub it a e orandu in lieu of oral argu ent, Inage in turn having 6/ days fro receipt of e orandu to file his reply& ?e la 'a ara sub itted the e orandu on %pril !, 1971& 0ay #!, 1971-Inage, instead of a reply, sub itted a supple ental answer wherein he alleged that petitioner escaped fro the provincial 2ail on %pril #-, 1971 and had since been re ained at large& 7here was a reiteration then of the dis issal of his petition for lacA of erit, to which petitioner countered in a pleading dated 3une 7, 1971, and filed with this 'ourt the ne(t day with this plea; Q9he undersigned counsel, therefore, vehemently interpose opposition, on &ehalf of petitioner, to respondent:s prayer for dismissal of the present petition for lack of merit. ;or, the issue in this case is not alone the fate of petitioner %icardo de la <amara. 9he issue in the present petition that calls for the resolution of this 0onora&le 9ri&unal is the fate of countless other %icardo de la <amaras who may &e awaiting the clear!cut definition and declaration of the power of trial courts in regard to the fi=ing of &ail&Q O 5hile the facts of this case is oot and acade ic, it did not preclude the :' fro setting forth in language clear and un istaAable, the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower court 2udges to the une<uivocal co and of the 'onstitution that e(cessive bail shall not be re<uired& 8::>I; 5%: 7BI %0O>"7 OF =%8. O4?I4I? =M I"%DI IR'I::89IS BI.?; Mes yes yo AabayoT :ayang lang at pu uga+tu aAas si acade ic ang petition ?8:PO:8789I; F5BI4IFO4I, this case is dis issed for being pronounce ent as to costs&G :'Ls rationale for re<uire ent of non-e(cessive bail; 1& =efore conviction, every person is bailable e(cept if charged with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong& :uch a right flows fro the presu ption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be sub2ected to the lass of freedo as thereafter he would be entitled to ac<uittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt& 8t is not beyond the real of probability, however, that a person charged with a cri e, especially so where his defense is weaA, would 2ust si ply aAe hi self scarce and the frustrate the hearing of his case& % bail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent would be thwarted& "or is there anything unreasonable in denying this right to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong, as the liAelihood is, rather than await the outco e of the proceeding against hi with a death sentence, an ever present threat, te ptation to flee the 2urisdiction would be too great to be resisted& #& 5here, however, the right to bail e(ists, it should not be rendered nugatory by re<uiring a su that is e(cessive& :o the 'onstitution co ands& 8t is understandable why& 8f there were no such prohibition, the right to bail beco es eaningless& 8t would have been ore forthright if no ention of such a guarantee were found in the funda ental law& "othing can be clearer, therefore, than that the challenged order of %ugust 1/, 197/ fi(ing the a ount of P1,195,#//&// is clearly violative of this constitutional provision& >nder the circu stances, there being only two offenses charged, the a ount re<uired as bail could not possibly e(ceed P5/,///&// for the infor ation for urder and P#5,///&// for the other infor ation for frustrated urder& "or should it be ignored in this case that the ?epart ent of 3ustice did reco end the total su of P$/,///&// for the two offenses& 6& 7here is an atte pt on the part of respondent 3udge to 2ustify what, on its face, appears to be indefensible by the alleged reliance on 9illaseHor v& %baHo case& 7he guidelines in the fi(ing of bail was there su ari)ed, in the opinion of 3ustice :anche), as follows; Q*1, ability of the accused to give bail; *#, nature of the offense; *6, penalty for the offense charged; *$, character ayor, Aaya nga oot *court, E

oot and acade ic& 5ithout

and reputation of the accused; *5, health of the accused; *!, character and strength of the evidence; *7, probability of the accused appearing in trial; *-, forfeiture of other bonds; *9, whether the accused was a fugitive fro 2ustice when arrested; and *1/, if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases&Q Inage ignored the decisive consideration appearing at the end of the above opinion; Q?iscretion, indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on the <uestion of bail& 5e ust stress, however, that where conditions i posed upon a defendant seeAing bail would a ount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate to e(ercise our supervisory powers to provide the re<uired re edy&Q "o atte pt at rationali)ation can therefore give a color of validity to the challenged order& "or is there any 2ustification then for i puting his inability to fi( a lesser a ount by virtue of an alleged reliance on a decision of this 7ribunal& Iven if one were charitably inclined, the ildest characteri)ation of such a result is that there was a clear isreading of the %baHo opinion when such a eaning was ascribed to it& "o doctrine refine ent ay elicit approval if to do so would be to reduce the right to bail to a barren for of words& 6!& =I4"%4?IU vs& 9%.I4% $ :'4% 9-11 7BI F%'7:; February 1-, 19!1, between 7;6/ and -;//p - %fter a hot e(change of words between petitioner and Pedro =enedito, inside the "I5 MO4N *e phasis ine, 4estaurant located in the poblacion of =angued, %bra, =ernarde) fired several shots at the latter, hitting hi on the left chest, left forear and in the lu bar region, and liAewise hitting 'pl& 4einerio =uenafeLs instantaneous death& 7he following day .t& %ntonio '& Darcia P&'&, filed a co plaint for frustrated urder against petitioner in the 3ustice of the Peace 'ourt of =angued, in relation to the assault on =enedito and after finding probable cause the respondent 3ustice of the Peace issued the corresponding warrant of arrest and fi(ed the bail at P15,///&//& February #1, 19!1- an a ended co plaint for urder and frustrated urder was filed with the sa e court& 7wo days later, after ad itting the a ended co plaint, the respondent 3ustice of the Peace issued another warrant of arrest but reco ended no bail& February #$, 19!1-petitioner filed with the court a otion for bail, to which the prosecution ob2ected upon the ground that petitioner was charged with urder and the evidence of his guilt was strong& Bearings on this otion were held in the course of which the prosecution presented as evidence *1, the a ended cri inal co plaint; *#, the affidavit of =enedito; *6, the affidavit of =ersalona; *$, the affidavit of :gt& 0alengen, P&'&, *5, the affidavit of 0+:gt& Istolas of the sa e outfit; *!, the edico-legal autopsy report on the cause of the death of the deceased =uenafe; *7, the edical certificate concerning the physical in2uries inflicted on Pedro =enedito; and *-, an affidavit subscribed by petitioner hi self& 8n connection with the sworn state ents, petitioner stated during the hearing that he was willing to have the ad itted as evidence in connection with the incident before the court as if the affiants had actually testified in accordance with tenor of their respective state ent, and further waived his right to cross-e(a ine said affiants& 7he prosecution liAewise presented as 5 e pty shells; 1 slug found in the scene of the shooting; another e(tracted fro the body of the deceased =uenafe; another slug e(tracted fro the body of =enedito; 1 dud bullet and 1 live bullet allegedly found inside the aga)ine of petitionerPs firear & %fter the parties had sub itted the incident for resolution, the respondent denied the sa e& 7hereafter, clai ing that the respondent, in so doing, had co itted a grave abuse of discretion a ounting to a refusal to co ply with a inisterial duty, as a result of which petitioner was illegally detained, he files the petition for Babeas 'orpus and+or 'ertiorari or Prohibition& 7BI 8::>I; 5O" the respondent was 2ustified in denying the otion for bail&

BI.?+?8:PO:8789I PO478O"; F8" 98I5 OF 7BI FO4IDO8"D, the order of the respondent 2udge denying the otion for bail filed by herein petitioner in 'ri inal 'ase "o& 1/-9 of the 3ustice of the Peace 'ourt of =angued is hereby :I7 %:8?I, and said respondent is hereby

directed to order the release of petitioner upon the filing and approval of a bailbond in the su P#5,///&//&G

of

7BI 4>.I; 8f the evidence of offenderLs guilt is insufficient to prove the capital offense being charge, then s+he shall be entitled to bail& 7BI 4%78O; 8t ust be observed in this connection that a person charged with a cri inal offense will not be entitled to bail even before conviction only if the charge against hi is a capital offense and the evidence of his guilt of said offense is strong& 8n the present case, the evidence sub itted by the prosecution in support of its opposition to the otion for bail could prove, at ost, ho icide and not urder, because it does not sufficiently prove either Anown pre editation or alevosia& 7BI 4I%:O" =IB8"? 4%78O; 7he case of the prosecution is based on the sworn state ent of =enedito, the substance of which is to this effect; that prior to the shooting incident there was a long-standing grudge between hi and petitioner; that at around $;//p of February 1- when =enedito passed in front of the house of one 4egino =ernarde), where petitioner and his wife were standing, petitioner asAed hi for the su of P5/&// as advance pay ent for the a icable settle ent of a cri inal case filed by a client of petitioner charging =enedito with having run over and Ailled an old wo an in .agangilang two years before, and that petitioner was enraged when he refused to pay the a ount; that between 7;// and -;// p of the sa e day, =enedito had so e drinAs at the "ew MorA 4estaurant together with :gt& Istolas and 'pl& =uenafe, while petitioner, his wife and another wo an were in the sa e place occupying another table; that after =enedito and his co panions had left the restaurant they were followed by petitioner who asAed hi to return to the restaurant for so e ore drinAs; that they returned to the place and tooA beer; that in the course of their conversation petitioner re arAed that it was strange that although they were relatives he see ed to be unfriendly towards hi , and when =enedito denied this, =ernarde) stood up and drew his gun; that although =enedito i ediately grabbed petitionerPs hand, the latter started firing at hi ; that after being hit, he fell down on the floor and sought cover under one of the tables; that petitioner Aept on firing and one of the shots hit and Ailled 'pl& =uenafe who had entered the restaurant and atte pted to approach =enedito, telling petitioner at the sa e ti e to stop firing& 7he other affidavits sub itted by the prosecution were of persons who did not actually witness the shooting but their state ents ay be said to have the general tendency of corroborating the sworn state ent of =enedito regarding the events posterior to the shooting& 5hile the charge against petitioner is undeniably a capital offense, it see s liAewise obvious that the evidence sub itted by the prosecution to the respondent 2udge for the purpose of showing that the evidence of petitionerPs guilt is strong, is not sufficient to establish that the offense co itted by petitioner, if any, was that of urder& On the basis of the sworn state ent of =enedito hi self petitioner could only be held liable for ho icide& 67& =%:'O vs& 4%P%7%.O #!9 :'4% ##/ 7BI F%'7:; %n infor ation for urder was filed against 0orente& 7he accused 0orente filed a petition for bail& 7he hearing for said petition was set for 0ay 61, 1995 by petitioner but was not heard since the respondent 3udge was then on leave& 8t was reset to 3une -, 1995 but on said date, respondent 3udge reset it to 3une ##, 1995& 7he hearing for 3une ##, 1995, however, did not ateriali)e& 8nstead, the accused was arraigned and trial was set& %gain, the petition for bail was not heard on said date as the prosecutionPs witnesses in connection with said petition were not notified& %nother atte pt was ade to reset the hearing to 3uly 17, 1995& 'o plainant allegedly saw the accused in 4osario, .a >nion on 3uly 6, 1995 and later learned that the accused was out on bail despite the fact that the petition had not been heard at all& >pon investigation, co plainant discovered that bail had been granted and a release order dated 3une #9, 1995 was issued on the basis of a arginal note dated 3une ##, 1995, at the botto of the bail petition by %ssistant Prosecutor Oliva which stated; Q"o ob2ection; P-/,///&//,Q

signed and approved by the assistant prosecutor and eventually by respondent 3udge& "ote that there was already a release order dated 3une #9, 1995 on the basis of the arginal note of the %ssistant Prosecutor dated 3une ##, 1995 when the hearing of the bail petition was aborted and instead arraign ent tooA place, when another hearing was scheduled for 3uly 17, 1995& 4espondent 3udge alleged that he granted the petition based on the prosecutorPs option not to oppose the petition as well as the latterPs reco endation setting the bailbond in the a ount of P-/,///&//& Be averred that when the prosecution chose not to oppose the petition for bail, he had the discretion on whether to approve it or not& Be further declared that when he approved the petition, he had a right to presu e that the prosecutor Anew what he was doing since he was ore fa iliar with the case, having conducted the preli inary investigation& Further ore, the private prosecutor was not around at the ti e the public prosecutor reco ended bail& 4espondent 3udge stated that in any case, the &ail&ond posted &y accused was cancelled and a warrant for his arrest was issued on account of complainant:s motion for reconsideration& 7he %ssistant Provincial Prosecutor apparently confor ed to and approved the otion for reconsideration& %ccused is confined at the .a >nion Provincial 3ail& On %ugust 1$ 1995, in a sworn letter-co plaint, co plainant =asco charged respondent 3udge .eo 0& 4apatalo with gross ignorance or willful disregard of established rule of law for granting bail to an accused in a urder case without receiving evidence and conducting a hearing& 8::>I; '%" % 3>?DI :I7 =%8. I9I" 5+O 'O"?>'78"D % BI%48"D O4 4I'I898"D I98?I"'IS BI.?; "ope& ?8:PO:8789I; F5BI4IFO4I, in view of the foregoing, respondent 3udge .eo 0& 4apatalo, 47', =ranch 6#, %goo, .a >nion, is hereby 4IP480%"?I? with the 5%4"8"D that a repetition of the sa e or si ilar acts in the future will be dealt with ore severely&G BI.?; 8f the denial of bail is authori)ed in capital offenses, it is only in theory that the proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than face the verdict of the court& Bence the e(ception to the funda ental right to be bailed should be applied in direct ratio to the e(tent of probability of evasion of the prosecution& 8n practice, bail has also been used to prevent the release of an accused who ight otherwise be dangerous to society or who the 2udges ight not want to release& 8t is in view of the above entioned practical function of bail that it is not a atter of right in cases where the person is charged with a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life i prison ent& %rticle 11$, section 7 of the 4ules of 'ourt, as a ended, states, Q"o personQ charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life i prison ent when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall be ad itted to bail regardless of the stage of the cri inal action&Q 5hen the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong& Bowever, the deter ination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a atter of 2udicial discretion, re ains with the 2udge& 7his discretion by the very nature of things, ay rightly be e(ercised only after the evidence is sub itted to the court at the hearing& :ince the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly e(hibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper e(ercise of 2udicial discretion re<uires that the evidence of guilt be sub itted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross e(a ination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal& 7o be sure, the discretion of the trial court, Qis not absolute nor beyond control& 8t ust be sound, and e(ercised within reasonable bounds& 3udicial discretion, by its very nature involves the e(ercise of the 2udgePs individual opinion and the law has wisely provided that its e(ercise be guided by well-Anown rules which, while allowing the 2udge rational latitude for the operation of

his own individual views, prevent the

fro

getting out of control&

'onse<uently, in the application for bail of a person charged with a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life i prison ent, a hearing, whether su ary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, ust actually be conducted to deter ine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong& On such hearing, the court does not sit to try the erits or to enter into any nice in<uiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outco e of the trial or on what further evidence ay be therein offered and ad itted& 7he course of in<uiry ay be left to the discretion of the court which ay confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial atters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the e(a ination and cross e(a ination& 8f a party is denied the opportunity to be heard, there would be a violation of procedural due process& 7he cited cases (w>c $ didn?t include kse madami' are all to the effect that when bail is discretionary, a hearing, whether su ary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, should first be conducted to deter ine the e(istence of strong evidence, or lacA of it, against the accused to enable the 2udge to aAe an intelligent assess ent of the evidence presented by the parties& :ince the deter ination of whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is a atter of 2udicial discretion, the 2udge is andated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the prosecution chooses to 2ust file a co ent or leave the application for bail to the discretion of the court& % hearing is liAewise re<uired if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fi( bail& 'orollarily, another reason why hearing of a petition for bail is re<uired, as can be gleaned fro the 9ucay v& omagas, is for the court to taAe into consideration the guidelines set forth in :ection !, 4ule 11$ of the 4ules of 'ourt in fi(ing the a ount of bail& 7his 'ourt, in a nu ber of cases held that even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an accused, the court ay still re<uire that it answer <uestions in order to ascertain not only the strength of the stateP s evidence but also the ade<uacy of the a ount of bail& %fter hearing, the courtPs order granting or refusing bail ust contain a su ary of the evidence for the prosecution& On the basis thereof, the 2udge should then for ulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong enough as to indicate the guilt of the accused& Otherwise, the order granting or denying the application for bail ay be invalidated because the su ary of evidence for the prosecution which contains the 2udgePs evaluation of the evidence ay be considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense& %n evaluation of the records in the case at bar reveals that respondent 3udge granted bail to the accused without first conducting a hearing to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong despite his Anowledge that the offense charged is a capital offense in disregard of the procedure laid down in :ection -, 4ule 11$ of the 4ules of 'ourt as a ended by %d inistrative 'ircular "o& 1#9$& 4espondent 2udge ad ittedly granted the petition for bail based on the prosecutionPs declaration not to oppose the petition& 4espondentPs assertion, however, that he has a right to presu e that the prosecutor Anows what he is doing on account of the latterPs fa iliarity with the case due to his having conducted the preli inary investigation is faulty& :aid reasoning is tanta ount to ceding to the prosecutor the duty of e(ercising 2udicial discretion to deter ine whether the guilt of the accused is strong& 3udicial discretion is the do ain of the 2udge before who the petition for provisional liberty will be decided& 7he andated duty to e(ercise discretion has never been reposed upon the prosecutor& 7he absence of ob2ection fro the prosecution is never a basis for granting bail to the accused& 8t is the courtPs deter ination after a hearing that the guilt of the accused is not strong that for s the basis for granting bail& 4espondent 3udge should not have relied solely on the

reco endation ade by the prosecutor but should have ascertained personally whether the evidence of guilt is strong& %fter all, the 2udge is not bound by the prosecutorPs reco endation& 0oreover, there will be a violation of due process if the respondent 3udge grants the application for bail without hearing since :ection - of 4ule 11$ provides that whatever evidence presented for or against the accusedPs provisional release will be deter ined at the hearing& 7he practice by trial court 2udges of granting bail to the accused when the prosecutor refuses or fails to present evidence to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong can be traced to the case of 0erras 9eehankee v& irector of Prisons. 8t is to be recalled that 0erras 9eehankee was decided 5/ years ago under a co pletely different factual ilieu& 0aydee 0erras 9eehankee was indicted under a law dealing with treason cases and collaboration with the ene y& 7he said QinstructionsQ given in the said case under the 19$/ 4ules of 'ourt no longer apply due to the a end ents introduced in the 19-5 4ules of 'ourt& 8t should be noted that there has been added in :ection - crucial sentence F9he evidence presented during the &ail hearings shall &e considered automatically reproduced at the trial, &ut upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional e=amination unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise una&le to testify&G is not found in the counterpart provision, :ection 7, 4ule 11/ of the 19$/ 4ules of 'ourt& 7he above-underscored sentence in section -, 4ule 11$ of the 19-5 4ules of 'ourt, as a ended, was added to address a situation where in case the prosecution does not choose to present evidence to oppose the application for bail, the 2udge ay feel duty-bound to grant the bail application& 7he prosecution under the revised provision is duty bound to present evidence in the bail hearing to prove whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong and not erely to oppose the grant of bail to the accused& Bowever, the nature of the hearing in an application for bail ust be e<uated with its purpose i&e&, to deter ine the bailability of the accused& 8f the prosecution were per itted to conduct a hearing for bail as if it were a full-dress trial on the erits, the purpose of the proceeding, which is to secure the provisional liberty of the accused to enable hi to prepare for his defense, could be defeated& %t any rate, in case of a su ary hearing, the prosecution witnesses could always be recalled at the trial on the erits& 8n the light of the applicable rules on bail and the 2urisprudential principles 2ust enunciated, :' reiterated the duties of the trial 2udge in case an application for bail is filed; *1, "otify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or re<uire hi sub it his reco endation *:ection 1-, 4ule 11$ of the 4ules of 'ourt as a ended,; to

*#, 'onduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to e(ercise its sound discretion *:ections 7 and -, supra,; *6, ?ecide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the su ary of evidence of the prosecution *=aylon v& :ison,; *$, 8f the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond& *:ection 19, supra,& Otherwise, petition should be denied& 7he above-enu erated procedure should now leave no roo 2udge in cases of bail applications& for doubt as to the duties of the trial

2413 Callanta v 1illanueva 200 !CR, -003 Facts; 1/6 4espondent 3udge denies the otions to <uash two co plaints for grave oral defa ation against petitioner& 1/$ Petitioners contest the validity of the arrest warrants issued by respondent 3udge on the ground that it should have been the 'ity Fiscal who should have conducted the preli inary investigation& 1/5 %fter the warrants were issued however, petitioner posted bail thus obtaining her provisional liberty& 8ssue; 5O" warrant of arrest ay be invalidated after posting of bail

Beld; "O 1/[email protected] v. <ruA; Posting of a #ail bond constitutes 4aiver of any irre"ularity attending the arrest of a person, estops hi fro discussing the validity of his arrest& 1/7People v. .&ngayan; 5here the accused has filed #ail and 4aived t5e preli inary investi"ation proper, he has 4aived 45atever defect, if any, in the preli inary e6a ination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest& PI7878O" ?8:08::I? 2423 People v Red 2(( P5il 00+& 0113 Facts; 1/- 7he 'F8 dis issed 6! infor ations for violation of the Ilection .aw on the ground that the 3udge issued warrants of arrest solely on the basis of the said infor ations, without conducting a preli inary investigation as re<uired by :ec 16, Den Ord "o& 5-& V FCthe 2udge entertaining an infor ation, particularly, one filed by the provincial fiscal ust e(a ine under oath the prosecuting fiscal and such witnesses as he ay desire to aAe use of, reducing into writing the testi ony of the witnesses&G V 8n this case, the fiscal erely sent the infor ations together with a letter re<uesting the deputy clerA to forward the to the 3udge& 8ssue; 5O" 'F8 co itted an error in dis issing the info

Beld; MI: 1/9!ection 1- of General 7rder 8o. (/, as a ended by %ct "o& 6/$#, prescribes a su ary e(a ination #efore t5e arrest of the person accused& 7his investigation is Q erely to deter ine whether a 4arrant of arrest s5ould issue on t5e infor ation filed #y t5e prosecutionQ *>& :& vs& 0endo)a, $ Phil&, 1#$,, and is different fro the preli inary investi"ation ade after t5e arrest of the accused in cases of cri es, such as those charged in these infor ations, falling within the original 2urisdiction of a 'ourt of First 8nstance; these preli inary investigations, conducted according to ,cts 8os. 1.4 and 1+20, are ade for the purpose of in<uiring, in case a plea of guilty has not been entered, whether there is reasona#le "round to hold that an offense has been co itted, and that the defendant 5as co itted it; and, if so, providing for the detention of the accused *unless the offense be bailable, and bond be given for provisional liberty, upon orders of the proper 'ourt of First 8nstance; or, if there be no reasona#le "round to believe the accused guilty, then, to order that he be set at li#erty& *:ec& #, %ct "o& 19$&,& 11/ %lthough the defendants have posted bail, it cannot be i plied that they have waived any right, such as the su ary e(a ination of the case before detention& 7hat they didnLt waive

this right is clear fro the fact that they filed two otions praying for the stay of their arrests, the first being on the sa e day they posted bail& 111 7he waiver of the preli inary investigation re<uired after arrest is not a waiver of that conducted prior to the issuance of the arrest warrant& ?I'8:8O" %FF840I? 24-3 Gi ene9 v 8a9areno 21+0 !CR, 13 Facts; 11# 4espondent de la 9ega, along with five others, was charged with urder& Be was arraigned and pleaded not guilty& =efore the scheduled date of the first hearing, he escaped fro detention& 116 Prosecutors file a otion to proceed with the hearing in absentia, invoAing :ec 19, %rt 89 of the 1976 'onstitution& V :I'& 19& 8n all cri inal prosecutions, the accused shall be presu ed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall en2oy the right to be heard by hi self and counsel, to be infor ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi , to have a speedy, i partial, and public trial, to eet the witnesses face to face, and to have co pulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf& 0owever, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the a&sence of the accused provided that he has &een duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified& 11$ 7he lower court proceeded with the trial& 7he case was dis issed against the five accused, while proceedings against de la 9ega were held in abeyance& 115 7he lower court denied recon of the Fabeyance portionG of the decision& Bence, this petition& 8ssue W1; 5O" court loses 2urisdiction over an accused who escapes fro arraign ent detention after

Beld W1; "O 11! 8n cri inal cases, 2urisdiction over the person of the accused is ac<uired either by his arrest for voluntary appearance in court& :uch voluntary appearance is acco plished by appearing for arraign ent as what accused-private respondent did in this case& 117 5here the accused appears at the arraign ent and pleads not guilty to the cri e charged, 2urisdiction is ac<uired by the court over his person and this continues until the ter ination of the case, notwithstanding his escape fro the custody of the law& 8ssue W#; 5O" an accused who has been tried in absentia retains his right to present evidence and cross e(a ine witnesses Beld W#; "O 11- 4I1>8:87I: FO4 748%. 8" %=:I"78%; 1& that there has been an arraign ent; #& that the accused has been notified; and 6& that he fails to appear and his failure to do so is un2ustified& 119 7he right to present evidence and cross-e(a ine witnesses is a personal right and can be waived& Failure to appear during trial, after due notice, constitutes a waiver of these rights& V :ec 1*c,, 4 115, 19-5 4O'; Q & & & 7he absence of the accused without any 2ustifiable cause at the trial on a particular date of which he bad notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present during that trial& 5hen an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be dee ed to have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subse<uent trial dates until custody is regained& & & &Q 1#/ 4endering 2udg ent for a trial in absentia is not a violation of the right to be presu ed innocent& 7he accused is still presu ed to be innocent, and his conviction ust be based on evidence showing guilt beyond reasonable doubt&

3>?DI0I"7 4I; %=IM%"'I 4I9I4:I? %"? :I7 %:8?I

8,M' 7F ,CC:!'D& !ec. 12& Rule 110 51& PIOP.I vs& D>I9%44% *179 :'4% 7$/, Facts *as found by the prosecution,; %pril -, 19-/, evening; :an .oren)o, Dapan, "ueva Ici2a; %r ed en entered the house of spouses .uisito and Priscilla 'ru) and robbed the of P6,/// E 2ewelry& :ubse<uently, they also tooA the spousesL car and forcibly boarded Priscilla along with the & 7hey headed towards 0anila, and along the way Priscilla recogni)ed the one of the Aidnappers, who then was driving the car& 7hey told her that they were holding her for ranso of P5/,///, but later on left her at Pa(ton Botel in 9alen)uela, the Aidnappers having convinced the selves that the Aidnapping did not ateriali)e& On sa e date, .uisito 'ru) reported the incident, which led the police authorities to the detention and investigation of accused 9ergel =usta ante at the 5P? in 0anila& Be was later identified by Priscilla as the driver of the car when they Aidnapped her& Procedure; • 8nfor ation • % ended 8nfor ation, per trial courtLs order& 7he a ended info charged 3ai e Duevarra, Poncing %bergas, ?an 7olentino, =aldo ?e 3esus, 4o ing .onghair, =oy 7ae, =oy Pogi, 9ergel =usta ante alias F?an :aAsaAG, and 'hotse ?oe alias =ernabe :ulaybar, with Aidnapping • :eparate trial for %bergas and =usta ante only, as 7olentino could not be served with subpoenas and other accused were reported to have died already • 'onviction; Nidnapping and :erious 8llegal ?etention; sentence; ?eath Penalty • %uto atic review by :upre e 'ourt& =ut with the adoption of the 19-7 'onsti&, which does not allow i position of death penalty, the sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua& 7hus =usta ante elected to continue the case on appeal& • =usta anteLs clai on appeal; trial court erred in ordering a end ent of the info& 7o include 9ergel =usta ante alias F?an :aAsaAG as one and the sa e person BI.?; 1, 1uestioned order of the trial court to a end the info& and include the correct na e of F?an :aAsaAG as 9ergel =usta ante is not without basis& 4ecords of the cri inal case forwarded by the 07' of "I to the 47' of "I led the 2udge of the latter to believe that =usta ante E ?an :aAsaA was one E the sa e person *di sinabi sa case Aung baAit Aasali yung 07' dito& %pparently, it conducted a preli inary e(a ination,; 1#1 % subpoena issued by the 07' of Dapan, "ueva Ici2a in 'ri 'ase "os& 1-!--/ E 19#--/ was directed to one 9ergel =usta ante alias F?an :aAsaA&G 1## 8n a return of service of one subpoena, the warden of the 'ity 3ail of 0anila infor ed the 'lerA of 'ourt of the 07' of Dapan, "I that 9ergel =ust ante X ?an :aAsaA said to be one of the accused is not included in the list of present 8n ates of said 3ail 1#6 7he order issued by the 07' of Dapan, "I finding a pri a facie case against the accused therein also stated that one of the accused is 9ergel =usta ante alias ?an :aAsaA 1#$ 7he letter of trans ittal of the records of the cases to the 47' of "I stated that one of the accused therein, 9ergel =usta ante X ?an :aAsaA is detained at the 0la& 'ity 3ail #, 8n any event, 7BI 8::>I '%""O7 =I 4%8:I? FO4 7BI F84:7 780I O" %PPI%. & 7BI 8::>I 8: O"I %FFI'78"D 3>48:?8'78O" O9I4 7BI PI4:O" %"? :BO>.? B%9I =II" 4%8:I? =IFO4I 7BI 47' 8" % 0O78O" 7O 1>%B 7BI 8"FO40%78O"&

:8"'I 7BI ?IFI"?%"7-%PPI..%"7 F%8.I? 7O ?O :O, BI 8: ?II0I? 7O B%9I 5%89I? B8: O=3I'78O" 7O 7BI 8"FO40%78O"&

56& PIOP.I v& ">"IU *61/ :'4% 1!-; 1999, Facts; %ccused ?e etrio "une) had carnal Anowledge of her 1$ yr& old daughter 3aneth "une) in their own house one evening&

Procedure; • • • 3aneth voluntarily instituted a case which led to the filing of an infor ation =ut said info& erely charged accused with rape under art& 665 of 4P' and alleged that the accused had carnal Anowledge of his daughter, without alleging the inority 3aneth& %ccused pleaded not guilty upon arraign ent& 7rial co enced and prosecution presented its witnesses ?r& .edes a, who conducted the edico-legal e(a ination on the victi ; PO# 4aul 7on)o, who arrested the accused; and the :ocial 5elfare assistant who interviewed the victi co plainant ?uring second hearing, a re-arraign ent was held upon anifestation of defense counsel %tty& 7e *taga-P%O sya, pero ala ang hindi si 7eddy =oy natin to, as you ay see later, that accused was willing to aAe a plea of guilty& 7he accused pleaded guilty as charged, and the court after having ascertained its voluntariness of the plea, entered his plea& *but it was clear fro the records that in aAing the plea of guilt, the accused was ade to believe by both %tty& 7e and the trial court that a plea of guilt would itigate his liability,& ?efense waived its right to present its own evidence and erely sub itted the case for decision& 7rial court convicted accused of statutory rape under sec& 11, sub-par& 7 of 4%W7!59, and sentenced hi to death penalty by lethal in2ection pursuant to 4%W-17! On auto atic review, accused clai ed that the trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellantLs i provident plea of guilty to a capital offense and in failing to conduct a searching in<uiry to fully deter ine whether the accused fully understood the conse<uences of his plea&



• • •

BI.?; 1#5 % plea of guilty ay only be considered as itigating when seasonably inter2ected, that is, before the prosecution presents its evidence& 1#! Further ore, the penalty of death is indivisible and is not affected by either aggravating or itigating circu stances&

7hus, accusedLs re-arraign ent was indeed flawed& Bowever,

8t is settled that a decision based on an irregular plea

ay nevertheless be upheld where the

2udg ent is supported by other ade<uate evidence on record& 8n the case at bar, the evidence supports the finding of guilt of the accused; oral testi ony of co plainant and edico-legal finding of laceration on victi Ls hy en and labia&

5ith regard to the i posable penalty, the 'ourt held that;

7BI F%'7 OF 08"O487M %"? 4I.%78O":B8P :BO>.? =I %..IDI? 8" 7BI 8"FO40%78O" O4 'O0P.%8"7 =IFO4I ?I%7B PI"%.7M '%" P4OPI4.M =I 80PO:I?& 8" 1>%.8F8I? 4%PI, =O7B 7BI F%'7 OF 08"O487M OF 7BI 98'780 %"? 7BI %'7>%. 4I.%78O":B8P =I75II" 7BI P%478I:, %: 5O4?I? 8" 4%W7!59, 0>:7 =I %..IDI? 8" 7BI 8"FO40%78O"& 8" 7BI '%:I %7 =%4, O".M 7BI 4I.%78O":B8P OF 7BI P%478I: 5%: %..IDI?& 7hus, 7BI 'O>47 >4DI? 7BI P4O:I'>78"D F8:'%.: 5BO %4I 'B%4DI? 587B 7BI 4I:PO":8=8.87M OF P4IP%48"D 8"FO40%78O": 7O :7%7I 587B P%478'>.%487M 7BI %77I"?%"7 '84'>0:7%"'I: P4O98?I? FO4 >"?I4 :I'& 11 OF 4%W7!59&

3udg ent 0odified& %ccused sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua&

57) PPL V. REYES • • 7here was a case *PP. v I:74I..%, in the court of 3udge 4eyes Prosecutor ade 9I4=%. 0O78O" to a end info on said case @ to change date of offense fro %>D>:7 L!9 to %>D>:7 L!$ • Petition was denied by 3udge 4eyes @ the change cannot be allowed since it would pre2udice the substantial rights of the accused • Bence this petition via 'ertiorari with Prayer for Preli inary in2unction • 7he I:74I..% '%:I; 1#7 For 1ualified 7heft of trucA vs& Istrella and 6 others in 0unicipal court of :an 3ose, "ueva Ici2a 1#- 8nfo alleges; co itted on %>D>:7 L!$ 1#9 On "ove ber L!9, 'ity Fiscal of :an 3ose *now a 'ity, filed info *in respondent court, stating the sa e facts =>7 that the cri e was co itted %>D>:7 L!9 16/ On 3an& L7/ Istrella was arraigned and pleaded "O7 D>8.7M 161 7he info was read in 7agalog so he could understand it 16# %lthough the Prosecution was present at the arraign ent, they did not ove or allege any intent to a end date or even infor court of such istaAe 166 0ay #1, 197/ @ 748%. ?%7I 16$ =efore PP. presented evidence, prosecutor aAes 9I4=%. 0O78O" to a end info %>D>:7 L!9 to %>D>:7 L!$ 165 %ccused having co e to court to defend offense of 19!9, vehe ently ob2ected to such otion 16!3udge defers 2udge ent on otion and asAs 1st witness to testify 1671st witness, %lcantara, states that offense was co itted in 19!$ 16- ?efense does not <uestion such witness since his state ents were not for the offense charged 169 %fter Parties sub it e oranda on the a end ent issue, 3udge ?I"8I: otion saying it would pre2udice the rights of the accused 1$/ 3udge denies 4econ saying %" BO"I:7 08:7%NI 8" 7BI 8"FO '%""O7 P4I9%8. O9I4 7BI :>=:7%"78%. 48DB7: =%:I? O" 7BI 'O":787>78O" 1$1 %rgu ent that 780I is i aterial to 7heft does not hold I!!:': 5O" there was Grave ,buse of Discretion on the part of the 3udge when he denied the a end ent *change of date, on the ground that it would i pair the

accusedLs substantial rights guaranteed by the constitutionS !C !,;!: "O G,D • 4O' 4ule 11/ :& 16 *now : 1$, says when %ccused has already been arraigned and pleaded, a end ent ay be allowed only as to for and cannot be done when it shall pre2udice substantial rights





• • •

OPI08% case ; • carabao lost in 19$7, not on 195# as alleged in info • 5 yrs is a long stretch of ti e • Fone cannot help but be led to believe that another theft different fro that co itted by defendants in 195# were also perpetrated in 19$7G • the variance is unfair to the accused who are to defend a case different fro the one charged 'ase at =ar ; • investigated for offense co itted in 19!$ • charged for an offense co itted in 19!9 *wherein the plea is "O7 D>8.7M, • "ow, the PP. puts accused on trial for 19!$ @ '%""O7 =I %..O5I? %rgu ent that ti e is i aterial is wrong ?isparity of ti e between 19!$ and 19!9 is so great to defy appro(i ation in co ission of one and the sa e offense %ppro(i ation of ti e of co ission is allowed, =>7, when it is so re ote and so far re oved it surprises the accused and therefor no proper defense ay be put up

58) PPL V. CA • • • • • • • • • • • :hooting incident in 0andaluyong *3une 5, 1971, results in filing of # infor ations on frustrated ho icide vs :i(to 4>8U *'ri inal 'ases $7$7 E $7$-, 4>8U arraigned and pleaded "O7 D>8.7M 4einvestigation with ?O3 reveals 4>8U was in 'O":P84%'M with P%?8..% and O"D'BI'O :tate Prosecutor then files 0otion for .eave of 'ourt to % end info 0otion denied, 3udge says @ if a ended *'onspiracy, it would a end the anner the cri e was co itted, a substantial a end ent, therefor it cannot be allowed :tate Prosecutor then files # "I5 infos for Frustrated ho icide vs P%?8..% %"? O"D'BI'O in conspiracy with 4>8U *referred to as accused in 'ri case $7$7 E $7$-, 7he # new cases are cri case 9!76 E 9!7$ P%?8..% E O"D'BI'O ove to <uash+striAe out conspiracy 3udge denies otion @ allegation of conspiracy does not alter the theory of the case, does not introduce innovations, does not present alternative i putations, it is not inconsistent with original allegations 4>8U, P%?8..% E O"D'BI'O now appeal to '% '% says @ 3udge acted in e(cess of 2urisdiction in denying otions, petitions granted, allegations of conspiracy ordered deleted





:' @ reverses '% • % end ents sought were only for al • Participation of 4>8U as Principal did not change • ?uring investigation, all 6 were respondents • :ubse<uent investigation yielded facts that the 6, and not only 4>8U were the offenders • 7herefor a need to a end or file new info arose • ?enial to a end $7$7 E $7$- not a bar to filing new infos • 9!76 E 9!7$ erely describe the fact that 4>8U was already charged with the sa e offense • it was only a reference • 4>8U not a defendant in 9!76 E 9!7$, not ordered arrested for such, not araigned Finas uch as 4>8U is not a defendant in 9!7$6 E 9!7$, he cannot file a otion to <uash; he has no standing in said casesG

59) ANNOTATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4ead 4>.I 11/ :1$ 4ead 4>.I 119 :19 %0I"?0I"7 =IFO4I P.I% 0ay be done, substantial or in for , w+o leave of court, before plea I(a ple ; change fro Bo icide to 0urder :o that proper offense ay be charged 'hange oA even if it alters the nature of charge so long as it is done without pre2udice to the accusedLs substantial rights 9ests Prosecuting officer with discretionary power 7rial court has power to order a end ent of info @ when such is done, accused ust be arraigned and plead to new charge, "o 2urisdiction over co plaint, no power to order a end ent Only valid info can be a ended 5here info read to defendant is the original and not the a ended one, his conviction under the for er suffers reversible defect for lacA of arraign ent %0I"?0I"7 %F7I4 P.I% %llowed if - as to all atters of for , by leave and with discretion of court, can be done w+o pre2udice to rights of accused % plea of not guilty during P&8& does not prevent a end ent of info+co plaint before accused pleads in court with 2urisdiction so as to allege, as such, the presence of <ualifying circu stances "o a end ent after 2udge ent has been rendered

• •

FO40%. %0I"?0I"7: 7hose not pre2udicial to essential rights of the accused

• • •

5hen it does not affect essence of cri e ?oes not deprive defendant of opportunity to present evidence for proper defense 7o correct an erroneous allegation as to na e of offended party, especially when ade before presentation of evidence by the prosecution • :>=:7%"78%. %0I"?0I"7: 8f it changes the basic theory of the prosecution by alleging a new way the cri e was co itted *such would spring surprise to accused and lead to possible in2ustice, • 'hange of acts i puted • 5hen the offense charged is not yet punishable when original info was filed *court should have dis issed original info and authori)ed presentation of new one, 57) PPL V. REYES • • 7here was a case *PP. v I:74I..%, in the court of 3udge 4eyes Prosecutor ade 9I4=%. 0O78O" to a end info on said case @ to change date of offense fro %>D>:7 L!9 to %>D>:7 L!$ • Petition was denied by 3udge 4eyes @ the change cannot be allowed since it would pre2udice the substantial rights of the accused • Bence this petition via 'ertiorari with Prayer for Preli inary in2unction • 7he I:74I..% '%:I; 1$# For 1ualified 7heft of trucA vs& Istrella and 6 others in 0unicipal court of :an 3ose, "ueva Ici2a 1$6 8nfo alleges; co itted on %>D>:7 L!$ 1$$ On "ove ber L!9, 'ity Fiscal of :an 3ose *now a 'ity, filed info *in respondent court, stating the sa e facts =>7 that the cri e was co itted %>D>:7 L!9 1$5 On 3an& L7/ Istrella was arraigned and pleaded "O7 D>8.7M 1$! 7he info was read in 7agalog so he could understand it 1$7 %lthough the Prosecution was present at the arraign ent, they did not ove or allege any intent to a end date or even infor court of such istaAe 1$- 0ay #1, 197/ @ 748%. ?%7I 1$9 =efore PP. presented evidence, prosecutor aAes 9I4=%. 0O78O" to a end info %>D>:7 L!9 to %>D>:7 L!$ 15/ %ccused having co e to court to defend offense of 19!9, vehe ently ob2ected to such otion 1513udge defers 2udge ent on otion and asAs 1st witness to testify 15#1st witness, %lcantara, states that offense was co itted in 19!$ 156 ?efense does not <uestion such witness since his state ents were not for the offense charged 15$ %fter Parties sub it e oranda on the a end ent issue, 3udge ?I"8I: otion saying it would pre2udice the rights of the accused 155 3udge denies 4econ saying %" BO"I:7 08:7%NI 8" 7BI 8"FO '%""O7 P4I9%8. O9I4 7BI :>=:7%"78%. 48DB7: =%:I? O" 7BI 'O":787>78O" 15! %rgu ent that 780I is i aterial to 7heft does not hold I!!:': 5O" there was Grave ,buse of Discretion on the part of the 3udge when he denied the a end ent *change of date, on the ground that it would i pair the accusedLs substantial rights guaranteed by the constitutionS !C !,;!: "O G,D • 4O' 4ule 11/ :& 16 *now : 1$, says when %ccused has already been arraigned and pleaded, a end ent ay be allowed only as to for and cannot be done when it shall pre2udice substantial rights





• • •

OPI08% case ; • carabao lost in 19$7, not on 195# as alleged in info • 5 yrs is a long stretch of ti e • Fone cannot help but be led to believe that another theft different fro that co itted by defendants in 195# were also perpetrated in 19$7G • the variance is unfair to the accused who are to defend a case different fro the one charged 'ase at =ar ; • investigated for offense co itted in 19!$ • charged for an offense co itted in 19!9 *wherein the plea is "O7 D>8.7M, • "ow, the PP. puts accused on trial for 19!$ @ '%""O7 =I %..O5I? %rgu ent that ti e is i aterial is wrong ?isparity of ti e between 19!$ and 19!9 is so great to defy appro(i ation in co ission of one and the sa e offense %ppro(i ation of ti e of co ission is allowed, =>7, when it is so re ote and so far re oved it surprises the accused and therefor no proper defense ay be put up

58) PPL V. CA • • • • • • • • • • • :hooting incident in 0andaluyong *3une 5, 1971, results in filing of # infor ations on frustrated ho icide vs :i(to 4>8U *'ri inal 'ases $7$7 E $7$-, 4>8U arraigned and pleaded "O7 D>8.7M 4einvestigation with ?O3 reveals 4>8U was in 'O":P84%'M with P%?8..% and O"D'BI'O :tate Prosecutor then files 0otion for .eave of 'ourt to % end info 0otion denied, 3udge says @ if a ended *'onspiracy, it would a end the anner the cri e was co itted, a substantial a end ent, therefor it cannot be allowed :tate Prosecutor then files # "I5 infos for Frustrated ho icide vs P%?8..% %"? O"D'BI'O in conspiracy with 4>8U *referred to as accused in 'ri case $7$7 E $7$-, 7he # new cases are cri case 9!76 E 9!7$ P%?8..% E O"D'BI'O ove to <uash+striAe out conspiracy 3udge denies otion @ allegation of conspiracy does not alter the theory of the case, does not introduce innovations, does not present alternative i putations, it is not inconsistent with original allegations 4>8U, P%?8..% E O"D'BI'O now appeal to '% '% says @ 3udge acted in e(cess of 2urisdiction in denying otions, petitions granted, allegations of conspiracy ordered deleted



:' @ reverses '% • % end ents sought were only for al • Participation of 4>8U as Principal did not change • ?uring investigation, all 6 were respondents

• • • •



:ubse<uent investigation yielded facts that the 6, and not only 4>8U were the offenders 7herefor a need to a end or file new info arose ?enial to a end $7$7 E $7$- not a bar to filing new infos 9!76 E 9!7$ erely describe the fact that 4>8U was already charged with the sa e offense • it was only a reference • 4>8U not a defendant in 9!76 E 9!7$, not ordered arrested for such, not araigned Finas uch as 4>8U is not a defendant in 9!7$6 E 9!7$, he cannot file a otion to <uash; he has no standing in said casesG

59) ANNOTATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4ead 4>.I 11/ :1$ 4ead 4>.I 119 :19 %0I"?0I"7 =IFO4I P.I% 0ay be done, substantial or in for , w+o leave of court, before plea I(a ple ; change fro Bo icide to 0urder :o that proper offense ay be charged 'hange oA even if it alters the nature of charge so long as it is done without pre2udice to the accusedLs substantial rights 9ests Prosecuting officer with discretionary power 7rial court has power to order a end ent of info @ when such is done, accused ust be arraigned and plead to new charge, "o 2urisdiction over co plaint, no power to order a end ent Only valid info can be a ended 5here info read to defendant is the original and not the a ended one, his conviction under the for er suffers reversible defect for lacA of arraign ent %0I"?0I"7 %F7I4 P.I% %llowed if - as to all atters of for , by leave and with discretion of court, can be done w+o pre2udice to rights of accused % plea of not guilty during P&8& does not prevent a end ent of info+co plaint before accused pleads in court with 2urisdiction so as to allege, as such, the presence of <ualifying circu stances "o a end ent after 2udge ent has been rendered

• • • • •

FO40%. %0I"?0I"7: 7hose not pre2udicial to essential rights of the accused 5hen it does not affect essence of cri e ?oes not deprive defendant of opportunity to present evidence for proper defense 7o correct an erroneous allegation as to na e of offended party, especially when before presentation of evidence by the prosecution • :>=:7%"78%. %0I"?0I"7: 8f it changes the basic theory of the prosecution by alleging a new way the cri e was co *such would spring surprise to accused and lead to possible in2ustice, • 'hange of acts i puted

ade

itted



5hen the offense charged is not yet punishable when original info was filed *court should have dis issed original info and authori)ed presentation of new one, +2. P7!,D,! v 7M):D!M,8 2000

8F-7BI" 4>.I: in this case; 157 8F there no probable cause for the filing of an infor ation against an accused 7BI" the court ay en2oin cri inal prosecution to protect the citi)enLs right to be free fro unwarranted and ve(atious prosecution "%7>4I; :pecial 'ivil %ction in the :upre e 'ourt& 'ertiorari E Prohibition& F%'7:; 15- 4oger Posadas, then >P ?ili an 'hancellor, asAed the ?irector of the "=8 for assistance in deter ining the persons responsible for the Ailling of ?ennis 9enturina, :ig a 4ho e ber, in a ru ble between :ig a 4ho and another fraternity on ?ece ber -, 199$ 159 Orlando ?i)on, 'hief of the :pecial Operations Droup of the "=8, and his tea went to >P Y atte pted to arrest Francis 'arlo 7aparan E 4ay und "arag, e bers of the :cintilla 3uris Fraternity, as suspects in the Ailling of 9enturina o On the basis of positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, .eonardo .achica E 'esar 0angrobang o 7aparan and "arag were then at the >P?P :tation, for a peace talA between :3 E :ig a 4ho 1!/ Posadas, 0arichu .a bino *%sst& .egal 'ounsel,, 4osario 7orres-Mu *9ice-'hancellor, E a certain %tty& 9illa or *counsel of the suspects, ob2ected to the arrest on the ground that the "=8 did not have warrants of arrest with the Y suspects not arrest as a result of the intervention but Posadas and 9illa or pro ised to taAe the suspects to the "=8 office the ne(t day 1!1 ?i)on filed a co plaint in the Office of the :pecial Prosecutor charging Posadas, .a bino, 7orres-Mu, 9illa or and 'ol& Iduardo =entain *'hief of :ecurity Force of >P Police, with violation of P? 1-#9 @ aAing it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension E prosecution of cri inal offenders 1!# 8nfor ation filed stated that; petitioners F((( delayed the investigation and prosecution of the heinous case by harboring an concealing ((( suspects thus leading to the successful escape of suspects "arag and another principal suspect 3oel 'arlo ?enosta (((G 1!6 On otion, Office of the :pecial Prosecutor reco ended dis issal of the case Y reco endation disapproved by Office of the O buds an @ directed the :pecial Prosecutor to proceed with prosecution of petitioners in the :andiganbayan& 1!$ Bence, this petition to set aside the resolution of the Office of the O buds an ordering the prosecution of petitioners& 8::>I:; 1!5 5O" there was probable cause for prosecuting petitioners for violation of P?1-#9 @ "one 1!! 'ourt held o 4egardless of petitionersL suspicion, they could not have authori)ed the arrest without warrant or even effected the arrest the selves Y only courts could decide the <uestion of probable cause since the students were not caught in flagrante delicto Z :pecial Prosecutor in reco ending dis issal; >P officials then present had every right to prevent the co ission of illegal arrests of students on ca pus&

1!7 5O" courts ay en2oin cri inal prosecution DI"I4%. 4>.I; 'ri inal prosecution cannot be en2oined& 'ourt ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion of the O buds an to deter ine whether there e(ists reasonable ground to believe that a cri e has been co itted and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and therafter, to file corresponding infor ation with the appropriate courts IR'IP78O":; 1!- =4O'N% v I"48.I *cited in 9I">: v ?I:8I47O, 1& 7o afford protection to constitutional rights of the accused #& 5hen necessary for the orderly ad inistration of 2ustice and to avoid oppression or ultiplicity of suits 6& 5hen there is pre2udicial <uestion which is sub 2udice $& %cts of officer are without or in e(cess of authority 5& Prosecution under an invalid law, ordinance or regulations !& ?ouble 2eopardy clearly apparent 7& 'ourt has no 2urisdiction over the offense -& 'ase of persecution rather than prosecution 9& 'harges are anifestly false and otivated by lust for vengeance 1/& 'learly no pri a facie case against the accused and a otion to <uash has been denied 11& :' issued a preli inary in2unction to prevent the threated unlawful arrest of petitioners YBI4I, petitioners had a right to prevent the arrest 1!9 :%.O"D% v '4>U P%"O applies @ 8nfinitely ore i portant than conventional adherence to general rules of cri inal procedure is respect for citi)ensL right to be free not only fro arbitrary arrest and punish ent but also fro unwarranted and ve(atious prosecution OO Petitioners challenge to P? 1-#9 as unconstitutional not necessary Y case disposed of on so e other ground (( Petition granted& O buds an E agents prohibited fro prosecuting for violation of p?1-#9 par&1[c\, while :andiganbayan ordered to dis iss infor ation in 'ri inal 'ase no ##-/1& +-. )R7C<, v '8RI=' 1..0 "%7>4I; Petition for Babeas 'orpus F%'7:; 17/ 2eepney striAe called by the %lliance of 'oncerned 7ransport Organi)ation *%'7O, Y de onstration held in sy pathy of this striAe, forcibly and violently dispersed Y petitioners arrested by "orthern Police ?istrict Officers @ 3an #- K-5 171 petitioners charged with 8llegal %sse bly 4P'1$! par&6 in 6 cri cases filed before 47' 1' 17# all petitioners released on bail @ P6,/// each IR'IP7 for .ino =rocAa, =en 'ervantes, 'os e Darcia and 4odolfo :antos *=rocAa, et al&,, who were charged as leaders of the offense of 8llegal %sse bly for who no bail was reco ended 176 urgent petition for bail filed before the 47' Y daily hearings held between Feb&1-7 L-5 Y On Feb& 7 or 9 L-5, 47' 1' 3udge 0iria ?efensor :antiago ordered =rocAa, et alLs provisional release; reco ended bail at P!,//// each Y =rocAa, et al filed respective bail bonds =>7C 17$ ?espite service of release order, =rocAa, et al re ained in detention Y respondentspolice officers invoAed Preventive ?etention %ction *P?%, allegedly issued against =rocAa, et al on 3an& #- K-5 o "either original nor certified true copy of this P?% was shown to =rocAa, et al&

175 Feb 11 L-5 @ =rocAa, et al charged with 8nciting to :edition in 6 cri cases; hasty and spurious filing of this second offense as follows; o 1/;6/ %0 counsel infor ed by phone that =rocAa, et al will be brought before the 1' Fiscal at #;6/P0 for undisclosed reasons Y another phone call subse<uently received infor ing counsel that appearance of =rocAa, et al was to be at #;//P0 o #;//P0 =rocAa, et al arrived at office of %sst& 'ity Fiscal Y co plainantsL affidavits had not yet been received o 6;//P0 representative of the ilitary arrived with alleged state ents of co plainants against =rocAa, et al for alleged inciting to sedition o 6;15P0 counsel in<uired fro 4ecords 'ustodian when the charges against =rocAa, et al had been officially received Y infor ed that said charges were never coursed through the 4ecords Office o %.:O, utterances allegedly constituting 8nciting to :edition under 4P'1$# are, al ost verbati , the sa e utterances which are the sub2ect of the cri cases for 8llegal %sse bly for which =rocAa, et al are entitled to be relased on bail as a atter of 'onstitutional right Y appears that respondents have conspired to deprive =rocAa, et al of the right to bail o %"?, panel of assistant fiscals de anded that =rocAa, et al sign a waiver of their rights under 4P'1#5 as a condition for the grant of the counselLs re<uest that they be given 7 days within which counsel ay confer with their clients Y no such re<uire ent re<uired under the rules 17! =rocAa, et al released provisionally on Feb&1$ L-5 on orders of then Pres&0arcos Y release narrated in 'ourtLs resolution in petition for habeas corpus filed by :edfrey Ordone) in behalf of =rocAa, et al; o 8n 4eturn of the 5rit of Babeas 'orpus, respondents said all accused had already been released Y four on Feb15 L-5 and one on Feb&- L-5 o Petitioners, nevertheless, still argue that the petition has not beco e oot and acade ic because the accused continue to be in the custody of the law under an invalid charge of inciting to sedition& 177 Bence, this petition& o =rocAa, et al contend; 17- bad faith and+or harass ent sufficient bases for en2oining their cri inal prosecution 179 second offense of 8nciting to :edition anifestly illegal @ pre ised on one and the sa e act of participating in the %'7O 2eepney striAe Y atter of defense in sedition charge so, only issue here isC 8::>I; 5O" cri inal prosecution of a case ay be en2oined @ MI:

4%78O; DI"& 4>.I; 'ri inal prosecution ay not be restrained or stayed by in2unction, preli inary or final IR'IP78O":; 1-/ 7o afford ade<uate protection to the consti rights of the accused 1-1 5hen necessary for the orderly ad inistration of 2ustice or to avoid oppression or ultiplicity of actions 1-# 5hen there is no pre2udicial <uestion which is sub2udice 1-6 5hen the acts of the officer are without or in e(cess of authority 1-$ 5here the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation 1-5 5hen double 2eopardy is clearly apparent 1-! 5hen the court has no 2urisdiction over the offense 1/0 >5ere it is a case of persecution rat5er t5an prosecution 1-- 5here the charges are anifestly false and otivated by lust for vengeance 1-9 5hen there is clearly no pri a facie case against the accused and a otion to <uash on that ground had been denied 19/ Preli inary in2unction has been issued by the :' to prevent the threatened unlawful

arrest of petitioners Y BI4I, cri inal proceedings had beco e a case of persecution, have been undertaAen by state officials in bad faith; 1& 4espondents invoAed a spurious P?% in refusing =rocAa, et alLs release fro detention =>7

7his P?% was issued on 3an&#- L-5 and invoAed only on Feb&9 L-5 upon receipt of 7'Ls order of release Y violates guideline that P?% shall be invoAed within #$ hrs in 00 or $hours outside 00 *8lagan v Inrile, ?espite subpoenas for P?%Ls production, prosecution erely presented a purported (eero( copy of it Y violates 'ourt pronounce ent that Findividuals against who P?%s have been issued should be furnished with the original, and the duplicate original, and a certified true copy issued by the official having official custody of the P?%, at the ti e of the apprehension *8lagan v Inrile, #& :olDenLs anifestation; =rocAa, et al should have filed a [instead of a petition for B'\ otion to <uash the infor ation ove, considering the

'ourt Beld; such a course of action would have been a futile circu stances then prevailing; 1& spurious and inoperational P?% #& sha and hasty P8

Y clear signals that the prosecutors intended to Aeep =rocAa, et al in detention until the second offense could be facilitated and 2ustified without need of issuing a warrant of arrest anew 8F-7BI" 4>.I; 8f there is anifest bad faith that acco panies the filing of cri inal charges *as in this case where petitioners were barred fro en2oying provisional release until such ti e that charges were filed, and where a sha preli inary investigation was hastily conducted 7BI" charges that are filed as a result should lawfully be en2oined& (( Petition granted& 7' per anently en2oined fro sub2ect of the petition& proceeding in any anner with the cases

+4. M,8I,G7 v C, 1..+ "%7>4I; Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the '% F%'7:; 191 4uben 0aniago @ owner of shuttle buses used in transporting e ployees of the 7e(as 8nstru ents, *Phils&,,, 8nc& fro =aguio 'ity proper to plant site in .oaAan, =aguio 'ity o 3an& 7 L9/ one bus figured in a vehicular accident with passenger 2eep owned by private respondent %lfredo =oado along .oaAan 4oad 19# 0arch # L9/ @ cri case for recAless i prudence resulting in da age to property and ultiple physical in2uries filed with 47' =aguio 'ity, =r&888 against 0aniagoLs driver Ber inio %ndaya 196 %pril 19 L9/ @ civil case for da ages filed with 47' =aguio 'ity, =r&89 19$ 0aniago oved for the suspension of the proceeding in the civil case Y denied by 7'; 4easons; 195 pursuant to the 'ivil 'ode, the action could proceed independently of the cri

action and 19! 0aniago was not the accused in the cri case 197 0aniago filed petition for 'ertiorari and Prohibition with '%, 0aniago says civil action could not proceed independently of the cri case because no reservation of the right to bring it separately had been ade Y '% dis issed petition; 4easons; 19- Darcia v Florido and %bellana v 0arave, held; independent civil action for da ages allowed even though no reservation to file it has been ade 199 5hile this case was pending in '%, cri action was dis issed by 47' on 3uly 1/ L9# for failure of the prosecution to file a for al offer of its evidence + prosecution failed to prosecute its case Y 0aniago; since the civil action was i pliedly instituted with the cri action, the the dis issal of the cri case brought with it the dis issal of the civil #// Bence, this petition for review on certiorari& 8::>I; 5O" espondent =oada ay bring an action for da ages against 0aniago under #17! and #1-/ of the 'ivil 'ode despite the absence of reservation in the cri case previously filed @ "O DI" 4>.I; % civil action for recovery of civil liability is i pliedly instituted with the cri inal action& IR'IP78O":; #/1 civil action, arising fro the sa e act or o ission, which is the sub2ect of the cri action, is waived #/# right to bring it separately is reserved #/6 action instituted prior to the cri action %ddtLl 4>.I; Iven if an action has not been reserved or it was brought before the institution of the cri case, the ac<uittal of the accused will not bar recovery of civil liability unless the ac<uittal is based on a finding that the act fro which the civil liability ight arise did not e(ist& 4%78O;

#/$:ec&1 4ule 111 @ clearly re<uires that a reservation ust be ade to institute separately
all civil actions for recovery of civil liability, otherwise they will be dee ed to have been instituted with the cri case a& 'ivil actions in this rule not li ited to those which arise Ffro the offense charge,G as originally provided in 4ule111 before the a end ent of the 4ules Y reservation now applies to all civil actions whether arising fro cri e or <uasi delict *#17!, #/5 :tate ents in cases i plying that 4ule111 :ecs&1 and 6 are beyond the rule aAing power of the :' under the 'onstitution Y only obiters and asides, not dispositive of the case b& Darcia v Florido; right of an in2ured person to bring civil action even if no reservation in the cri action was ade, upheld, on ground that by bringing the civil action the in2ured parties had Fin effect abandoned their right to press for recovery of da ages in the cri caseG Dladi; di Ao nagets ang diff ng case na to sa present case; pareho lang na ang cri instituted before civil, pero in the Darcia case, civil independent of the cri , even without reservation, was upheld c& %bellana v 0arave; the filing of the civil case was e*uivalent to a reservation because it was ade after the decision of the 'ity 'ourt had been appealed Y :ec& 7 4ule 1#6; appeal had the affect of vacating the decision in the cri case d& 0ade2a v 'aro; civil action could proceed while cri case was pending because widow had reserved her right to file a separate civil action for da ages e& 3arantilla v '%; the ac<uittal of the accused in the cri case on the ground of reasonable doubt is not a bar to the filing of an action for da ages even though the filing of the civil action was not reserved Y based on '' %rt& #9 '' 8napplicable Y Bere, dis issal based on fact that prosecution failed to

aAe a for al offer of its evidence #/! 1uestion on whether the cri action and the civil action ust be tried in a single proceeding has always been regarded a atter of procedure Y within the rule aAing power conferred by the 'onstitution on the :' Y does not i pair, di inish or defeat substantive rights Y only regulates their e(ercise in the general interest of orderly procedure - erely procedural in nature Y re<uire ent of reservation not inco patible with independent character of civil action - difference between allowing the trial of civil actions to proceed independently of the cri prosecution and re<uiring that, before they ay be instituted at all, a reservation to bring the separately ust be ade it is the conduct of the trial not the institution through the filing of a co plaint which is allowed to proceed independently of the outco e of the cri case #/7 prohibition against double recovery for the sa e act or o ission =arredo v Darcia; the in2ured party ust choose which of the available causes of action for da ages he will bring& 8f he fails to reserve the filing of a separate civilChis cause of action against the e ployer will be li ited to the recovery of e ployerLs subsidiary liability under 4P' %rt&1/6 #/- "or does it atter that the civil action is against the e ployer to enforce his vicarious liability under %rt& #1-/ of the 'ivil 'ode& 7hough not an accused in the cri inal case, the e ployer is very uch a party Y decision convicting the e ployee is binding and conclusive upon the e ployer Qnot only with regard to its civil liability but also with regard to its a ountG - true not only with respect to the civil liability arising fro cri e but also with respect to the civil liability under the 'ivil 'ode (( ?ecision reversed& 'o plaint against 0aniago dis issed& 5hen cri inal action ay be suspended, pre2udicial <uestion !5&=algos vs :andiganbayan, 17! :'4% #-7 Facts; %ccused; =algos; 'lerA of 'ourt, 47' =ayo bong, "9+ e(-ooficio provincial sheriff ?acayo, :ison, 'uares a; ?eputy Provincial :heriffs %ccused enforced a writ of e(ecution against a 0ustang car registered in the na e of .eticia %costa-%ng, despite their Anowledge that the registered owner is not the 2udg ent debtor in '' $/$7& %pril 1-, -!; they were charged with violation of :ection 6 ] of 4% 6/19& 0arch 1-, -7; >M, prevailing party in '' $/$7 filed co plaint for rescission of sale of car by 3uanita %ng to .eticia %ng for being allegedly in fraud of creditors& Petitioners were subse<uently granted their otion for reinvestigation& erit and to withdraw info in cri case and

7anodbayan issued order to dis iss case for lacA of filed with := to withdraw info& :uch was denied& Petitioners filed otion to suspend proceedings in cri pre2udicial <uestion& ?enied&

case on the ground of the e(istence of a otion to suspend cri inal

8ssue; 5O" := co itted grave abuse of discretion in denying proceedings on the ground of pre2udicial <uestion

Beld; "O 4atio; #/9 no pre2udicial <uestion e(isted; the pending civil case for the annul ent of the sale of the car to .eticia is not deter inative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners for the acts allegedly co itted by the in sei)ing the car #1/ even if annulled, petitioners still have to establish that they acted in good faith in proceeding with the e(ecution on the car even when they were presented evidence tending to show it did not belong to 3uanito %ng any ore 4>.I; 'respo vs 0ogul 5hile the public prosecutor has the sole discretion and control in the prosecution of offenses, once the co plaint or infor ation is filed in court, the court thereby ac<uires 2urisdiction over the case and all the subse<uent actions that ay be taAen by the public prosecutor in relation to the disposition of the case ust be sub2ect to the approval of the court& 5BI4IFO4I, the petition is denied for lacA of erit and the restraining order is hereby lifted&

!!& =obis vs =obis, 3uly 61, #/// Facts; 8saganio =obis arried 0aria 3avier in 19-5& ?uring the subsistence of such arried 0arbella =obis and then subse<uently arried 3ulia Brnande)& 0arbella =obis charged hi with biga y&

arriage, he

:o eti e thereafter, he initiated a civil action for the declaration of absolute nullity of his first arriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a arriage license& Be filed otion to suspend the proceedings in the cri case for biga y invoAing the pending civil case for nullity of the first arriage as a pre2udicial <uestion to the cri case& 3udge granted otion& 0arbella filed otion for recon& ?enied& arriage

8ssue; 5O" the subse<uent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of previous constitutes a pre2udicial <uestion to a cri case for biga y Beld; "O

4atio; #11 % pre2udicial <uestion is one which arises on a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein& #1# # ele ents; a& the civil action involves an issue si ilar or inti ately related to the issue raised in the cri inal action b& the resolution of such issue deter ines 5O" the cri inal action ay proceed

#16.andicho vs 4elova; he who contracts a second arriage before the 2udicial declaration
of nullity of the 1st arriage assu es the risA of being prosecuted for biga y and in such case, the cri case ay not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity& #1$ here; resorted to civil action as a potential pre2udicial <uestion for the purpose of frustrating of delaying his cri prosecution #15 % decision in the civil case is not essential to the deter ination of the cri charge and thus is not a pre2udicial <uestion PI7878O" D4%"7I?& 47' orders reversed and set aside& Ordered to i cri case ediately proceed with

!7& 'abaero vs 'antos, 1997 Facts;

=etween :ept 19-7 to October 19-7, 'abaero induced Ipifanio 'eralde to advance 1, 55/,/// to be paid to 0' 'astro 'ontruction 'o as pay ent for ! parcels of land in Pangasinan& %ccusedpro ised to pay bacA 'eralde as soon as loan applied by the their bi) venture, %<ualand 9entures and anage ent, would be released by :O.8?=%"N& Pere) falsely pretended that she given the authority to receive the checA and induced the cashier to release the sa e& 'eralde never received his oney bacA&

>pon arraign ent, petitioners entered plea of not guilty and later filed an %nswer with 'ounterclai alleging that the oney loaned was duly applied to the purchase of lands and that the filing of said info was un2ustified and alicious& #1! dis iss nfo and the civil action i pliedly instated in the cri action #17 ordering ceralde to pay; a& 1&50 for oral da ages b& 5//thou for e(e plary da ages c& 1//thou attyLs fees d& #/lit fees ?uring initial hearing, prosecution oved that the answer with counterclai be e(punged fro records on # grounds; #1- 7' had no 2urisdiction over the answer with counterclai for non-pay ent of the prescribed docAet fees #19 co pulsory counterclai against co plainant is barred for failure to file it before arraign ent 3udge granted otion and denied petitionerLs otion for recon

8ssue; 5O" 2udge co itted D%? a ounting to lacA or e(cess of 2urisdiction in ordering that the answer with counterclai be e(punged fro the records Beld; MI: 8ssue1; 5O" pay ent of filing fees is re<uired for court to ac<uire 2urisdiction over counterclai Beld; "O 4atio; ##/ initiatory pleading ##1per issive counterclai s, 6rd party clai s and si ilar pleadings 8ssue#; 5O" answer with counterclai is proper Beld; MI: 4atio; % counterclai is co pulsory and is considered barred if not set up where the ff circu stances are present; ### that it arises out of, or in necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the sub2ect atter of the opposing partyLs clai ##6that it does not re<uire for its ad2udication the presence of 6rd parties of who the court cannot ac<uire 2urisdiction ##$ that the court has 2urisdiction to entertain clai 4>.I F4O0 3%98I4 '%:I; % civil case for alicious prosecution should be filed a a co pulsory counterclai in the

cri inal action& 7he filing of a separate civil action for alicious prosecution would gave resulted in the presentation of the sa e evidence involving si ilar issues in # proceedings; the civil action i pliedly instituted with the cri action and the separate civil action for da ages for alicious prosecution& :ource of proble ; ##5 4O' does not provide the procedure for counterclai s in cases where there is the i plied institution of a civil action in a cri inal case ##! 2udg ent in a cri action is not re<uired to provide for the award of counterclai ; sec #, rule 1#/; only civil liability or da ages caused by the wrongful act to be recovered fro the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforce ent of the civil liability by a separate action has been reserved or waived& ##7 allowing counterclai s will co plicate disposition of case; includes appli of rules of civil actions ##- counterclai ay be filed only after initial hearing beco) private co plainant ay still reserve his civil action at any ti e before evidence is presented 9%.8? 'O>"7I4'.%80 but cannot be tried together with cri O4?I4: are odified& ##9 counterclai set aside without pre2udice #6/ 47' directed to proceed with the trial of cri offense that is i pliedly instituted therein case

action and civil action arising fro

cri

4egalado, concurring; Petitioners do not yet have a valid, co plete and enforceable cause of action which could constitute the basis and 2ustification for their counterclai & 0alicious prosecution; #61 there was false charge #6# there was final 2udg ent of ac<uittal or order of dis issal #66 there was an order for the prosecution of the person who ade charge 9itug, separate opinion; 3avier ruling should be re-e(a ined; where the civil case was not reserved, a counterclai for alicious prosecution, being co pulsory in nature, should be filed in the sa e cri action&

4epdica vs '% Facts; 8sabelita 4eodica was driving her van along ?oHa :oledad %venue, =etter .iving :ubdivision, P<ue& 4ecAless; hit car of =onsol ^ physical in2uries ^ da age to car 8nfo was field; 4ecAless 8 prudence 4esulting in ?a age to property with :light Physical in2ury& Pleaded not guilty& 47' 0aAati; convicted her of the <uasi-offense of recAless i prudence resulting in da age to property with slight physical in2uries& Petitioner appealed to '%& :ubse<uently filed otions for e(tension it file her brief& Dranted then file otion to 5ithdraw appeal for probation purposes and to suspend, e( abundanti 'autela, period for filing %ppellantLs brief& ?enied& 8ssue; 5O" filing of co plaint with fiscalLs office stops running of prescriptive period Beld; MI: 4atio; #6$ %rticle 91 does not distinguish& %rt& 91& <omputation of prescription of offenses& _ 7he period of prescription shall co ence to run fro the day on which the cri e is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall &e interrupted &y the filing of the complaint of

information, and shall co ence to run again when such proceedings ter inate without the accused being convicted or ac<uitted, or are un2ustifiably stopped by any reason not i putable to hi & *e phasis supplied, 4ecAless i prudence resulting in slight physical in2uries; light felony; prescribes in # onths

4ecAless i prudence resulting in da age to property in the a ount of -, 5$#, less grave felony; prescribes in 5 onths& Francisco vs '% People vs 'uares a; 7he filing of co plaint even with fiscalLs office suspends the running of the statute of li itations& 8nstant petition is granted& '% decision set aside 'ase dis issed&

77& ?48.O" vs '% 7he Facts; 3anuary #, 1996- %Honuevo was allegedly shot in the bacA by 4a os& %Honuevo was reportedly sei)ed fro .ipa 'ity, auled and then taAen to a hospital for head in2uries& Be was then brought before 0arcia 4eyes who asAed hi why he revealed her secrets concerning her indebtedness& .ater he was taAen to a poultry far in 'oncepcion, =atangas where he was shot and subse<uently brought to the =atangas 4egional Bospital in =atangas 'ity& 7he ne(t day, %Honuevo was transferred to :t& PatricAPs Bospital in the sa e city allegedly because he was intentionally not being treated at the previous hospital& 7he victi gave three state ents on different days in order to fully narrate the events relating to the cri e& 1 8n a letter dated February 16, 1996, counsel for private respondent %Honuevo re<uested herein petitioner, then 3ustice :ecretary FranAlin ?rilon, to order the transfer of preli inary investigations in the case fro =atangas to the Office of the :tate Prosecutor& 7he :ecretary of 3ustice granted the re<uest and issued ?epart ent Order "o& 7# designating petitioner-:tate Prosecutor 4eynaldo .ugtu, as %cting Prosecutor of =atangas 'ity in the investigation of the case& October #/, 1996- %fter the preli inary investigation was conducted, :tate Prosecutor .ugtu rendered a resolution finding that a prima facie case for Aidnapping with frustrated urder e(ists against 0anolo 4a os, %gapito 4eyes, 0arcia 0& 4eyes, Igay Pere), %riel Bubilla, ?r& 4odolfo 9& %guila, 3r& and %doracion 0orale2a and reco ending that an infor ation be filed against the & "ove ber 11, 1996- the :tate Prosecutor filed an 8nfor ation with the 4egional 7rial 'ourt of =atangas 'ity, charging the aforena ed persons with Nidnapping with Frustrated 0urder& :ubse<uently, the petition for review and+or reinvestigation filed by the aforena ed accused, was denied by >ndersecretary 4a on Isguerra on 3anuary 1/, 199$& 7he latter, who is also a petitioner in instant case, liAewise denied their otion for reconsideration on February 6, 199$& February -, 199$- :' ordered the records of the case trans itted to the I(ecutive 3udge of the 47' 0anila for re-raffle. %fter being re-raffled, the sa e was assigned to =ranch 11 of the 4egional 7rial 'ourt of 0anila&

February 19, 199$- the accused in said case filed with respondent '% a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for te porary restraining order and writ of preli inary in2unction, seeAing to have the resolution of :tate Prosecutor .ugtu set aside& % te porary restraining petitioners ?rilon et& al, fro proceeding with any aspect of the case was issued by '% on 0arch 6, 199$& %pparently unaware that the re-raffle has already been conducted, the accused filed with the I(ecutive 3udge of the 4egional 7rial 'ourt of 0anila a otion to hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrant of arrest and to defer the raffle& 0arch 11, 199$ -=ranch 11 of the47'-0anila, not Anowing of accusedPs of %rrest against the latter& otion, issued the Order

'% for ulated the issue thus; whether or not the cri inal prosecution can be restrained upon the clai of the accused that the state prosecutorPs resolution is a istaAe and that factually, no prima facie case has been ade out for the offense charged against the & '% found that there was a prima facie case of offense charged against all accused with the e(ception of private respondent ?r& 4odolfo 9& %guila& 7here was no ention at all in the first two *#, state ents %Honuevo ade and the only ti e %Honuevo entioned ?r& %guila was in the third state ent ade ore than a onth after the purported incident on February 7, 1996 when in answer to one *1, <uestion, he had entioned the na e of ?r& 4odolfo %guila, 3r& and by another answer to another <uestion, had voiced out his suspicion& Bence, the instant petition by then :ecretary of 3ustice FranAlin ?rilon, >ndersecretary 4a on Isguerra and :tate Prosecutor 4eynaldo .ugtu, where they allege that the latter co itted no grave abuse of discretion and that the 'ourt of %ppeals erred in per anently en2oining the 4egional 7rial 'ourt of 0anila fro proceeding against private respondent ?r& 4odolfo 9& %guila 8::>I; ?id :tate Prosecutor .ugtu co it grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to hold private respondent ?r& 4odolfo %guila, 3r& for trialS BI.?+?8:PO:8789I; "O& F5BI4IFO4I, the instant petition is hereby D4%"7I?& 7he ?ecision of the 'ourt of %ppeals in '% D&4& :P "o& 6667#, Q0analo 4a os, et& al& v& Bon& FranAlin ?rilon, et& al&PP is hereby 0O?8F8I? so as to include ?r& 4odolfo 9& %guila in the 8nfor ation for Nidnapping with Frustrated 0urder& 7he te porary restraining order dated 0arch 6, 199$ and ade per anent on 3une -, 199$, en2oining petitioners fro proceeding against private respondent ?r& 4odolfo 9& %guila, 3r& in 'ri inal 'ase "o& '4-9$-166$6- is hereby .8F7I?&G 4%78O; 7he purpose of a preli inary investigation is to establish probable cause and Qto secure the innocent against hasty, alicious and oppressive & & &Q 8t is an in<uiry to deter ine whether a cri e has been co itted and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof& 7he investigating 2udge or prosecuting officer acts upon probable cause and reasonable belief& Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt& 8t i plies probability of guilt 16 and re<uires ore than Qbare suspicionQ but Qless than evidence which would 2ustify conviction&Q Probable cause should be deter ined in a su ary but scrupulous anner to prevent aterial da age to a potential accusedPs constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedo and fair play& 7he preli inary investigation is not the occasion for the full and e(haustive display of the partiesP evidence& 8t is for the presentation of such evidence as ay engender a wellgrounded belief that an offense has been co itted and that accused is probably guilty thereof& 8t is a eans of discovering the persons who ay be reasonably charged with a cri e& 7he validity and erits of a partyPs defense or accusation, as well as ad issibility of testi onies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preli inary investigation level&

9he Prosecutor:s report made clear that, &ased on the victim:s third #worn #tatement dated ;e&ruary B, (883, respondent r. )guila, 5r. was in the company of the other accused during the shooting incident+ that he suspected respondent r. )guila wanted him to die &ecause the latter did not give him medical attention while at Catangas %egional 0ospital+ that the respondent even warned him not to talk with the police regarding the shooting incident and that he saw respondent talking with the other accused in the hospital 7he narration in the #nd sworn state ent shows that ?r& %guila had so e participation in the plot against %Honuevo& 7aAen altogether, all these constitute probable cause against private respondent ?r& 4odolfo %guila, 3r& 0oreover, the deter ination of the persons to be prosecuted rests pri arily with the prosecutors who is vested with <uasi-2udicial discretion in the discharge of this function& 2- 5e have also ruled that the courts should give credence, in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, to the finding and deter ination of probable cause by prosecutors in a preli inary investigation& 24 7o reiterate, such a finding of probable cause does not ensure a conviction, or a conclusive finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt& 7he allegations adduced by the prosecution will be put to test in a full-blown trial where evidence shall be analy)ed, weighed, given credence or disproved& 7-&'%:78..O vs& 98..%.>U 171 :'4% 69 7BI F%'7:O; 8n 1971 the preli inary investigation now in <uestion was conducted by respondent 3udge of the 'ircuit 'ri inal 'ourt& Be did so with respect to a co plaint dated 3uly 9, 1971 and the 3oint %ffidavit dated 3uly #1, 1971 filed directly with his 'ourt by 0ontes and de :ilva against .aconico& 7he co plaint charged the latter with estafa in the a ount of P1,///&//& 7he investigation cul inated in the issuance by respondent 3udge of an order on 3uly #-, 1971 issuing an arrest warrant against .aconico and ordering 4i)al Provincial Fiscal to file the corresponding infor ation against the respondent before the court of co petent 2urisdiction within 75I"7M-FO>4 *#$, hours fro receipt of order pursuant to :ection !, 4ule 165 of the 4ules of 'ourt, in relation to :ection 16, 4ule 11# of 19!$ 4ules of 'ourt& "otice of the Order was served on the petitioner-Provincial Fiscal of 4i)al, on 3uly #9, 1971, but he failed to file the infor ation re<uired within the ti e appointed, or at any ti e thereafter& 'onse<uently, on October 1, 1971, he was directed by Bis Bonor to e(plain within ten *1/, days Qwhy he should not be punished for conte pt of court for delaying the speedy ad inistration of 2ustice for disobeying a lawful order of the 'ourt&Q 7he Fiscal filed a otion for reconsideration, but this was denied& Bence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition was presented by petitioner Fiscal, seeAing annul ent of the aforesaid orders& Dmany years have passed during which <ircuit <riminal <ourts were a&olished, as already the petitioner ;iscal:s pu&lic service was ended &y compulsory retirement, and the respondent:s stint as 5udge, ended &y his promotion to a higher court. #a madaling sa&i nung nag!decide ang #< sa kasong ito,halos 24 years ang lumipas. 7BI 8::>I; 5O" there was grave abuse of discretion a ounting to lacA of 2urisdiction on Bis BonorPs part to seeA to foreclose the petitioner fiscalPs prerogative to conduct his own preli inary investigation to deter ine for hi self the e(istence or non-e(istence of probable cause, and to re<uire hi to show cause for not filing the infor ation within twenty-four *#$, hours, on the sole basis of the 3udgePs conclusions& BI.?+?8:PO:8789I; "O&

F 5BI4IFO4I, the challenged Orders are hereby annulled and set aside& 7his resolution is i ediately e(ecutory& "o costs&G 4%78O; 8t is the fiscal who is given by law Qdirection and controlQ of all cri inal actions& 8t is he who initiates all prosecutions in the na e of the People of the Philippines, by infor ation or co plaint, against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved& 8t is he *or other public prosecutor,, therefore, who is pri arily responsible for ascertaining through a preli inary in<uiry or proceeding Qwhether there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been co itted and the accused is probably guilty thereof&Q 7hat function is not 2udicial but e(ecutive& 5hen a preli inary investigation is conducted by a 2udge, the 2udge perfor s a non-2udicial function, as an e(ception to his usual 2udicial duties& 7he assign ent of that function to 2udges of inferior courts and to a very li ited e(tent to courts of first instance was dictated by Qnecessity and practical considerations,Q and the conse<uent policy, as :' held in #alta, was that Qwherever there were enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preli inary investigations, courts were to leave that 2ob which is essentially e(ecutive to the &Q 8t follows that the conclusions derived by a 2udge fro his own investigation cannot be superior to and conclusively binding on the fiscal or public prosecutor, in who that function is principally and ore logically lodged& 7hese considerations argue against giving the ter QreferQ used in :ection 16 of the for er 4ule 11# _ which provided that if the 2udge, after conducting a preli inary investigation finds probable cause against a defendant,Q & & & he shall issue a warrant for his arrest, and thereafter refer the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding infor ationQ _ the effect of i posing upon the fiscal the andatory duty to file an infor ation erely upon such reference being ade; and this, even without regard to the fact that in its ordinary sense, the word QreferQ conveys no such i port nor connotes any co pulsion& %nd it was no doubt on account of these obvious considerations that, as #alta further observes, :ection 67 of =atas Pa bansa =lg& 1#9 reiterated Qthe re oval fro 3udges of 0etropolitan 7rial 'ourts in the "ational 'apital 4egion of the authority to conduct preli inary investigationsQ and Q:ection # of 4ule 11# of the 19-5 4ules on 'ri inal Procedure no longer authori)es 4egional 7rial 3udges to conduct preli inary investigations&Q 8t ay not be a iss to point out, in this connection, that the 19-- % end ents to the 19-5 4ules on 'ri inal Procedure *:ec& 5, 4ule 11#, e(plicitly provide inter alia that Q*s,hould the provincial or city fiscal disagree with the findings of the investigating 2udge on the e(istence of probable cause, the fiscalPs ruling shall prevail&Q =e it noted, however, that once the fiscal files an infor ation with the 'ourt and the 'ourt thereby ac<uires 2urisdiction over the case, the case ay not be dis issed at the fiscalPs instance e(cept only by consent of the 'ourt, which ay grant or withhold it in its discretion& 79& PIOP.I vs& "%4'% #75 :'4% !9! 7BI F%'7:; For the death of 0auro 4eglos, 3r& , defendants-appellants 4odencio, =en2a in, 4ogelio all surna ed "arca and their brother-in-law 3ai e were charged with the infor ation for urder; 5hen appellantsP failed in their otion to <uash the above infor ation, they filed a otion for bail& ?uring the bail hearings, the victi Ps wife Ili)abeth, who was with hi on that fateful night, testified on direct e(a ination& ?efense counsel re<uested the court that his cross-e(a ination of Ili)abeth be conducted on the ne(t hearing& :uch cross-e(a ination on said date never tooA place because Ili)abeth and her son were bludgeoned to death& %fter hearing, the lower court denied bail& ?uring arraign ent, appellants pleaded Qnot guiltyQ& 7rial ensued and the lower court thereafter rendered 2udg ent convicting appellants& Bence, this appeal& 7he facts given credence by the trial court are as follows; & & & *O,n 0arch 1/, 199/, between 7;// to -;// oPclocA in the evening, after

spouses 0auro 4eglos, 3r& and Ili)abeth 4eglos have 2ust co e fro the house of the father of 0auro 4eglos, 3r& at =arangay 'avite Plu , Dui ba, "ueva Ici2a, who was then sicA, and on their way ho e to :ta& %na, Dui ba, "ueva Ici2a, accused =en2a in "arca suddenly hacAed 0auro 4eglos, 3r& at the bacA portion of his head with a long bolo Anown as QpanabasQ& 5hen 0auro was about to fall at his bacA, 3ai e =aldela ar, 4ogelio "arca and 4odencio Q4udyQ "arca suddenly appeared, and they tooA turns in hacAing 0auro with bolos& 5hen 0auro was being hacAed, his wife Ili)abeth screa ed for help, and %rturo 4eglos and ?ante 4eglos responded and arrived at the scene of the incident& 7hey saw =en2a in, 4odencio Q4udyQ and 4ogelio, all surna ed "arca, and 3ai e =aldela ar, all ar ed with bolos, guarding their brother 0auro 4eglos, 3r& who was lying face downward, soaAed with blood, but still alive& %rturo 4eglos and ?ante 4eglos and Ili)abeth 4eglos cannot approach 0auro 4eglos, 3r& because they were threatened by the "arca brothers and 3ai e =aldela ar& 7wo inutes after %rturo and ?ante 4eglos arrived, all the accused left, but accused 4ogelio "arca returned and hacAed 0auro 4eglos once ore at his bacA& 7BI 8::>I; 5O" the preli inary investigation was valid because they were not represented therein by counsel and was therefore deprived of due process& BI.?+?8:PO:8789I; Mup& F5BI4IFO4I, sub2ect to the odification that each appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and not life i prison ent, the appealed decision of the 4egional 7rial 'ourt of Dui ba, "ueva Ici2a convicting appellants 4odencio, =en2a in, 4ogelio all surna ed "arca and 3ai e =aldela ar of urder and the i position of the onetary awards are %FF840I?&G 4%78O; 7here is nothing in the 4ules which renders invalid a preli inary investigation held without defendantPs counsel& "ot being a part of the due process clause but a right erely created by law, preli inary investigation if held within the statutory li itations cannot be voided& %ppellantPs argu ent, if sustained, would aAe a ocAery of cri inal procedure, since all that a party has to do to thwart the validity of the preli inary investigation is for their counsel not to attend the investigation& 8t ust be e phasi)ed that the preli inary investigation is not the venue for the full e(ercise of the rights of the parties& 7his is why preli inary investigation is not considered as a part of trial but erely preparatory thereto and that the records therein shall not for part of the records of the case in court& Parties ay sub it affidavits but have no right to e(a ine witnesses though they can propound <uestions through the investigating officer& 8n fact, a preli inary investigation ay even be conducted e=!parte in certain cases& 0oreover, in :ection 1 of 4ule 11#, the purpose of a preli inary investigation is only to deter ine a well grounded belief if a cri e was QprobablyQ co itted by an accused& 8n any case, the invalidity or absence of a preli inary investigation does not affect the 2urisdiction of the court which ay have taAen cogni)ance of the infor ation nor i pair the validity of the infor ation or otherwise render it defective& D'!IG8,*I78 7F 7FF'8!'& !'C. /& R:=' 110 PEOPLE v. PURISIMA (86 SCRA 542; 1978) Facts; Petitioners; 'ity Fiscal of 0anila, Provincial Fiscal of :a ar, and the :olicitor Deneral Public 4espondents; 'F8 of 0anila-branches 988 E R9888, 'F8 of :a ar • • Par& 6, P?W9 provides; $t is unlawful to carry outside of residence any &laded, pointed or &lunt weapon such as Efan

knife,? Fspear,? Fdagger,? F&olo,? F&alisong,? F&arong,? Fkris,? or clu&, e=cept where such articles are &eing used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood and while &eing used in connection therewith+ and any person found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 2 to (4 years as a Military <ourt>9ri&unal><ommission may direct • Petitioners-fiscals filed before the respective respondent courts several E separate infor ations for illegal possession of deadly weapon in violation of Par& 6 of P?W9& *For illustration, one of the si ilarly written infos& alleged; 7hatCaccused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and Anowingly carry outside of his residence a bladed and pointed weaponCthe sa e not being used as a necessary tool or i ple ent to earn his livelihood nor being used in connection therewith&, 4espondent courts, upon otions to <uash filed by the defense counsels, issued their respective orders <uashing the infor ations on co on ground that the said infor ations did not allege facts constituting an offense penali)ed under P?W9 for failure to state an essential ele ent of the cri e; that the carrying outside of the accusedLs residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organi)ed lawlessness or public disorder& 7hey said that P?W9 should be read in the conte(t of Proc&W1/-1 which seeAs to attain the aintenance of law and order throughout the Philippines and the prevention and suppression of all for s of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion& 7hey added that the noninclusion of the afore entioned ele ent of the offense leads to confusion as the sa e act punished as an offense under par& 6 of P?W9 is also the sub2ect of another penal statute and a 0anila city ordinance; :ec& #!, %ctW17-/; 8t should be unlawful for any person to carry concealed about his person any bowie Anife, dirA, dagger, Aris, or other deadly weapon; ( ( (& %ny person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction in a court of co petent 2urisdiction, be punished by a fine not e(ceeding P5//, or by i prison ent for a period not e(ceeding ! onths, or bothC OrdinanceW6-#/_penali)es with a fine not ore than P#// or i prison ent for not ore than one onth, or bothCanyone who shall carry concealed in his person in any anner that would disguise its deadly character any Aind of firear , bowie Anife, or other deadly weaponCin any public place& 7hus, the #! petitions for review assailing the respective orders of the respondent courts& 7he petitions, having si ilar issues, were consolidated by the :upre e 'ourt& 7he argu ent of the petitioners; 1& % perusal of par&6 of P?W9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to subversive activities; that the act proscribed is essentially a alu prohibitu penali)ed for reasons of public policy #& 7he 'ity Fiscal of 0anila adds that in statutory offenses the intention of the accused who co its the act is i aterial; it is enough if the prohibited act is voluntarily perpetuated and substance to constitute the offense



• •

8::>I; 5+" the infor ations filed are sufficient for penali)ed under P?W9

BI.?; "O& • 8t is a constitutional right of any person who stands charged in a cri inal prosecution to be infor ed of the nature and cause of accusation against hi &



:ec& 5 4ule 11/ of the 4ules of 'ourt e(pressly re<uires that for a co plaint or infor ation to be sufficient, it ust state the designation of the offense by the statute, and the acts or o issions co plained of as constituting the offense& 7his is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford hi the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly& 7his is especially in the case at bar where the acts being punished are covered by # penal statutes and a city ordinance& 7he right beco es ore co pelling for an accused to be confronted with the facts constituting the essential ele ents of the offense charged against hi , otherwise such act ay be ade to fall, at the discretion of a police officer or a prosecuting fiscal, under any of the 6 punitive laws and thus e(pose the accused to oppression and harass ent& 7he ele ents of the offense under par& 6, P?W9 are; 1, the carrying outside oneLs residence of any bladed, blunt or pointed weapon not used as a necessary tool or i ple ent for a livelihood; and #, that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, cri inality, chaos or public disorder& 8t is the second ele ent which re oves the act of carrying a deadly weapon, if concealed, outside of the scope of %ctW17-/ and OrdW6-#/& 7hus, a si ple act of carrying any of the weapons described under P?W9 is not a cri e in itself& 5hat aAes the act cri inal under the decree is the otivation behind it& 5ithout such otivation, the act falls under the %ct or the Ordinance& 'onse<uently, the infor ations filed by petitioner are fatally defective and <uashal is proper& 7he filing of the petitions were unnecessary because the petitioners could have availed itself of other re edies based on 4ule 117, :ec&7& *Iffect of sustaining the otion to <uash,; 4ule 11/, :ec&16 *% end ent of 8nfo or co plaint,; 1& 8f the evidence so warranted, the People could have filed an a ended info to include the second ele ent of the offense as defined in the disputed orders of respondents& 7he :' has previously ruled that if the facts alleged in the info do not constitute an offense, the case should not be dis issed but the prosecution should be given an opportunity to a end the info& #& 8f the facts so 2ustified, the petitioners could have filed a co plaint either under :ec& #! of %ctW17-/ or 0anila city ordinanceW6-#/, especially since the dis issal of the cases were ade prior to arraign ent of the accused and on a otion to <uash& >nder :ec& -, 4ule 117, an order sustaining the otion to <uash is not a bar to another prosecution for the sa e offense unless the otion was based on e(tinguish ent of cri inal liability or double 2eopardy& PI7878O": ?I"8I?&





9!& PIOP.I OF 7BI PB8.8PP8"I: vs& 4O?O.FO %48P%U% Marc5 1(& 2000 8ature: %uto atic review of the decision of the 47' of ?aet, 'a arines "orte Facts: #65 8n 3une 1995, 1#-year old 4osita Incinas was sleeping with her brothers and sister when her stepfather 4odolfo %ri)apa entered their roo and proceeded to rape her& 4osita reported the incident to her two aunts and the barangay captain& #6! %ri)apa was charged with the cri e of rape& Be was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the offense& #67 5hen %ripa)a ca e to testify in his defense during the trial, he readily ad itted having raped

his stepdaughter& %ripa)a said that he was ad itting the offense of his own volition& #6- On October -, 1997, the trial court found the %ripa)a guilty of the cri e of rape as defined in %rt& 665 of the 4P' in relation to :ec& 11 of 4% 7!59& Be was sentenced to the supre e penalty of death& #69 8n this auto atic review before the :upre e 'ourt, %ripa)a contends that the trial court erred in convicting hi of rape as it failed to conduct, before accepting his plea of guilty, a searching in<uiry into the voluntariness of his plea and his full co prehension of the conse<uences thereof as andated by :ec& 6, 4ule 11! of the 19-5 4ules on 'ri inal Procedure& Sec !"# $ % P&e'( ") *+!& , " c'-! '& "))e#(e; .ece- !"# ") ev!/e#ce. – -hen the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching in*uiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the conse*uences of his plea and re*uire the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpa&ility. 9he accused may also present evidence in his &ehalf. Issue: 5O" the conviction of %ripa)a i providently ade ay be set aside on the ground that his plea of guilty was

?eld: "O, because the plea of guilt was ade after the court had already e(tensively received evidence which sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused& Ratio: #$/ 7he rationale behind :ec& 6 4ule 11! is that courts ust proceed with caution where the possible punish ent is in its severest for , because the e(ecution of such a sentence is irrevocable and e(perience has shown that innocent persons have at ti es pleaded guilty& 7he purpose is to avoid i provident pleas of guilt when grave cri es are involved since the accused ight be ad itting his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the eaning, significance and conse<uences of his plea& #$1 8n the present case, the record indeed shows that the lower court failed to fully co ply with the re<uire ents of :ec& 6, 4ule 11!& 7here was no searching in<uiry& 7he only <uestion asAed of %ripa)a was this; F%re you ad itting the offense charged against you of your own volitionSG

#$#8t

ust be noted however that the plea of guilty in this case was ade %F7I4 the prosecution had already rested its case, i.e. after all the evidence for the prosecution had been presented& 7he testi onies of the victi , the victi Ls aunts and the edical e(a iner were heard by the court& :ince the trial court e(tensively received evidence in deter ining the guilt of %ripa)a, the anner in which the plea of guilty was ade loses its significance because %ripa)a was convicted based on the evidence proving his co ission of the offense charged and "O7 on his ad ission in open court& Bis conviction ay only be set aside when the i provident plea of guilty was the sole basis for the conde natory 2udg ent&

ecision affirmed with modification. *0odification refers only to the grant of P75,/// as civil inde nity, in addition to the award of oral and e(e plary da ages in the trial court, .0.P'7P=' 7F *?' P?I=IPPI8'! vs. 'FR'8 @,M)I'8 May -1& 2000 8ature: %uto atic review of the decision of the 47' of 'agayan de Oro 'ity

Facts: #$6 3a 1& #& 6&

bien was charged with three counts of rape co itted against his inor daughter I ie& 'ri & 'ase "o& 9--/! @ incident occurred so eti e in %pril 1997 'ri & 'ase "o& 9--/7 @ incident occurred so eti e in ?ece ber 1995 'ri & 'ase "o& 9--/! @ incident occurred so eti e in October 19-!

I ie said that her father had been raping her 6-$ ti es a weeA since she was 11 years old& 7he se(ual assaults only stopped when she learned that she was pregnant and was brought to the ?:5? for counseling and assistance in the delivery of the baby& #$$ ?uring the arraign ent, 3a bien pled guilty to 'ri & 'ases "o& 9--/! and "o& 9--/7& Be entered a not guilty plea in the other 'ri & 'ase& ?espite his plea of guilt in the first two cases, the trial court re<uired the prosecution to present its evidence& 7hus, I ie testified before the 'ourt& 7he accused did not present any evidence& #$5 On Feb& 1!, 199-, the trial court found 3a bien guilty of two counts of rape *9--/! and 9-/7,& 7wo death penalties were i posed as his sentence& 7he trial of the third case was held in abeyance& #$! 8n this auto atic review, 3a bien contends that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty without conducting a searching in<uiry to deter ine whether he fully understood the conse<uences of his plea& Be argued that the nu ber and character of the <uestions propounded to hi , after he entered his plea, were too sparse as to <ualify as searching in<uiry& Issue: 5O" 3a bienLs plea of guilty was i providently ade

?eld: "O, because the procedure in :ec& 6, 4ule 11! was followed by the trial court Ratio: #$7:ec&6, 4ule 11! of the 4ules of 'ourt provides the procedure that the trial court should follow when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense& 8t is andatory& 8t re<uires the 2udge to do the following; 1& to conduct a searching in<uiry into the voluntariness and full co prehension of the conse<uences of the accusedLs plea; #& to re<uire the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of the culpability; 6& to in<uire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow hi to do so if he so desires&

#$-8n the case at bar, the trial court was not re iss in its duty to conduct a searching in<uiry&
7he 'ourt <ueried 3a bien if his pleas were not influenced fro outside, and he said that they were not, he having not been coerced to do so& Be was again asAed by the 'ourt if he understood his pleas and again, he said yes& 5hen he was asAed about the i posable penalty, he said, it is death& 5hen asAed further, he answered that he is ready to die even now& (/.9G, Please refer to the case in the original for a detailed account of the *uestions asked to the accused.' #$9 3a bien was neither coerced nor inti idated in entering his plea of guilty& :ignificantly, he even pled not guilty to the third charge on the prete(t that he was not present at the scene during that ti e& 7his shows the voluntariness of his plea and that it was based on a free and infor ed 2udg ent& Be understood the conse<uences of his plea and was aware that he will be eted the death penalty&

#5/ Iven without considering the plea of guilty of the accused, he ay still be convicted if there is ade<uate evidence on record on which to predicate his conviction& 8n the present case, there is overwhel ing evidence that established the guilt of the accused& 7he testi ony of I ie is clear and convincing& 8t contains horrid details of her deflower ent and the fre<uent se(ual assaults by her father& 7here is no reason to disbelieve her testi ony&

#51People vs. 9ahop; Iven if the accusedLs plea was i providently

ade, if the evidence presented thereafter by the prosecution is sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the courtLs verdict of guilt based solely on hard evidence can be sustained& %t this point then, the i providence of the plea of guilt is irrelevant&

ecision affirmed with modification. *7he 'ourt ordered the pay ent of P75,/// as civil inde nity for each rape, in addition to the P5/,/// oral da ages awarded in the trial court, "O7I; 8n the %ripa)a case, the plea of guilty was ade %F7I4 the prosecution had already presented its evidence& 8n the 3a bien case, the plea of guilty was ade during the arraign ent, but the prosecution was still re<uired to present evidence pursuant to :ec& 6, 4ule 11! of the 4ules of 'ourt& 8n both cases, the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused& Bence, the plea of guilty loses its significance, whether it was i providently ade *%ripa)a, or not *3a bien,&

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close