Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Remedial Law Case Digests 2
Remedial Law Case Digests 2
Remedial Law Case Digests 2
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING :
Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.--The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government,
the investigation of such cases;
(3) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and
control and upon authority of the Ombudsman, have the following
powers:
(2) The jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated
with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of
RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of
the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision
and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman.[3] Its power to
conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal
cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the
lawmakers did not intend to confine the investigatory and prosecutory
power of the Ombudsman to these types of cases.
Mary Ong alleges that she was a former undercover agent of the
Presidential AntiOrganized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Narcotics Group Jan. 8, 2001.
She filed before the OMB a complaint against PNP General Panfilo M.
Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray B. Aquino, other high-ranking officials of the
PNP, and several private individuals.
1. Kidnapping for ransom of Zeng Jia Xuan, Hong Zhen Quiao, Zeng Kang
Pang, James Wong and Wong Kam Chong;
3. Kidnapping for ransom and murder of Chong Hiu Ming May 7, 2001.
On May 28, 2001,the DOJ denied the dismissal Lacson and Aquino filed
in the RTC a motion for prohibition, insisting the DOJ does not have
jurisdiction .Judge Liwag issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the
DOJ from conducting a preliminary investigation DOJ et., al, hereby appealed
to the SC
ISSUE:/RULING:
W.O.N. the DOJ can concurrently investigate a case wherein the OMB
has an existing complaint before it.
vs.
FACTS:
An information for murder was filed against several members of the Scintilla
Juris fraternity and separate informations were also filed against them for the
attempted and frustrated murder of Sigma Rho fraternity members.
RTC found Alvir, Feliciano Jr., Soliva, Medalla and Zingapan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder. Others were acquitted. The
case against Guerrero was ordered archived by the court until his
apprehension. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
ISSUES:
FIRST ISSUE:
No.
The Court held that an information is sufficient when the accused is fully
apprised of the charge against him to enable him to prepare his defense. The
argument of appellants that the information filed against them violates their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them holds no water. The Court found no merit on the appellants’
arguments that the prosecution should not have included the phrase “wearing
masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the information since they were
presenting testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or
that their masks fell off.
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused were
not wearing masks is also not violative of their right to be informed of their
offenses.
The information charges conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy
presupposes that “the act of one is the act of all.” This would mean all the
accused had been one in their plan to conceal their identity even if there was
evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have done so.
SECOND ISSUE:
Yes.
The Court held that the accused were sufficiently identified by the
witnesses for the prosecution. It was held that the trial court, in weighing all
the evidence on hand, found the testimonies of the witnesses for the
prosecution to be credible. Slight inconsistencies in their statements were
immaterial considering the swiftness of the incident.
Evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible but have little
persuasive value in this case
When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who
witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the
former become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred. Their
account of the incident, therefore, must be given considerably less weight than
that of the victims.
The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and
baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was with their arms. In
a situation where they were unarmed and outnumbered, it would be impossible
for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less
than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being
able to help them until after the incident.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for
the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was
present in this case.
TOPIC : Information and aggravating circumstances
FACTS:
On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two
counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants,
together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murder case
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-0258 while the two frustrated murder
cases were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 98-0260 and No. 98-0270. The
accusatory portions of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 98-0258
For: Murder
That on or about 11:10 o'clock in the evening, more or less, on the
29th day of August, 1997, at Purok 7, Barangay San Vicente, Santa Elena,
Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating, and helping each
other to attain a common purpose, with treachery, evident premeditation and
abuse of superior strength, while armed with firearms, assault, attack, and use
personal violence upon one JOSITA FERNANDEZ-NOVELO, by then and there
shooting the said victim on her face causing upon the latter serious and mortal
wounds which were the direct and proximate cause of the death of the victim to
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.
That on or about 11:10 in the evening of the 29th day of August, 1997, at Purok
7, Barangay San Vicente, Santa Elena, Camarines Norte, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each other to attain a common
purpose, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent
to kill, while armed with firearms and knife, and with treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, attack, assault, and use
personal violence upon one ANTONIO BEA, by then and there, poking a firearm
at said private offended party, tying his hands with a rope and thereafter,
stabbing said victim on different parts of his body, thus causing upon the latter
serious and mortal wounds capable of causing death, hence, performing all the
acts of execution which could have produced the crime of murder as a
consequence, but nonetheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of their (accused) will, that is, by the timely and able medical
assistance rendered to said victim which prevented his death, to the damage
and prejudice of herein private complainant.
That on or about 11:10 o'clock in the evening of August 29, 1997 at the
fishpond at Purok 7, Barangay San Vicente, municipality of Santa Elena,
province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another with intent to kill with treachery and evident
premeditation and while armed with long firearms and 12 gauge shot gun, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, kick and
strike one ANTONIO NOVELO with a shotgun, hitting him on the different parts
of his body and then shot one said Antonio Novelo but missed, which ordinarily
would cause the death of Antonio Novelo thus performing all the acts of
execution which should have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence,
but nonetheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of their
will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Antonio
Novelo, which prevented his death, to his damage and prejudice.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery, generic aggravating
circumstance of dwelling and nighttime should be appreciated in the cases.
RULING:
The RTC is correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery in
the killing of Josita Novelo and in the stabbing of Antonio Bea.
Also affirmed is the ruling of the RTC appreciating the presence of the generic
aggravating circumstance of dwelling in Criminal Case No. 98-0258. Evidence
shows that Josita Novelo was killed in her own house. When the crime is
committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given
provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
Here, the crime was committed inside the house of the deceased victim.
Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him
or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.