Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crimpro Week 8
Crimpro Week 8
Crimpro Week 8
In the case at bar, Sandiganbayan dismissed the Essentially, the petitioner theorized that the
Yes, the letters transmitted were not intended to be
characterization of possession is different in the two
case against respondent for insufficiency of evidence, the complaint but merely transmitted for preliminary
offenses. If petitioner acquired the loan as DOSRI, he
even without giving the prosecution the opportunity to investigation. The affidavits and not the letter
owned the loaned money and therefore, cannot
present its evidence. In so doing, it violated the transmitting them initiated the preliminary
misappropriate or convert it as contemplated in the
prosecution’s right to due process. It deprived the investigation and therefore is the complaint which
offense of estafa. Conversely, if petitioner committed
prosecution of its opportunity to prosecute its case substantially complied with the manadory
estafa, then he merely held the money in trust for
and to prove the accused’s culpability. requirements of law.
someone else and therefore, did not acquire a loan in
violation of DOSRI rules.
It was therefore erroneous for the Sandiganbayan to No. The proper procedure in such a case is for the
dismiss the case under the premises. Not only did it accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice
on his part to present special defenses he had
not consider the ground invoked by respondent The trial court denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash for invoked in his motion to quash and if after trial on the
Dumlao; it even dismissed the case on a ground not lack of merit. The MR was denied as well.
merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal found the RTC to have gravely abused its discretion holds true with respect to the Order, which reinstated
therefrom in the manner authorized by law. in ordering the reinstatement of the case. The CA the case. The RTC judge failed to make a separate
annulled the impugned RTC Orders, ruling that all the evaluation and merely awaited the resolution of the
elements of double jeopardy exist. There was a valid DOJ Secretary.
CEREZO V PEOPLE (DOUBLE JEO)
Information sufficient in form and substance filed By relying solely on the manifestation of the public
before a court of competent jurisdiction to which prosecutor and the resolution of the DOJ Secretary,
respondents had pleaded, and that the termination of the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused
Facts: the case was not expressly consented to by to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The said
Petitioner Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for libel respondents; hence, the same could not be revived or Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of
against respondents Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, refiled without transgressing respondents right against discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due
Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia (respondents), as well as double jeopardy. The CA further found that the DOJ process. They were void, had no legal standing, and
Oscar Mapalo (Mapalo). Finding probable cause to Secretary improperly took cognizance of the Petition produced no effect whatsoever.
indict respondents, the Quezon City Prosecutors for Review because DOJ Department Order No. 223
Office (OP-QC) filed the corresponding Information mandates that no appeal shall be entertained if the
against them before the RTC. Respondents thereafter The Court remanded the case to the RTC, so that the
accused has already been arraigned or, if the
filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to latter can rule on the merits of the case to determine if
arraignment took place during the pendency of the
Re-evaluate Prosecutions Evidence before the OP- a prima facie case exists and consequently resolve
appeal, the same shall be dismissed.
QC. In its resolution, the OP-QC reversed its earlier the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw
finding and recommended the withdrawal of the Information anew.
Information. Consequently, a Motion to Dismiss and Petitioner interposed the instant appeal when his The Court also held that double jeopardy did not set
Withdraw Information was filed before the RTC on motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision was in. Double jeopardy exists when the following
December 3, 2003. During the intervening period, denied. requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached
specifically on November 24, 2003, respondents were prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been
arraigned. All of them entered a not guilty plea. In validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for
Issue:
deference to the prosecutor’s last resolution, the RTC the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy
Whether there was a valid termination of the case so
ordered the criminal case dismissed in its Order. attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a
as to usher in the impregnable wall of double
competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a
jeopardy.
valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Ruling:
accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the
said Order, arguing that the OP-QC resolution has not The Court held that in resolving a motion to dismiss a
case dismissed or otherwise terminated without
yet attained finality, considering that the same was case or to withdraw an Information, the trial court
his express consent.
the subject of a Petition for Review filed before the should not rely solely and merely on the findings of
Since the Court have held Order granting the motion
Department of Justice (DOJ). The RTC deferred the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is
to dismiss was committed with grave abuse of
action on the said motion to await the resolution of the the courts bounden duty to assess independently the
discretion, then respondents were not acquitted nor
DOJ. The Secretary of Justice promulgated his merits of the motion, and this assessment must be
was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of
resolution reversing and setting aside the OP-QCs embodied in a written order disposing of the
the case. The fifth requisite which requires the
resolution, and directing the latter to refile the earlier motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor
conviction and acquittal of the accused, or the
Information for libel. The RTC issued its first assailed or the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive,
dismissal of the case without the approval of the
Order granting petitioners motion for reconsideration, it is not binding on courts.
accused, was not met. Thus, double jeopardy has not
conformably with the resolution of the DOJ Secretary The Court noticed that it is obvious from the Order of
set in. The petition was granted and the Supreme
and setting aside its last Order granting the dismissal the RTC, dismissing the criminal case, that the RTC
Court remanded the case to QC-RTC for evaluation
of the case against the respondents and order the judge failed to make his own determination of whether
on whether probable cause exists to hold respondents
reinstatement of the case. or not there was a prima facie case to hold
for trial.
respondents for trial. He failed to make an
independent evaluation or assessment of the merits
Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the of the case. The RTC judge blindly relied on the
motion was denied in the RTC. manifestation and recommendation of the prosecutor
CO V NEW PROSPERITY
when he should have been more circumspect and
The respondents elevated their predicament to the judicious in resolving the Motion to Dismiss and
CA arguing that the RTC Orders violated their Withdraw Information especially so when the Facts:
constitutional right against double jeopardy. The CA prosecution appeared to be uncertain, undecided, and
irresolute on whether to indict respondents. The same
● Respondent New Prosperity Plastic Products, prosecution and the accused move for a provisional from the date of receipt of the order of provisional
represented by Elizabeth Uy, filed a complaint for dismissal of the case dismissal by Uy. Disposition: Petition is denied and
violation of B. P. 22 against petitioner William Co. resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
● Also, the contention that both the filing of the When arraigned, all the accused-appellants entered a
● Essential requisites of the first paragraph of Sec motion to revive the case and the court order reviving plea of not guilty except accused Antonio. Thus, the
18, Rule 117 of the ROC, which are conditions sine it must be made prior to the expiration of the one-year RTC ordered a reverse trial in so far as Antonio is
qua non to the application of the time-bar in the period is not found in the Rules. concerned.
second paragraph thereof are :
The RTC did not find the accused guilty of the crime
● Further, the fact that year 2004 was a leap year is
1) The prosecution with the express conformity of the of robbery with homicide as charged in the
inconsequential to determine the timeliness of Uy’s
accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin Information, but found all the accused guilty of the
motion to revive the criminal cases. Even if the Court
perjuicio) dismissal of the case or both the crime of murder. According to the RTC, contrary to
will consider that 2004 is a leap year and that the one-
the charge of robbery with homicide, the accused is
year period to revive the case should be reckoned
guilty of the crime of murder because the prosecution indicators which disprove a plea of self- from which no appeal can be had. Indeed
failed to establish the crime of robbery. The RTC, defense. A perusal of the evidence would the conviction for murder was premised on
citing People v. Nimo,23 ratiocinated that in order to depict the presence of a deliberate the fact that robbery was not proven. The
sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, onslaught against Emilio. The means used RTC Decision which found accused guilty
robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing by accused-appellants as shown by the of the crime of murder and not of robbery
itself. nature, location and number of wounds with homicide on the ground of insufficiency
sustained by Emilio are so much more than of evidence is a judgment of acquittal as to
sufficient to repel or prevent any alleged the crime of robbery alone.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals affirmed with
attack of Emilio against accused-appellant
modifications the ruling of the RTC and found all of
Antonio. Evidently, the accused-appellants’ As the first jeopardy already attached, the
the accused guilty of the crime of murder. However,
intent to kill was clearly established by the appellate court is precluded from ruling on
contrary to the findings of the RTC with regard to the
nature and number of wounds sustained by the innocence or guilt of Danilo of the crime
crime of robbery, the Court of Appeals reversed the
Emilio. The wounds sustained by Emilio of robbery. To once again rule on the
ruling of the RTC and found accused Danilo guilty of
indubitably reveal that the assault was no innocence or guilt of the accused of the
the separate crime of robbery.
longer an act of self-defense but a same crime transgresses the Constitutional
homicidal aggression on the part of prohibition not to put any person "twice x xx
ISSUE/S of the CASE accused-appellants. in jeopardy of punishment for the same
1. Whether or not the accused appellant can offense."26 As it stands, the acquittal on the
be convicted for crime of murder which is crime of robbery based on lack of sufficient
different from the crime filed in the 2. We find that the appellate court erred for evidence is immediately final and cannot be
information which is robbery with Homicide. violating the constitutional right of Danilo appealed on the ground of double
–Yes against double jeopardy as enshrined in jeopardy.27 A judgment of acquittal is final
Section 21, Article III of the 1987 and unappealable. In fact, the Court cannot,
2. Whether or not theaccused appellant Danilo Constitution, to wit: even an appeal based on an alleged
De Leon was placed in double jeopardy misappreciation of evidence, review the
when the appellate court also found him Section 21. No person shall be twice put in verdict of acquittal of the trial court28 due to
guilty of robbery based on the same jeopardy of punishment for the same the constitutional proscription, the purpose
information filed where he was already offense.1âwphi1 If an act is punished by a of which is to afford the defendant, who has
found guilty of murder. –Yes law and an ordinance, conviction or been acquitted, final repose and safeguard
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar from government oppression through the
to another prosecution for the same act.24 abuse of criminal processes.29 The crime
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS of robbery was not proven during the trial.
Double jeopardy attaches if the following As we discussed, the acquittal of the
1. With regard to the crime charged, accused- elements are present: (1) a valid complaint accused-appellant, including Danilo, is not
appellants are guilty of the crime of Murder or information; (2) a court of competent reversible.
instead of Robbery with Homicide. As borne jurisdiction; (3) the defendant had pleaded
by the records, the only intent of the to the charge; and (4) the defendant was
accused-appellants was to kill Emilio. The acquitted, or convicted or the case against PRE TRIAL
"accused-appellants had an axe to grind him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
against Emilio x xx. The means used by the without his express consent.25 Estipona vs Lobrigo
accused-appellants as well as the nature
and number of wounds - debilitating, fatal In case at bar, it is undisputed the presence FACTS:
and multiple – inflicted by appellants on the of all the elements of double jeopardy: (1) a
deceased manifestly revealed their design valid Information for robbery with homicide Estipona was charged with an offense under RA
to kill him. The robbery committed by was filed; (2) the Information was filed in 9165. He wants to enter into a plea bargaining
appellant Danilo [was on] the spur of the the court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the agreement but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to do
moment or [was] a mere afterthought." accused pleaded not guilty to the charge; so because Section 23 specifically prohibits plea
and (4) the RTC acquitted Danilo for the bargaining in drugs cases. Estipona argues that
As we already held, the nature and location crime of robbery for lack of sufficient Section 23 is unconstitutional.
of wounds are considered important evidence, which amounted to an acquittal
Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure right. Instead, it operates as a means to implement TRIAL
an existing right by regulating the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive Salvanera vs People, 523 SCRA 147
Fabian v. Hon. Desierto laid down the test for
law and for justly administering remedy and redress
determining whether a rule is substantive or
for a disregard or infraction of them. FACTS
procedural in nature.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in granting Tan’s
Demurrer to Evidence.
Held:
No.
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as
the one at bar, is “filed after the prosecution had
rested its case,” and when the same is granted, it
calls “for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant
conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a
dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an
acquittal of the accused.” Such dismissal of a
criminal case by the grant of demurrer to
evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would
be to place the accused in double jeopardy. The