CASE TITLE FACTS
Arañes v. Judge Occiano Judge Occiano is a presiding judge in Balatan
Cam Sur. He solemnized Aranez’ marriage in
Nabua Cam Sur.
People v. Marlene In separate information’s filed
Olermo b e f o r e t h e R T C o f Valenzuela, Marlene
Olermo was accused of crimes, one of which
was illegal recruit ment in large scale.
O lermo contends that the RTC of
Valenzuela has no jurisdiction since the
complainant's affidavit provides that he first met
Olermo in QC and that it was only
d u r i n g t r i a l t h a t complainant said that
he actually first met Olermo in Valenzuela
city
Purita Lim v. Judge Purita Lim filed 2 criminal cases with the RTC
Dumlao Santiago City, Isabela, Branch 35, against
Herman Medina. Medina was detained by
virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by Presiding
Judge Fe Madrid of Branch 35. Judge Dumlao
of the MTC of San Mateo Isabela issued 3
separate orders for the release of Medina on
the ground that he posted bail with his court
Rasmia Tabao v. Judge Tabao is the private complainant in a criminal
Barataman case involving abandonment of minor. Tabao
alleges that Barataman issued an Order
granting the motion for bail on recognizance
filed by the father of the accused Samsodin
Tabao.
Talag v. Judge Reyes This is an administrative complaint filed against
Judge Amor A. Reyes of the Regional Trial
Court, Manila for partiality, grave abuse of
authority and oppression in connection with
entitled “People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo
Talag.” Wherein Talag was charge for violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and Estafa
occasioned by the dishonor of four checks.
ISSUE
WON Judge Occiano acted
within his court’s Jurisdiction
when he solemnized the
marriage of Aranez in Nabua.
Does the RTC of Valenzula have
jurisdiction?
WON an MTC Judge has the
authority to grant bail to an
accused arrested outside his
territorial jurisdiction
WON Baratman is liable for
gross ignorance of the law?
Whether or not respondent
judge show partiality, grave
abuse of authority and
oppression?
RULING
No, he acted outside his court’s jurisdiction
w h e n h e solemnized the marriage of Aranez in Nabua.
The court held that “the territorial jurisdiction of
respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan,
Camarines Sur.
Yes. In the case at bar, the prosecution proved that
the element of offering, promising and advertising
overseas employment took place in Olermo's office in
Valenzuela. In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be
tried in the territory wherein the offense was committed or
any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.
No. An MTC Judge has no authority to grant bail to an
accused arrested outside his territorial jurisdiction. The
warrant of arrest was issued by the presiding judge of RTC
Branch 35 of Santiago City Isabela.
The order of release on account of posting bail should have
been issued by that court or in the absence or unavailability
of Judge Madrid, by another branch of RTC in Santiago City.
YES. Barataman does not deny that the accused in Criminal
Case was at large when the motion for bail on recognizance
was filed and subsequently granted. It is a basic principle that
bail is intended to obtain provisional liberty and cannot be
granted before custody of an accused has been acquired by
the judicial authorities by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
It is self-evident that a court cannot grant provisional liberty to
one who is actually in the enjoyment of his liberty for it would
be incongruous to give freedom to one who is free.
In the case at bar, Barataman was fully cognizant that the
court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused who was still at large and yet he entertained and
granted his motion for bail. He violated a tenet in criminal
procedure which is too basic as to constitute gross ignorance
of the law, thus he is subject for disciplinary action.
The Court Administrator find that the charges filed against
respondent are baseless.
When complainant filed the omnibus motion on May 7, 2002,
the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over his person.
With the filing of Information, the trial court could then issue a
warrant for the arrest of the accused as provided for by
Section 6 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal

On May 12, 2003, complainant filed a verified
complaint before the Office of the Court
Administrator charging respondent Judge with
partiality, grave abuse of authority and
oppression allegedly committed. That the
Information was filed on May 7, 2002 while the
warrant of arrest was issued May 23,
2003despite complainant’s pending omnibus
motion to defer issuance of warrant of arrest.
Also, when the matter was elevated to the
Court of Appeals and a temporary restraining
order was issued, respondent seemed to have
waited for the TRO to expire and for the
dismissal of complainant’s petition before the
Court of Appeals because she did not resolve
the motion for inhibition, and she immediately
issued a warrant of arrest against him after said
petition was dismissed. And Respondent had a
predisposition to deny the motions filed by
complainant since, although she was in haste
in issuing the warrant of arrest, she
nonetheless dilly-dallied in resolving the
motions filed by complainant
De Joya v. Judge This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition
Marquez seeking the nullification and setting aside of the
warrant of arrest issued by Respondent Judge
against petitioner in a criminal case for
syndicated estafa. Petitioner and his co-
accused were among the incorporators and
directors of State Resources Development
Management Corporation. The documents
found in the records and examined by
respondent judge tend to show that Hao, one of
the accused, induced the private complainant
Dy to invest more than P1M in the said
corporation; issued several checks purportedly
representing the return of Dys investments,
which checks were however dishonored for
being drawn against insufficient funds; and that
the accused all knew of the corporations
activities and transactions. Petitioner asserts
that respondent judge erred in finding the
existence of probable cause that justifies the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against him and
his co-accused
Whether probable cause exists
to justify the issuance of the
warrant of arrest
Procedure. The issuance of the warrant was not only
procedurally sound but it was even required considering that
respondent had yet to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
complainant. Consequently, complainant’s charge that
respondent Judge failed to act on the omnibus motion before
issuing the arrest warrant is untenable. Whether respondent
correctly disregarded the omnibus motion in view of the
alleged fatal defects is a judicial matter, which is not a proper
subject in an administrative proceeding. It bears noting that
respondent court immediately deferred the execution of the
warrant of arrest upon issuance by the Court of Appeals of
the TRO.
Neither can we ascribe partiality nor grave abuse of authority
on the part of respondent for issuing anew an alias warrant
after the expiration of the Court of Appeals’ 60-day TRO. With
the lifting of the restraining order, no legal obstacle was left
for the issuance of the arrest warrant and thus set in motion
the delayed prosecutorial process by acquiring jurisdiction
over the person of the accused.
YES. The documents submitted by the prosecution for the
issuance of the warrant of arrest sufficiently establish the
existence of probable cause as required under Section 6,
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. It
bears remembering that in determining probable cause, the
average man weighs facts and circumstances without
resorting to the calibrations of our technical rules of evidence
of which his knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on the
calculus of common sense of which all reasonable men have
an abundance. Thus, the standard used for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for
establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence
presented shows a prima facie case against the accused, the
trial court judge has sufficient ground to issue a warrant of
arrest against him. It should be emphasized that before
issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine
personally the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an
accused.