Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal

Jurisdiction There being no showing that the offense was

committed within Makati, the RTC of that city has no
jurisdiction over the case.
Trenas v. People, 664 SCRA 355
FACTS:
The petition is granted. The resolution by the CA are
● Private respondent Elizabeth was the niece of
set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the
Margarita who wanted to a buy a house and lot in
part of the RTC. Criminal case is dismissed without
Iloilo city.
prejudice and referred to the IBP Board of governors.
● They mortgaged a property at Maybank. Appellant
Atty. Hector Trenas assisted them with the transfer of
title
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298
● Elizabeth paid 150k to Trenas and was given fake
FACTS:
receipts upon checking with the BIR.
● 11 persons believed to be members of the Kuratong
● Elizabeth demanded the return of the money and
Baleleng Gang, reportedly an organized crime
trenas issues checks that were dishonored by PCI
syndicate, were slain in Quezon city by elements of
Bank Makati because the account was closed.
the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group
● Estafa was filed against appellant before the RTC of
of the PNP. ABRITG was composed of police officers
Makati City
from Traffic Management Command, Presidential
● Trenas was not able to attend the pre-trial and trial of
Anti Crime Commission (headed by Panfilo Lacson),
the case because he lives in Iloilo City and due to old
Central Police District Comman and the Criminial
age and poor health.
Investigation Command.
● RTC found the petitioner guilty of the crime of estafa.
● A media expose of SPO2 Delos Reyes, a member of
● Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by
the CIC, revealed that what actually transpired was a
the RTC.
summary execution and not a shootout.
● Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The CA affirmed
● Ombudsman initially absolved the PNP of criminal
the decision of the RTC
liability and said it was a legitimate police operation
● Petitioner filed a motion fo extension of time to file
● Review board by Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa
petition for review on certiorari. The court granted 15
modified the finding and recommended the
days.
indictment for multiple murder against 26
respondents.
ISSUES:
● Petitioners were charged with murder before the
1. WON the CA erred in ruling that an accused has to
Sandiganbayan’s Second Division.
present evidence in support of the defense of lack of
● Upon motion for reconsideration, the accused
jurisdiction even if such lack of jurisdiction appears in
questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
the evidence of the prosecution
asserting that under the amended informations, the
cases fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant
HELD:
to Sec 2 par. A and C of R.A. No. 7975.
1. YES. In criminal cases, the venue is jurisdictional.
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
ISSUE:
Procedure of 2000 provides that subject to existing
WON the Regional Trial Court and not the
laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the multiple murder
in the court of the municipality or territory where the
case against the petitioners
offense was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients occurred”. This fundamental principle is
HELD:
to ensure that the defendant is not compelled to
YES. The multiple murder charge against petitioner and
move to, and appear in, a different court from that of
intervenors falls under Sec 4 par. B of R.A. 8249. Sec 4
the province where the crime was committed as it
requires that the offense charged must be committed by the
would cause him great inconvenience in looking for
offender in relation to his office in order for the
his witnesses and other evidence in another place.
Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over it.
This principle echoes more strongly in this case,
where, due to distance constraints, coupled with his
Sec. 9 Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court Mandates:
advanced age and failing health, petitioner was
Sec. 9 Course of accusation — The acts or omissions
unable to present his defense in the charges against
complied of as constituting the offense must be stated in
him.
ordinary and concise language without repetition not
necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense,
but in such from as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is intended to
be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment. (Emphasis supplied)
We find the amended information for murder against herein
petitioner and intervenors wanting specific factual averments
to show the intimate relation/connection between the offense
charged and the discharge of official function of the
offenders.
There is no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the
victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to
the discharge of their official duties as police officers.
Likewise, the amended information does not indicate the said
accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed
the latter while in their custody.
We believe that the mere allegation in the amended
information that the offense was committed by the accused
public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That
phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment
that would show the close intimacy between the offense
charged and the discharge of the accused's official duties.
Consequently, for failure to show in the amended
informations that the charge of murder was intimately
connected with the discharge of official functions of the
accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject
criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, not
the Sandiganbayan.
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442
FACTS:
● The accused allegedly issued a check for payment
of goods or merchandise knowing she did not have
sufficient funds to cover the check so it bounced.
● The crime was committed in April 1975.The penalty
under Art. 315 of the RPC was arresto mayor in max
period to prison correccional in minimum period
which fell within jurisdiction of the city court of roxas
● In July 7 1976 a criminal information for the crime of
estafa was filed with the City Court of Roxas City.At
the time of the institution of criminal prosecution, the
penalty imposable for the offense has been
increased by PD No. 818 to prison mayor in its
medium period..
● On December 2 1976 the Court dismissed the
information on the ground that the penalty prescribed
for the charged offense was beyond the court’s
authority to impose.
ISSUE:
WON City Court of Roxas had erred in dismissing the
case because it did not have jurisdiction
HELD:
NO. It is firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter
jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly
measured by the law in effect at the time of the
commencement of a criminal action, rather than by the law in
effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged.
Thus, in accordance with the above rule, jurisdiction over the
instant case pertained to the then Court of First Instance of
Roxas City considering that P.D. No. 818 had increased the
imposable penalty for the offense charged in Criminal Case
No. 7362 to a level-in excess of the minimum penalty which a
city court could impose.
The subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined
by the authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable
under the applicable statute given the allegations of a
criminal information.
Should the criminal information be refiled in the proper court,
that is, the proper Regional Trial Court, that court may not
impose that more onerous penalty upon private respondent
Libertad Lagon (assuming the evidence shows that the
offense was committed before 22 October 1975). But the
Regional Trial Court would remain vested with subject-matter
jurisdiction to try and decide the (refiled) case even though
the penalty properly imposable, given the date of the
commission of the offense charged, should be the lower
penalty originally provided for in paragraph 2(d) of Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code which is otherwise within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City. In other
words, the circumstance that P.D. No. 818 would be
inapplicable to the refiled case would not result in the
Regional Trial Court losing subject-matter jurisdiction, nor in
the case falling back into the City Court's exclusive
jurisdiction.
Asistio v. People, G.R. No. 200465, (20 April 2015)
FACTS:
● Petitioner Assistio was charged with violation of Sec.
46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (R.A.
6938) for being the Chairperson and Managing
Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers
Multi Purpose cooperative and having complete
control to manage the entire business of the
cooperative entered into a contract with Coca Cola
Products. The sale of which went into her pockets
instead of the cooperative.
 ● Criminal charges were filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Manila.
● Asistio argues the RTC had no jurisdiction as the
crime charged does not carry with it a sanction for
which she can be held criminally liable.
● RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
● CA set aside the decision and remanded the case to
the RTC.
ISSUE:
1. WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal case
for violation of Sec. 46 of RA 6938
2. WON the dismissal of the charge against petitioner
on demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal
hence final and unappealable
3. WON the remand of the case to the RTC violated her
right against double jeopardy
HELD:
1. YES. In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the
court is determined by the averments of the
complaint or Information, in relation to the law
prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint
or Information, and the penalty provided by law
for the crime charged at the time of its
commission.
Offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding
six years, irrespective of the amount of fine, fall under
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, in
accordance with Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129.
or misprints which, if uncorrected, would render the
statute meaningless, empty or nonsensical or would
defeat or impair its intended operation, so long as the
meaning intended is apparent on the face of the
whole enactment and no specific provision is
abrogated.
Conciliation or mediation is not a pre-requisite to the
filing of a criminal case for violation of RA 6938
against petitioner, because such case is not an intra-
cooperative dispute.
2. NO. The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and
dismissed the case not for insufficiency of evidence,
but for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Notably, the RTC did not decide the case on the
merits, let alone resolve the issue of petitioner's guilt
or innocence based on the evidence proffered by the
prosecution. This being the case, the October 14,
2008 RTC Order of dismissal does not operate as an
acquittal, hence, may still be subject to ordinary
appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
3. NO. Double jeopardy does not attach. The requisites
that must be present for double jeopardy to attach
are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of
competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded
to the charge; and (d) the accused has been
convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or
terminated without the express consent of the
accused.

The Court sustains the OSG's contention. the OSG Definitely, there is no double jeopardy in this case as
maintains that the RTC has jurisdiction over the dismissal was with the accused-appellee's
petitioner's case pursuant to paragraph 3 of Section consent, that is, by moving for the dismissal of the
124 of RA 6938 case through a demurrer to evidence. As correctly
(3) A director, officer or committee member who argued by the People, where the dismissal was
violated the provisions of Section 47 (liability of ordered upon or with express assent of the accused,
directors, officers and committee members), Section he is deemed to have waived his protection against
50 (disloyalty of a director) and Section 51 (illegal doubly jeopardy. In this case at bar, the dismissal
use of confidential information) shall upon conviction was granted upon motion of petitioners. Double
suffer a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos jeopardy, thus, did not attach
(P5,000.00), or imprisonment of not less than five (5)
years but not more than ten (10) years or both at the
court's discretion; (Emphasis supplied)
Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts
The OSG points out that Section "47" in the above-
PD 1606 & 1861
quoted provision is a clerical error because the
2. RA 7975, 8249, & 10660
"liability of directors, officers and committee
members" is undisputedly governed by Section 46 of
Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059 (22 January
RA 6938, while Section 47 thereof deals with the
2008)
compensation of directors, officers and employees
FACTS:

The Court, in order to carry out the obvious intent of

the legislature, may correct clerical errors, mistakes
 ● Petitioner Hanna Serana was a senior student of the
UP-Cebu. She was appointed as student regent to
serve 1 term from Jan 1 2000-dec 31 2000
● ERAP gave 15 Million for financial assistance for
renovation of vinzons hall in UP Diliman
● No renovation happened, succeeding student regent
filed a complaint for malversation of public funds and
property with office of the ombudsman
● Ombudsman after investigation filed estafa against
Serana and her brother
ISSUE:
WON the Sandiganbayan try a government scholar and her
brother for swindling government funds?
HELD: YES. A government scholar in U. P., in her capacity
as student regent who is not receiving any salary, may be
charged with estafa in the Sandiganbayan under Section
4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 which provides that the
Sandiganbayan shall exercise jurisdiction over “Presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this category.
A student regent performs functions similar to those of a
board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. Compensation
is merely incidental and not an essential element of public
office.
A public official may be charged in the Sandiganbayan with
estafa if it is alleged in the information that she committed the
same in relation to her office under Section 4(B) of P.D. No.
1606. A public officer is said to have committed the crime in
relation to her office if (a) she committed the same while in
the performance of his official functions or if (a) she took
advantage of her office to commit the crime.
Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash is
denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for
petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the
special defenses invoked in their motion to quash. Remedial
measures as regards interlocutory orders, such as an order
denying a motion to quash, are frowned upon and often
dismissed. The reason for this rule is to avoid multiplicity of
appeals in a single action.
Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA
FACTS:
● This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court for the nullification of the resolution of
the Sandiganbayan in criminal case no. 28022 and
28023 as well as its resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration.
● In 1998, the Senate Blue Ribbon committee carried
out a joint inquiry in the coup rumors and anomalies
in the AFP Philippine Retirement Benefits Systems
● The modus operandi was buying lots with 2 deeds of
sale. One deed would be signed only by the seller
the other would be signed by the Seller and Buyer
(AFP RSBS).
● The buying prices differed in the deeds
● The deed signed only by the buyer (unilateral) was
registered with the Registry of deeds, this had the
lower buying price.
● The deed signed by the AFP RSBS would be kept in
the dark and only uncovered during the committee
investigation.
● Criminal cases were filed with the Sandiganbayan.
● Petitioners filed motion for reconsideration and
sought dismissal for lack of probable cause.
Sandiganbayan denied the motion
● Petitioners filed motion to quash citing the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction.
● On arraignment, petitioners refused to enter a plea
so the anti graft court entered not guilty.
ISSUES:
1. WON the court committed grave abuse of discretion
in sustaining the Ombudsman’s finding of probable
cause for the 148 counts of estafa thru falsification of
documents and 148 counts of violation of R.A. 3019
and not dismissing the informations
2. WON the court had no jurisdiction over the offense
charged in the information
HELD:
1. NO. We are not convinced by petitioner’s claim that
there is no probable cause on record for the filing of
the Information against him. It bears stressing that
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. It implies probability of guilt and
requires more than bare suspicion but less than
evidence which would justify conviction. The
Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against
petitioner is buttressed by his encompassing and
comprehensive resolution, independent of the
findings of the Senate Committees, as well as the
documents appended to the Informations. Petitioner’s
bare claim to the contrary cannot prevail over such
positive findings of the Ombudsman. In fine, the
Ombudsman’s finding oF probable cause prevails
over petitioner’s bare allegations of grave abuse of
discretion; that he was not involved in the step-by-
step consummation of the anomalous transaction;
 and that as President he was involved only in the top
level policy formulation and implementation.
We agree with the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require cases to be set
for hearing to determine probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant for the arrest of the accused before any warrant may
be issued. Section 6, Rule 112 mandates the judge to
personally evaluate the resolution of the Prosecutor (in this
case, the Ombudsman) and its supporting evidence, and if
he/she finds probable cause, a warrant of arrest or
commitment order may be issued within 10 days from the
filing of the complaint or Information; in case the Judge
doubts the existence of probable cause, the prosecutor may
be ordered to present additional evidence within five (5) days
from notice.
SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may
issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court.
– Within ten (10) days from the filing of
the complaint or information, the judge
shall personally evaluate the resolution of
the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence. He may immediately dismiss
the case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause. If he
finds probable cause, he shall issue a
warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if
the accused has already been arrested
pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge
who conducted the preliminary
investigation or when the complaint or
information was filed pursuant to section 7
of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
existence of probable cause, the judge
may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within five (5) days
from notice and the issue must be
resolved by the court within thirty (30)
days from the filing of the complaint of
information.
2. NO. The anti-graft court correctly ruled that it has
jurisdiction over the crimes charged. In People v.
Sandiganbayan 40 and Ramiscal, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, 41 this Court ruled that the AFP-
RSBS is a government-owned and controlled
corporation, and that its funds are in the nature of
public funds. Under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of R.A. No.
8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction
over offenses committed by presidents, directors,
trustees or managers of government owned or
controlled corporations. 42 Under Section 4(b) of
R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive
jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers
and employees in relation to their office, whether
simple or complexed with other crimes. As gleaned
from the material averments of the Information in
Criminal Case No. 28023, the charge against
petitioner is estafa through falsification of public
document in the performance of his duties and in
relation to his position as president of the AFP-
RSBS.
Escobal v. Garchitorena, 422 SCRA
FACTS:
● Petitioner Escobal was a police officer who was
conducting surveillance operations on drug trafficking
at the Sa Harong Caf Bar and Restaurant when he
was involved in a shooting incident resulting in the
death of Nueca.
● A criminal case was filed with RTC charging the
petitioner with murder.
● Petitioner filed a motion to quash, alleging that the
court martial, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over
cases involving PNP members and officers.
● Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss citing Republic vs.
Asuncion arguing that he committed the crime in the
performance of his duties, the Sandiganbayan had
exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
● RTC conducted preliminary hearing and declared
that petitioner committed the crime charged while not
in the performance of his official function and that he
did not have Salary Grade of 27 and therefore the
Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction.
● Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. RTC
made a volte face and issued an order reversing the
previous one and declared the petitioner was on an
official mission during the shooting.
● Presiding justice of Sandiganbayan returned the
records of the case to court of origin RTC saying that
RTC retained jurisdiction because the petitioner had
a salary grade of 23.
● Petitioner filed petition for certiorari
ISSUE:
WON the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion in ordering the remand of the case to the RTC.
HELD:
NO. The respondent Presiding Justice acted in accordance
with law and the rulings of this Court when he ordered the
remand of the case to the RTC, the court of origin.
Under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No.
1861, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction in all
cases involving the following:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of
the Revised Penal Code;
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers
and employees in relation to their office, including those
employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,
whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the
penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional
or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00.
Under the law, even if the offender committed the crime
charged in relation to his office but occupies a position
corresponding to a salary grade below 27, the proper
Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, as the case
may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this
case, the petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with salary
grade 23. He was charged with homicide punishable by
reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction
over the crime charged conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A.
No. 7691.
People v. Henry T. Go (25 March 2014)
FACTS:
● This case is an offshoot of another case wherein the
DOTC entered into a contract with PIATCO, where
Go is the Chairman and president, for the
construction, operation and maintenance of NAIA
Passenger Terminal 3 which is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
● A criminal case filed against the respondent and the
sandiganbayan issued an order to give the
prosecution 10 days to show cause why the should
not be dismissed as the respondent is a private
citizen.
● Prosecution complied contending that SB has
already acquired jurisdiction over the person of Go
because of his voluntary appearance when he filed a
motion for consolidation and posted bail. Prosecution
argued jurisdiction because he was alleged to have
conspired with Sec. of the DOTC (who is already
dead).
● SB granted motion to quash to Go because of lack of
jurisdiction
ISSUE:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Henry Go
when the public officer he conspired with is already dead.
HELD:
YES. The only thing that was extinguished by the death of
Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not
extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge
of conspiracy between him and private respondent. The
death of Secretary Enrile does not mean that there was no
public officer who violated Sec. 3 of RA. 3019. In fact, the
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Secretary Enrile
that were it not for his death he shouldve been charged.
The requirement before a private person may be indicted for
violation of Sec 3 of RA 3019 is conspiracy with a public
officer. The law, however, does not require that such a
person must, at all times, be indicted with the public officer.
Such a person may be indicted alone.
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA
FACTS:
● Major General Carlos Garcia of the AFP was the
deputy chief of staff of comptrollership. After
investigation of the office of the ombudsman, they
filed a complaint against petitioner and his wife and 3
sons for violation of R.A. No. 1379 as conspirators,
conduits, dummies and fronts of petitioner in
receiving, accumulating, using and disposing of his
ill-gotten wealth.
● Petitioner argues that Sandiganbayan is without
jurisdiction over civil action for forfeiture of unlawfully
acquired properties maintaining that jurisdiction
resides in the RTC.
ISSUE:
WON the SB has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture
under R.A. No. 1379
HELD:
YES. BP 129 expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan including cases involving violations of
R.A. No. 3019.
An action for forfeiture of illegally acquired properties
partakes the nature of a penalty. Forfeiture is a divestiture of
property without compensation, in consequence of a default
or an offense. A forfeiture is thus, imposed by way of
punishment not by the mere convention of the parties, but by
the lawmaking power, to insure a prescribed course of
conduct.
It is logically congruent that violations of R.A. No 1379 are
placed under the jurisdiction of the SB, even though the
proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture amounts to
penalty. The soundness of this reasoning becomes even
more obvious when we consider that the respondent in such
forfeiture proceedings is a public officer or employee and the
violation of R.A. No. 1379 was committed during the
respondent officer or employee’s incumbency and in relation
to his office. This is in line with the purpose behind the
creation of the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court—to
address the urgent problem of dishonesty in public service.
People v. Benipayo, 586 SCRA
FACTS:
● These are two consolidated cases filed on certiorari
GR 154473
● The chairman of COMELEC delivered a speech in
UP that was published in the Manila Bulletin.
● Petitioner corporation believes that they were alluded
to in the speech as “hoodwink us into a contract that
is so grossly disadvantageous to the government that
it offends common sense to say that it would be
worth the 6.5 billion peso price tag”
● An affidavit-complaint for libel was filed with the RTC.
● Petitioner later filed a motion for inhibition contending
RTC judge was appointed through recommendation
of respondent’s father in law.
● Motion was unresolved so petitioner moved for
dismissal of the case asserting the RTC had no
jurisdiction since respondent is an impeachable
officer and that the case should be filed with
Sandiganbayan.
● RTC dismissed the case stating that SB had
jurisdiction as the speech was delivered in his
capacity as comelec chairman.
GR 155573
● Comelec chair and comelec commissioner
Tangcangco were guests of talk show Point Blank
with ces drilon.
● Benipayo said Photokina funds were being used for a
PR campaign against him.
● Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit for libel in the
RTC
● Respondent moved for dismissal stating he was an
impeachable officer and jurisdiction is with SB.
ISSUE:
WON the RTC has jurisdiction over libel cases to the
exclusion of all other courts
HELD:
YES. The law dictates that criminal and civil actions for
damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the RTC to the exclusion of
all other courts. A subsequent enactment of a law defining
the jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in the
absence of an express repeal or modification, the specific
provision in the RPC vesting the RTC jurisdiction over
defamations in writing or by similar means. The grant to the
SB of jurisdiction in offenses committed in relation to public
office DID NOT divest the RTC of its exclusive and original
jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of
whether the offense is committed in relation to office.
Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA
FACTS:
● Mayor Sanchez rapist and killer of Eileen Sarmenta
and Allan Gomez in UPLB case.
● The case was raffled to Manila, to respondent Judge
Demetriou.
● Petitioner filed motion to quash the informations,
Judge denied the motion
ISSUE
WON as a public officer, he can be tried for the offense only
by the Sandiganbayan
HELD:
NO. There is no direct relation between the commission of
the crime of rape with homicide and the petitioner's office as
municipal mayor because public office is not an essential
element of the crime charged. The offense can stand
independently of the office. Moreover, it is not even alleged in
the information that the commission of the crime charged was
intimately connected with the performance of the petitioner's
official functions to make it fall under the exception laid down
in People v. Montejo.
We have read the informations in the case at bar and find no
allegation therein that the crime of rape with homicide
imputed to the petitioner was connected with the discharge of
his functions as municipal mayor or that there is an "intimate
connection" between the offense and his office. It follows that
the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the
regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan.
De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (10 October 2017)
FACTS:
● Senate and house of representatives conducted
several inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous
drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison. Inmates
executed affidavits in support of their testimonies.
● DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing.
● Petitioner argues that the Office of the Ombudsman
has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear
the four complaints against her. And DOJ
prosecutors should inhibit themselves and refer the
complaints to the ombudsman.
● During the hearing on Dec 2016, petitioner decided
no to submit her counter affidavit citing the pendency
of her 2 motions. DOJ ruled it will not entertain late
filed counter affidavit.
● Petitioner filed with CA petition for prohibition and
certiorari.
● While CA petition was pending, DOJ proceeded with
preliminary investigation and recommended 3
informations be filed against petitioner in the RTC.
 ● Petitioner filed motion to quash citing lack of
jurisdiction
● RTC issued warrants of arrest against petitioner
without bail for violation of R.A. 9165, conducting a
drug trade in the NBP. Petitioner was committed to
the custody of the PNP.
● Petitioner presents the instant petition.
ISSUES:
Whether the RTC or Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over
the violation of R.A. 9165 averred in the assailed information.
HELD:
THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION. The pertinent special law
governing drug-related cases is RA 9165, which updated the
rules provided in RA 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A plain reading of RA 9165, as
of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related
cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and
no other.
Yet, much has been made of the terminology used in Section
90 of RA 9165. The dissents would highlight the provision's
departure from Section 39 of RA 6425 - the erstwhile drugs
law, which provides:
SECTION 39. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Criminal Court. - The
Circuit Criminal Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over all cases involving offenses punishable under this Act.
For those in the dissent, the failure to reproduce the phrase
"exclusive original jurisdiction" is a clear indication that no
court, least of all the RTC, has been vested with such
"exclusive original jurisdiction" so that even the
Sandiganbayan can take cognizance and resolve a criminal
prosecution for violation of RA 9165.
As thoroughly discussed by Justice Peralta in his Concurring
Opinion, such deduction is unwarranted given the clear intent
of the legislature not only to retain the "exclusive original
jurisdiction" of the RTCs over violations of the drugs law but
to segregate from among the several RTCs of each judicial
region some RTCs that will "exclusively try and hear cases
involving violations of [RA 9165)." If at all, the change
introduced by the new phraseology of Section 90, RA 9165 is
not the deprivation of the RTCs' "exclusive original
jurisdiction" but the further restriction of this "exclusive
original jurisdiction" to select RTCs of each judicial region.
The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165
is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the
accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher,
regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in
relation to office. The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in
judgment of high-ranking government officials is not
omnipotent.
Duncano v. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)
FACTS:
● Duncan was the regional director of the BIR with
Salary grade 26. The ombudsman filed a criminal
case against him for not submitting his SALN and
declaring businesses registered to his family.
● Prior to arraignment petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss before Sandiganbayan for lack of jurisdiction
since his salary is Grade 26 citing Serana and Inding
cases.
● SB ruled that position of Regional Director is
exempted where it has jurisdiction even if the position
is not Salary Grade 27. Sec. 4 of R..A. 8249 provides
that respondent court has jurisdiction over officials of
the executive branch of the government occupying
the position of regional director and higher.
ISSUE:
WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Regional
Director of the BIR with Salary Grade 26
HELD:
No. A certification issued by the OIC – Assistant Chief,
Personnel Division of the BIR shows that, although petitioner
is a Regional Director of the BIR, his position is classified as
Director II with Salary Grade 26.
That the phrase "otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and
higher" qualifies "regional director and higher"
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.– The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
"A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions
of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade
‘27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including:
"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial department
heads;
"(b) City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
city department heads;
13. Inocentes v. People, 796 SCRA (2016)
"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position 14. Edgar Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398
of consul and higher; (14 April 2005)
15. Esteban v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146646-49 (11
"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, March 2005)
and all officers of higher rank; 16. RA 8369
17. RA 6734 (as amended by 9054)
"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying 18. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)
the position of provincial director and those holding the rank 19. Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati Br. 149, 620 SCRA [ONLINE
of senior superintendent or higher; LIBEL]
20. Disini Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA (18 February
"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and 2014)
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and
special prosecutor;
Institution of Criminal Actions
"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
Jimenez v. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
FACTS:
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
● Petitioner is the president of Unlad Shipping and
Management Corporation, a manning agency while
"(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
the respondents are some listed incorporators of
Grade ‘27’ and up under the Compensation and Position
Tsakos Maritime (TMSI), another local manning
Classification Act of 1989;
agency.
● Petitioner filed a complaint affidavit against
"(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal
provisions of the Constitution;
recruitment. He alleged that the respondents falsely
represented their stockholdings in TMSI to secure a
"(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission,
license to operate as a recruitment agency from the
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
POEA.
● Some of the respondents submitted a counter
"(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade
affidavit
‘27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position
● The city prosecutor filed the corresponding criminal
Classification Act of 1989.
information with the RTC of Mandaluyong.
● RTC found probable cause and ordered issuance of
"B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed
warrants of arrest against respondents
with other crimes committed by the public officials and
● One of the respondents, Alamil (he did not submit
employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in
counteraffidavit), filed motion for judicial
relation to their office.
determination of probable cause with a request to
defer enforcement of warrant of arrest. RTC denied it
"C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
for probable cause had already been found.
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
● Alamil moved for reconsideration and for inhibition of
issued in 1986.
Judge Umali for being biased. P
● Judge Umali voluntarily inhibited herself from the
We have held that
case and did not resolve the motion.
1. a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod,
● The case was raffled to Sorongon who granted
2. a department manager of the Philippine Health
Alamil’s motion for reconsideration. The case was
Insurance Corporation (Philhealth),
dismissed because it lacked probable cause. No
3. a student regent of the University of the Philippines,
evidence to indicate they gave false information to
4. and a Head of the Legal Department and Chief of the
secure a license and Alamil voluntarily submitted to
Documentation with corresponding ranks of Vice-
the RTC jurisdiction through filings of pleadings
Presidents and Assistant Vice-President of the
seeking affirmative relief.
Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and
Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS)43
 ● CA dismissed petitioner’s RULE 65 petition for lack of
legal personality to file on behalf of the People of the
Philippines. Only the OSG has legal personality.
ISSUE:
WON the CA committed a reversible error in dismissing
outright petitioner’s Rule 65 petition for certiorari for lack of
legal personality
HELD:
NO. It is well-settled that "every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest[,]" "who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit,
or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit."
Interest means material interest or an interest in an issue to
be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved.
By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
In this case, the petitioner has no legal personality to assail
the dismissal of the criminal case since the main issue raised
by the petitioner involved the criminal aspect of the case, i.e.,
the existence of probable cause. The petitioner did not
appeal to protect his alleged pecuniary interest as an
offended party of the crime, but to cause the
reinstatement of the criminal action against the
respondents. This involves the right to prosecute which
pertains exclusively to the People, as represented by the
OSG.
Sufficiency of Complaint or Information
People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272
● PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez went to a jai
balai betting station of Moises to congruent Jonathan
Rubio who was the teller of the booth. Moises went to
the 2 to pacify them but he was shot several times,
Ferdinand his brother went to aid him and was shot
also in the head and then another victim, Joselito
was shot in the back.
● The 2 accused were tried for 3 counts of murder and
convicted by the RTC.
● The CA upheld the decision but modified the
damages to pay.
● The 2 accused appealed to the court but Edwin
Valdez withdrew his appeal.
● P02 Eduardo Valdez’s appeal went through and he
was charged with 3 counts of homicide instead of
murder with sentence reduced.
● Edwin then pleaded that the judgment for P02
Eduardo valdez be also applied to him because it
would be beneficial to him as an accused.
ISSUE:
WON the judgment of a plea of a co-accused will affect the
other co-accused insofar as it is beneficial to him as an
accused
HELD:
YES. The downgrading of the crimes committed would
definitely be favorable to him. Worth pointing out is that to
deny to him the benefit of the lessened criminal
responsibilities would be highly unfair, considering that this
Court had found the two accused to have acted in concert in
their deadly assault against the victims, warranting their equal
liability under the principle of conspiracy.
DOCTRINE:
It is unavoidable for the court to pronounce P02 Valdez guilty
of 3 homicides, instead of 3 murders, on account of the
informations not sufficiently alleging the attendance of
treachery.
The averments of the informations to the effect that the two
accused "with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength did x x x
assault, attack and employ personal violence upon" the
victims "by then and there shooting them with a gun, hitting
[them]" on various parts of their bodies "which were the direct
and immediate cause of their deaths" did not sufficiently set
forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery
attended each of the killings. It should not be difficult to
see that merely averring the killing of a person by
shooting him with a gun, without more, did not show
how the execution of the crime was directly and
specially ensured without risk to the accused from the
defense that the victim might make. Indeed, the use of the
gun as an instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for
there are other instruments that could serve the same lethal
purpose. Nor did the use of the term treachery constitute a
sufficient averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing
but a conclusion of law, not an averment of a fact. In short,
the particular acts and circumstances constituting treachery
as an attendant circumstance in murder were missing from
the informations.
Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA 560
FACTS:
● Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 filed by Fernando Q. Miguel (petitioner), assailing
the January 25, 2006 and March 27, 2006 resolutions
of the Sandiganbayan. These resolutions (i) ordered
 the petitioner’s suspension from public office and (ii)
denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
the suspension order.
● Petitioner was charged with violation of R.A. 3019 in
connection with consultancy services for engineering
and architecture of the Koronadal City public market.
● Petitioner invited a private company for the bidding
even without the publication of the invitation yet so
they could pre-qualify.
● The petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan gravely
abused its discretion in ordering his suspension
despite the failure of the information to allege that the
giving of unwarranted benefits and advantages by
the petitioner was made through "manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence."
He alleges that the phrases "evident bad faith" and
"manifest partiality" actually refers not to him, but to
his co-accused,25 rendering the information fatally
defective.
ISSUE:
WON the information charging the petitioner with violation of
Sec 3 of R.A. No. 3019 is valid
WON the absence of an actual pre-suspension hearing
renders invalid the suspension order against petitioner.
HELD:
YES. The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the
crime is described in intelligible terms and with such
particularity with reasonable certainty so that the
accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In
particular, whether an information validly charges an offense
depends on whether the material facts alleged in the
complaint or information shall establish the essential
elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. The
raison d’etre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the
accused to suitably prepare his defense.
In arguing against the validity of the information, the
petitioner appears to go beyond the standard of a
"person of common understanding" in appreciating the
import of the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and
manifest partiality." A reading of the information clearly
reveals that the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and
manifest partiality" was merely a continuation of the
prior allegation of the acts of the petitioner, and that he
ultimately acted with evident bad faith and manifest
partiality in giving unwarranted benefits and advantages
to his co-accused private individuals. This is what a plain
and non-legalistic reading of the information would yield.
YES. In the case at bar, while there was no pre-suspension
hearing held to determine the validity of the Informations that
had been filed against petitioners, we believe that the
numerous pleadings filed for and against them have achieved
the goal of this procedure. The right to due process is
satisfied nor just by an oral hearing but by the filing and the
consideration by the court of the parties' pleadings,
memoranda and other position papers.
People v. Soria, 685 SCRA 483
FACTS:
● this case involves a father’s detestable act of abusing
his daughter through rape by sexual assault.
● Appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.
● The daughter was raped one day and was witnessed
by her brother. She complained of pain in her vagina
so an aunt brought her to the hospital.
● The medico legal found that the victim’s virginity was
intact.
● Appellant alleges that he did not rape his daughter
and this crime was instigated by his wife whom he
caught was cheating on him
● RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
was sentenced to death
● CA found partial merit to his appeal. They are
convinced he raped the victim but because the
prosecution did not present the victim’s birth
certificate, the crime was only a simple rape because
the victim cannot be confirmed to be a minor so he
was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
WON the guilty committed rape by sexual intercourse or
sexual assault
HELD:
HE COMMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT.
The Information in this case did not specify with certainty
whether appellant committed the rape through sexual
intercourse under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, or rape by
sexual assault as described in paragraph 2 thereof. The
Information stated that appellant inserted his penis into the
genital of "AAA," which constituted rape by sexual intercourse
under the first paragraph of Article 266-A. At the same time,
the Information alleged that appellant used force and
intimidation to commit an act of sexual assault. While these
allegations cause ambiguity, they only pertain to the mode or
manner of how the rape was committed and the same do not
invalidate the Information or result in the automatic dismissal
of the case. "[W]here an offense may be committed in any of
the different modes and the offense is alleged to have been
committed in two or more modes specified, the indictment is
sufficient, notwithstanding the fact that the different means of
committing the same offense are prohibited by separate
sections of the statute. The allegation in the information of the
various ways of committing the offense should be regarded
as a description of only one offense and the information is not
thereby rendered defective on the ground of
multifariousness."
Any objection from the appellant with respect to the
Information is held to have been waived failing any effort to
oppose the same before trial. He therefore can be convicted
of rape through sexual intercourse or rape by sexual assault,
depending on the evidence adduced during trial.
Place where action is to be instituted
Union Bank v. People, 667 SCRA 113
FACTS:
● Desi Tomas was charged in court for perjury for
making a false narration in a certificate against forum
shopping.
● The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union
Bank’s two complaints for sum of money with prayer
for replevin against spouses Tamondong and John
Doe. 1 complaint with RTC and 1 complaint with
MeTC. Tomas executed the certificate against forum
shopping in both.
● Tomas filed motion to quash. She argued the venue
must be the Pasay City court where the certificates
was submitted and not the MeTC of Makati where the
certificates was subscribed.
● MeTc of Makati denied the motion stating it has
jurisdiction because the certificates were notarized in
Makati
ISSUE
What the proper venue of perjury under Article 183 of the
RPC should be – Makati City, where the Certificate against
Forum Shopping was notarized, or Pasay City, where the
Certification was presented to the trial court.
HELD:
We deny the petition and hold that the MeTC-Makati City is
the proper venue and the proper court to take cognizance of
the perjury case against the petitioners.
The first element of the crime of perjury, the execution of the
subject Certificate against Forum Shopping was alleged in
the Information to have been committed in Makati City.
Likewise, the second and fourth elements, requiring the
Certificate against Forum Shopping to be under oath before a
notary public, were also sufficiently alleged in the Information
to have been made in Makati City:
We also find that the third element of willful and deliberate
falsehood was also sufficiently alleged to have been
committed in Makati City, not Pasay City, as indicated in the
last portion of the Information
Tomas’ deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was
allegedly shown when she made the false declarations in the
Certificate against Forum Shopping before a notary public in
Makati City, despite her knowledge that the material
statements she subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus,
Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is the
proper court to try the perjury case against Tomas, pursuant
to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements constituting
the crime of perjury were committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.
Based on these considerations, we hold that our ruling in Sy
Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC and
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. To reiterate for the guidance of the Bar
and the Bench, the crime of perjury committed through the
making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is
committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to
his or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements
of the crime of perjury are executed.
RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Civil liability arising from the offense is deemed
instituted
Solidum v. People, 718 SCRA 263
FACTS:
● Petitioner was the anesthesiologist for an colostomy
surgery for a 3 year old. The 3 year old suffered
irregular heartbeat and went into a coma for 2 weeks.
He woke up a month later but he was blind, deaf and
paralyzed.
● Petitioner was found guilty of reckless imprudence
resulting in serious physical injuries for using 100%
halothane which overdosed the patient suffering a
cardiac arrest and hypoxic encephalopathy.
● CA found the case res ipsa loguitur
ISSUE:
1. WON the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable
2. WON Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence
HELD:
1. NO. The first element of res ipsa loquitur is not
present in the case. Gerald was delivered to doctor’s
care of sound body and mind except for the
imperforate anus yet he experienced bradycardia
during the operation, causing loss of his senses and
rendering him immobile. The hypoxia would ordinarily
occur in the process of a pull through operation but
such fact alone did not prove that the negligence of
any of his physicians or anesthesiologist caused the
 injury. In fact, the doctors sensed the lack of oxygen
prompting them to administer atropine to the patient.
Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as "the thing or
the transaction speaks for itself."
In order to allow resort to the doctrine, therefore, the
following essential requisites must first be satisfied,
to wit: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the
instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was
under the exclusive control of the person charged;
and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to
any voluntary action or contribution of the person
injured.
2. NO. The Prosecution presented no witnesses with
special medical qualifications in anesthesia to
provide guidance to the trial court on what standard
of care was applicable. It would consequently be truly
difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the
first three elements of a negligence and malpractice
action were attendant.
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury.
We have to clarify that the acquittal of Dr. Solidum
would not immediately exempt him from civil
liability.1âwphi1 But we cannot now find and declare
him civilly liable because the circumstances that have
been established here do not present the factual and
legal bases for validly doing so. His acquittal did not
derive only from reasonable doubt. There was really
no firm and competent showing how the injury to
Gerard had been caused. That meant that the
manner of administration of the anesthesia by Dr.
Solidum was not necessarily the cause of the
hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by
Gerard. Consequently, to adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly
liable would be to speculate on the cause of the
hypoxia. We are not allowed to do so, for civil
liability must not rest on speculation but on
competent evidence.
Castillo v. Salvador, G.R. No. 191240 (30 July 2014)
FACTS:
● Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which
assails the Decision[1] dated February 11, 2010 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30151
with respect only to the civil aspect of the case as
respondent Phillip R. Salvador had been acquitted of
the crime of estafa.
● The Complainant gave and entrusted to the accused
the amount of US$100,000.00 as seed money to
start the operations of the business and the said
accused, once in the possession of the said amount
of money, misappropriated, misapplied and/or
converted the same to their own personal use and
benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the
Complainant in the aforementioned amount of
US$100,000.00.
● Philip and Ramon Salvador denied receiving 100k
USD from petitioner.
● RTC found Philip Salvador guilty of estafa but
acquitted Ramon Salvador.
● CA reversed the decision and acquitted.
ISSUE:
WON the CA should at least retain the award of damages to
petitioner.
HELD:
NO. A reading of the CA decision would show that
respondent was acquitted because the prosecution failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, since the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, respondent is not
exempt from civil liability which may be proved by
preponderance of evidence only.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of
the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight
of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.”
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last
analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which
is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
Petitioner failed to prove on how she raised the money
allegedly given to respondent. There was also no receipt that
indeed US$100,000.00 was given by petitioner to
respondent.
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different
effects on the civil liability of the accused.
1. an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not
the author of the act or omission complained of.
This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a
person who has been found to be not the perpetrator
of any act or omission cannot and can never be held
liable for such act or omission. There being no delict,
civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the
civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be
based on grounds other than the delict complained
 of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule III of the
Rules of Court.
2. The second instance is an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In
this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not
been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from
civil liability which may be proved by preponderance
of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in
Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for
damages is “for the same act or omission.
Dy v. People, 800 SCRA 39
FACTS:
● Petitioner Dy was the General Manager of MCCI. In
pursuit of MCCI’s business, petitioner proposed to
the president of the company a purchase of a
property owned by pantranco. Mandy agreed to
obtain a loan from ICBC and petitioner said she could
facilitate the approval of the loan. ICBC granted the
loan of P20MILLION to MCCI. Mandy entrusted
payment of the loan to petitioner.
● Eventually, MCCI received notice of foreclosure of
mortgage due to default in payment of loan. Mandy
gave check amounting to 21million to petitioner while
petitioner said she encashed the checks and gave
the cash back to Mandy (fucking liaaaaaarr)
● MCCI still wasnt able to pay the loan and ICBC
foreclosed the property.
● Mandy filed a complaint for estafa and the RTC
acquitted the petitioner because prosecution failed to
establish that she was under any obligation to deliver
the checks in payment of the loan. The element of
misappropriation or conversion was missing. RTC
ordered petitioner to pay the amount of checks back
to MCCI.
● CA denied the appeal and affirmed civil liability of 21
million
ISSUE:
WON the accused is civilly liable even if she was acquitted of
the crime of estafa because not all elements were present
HELD:
NO. Petitioner was acquitted by the RTC Manila because of
the absence of the element of misappropriation or
conversion. The RTC Manila, as affirmed by the CA, found
that Mandy delivered the checks to petitioner pursuant to a
loan agreement. Clearly, there is no crime of estafa. There is
no proof of the presence of any act or omission constituting
criminal fraud. Thus, civil liability ex delicto cannot be
awarded because there is no act or omission punished by law
which can serve as the source of obligation. Any civil liability
arising from the loan takes the nature of a civil liability ex
contractu. It does not pertain to the civil action deemed
instituted with the criminal case.
We hold that the better rule in ascertaining civil liability in
estafa cases is that pronounced in Pantig and Singson.
Under Pantig and Singson, whenever the elements of estafa
are not established, and that the delivery of any personal
property was made pursuant to a contract, any civil liability
arising from the estafa cannot be awarded in the criminal
case. This is because the civil liability arising from the
contract is not civil liability ex delicto, which arises from the
same act or omission constituting the crime. Civil liability ex
delicto is the liability sought to be recovered in a civil action
deemed instituted with the criminal case.
The situation envisioned in the foregoing cases, as in
this case, is civil liability ex contractu where the civil
liability arises from an entirely different source of
obligation. Therefore, it is not the type of civil action
deemed instituted in the criminal case, and consequently
must be filed separately.
The ruling of the RTC Manila was affirmed by the CA. It said
that "[t]he acquittal of Gloria Dy is anchored on the ground
that her guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt - not
because she is not the author of the act or omission
complained of. x x x The trial court found no trickery nor
deceit in obtaining money from the private complainant;
instead, it concluded that the money obtained was
undoubtedly a loan."
Nevertheless, our jurisdiction recognizes that a crime has a
private civil component. Thus, while an act considered
criminal is a breach of law against the State, our legal system
allows for the recovery of civil damages where there is a
private person injured by a criminal act. It is in recognition of
this dual nature of a criminal act that our Revised Penal Code
provides that every person criminally liable is also civilly
liable. This is the concept of civil liability ex delicto.
Suspension of Civil Action
Lim v. Kou Co Ping, 679 SCRA 114
● FRCC a cement corporation was selling withdrawal
authorities for cement. Co bought withdrawal
authorities covering 50,000 bags at 63 pesos per
bag. He then sold them to Lim at 64 pesos per bag.
● Lim withdrew the cement bags on staggered basis.
She withdrew 2,800 bags and sold back 10,000 bags
to Co.
● 2 months later, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw
her remaining 37,200 bags because FRCC
 implemented a price increase and that she needed to
pay the increase or agree to withdraw lesser bags.
● Lim did not want to do either and said that her
withdrawal authority is not covered by the price
increase.
● Lim filed an information for Estafa against Co. She
prayed that 2.3 Million pesos be returned to her for
the profits of the bags with an award of moral and
exemplary damages as well as atty fees.
● RTC acquitted Co of estafa for insufficiency of
evidence and also relived him of civil liability
● In CA GRNo. 85138 - CA dismissed Lim’s appeal on
the civil aspect of estafa
● In Civil Case G.R. 175256, RTC denied Co’s motion
to dismiss the civil complaint. CA denied Co’s motion
agreeing with RTC that the elements of litis
pendentia and forum shopping are not met because
there is no same cause of action
ISSUE:
WON Lim committed Forum shopping in filing the civil case
for specific performance during the pendency of her appeal
on the civil aspect of the criminal case of estafa?
HELD:
NO. The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having
been instituted together with the criminal action. On the other
hand, the second action, judging by the allegations contained
in the complaint, is a civil action arising from a contractual
obligation and for tortious conduct (abuse of rights).
Thus, Civil Case No. 05-112396 involves only the obligations
arising from contract and from tort, whereas the appeal in the
estafa case involves only the civil obligations of Co arising
from the offense charged. They present different causes
of action, which , under the law, are considered
"separate, distinct, and independent" from each other.
Both cases can proceed to their final adjudication, subject to
the prohibition on double recovery under Article 2177 of the
Civil Code.
Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two
kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended
party may pursue the two types of civil liabilities
simultaneously or cumulatively, without offending the rules on
forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended
party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part
of the offender .
(1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from
the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code, and
(2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may
be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings.
The independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation
not arising from the act or omission complained of as a
felony,” as provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as
for breach of contract or for tort. It may also be based on an
act or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless,
treated independently from the criminal action by specific
provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code (“in cases of
defamation, fraud and physical injuries”).
Independent Civil Action
Casupanan v. Laroya, 388 SCRA 28
FACTS:
● The vehicles of Casupanan and Laroya figured in an
accident. 2 cases were filed in the MCTC.
● Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property
● Casupanan the driver and Capitulo owner of the car
filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict
● When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was
in preliminary investigation stage. Laroya filed a
motion to dismiss the civil case for forum shopping.
MCTC granted the motion and denied motion for
reconsideration.
● Casupanan filed certiorari under Rule 65 with the
RTC. RTC dismissed the petition and denied the
motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
WON an accused in a pending criminal case can file,
simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for
quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal
case
HELD:
YES. The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for
the same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal
case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of
the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of
the accused “may be litigated in a separate civil action.” This
is only fair for two reasons. First, the accused is prohibited
from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is
deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is
therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against
the offended party. If the accused does not file a separate
civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in
since the period continues to run until the civil action for
quasi-delict is filed.
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right
to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that
the offended party can avail of this remedy which is
independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused
from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict, while
refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case, is
to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and
equal protection of the law.
The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable
under the Revised Penal Code while the civil case is based
on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177
of the Civil Code.
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission of the defendant.
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable
judgment.
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Samson, 808 SCRA 90
FACTS:
● Caterpillar was a manufacturer of footwear CAT and
Samson was a distributor and proprietor of various
retail outlets in the Philippines under the trademark
CATERPILLAR
● Caterpillar upon application to the NBI and RTC who
issued search warrants for unfair competition had the
premises controlled by Samson searched and let to
the seizure of various products bearing Caterpillar
core marks.
● Caterpilla filed criminal complaints for unfair
Competition against Samson
● Caterpillar also commenced civil action against
Samson with the IPO as a nominal party for unfair
competition, damages and cacellation of trademark
with TRO
● DOJ recommended that Samson be charged with
Unfair Competition in relation to Intellectual Property
Code of the Philippines
● However, Samson still continued his acts so
caterpillar filed 26 CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS
● Samson petitioned review which DOJ denied.
● RTC granted Samson’s motion to suspend
arraignment
● Justice Secretary when caused the withdrawal of
criminal informations against Samson in Court
● The civil action was likewise withdrawn
ISSUE
WON the suspension of proceeding in criminal case was
contrary to Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and Art 33 of civil
code on independent civil actions
HELD:
YES. A common element of all such cases for unfair
competition – civil and criminal – was fraud. Under Article 33
of the Civil Code, a civil action entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the
injured party in cases of fraud, and such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution.
Effect of death on the Civil Action
People v. Romero, 306 SCRA 90
● Romero and Rodriguez was convicted of estafa for
widescale swindling Ernesto Ruiz who invested in
their scam P150,000 with a promise of 800% profit
within 21 days. They issued a 1.2 million check which
was dishonored and they failed and refused to pay
the check. The check amount in words was
1,000,200.0 but the digits was 1.2 million
● The victim and accused met in the radio program of
Ernesto Ruiz who became interested in their
business.
● The two accused denied deceit was employed in the
transaction.
● One of the accused Ernesto Rodriguez died pending
appeal
ISSUE:
WON deceit was present in the transaction
HELD:
YES. The agreement was perfectly clear that at the end of
twenty one (21) days, the investment of P150,000.00 would
become P1,200,000.00. Even if the trial court admitted the
stipulation of facts, it would not be favorable to accused-
appellant.
The factual narration in this case established a kind of Ponzi
scheme. This is "an investment swindle in which high profits
are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are
paid off with funds raised from later ones." It is sometimes
called a pyramid scheme because a broader base of gullible
investors must support the structure as time passes.
The Court notes that one of the accused-appellants, Ernesto
Rodriguez, died pending appeal. Pursuant to the doctrine
established in People vs. Bayotas, the death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability ex delicto.
The criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no
longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action
instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso
facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict.
Prejudicial Question
Magistrado v. People, 527 SCRA 125
● A case of perjury was charged against petitioner for
swearing an oath to an affidavit of loss before notary
public in order to be issued a new Owner’s duplicate
certificate of CTC knowing full well that the subject
TCT was mortgaged as collateral to Elena M. Librojo.
● The perjury was raffled to MeTC.
● Petitioner filed a motion for suspension of
proceedings based on a prejudicial question. He
alleged that Civil case with the RTC for recovery of
sum of money was still pending and another civil
case for cancellation of mortgage must be resolved
first before the criminal case.
● MeTC denied the motion for suspension and the
reconsideration.
● Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
with RTC
● RTC dismissed the petition holding that there is no
prejudicial question involved as to warrant the
suspension of the criminal action
● CA dimissed the petition
ISSUE:
WON there is a prejudicial question pursuant to the Rules on
Criminal Procedure
HELD:
NO. A perusal of the allegations in the complaints show that
Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 pending before RTC-Branch 77,
and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349, pending before RTC-Branch
84, are principally for the determination of whether a loan was
obtained by petitioner from private respondent and whether
petitioner executed a real estate mortgage involving the
property covered by TCT No. N-173163. On the other hand,
Criminal Case No. 90721 before MeTC-Branch 43, involves
the determination of whether petitioner committed perjury in
executing an affidavit of loss to support his request for
issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. N-
173163.
The purchase by petitioner of the land or his execution of a
real estate mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on
whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a
false affidavit of loss
For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend criminal
action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts
intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of
the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a
criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal
proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the
following requisites must be present:
(1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those
upon which the criminal prosecution would be based;
(2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil
action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined; and
(3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another
tribunal.
The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal
case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid two
conflicting decisions.
A prejudial question is defined as that which arises in a case
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to
another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be
determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction
to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another
court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct
and separate from the crime but so intimately connected
with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
Pimentel v. Pimentel, 630 SCRA 436
FACTS:
c) J.M. Dominguez v. Liclican, G.R. No. 208587 (29 July
2015)
RULE 112 - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
A. Definition/Description
1. When a matter of right
2. Distinction from Preliminary Examination
3. Assigned Readings:
Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr., 677 SCRA 113
FACTS:
 ● Present petition arose from criminal complaint for
falsification of public documents against petitioners
which was filed in th MeTC
● Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case based
on absence of probable cause.
● MeTC dismissed the case.
● Respondent appeals to the RTC. RTC set aside
MeTC decision and directed the court to proceed to
trial
ISSUE:
WON there exist just and compelling reasons to warrant
relaxation of the rules in the interest of substantial justice
based on the inconclusive and insufficient finding of probable
cause
HELD:
NO. It is clear that the PNP crime lab found that the
signatures appearing in the Deed of Sale compared to
standard signatures were not written by one and the same
person. This fact created probable cause to indict petitioners
for the crime of falsification of public document.
Probable Cause
- Such facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that
respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does
not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it
import absolute certainty. It is merely based on
opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does
not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it
is believed that the act or omission complained of
constitutes the offense charged.
- A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime
has been committed by the suspects. It need not be
based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not
on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt.
Burgundy Realty Corporation v. Reyes, 687 SCRA 524
Who may conduct PI
Abanado v. Bayona, 677 SCRA 595
● Abanado was city prosecutor who requested for a
warrant of arrest for the accused in People v. Palo
Sr. to respondent Judge Bayona
● Judge Bayona required documents from abanado to
issue the warrant of arrest relevant to determine
existence of probable cause
○ Copy of Memorandum of Preliminary
Investigation
○ Resolution of the investigating prosecutor on
record named Jarder
○ Memo of transfer of case from investigating
prosecutor to city prosecutor
○ Copies of all documents submitted by the
complainant and the respondents for
comparison, authentication and
completeness of the photocopies
● Abanado was not able to submit item no. 3. He
instead submitted a letter the Investigating
Prosecutor Jarder initially did not find probable cause
however upon Abanado’s review he found that there
was probable cause. So Abanado disapproved
Jarder’s resolution and filed the information in court.
● Judge Bayona was not satisfied with the resolution
and still did not issue the warrant. Abanado still didnt
submit the Jarder Resolution and Judge Bayona
cited him for contempt.
● Complainant executed the administrative complaint
with Office of the Court Administrator alleging that
Judge Bayona was guilty of gross ignorance of the
law or procedure, gross misconduct and violation of
SC Circular No. 12. He asserted that Judge Bayona
unduly burdened himself by obsessing over Jarder
resolution LOL
● Judge Bayona in Counter-complaint for disbarment of
Prosecutor Abanado reiterated the importance of
Jarder Resolution in deciding whether to issue a
warrant of arrest
● OCA decided that the Gellada Order which held that
the resolution of the City Prosecutor finding probable
cause replaces the recommendation of the
investigating prosecutor. The recommendation no
longer forms an integral part of the records of the
case and need not be annexed. Abanado cannot be
held in contempt.
● OCA also decided Judge Bayona was not motivated
by bad faith and cannot be subject to disciplinary
action and be REPRIMANDED and gave a stern
warning.
ISSUE:
WON the Judge Bayona was guilty of the charges against
him
HELD:
NO. The court finds no reason to impose the recommended
penalty of reprimand on Judge Bayona.
We find that there is nothing in the DOJ-NPS Manual
requiring the removal of a resolution by an investigating
prosecutor recommending the dismissal of a criminal
complaint after it was reversed by the provincial, city or chief
state prosecutor.
Nonetheless, we also note that attaching such a resolution to
an information filed in court is optional under the
aforementioned manual. The DOJ-NPS Manual states that
the resolution of the investigating prosecutor should be
attached to the information only “as far as practicable.” Thus,
such attachment is not mandatory or required under the
rules.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent erred
in insisting on the production of the Jarder Resolution when
all other pertinent documents regarding the preliminary
investigation have been submitted to his court, and in going
so far as to motu proprio initiating a proceeding for contempt
against complainant.
However, not every judicial error is tantamount to ignorance
of the law and if it was committed in good faith, the judge
need not be subjected to administrative sanction. In the case
at bar, respondent’s act of requiring complainant to explain
why he should not be cited in contempt for his failure to
submit the Jarder Resolution in court was in accordance with
established rules of procedure.
We find no merit in the countercharges. It appears from the
records that complainant’s non-submission of the Jarder
Resolution was motivated by his honest belief that his action
was in accord with the procedures in the prosecution office.
Heirs of Nestor Tria v. Obias, 635 SCRA 91
FACTS:
● Nestor Tria the Regional director of DPWH was shot
by a gunman while waiting to board his flight in the
Pili Airport in Cam Sur to Manila. He died as a result.
● The NBI recommended to the provincial prosecutor
the indictment of Obet ACLAN, Totoy ONA and Atty.
Fanny Obias for the murder of Engr. Tria
● 2 weeks before the incident, ACLAN and ONA had
already been stalking Nestor Tria in his office from
time to time.
● On the day of the incident, ACLAN and ONA were in
the office where they were informed by the Admin
Officer that those who seek the signature of the
director should proceed to the Pili Airport. CANEBA a
DPWH employee noticed a man was looking
intensely at him, ACLAN. ACLAN was trying to
ascertain if he was Tria.
● Tria after signing documents in the parking lot, went
to the pre-departure area where he was greeted by
Atty. Fanny who shok this hand. It was at this
juncture that a gunshot was heard and Tria dropped
like a log with a gunshot wound to the back of his
head.
● Atty Fanny Obias was the lawyer who brokered a
sale of real estate with the spouses Tria. she
received full payment of 2.8 million in behalf of the
trias. When Director Nestor Tria died, the family went
after her but she was always nowhere to be found,
when apprehended by a family member she says
that Director Tria already disposed of the property.
● She was a family friend of the Trias but she never
attended the wake nor made a gesture of condolence
to the family.
● Obias denied any involvement in the killing
● DOJ agreed with contention of the petitioners that
there is interlocking circumstantial evidence
sufficieitn to show that respondent conspired with
Aclan and Ona.
● On reconsideration, Presidential Assistant Domingo
decided that there was no interlocking circumstantial
evidence of conspiracy. The case was dismissed for
lack of evidence
● CA denied motion for reconsideration
ISSUE:
WON the CA in affirming the OP’s reversal of the ruling of the
DOJ it is necessary to determine whether probable cause
exists to charge the respondent for conspiracy in the murder
of Nestor Tria
HELD:
We reverse the OP's ruling that the totality of evidence failed
to establish a prima facie case against the respondent as a
conspirator in the killing of Engr. Tria.
To begin with, whether or not respondent actually conspired
with Aclan and Ona need not be fully resolved during the
preliminary investigation. The absence or presence of
conspiracy is factual in nature and involves evidentiary
matters. The same is better left ventilated before the trial
court during trial, where the parties can adduce evidence to
prove or disprove its presence.
Preliminary investigation is executive in character. It
does not contemplate a judicial function. It is essentially
an inquisitorial proceeding, and often, the only means of
ascertaining who may be reasonably charged with a
crime.
Prosecutors control and direct the prosecution of criminal
offenses, including the conduct of preliminary investigation,
subject to review by the Secretary of Justice. The duty of the
Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine whether
the executive determination was done without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Resolutions of
the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless
made with grave abuse.
The following facts and circumstances established during
preliminary investigation were sufficient basis to incite
reasonable belief in respondent's guilt: (a) Motive -
respondent had credible reason to have Engr. Tria killed
because of the impending criminal prosecution for estafa
from her double sale of his lot prior to his death, judging from
the strong interest of Engr. Tria's family to run after said
property and/or proceeds of the second sale to a third party;
(b) Access - respondent was close to Engr. Tria's family and
familiar with his work schedule, daily routine and other
transactions which could facilitate in the commission of the
crime eventually carried out by a hired gunmen, one of whom
(Aclan) she and her father categorically admitted being in her
company while she visited Engr. Tria hours before the latter
was fatally shot at the airport; (c) Suspicious Behavior --
respondent while declaring such close personal relationship
with Engr. Tria and even his family, failed to give any
satisfactory explanation why she reacted indifferently to the
violent killing of her friend while they conversed and shook
hands at the airport. Indeed, a relative or a friend would not
just stand by and walk away from the place as if nothing
happened, as what she did, nor refuse to volunteer
information that would help the authorities investigating the
crime, considering that she is a vital eyewitness. Not even a
call for help to the people to bring her friend quickly to the
hospital. She would not even dare go near Engr. Tria's body
to check if the latter was still alive.
Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable
mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime
for which he was prosecuted.
Procedure in Metro Manila v. Outside Metro
Manila
Uy v. Javellana, 680 SCRA 13
Judge Javellana’s issuance of a Warrant of Arrest for the
accused in People v. Cornelio is in violation of Section 16 of
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, categorically
stating that “[t]he court shall not order the arrest of the
accused except for failure to appear whenever required.”
Judge Javellana never claimed that the accused failed to
appear at any hearing. His justification that the accused was
wanted for the crime of attempted homicide, being tried in
another case, Crim. Case No. 04-096, is totally unacceptable
and further indicative of his ignorance of law. People v.
Cornelio, pending before Judge Javellana’s court as Crim.
Case No. 04-097, is for malicious mischief, and is distinct and
separate from Crim. Case No. 04-096, which is for attempted
homicide, although both cases involved the same accused.
Proceedings in one case, such as the issuance of a warrant
of arrest, should not be extended or made applicable to the
other.
In People v. Lopez, et al., Judge Javellana conducted a
preliminary investigation even when it was not required or
justified.
The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure does not provide
for a preliminary investigation prior to the filing of a criminal
case under said Rule. A criminal case within the scope of the
Rule shall be commenced in the following manner:
SEC. 11. How commenced. – The filing of criminal cases
falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by
complaint or by information; Provided, however, That in
Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such cases shall
be commenced only by information, except when the offense
cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the
affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses in such
number of copies as there are accused plus two (2) copies
for the court’s files. If this requirement is not complied with
within five (5) days from date of filing, the case may be
dismissed.
SEC. 12. Duty of Court. –
(a) If commenced by complaint. – On the basis of the
complaint and the affidavits and other evidence
accompanying the same, the court may dismiss the case
outright for being patently without basis or merit and order the
release of the accused if in custody.
(b) If commenced by information. – When the case is
commenced by information, or is not dismissed pursuant to
the next preceding paragraph, the court shall issue an order
which, together with copies of the affidavits and other
evidence submitted by the prosecution, shall require the
accused to submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of
his witnesses as well as any evidence in his behalf, serving
copies thereof on the complainant or prosecutor not later than
ten (10) days from receipt of said order. The prosecution may
file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after receipt of the
counter-affidavits of the defense.
SEC. 13. Arraignment and trial. – Should the court, upon a
consideration of the complaint or information and the
affidavits submitted by both parties, find no cause or ground
to hold the accused for trial, it shall order the dismissal of the
case; otherwise, the court shall set the case for arraignment
and trial.
If the accused is in custody for the crime charged, he shall be
immediately arraigned and if he enters a plea of guilty, he
shall forthwith be sentenced.
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure only requires that a preliminary investigation be
conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for
an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard
to the fine. As has been previously established herein, the
maximum penalty imposable for malicious mischief in People
v. Lopez, et al. is just six (6) months.
The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure has been in effect
since November 15, 1991. It finds application in a substantial
number of civil and criminal cases pending before Judge
Javellana’s court. Judge Javellana cannot claim to be
unfamiliar with the same.
There is no sufficient evidence to hold Judge Javellana
administratively liable for the other charges against him
contained in the complaint. Yet, we call Judge Javellana’s
attention to several matters pointed out by the OCA, that if
left unchecked, may again result in another administrative
complaint against the judge:
(1) notices of hearing issued by Judge Javellana’s court must
state the specific time, date, and place;
be delivered to the nearest police station and proceeded
against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. Under said
Section 7, Rule 112, the prosecuting officer can file the
Information in court without a preliminary investigation, which
was done in the accused-appellant's case.
Since the records do not show whether the accused-
appellant asked for a preliminary investigation after the case
had been filed in court, as in fact, the accused-appellant
signified his readiness to be arraigned, the Court can only
conclude that he waived his right to have a preliminary
investigation, when he did, in fact, pleaded "Not Guilty" upon
his arraignment.
Quantum of evidence
1. Probable cause v. Prima facie
PCGG v. Navarro-Gutierrez, 773 SCRA
De Lima v. Reyes, 779 SCRA

(2) in case Judge Javellana is unable to attend a hearing for

any reason, he must inform his Clerk of Court as soon as
possible so that the latter can already cancel the hearing and
spare the parties, counsels, and witnesses from waiting[52];
and

(3) he must take care in ascertaining the facts and according

due process to the parties concerned before levying charges
of incompetence or indifference against the PAO lawyers
appearing before his court.

Inquest
1. When applied

Waiver of Art. 125 of the RPC

People v. Valencia, 214 SCRA 89

● "Where there is smoke, there is a fire!" is an old
saying which is applicable in the appeal at bar
considering that the accused-appellant was convicted
mainly on circumstantial evidence.

The accused-appellant decries the fact that he was denied

the right of preliminary investigation. This is not true.

A person who is lawfully arrested, without a warrant pursuant

to paragraph 1(b), Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court should