CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES

ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Caniaga v People, GR No. 180010, 30 July 2010

FACTS:
1. Petitioner, as the municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela with a Salary Grade of 24, was
charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City in Isabela with three counts
of malversation of public funds.

2. The two other Information’s in the second and third criminal cases, Nos. 1294 and 1295,
contain the same allegations except the malversate amounts which are 25,627.38 and
20,735.13, respectively.

3. RTC convicted petitioner in the three cases. CA Dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of
jurisdiction

ISSUE: W/N The appeal of the petitioner be transmitted to the Sandigan bayan where the appeal shall
then proceed in due course.

HELD: Yes, Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of a person being deprived of
liberty due to a procedural lapse militates against the Court’s dispensation of justice, the Court grants
petitioner’s plea for a relaxation of the Rules.

For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any
rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial
justice must always be avoided.

In Ulep v. People, the Court remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan when it found that petitioner’s
failure to designate the proper forum for her appeal was inadvertent. The omission did not appear to
be a dilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had more to lose had that been the case as her
appeal could be dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction – which was exactly what happened in the
CA.
DOCTRINE:
XPN: While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, the Court has made exceptions
thereto, especially in criminal cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client
of due process of law; when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or
property; or where the interests of justice so require. It cannot be gainsaid that the case of petitioner
can fall under any of these exceptions.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

Caniaga v People, GR No. 180010, 30 July 2010
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Rapsing v. Ables, GR No. 171855, 15 Oct 2012

Rapsing v. Ables, GR No. 171855, 15 Oct 2012

FACTS: Respondents, members of the Philippine Army, are accused of killing three individuals. There
was a disputed encounter with armed elements in which seven people were killed.

However, petitioners argue that these victims were executed by respondents.

The Regional Trial Court initially issued arrest warrants for respondents but later granted a motion
from the Judge Advocate General's Office (JAGO) to transfer the cases to a military tribunal, citing the
absence of respondents' arrest as a reason. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Philippine
Army for further action.

ISSUE: W/N the trial court gravely abuse its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it
transferred the criminal case filed against the respondent the jurisdiction of the military tribunal.
HELD: Yes, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in not taking cognizance of the case, which
actually falls within its jurisdiction.

Murder is a crime punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and is
within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Under RA 7055, military tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction over
the respondent’s case since the offense for which they were charged is not included in the
enumeration of service-oriented crime.

Hence, irrespective of whether the killing was actually justified or not, jurisdiction to try the crime
charged against the respondents have been vested upon the RTC by law.

DOCTRINE:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

PP v. Hon. Magallanes, GR No. 118013, 11 October 1995

PP v. Hon. Magallanes, GR No. 118013, 11 October 1995

FACTS: two informations for kidnapping for ransom with murder were filed with the RTC of Bacolod
City against fourteen persons, five of whom are members of the PNP, the other nine are civilians.

the private prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan on
the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the cases because the offenses charged were
committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers. In his Manifestation with Urgent
Motion to Transmit Records, the State Prosecutor adopted the motion of the private
prosecutors.

the trial court, ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the subject cases because
the informations do not state that the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused
PNP officers.

the prosecution moved to reconsider the said order but the trial court issued an order denying the
motion on the grounds that there was (a) an intimate connection between the offense charged and
the public position of the accused and (b) a total absence of personal motive; whereas, in these cases,
no such intimate connection exists and the informations emphasize that the accused were moved by
selfish motives of ransom and extortion.

the prosecution, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed with us a petition for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order challenging the
refusal of the respondent Judge to transfer the cases to the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE: W/N the charged falls under the jurisdiction of Sandigan Bayan.

HELD: No, the Court held that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case because the
information did not allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of official
duties and the commission of the offense.

the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the
action. Under the above assumption then, the cases should have been filed with the Sandiganbayan since
at the time the information’s were filed, the governing law was Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by
P.D. No. 1861.

In the instant case, the Sandiganbayan has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the subject criminal
cases, as the information’s were filed not before it but before the Regional Trial Court. It would,
therefore, be a futile exercise to transfer the cases to the Sandiganbayan because the same would anyway
be transferred again to the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 7 of the RA 7975 in relation to Section 2
thereof.

DOCTRINE: jurisdiction once acquired is not affected by subsequent legislative enactment placing
jurisdiction in another tribunal. It remains with the court until the case is finally terminated.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Hence, the Sandiganbayan or the courts, as the case may be, cannot be divested of jurisdiction over
cases filed before them by reason of R.A. No. 7975. They retain their jurisdiction until the end of the
litigation.
Recite-Ready Summary:
Fourteen individuals, including five members of the PNP and nine civilians, were charged with
kidnapping for ransom with murder in Bacolod City RTC.

The private prosecutors and the State Prosecutor sought to transfer the cases to the Sandiganbayan,
arguing that the offenses were related to the accused PNP officers' official duties.

However, the trial court disagreed, stating that the information’s did not establish a connection
between the crimes and the officers' public positions, emphasizing selfish motives instead.

The prosecution, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition with the court,
seeking certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, along with a temporary restraining order, to challenge
the trial court's decision to keep the cases under its jurisdiction.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Antiporda v. Garchitorena, GR No. 133289, 23 December 1999

Antiporda v. Garchitorena, GR No. 133289, 23 December 1999

FACTS:

1. Accused Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla were charged
with the crime of kidnapping of Elmer Ramos.

2. the Court issued an order giving the prosecution thirty (30) days within which to submit the
amendment to the Information.

3. Accused then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion dated November 16, 1997 praying that a
reinvestigation of the case be conducted and the issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred.

4. An order was penned by Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero-Agcaoili recommending the denial of the
accused's Urgent Omnibus Motion was approved by Ombudsman

5. The accused thereafter filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance
and/or Recall Warrant of Arrest Issued. The same was denied on the ground that there was
nothing in the Amended Information that was added to the original Information so that the
accused could not claim a right to be heard separately in an investigation in the Amended
Information.

6. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the accused.

ISSUE: W/N a reinvestigation be made in view of the amended informations.

HELD: the reinvestigation is not necessary anymore.

A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused's substantial rights would be impaired. In the case at
bar, we do not find that their rights would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended Information is filed
without a reinvestigation taking place. The amendments made to the Information merely describe the
public positions held by the accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he
was kidnapped

It must here be stressed that a preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and it is often the
only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the
prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has
no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the persons accused
in jeopardy. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for
the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof
DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Estoppel
Recite-Ready Case: Accused individuals (Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Caesar Talla) were initially charged with kidnapping Elmer Ramos. The court granted the prosecution
30 days to amend the information.

The accused subsequently filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion, requesting a reinvestigation and a
deferral of arrest warrants. A recommendation from Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero-Agcaoili to deny this
motion was approved by the Ombudsman.

The accused later filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance and/or
Recall Warrant of Arrest Issued, which was denied because the Amended Information did not
introduce significant changes, and the accused had no separate right to a new investigation.

The Sandiganbayan rejected the accused's motion for reconsideration.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Jurisdiction of Sandigan Bayan

Duncano v SB, GR No. 181894, 15 July 2015
Duncano v SB, GR No. 181894, 15 July 2015

FACTS: Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano is the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
with Salary Grade 26 as classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No.6758. the Office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him for violation of Section
8, in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713.

Prior to his arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prayer to Defer the Issuance of
Warrant of Arrest before respondent Sandiganbayan Second Division. As the OSP alleged, he
admitted that he is a Regional Director with Salary Grade 26. Citing Inding v. Sandiganbayan8 and
Serana v. Sandiganbayan, et al., he asserted that under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, as
amended by Section 4 (A) (1) of R.A No. 8249,10 the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to try and hear
the case because he is an official of the executive branch occupying the position of a Regional
Director but with a compensation that is classified as below Salary Grade 27.

the Sandiganbayan DENIES the instant Motion to Dismiss for being devoid of merit. Let a Warrant of
Arrest be therefore issued against the accused.

ISSUE: W/N the Sandigan Bayan has the jurisdiction over the accused who is a Regional Director with
salary grade below 27.
HELD: No. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the accused.

The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional director and
higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office

In ruling in favor of its jurisdiction, even though petitioner admittedly occupied the position of Director II
with Salary Grade "26" under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No.
6758), the Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of jurisdiction, and acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in suspending petitioner from office, entitling petitioner to the reliefs
prayed for.
DOCTRINE
Recite-Ready Case: Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano, a Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) with Salary Grade 26, faced a criminal case filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor
for violating R.A. No. 6713. Before his arraignment, he filed a Motion to Dismiss with a request to
defer the issuance of an arrest warrant at the Sandiganbayan Second Division. He argued that the
Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over the case because his position as a Regional Director did not
meet the required Salary Grade of 27.

However, the Sandiganbayan rejected his motion to dismiss and ordered the issuance of an arrest
warrant, deeming it meritless.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Illegal Arrest
PP. v. Rivera, GR No. 177741, 27 August 2009

PP. v. Rivera, GR No. 177741, 27 August 2009

FACTS: Rivera was charge for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride to a police poseur-buyer.

Appellant denied the charges and argue that he was frame up.

Regional Trial Court of Pasig City found Rivera guilty of the crime.
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of RTC.

ISSUE: W/N The arrest was legal.

HELD: it is long settled that where the accused, by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court, as shown by the counsel-assisted plea he entered during the arraignment and his active participation
in the trial thereafter, voluntarily waives his constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches.
We have consistently ruled that any objection concerning the issuance or service of a warrant or a
procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

The records do not show that appellant raised any question on the legality of his arrest before he was
arraigned or in his petition for bail. By submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court and presenting
evidence in his defense, appellant voluntarily waived his constitutional protection against illegal arrest.
DOCTRINE:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Jurisdiction over the territory

AAA v BBB, GR No. 212448, 11 January 2018

FACTS: Petitioner AAA and respondent BBB were married in Quezon City. Their union produced two
children: CCC and DDD

[BBB], being then legally married to [AAA], caused herein [AAA] mental and emotional
anguish by sending little to no financial support, and only sporadically. There were also
allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and
sexual violence.

This makes it far worse, as AAA having an illicit relationship with a certain Lisel Mok as
confirmed by his photograph with his purported paramour Lisel Mok and her children and the
e-mailed letter by his mother mentioning about the said relationship, to the damage and
prejudice of [AAA]. This leads to violent altercation between AAA and BBB during her visit
with their kids.

Investigating prosecutor found probable cause to charge respondent BBB in violation of

Section 5(i) of R.A No. 9262.

Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the information. RTC granted the motion to
quash on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: W/N Philippine courts are deprived of territorial jurisdiction over a criminal charge of
psychological abuse under R.A. No.9262 when committed through marital infidelity and the alleged
illicit relationship took place outside the Philippines.
HELD: No, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional.

The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with
an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a
court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And
once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case.

In this case, pursuant to Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, the law contemplates that acts of violence against
women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts
material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or
territory, while some occur in another. Thus, the courts have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or
act of violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) was
committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the complaint
is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. In the present
scenario, the offended wife and children of respondent husband are residents of Pasig City. Hence, the
RTC of Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.
DOCTRINE:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Recite-Ready Case: Petitioner AAA and respondent BBB were once married and had two children
together. However, BBB, who was legally married to AAA, caused her significant mental and emotional
distress by providing little to no financial support and occasionally abandoning her and their son CCC.
There were also allegations of mistreatment, physical and sexual violence, and a claim that AAA had
an illicit relationship with someone named Lisel Mok.

This situation led to a violent altercation between AAA and BBB during one of her visits with their
children. An investigating prosecutor determined that there was enough evidence to charge BBB with
violating Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, which relates to violence against women and their children.

However, respondent BBB filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the information, and the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) granted the motion on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Duty of Public Prosecutor

Metropolitan Bank v. Reynaldo, GR No. 164538, 09 August 2010
Metropolitan Bank v. Reynaldo, GR No. 164538, 09 August 2010
FACTS: Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company charged respondents before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila with the crime of estafa .

In the affidavitt of petitioner’s audit officer, Antonio Ivan S. Aguirre, it was alleged that the special
audit conducted on the cash and lending operations of its Port Area branch uncovered
anomalous/fraudulent transactions perpetrated by respondents in connivance with
client Universal Converter Philippines, Inc. (Universal); that respondents were the only voting
members of the branch’s credit committee authorized to extend credit accommodation to clients up
to 200,000.00; that through the so-called Bills Purchase Transaction, Universal, which has a paid-
up capital of only 125,000.00 and actual maintaining balance of 5,000.00, was able to make
withdrawals totaling 81,652,000.006 against uncleared regional checks deposited in its account at
petitioner’s Port Area branch; that, consequently, Universal was able to utilize petitioner’s funds even
before the seven-day clearing period for regional checks expired; that Universal’s withdrawals
against uncleared regional check deposits were without prior approval of petitioner’s head office; that
the uncleared checks were later dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Account Closed";
and, that respondents acted with fraud, deceit, and abuse of confidence.

Respondents denied responsibility in the anomalous transactions with Universal and claimed that they
only intended to help the Port Area branch solicit and increase its deposit accounts and daily
transactions. Petitioner and Universal entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement whereby the latter
acknowledged its indebtedness to the former.

Prosecutor Edad: The execution of the Debt Settlement Agreement puts complainant bank in estoppel
to argue that the liability is criminal. Since the agreement was made even before the filing of this case,
the relations between the parties have change, novation has set in and prevented the incipience of
any criminal liability on the part of respondents.

the DOJ dismissed the petition for motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. The CA affirmed the
resolutions of the DOJ.

ISSUE: W/N it is the duty of the public prosecutor to implead all persons who appear criminally liable
HELD: Yes. The duty of a public prosecutor is to determines whether a crime has been committed and
whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. Secretary of Justice, however may
review or modify the resolution of the prosecutor.

"Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be
held for trial." Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of
a preliminary investigation. By way of exception, however, judicial review is allowed where respondent
has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is, when he has
exercised his discretion "in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law." Tested against these guidelines, we find that this case falls
under the exception rather than the general rule.

In the case at bar, the public prosecutor failed performs its duty, as analyze by the prosecutor, a prima
facie case of estafa exist against respondent. Thus, it reveals that were it not for the Debt Settlement
Agreement, there was indeed probable cause to indict respondents for the crime charged. Therefore,
it is the duty of the public prosecutor to filed the crime charge against the respondent since there is a
probable cause to hold trial against the respondent.
DOCTRINE:
Recite-Ready Case: The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company accused respondents of estafa in a case
filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. The bank alleged that respondents, in
collusion with client Universal Converter Philippines, Inc., engaged in fraudulent transactions involving
uncleared regional checks, allowing Universal to withdraw large sums of money before the checks
cleared, resulting in financial losses for the bank. It was claimed that respondents acted with fraud,
deceit, and abuse of confidence.

In response, respondents denied responsibility and stated that their intent was to assist the Port Area
branch in attracting deposits and transactions. A Debt Settlement Agreement was reached between
petitioner and Universal, acknowledging the latter's debt to the bank.

Prosecutor Edad argued that the Debt Settlement Agreement prevented the bank from pursuing
criminal liability against respondents, as it constituted novation and changed the relations between
the parties.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, and the Court
of Appeals (CA) upheld the DOJ's resolutions, affirming the dismissal of the case.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Jurisdiction over the accused

Inocentes v. PP, GR No. 205963, 07 July 2016

Inocentes v. PP, GR No. 205963, 07 July 2016

FACTS: Inocentes and other public officers of the Government Service Insurance System, Tarlac City
Field Office was charged with a crime for Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended by processing and
approving the housing loans of Four Hundred Ninety-One (491) borrowers of [Jose De Guzman]’s
housing project under the GSIS Bahay Ko Program, with a total amount of loans amounting to Two
Hundred Forty-One Million Fifty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (Php 241,053,600.00), knowing
fully well that the said borrowers/grantees were not qualified and were not under the territorial
jurisdiction of the Tarlac City Field Office.

the Sandiganbayan finds probable cause and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against all the
accused. To avoid incarceration, Inocentes immediately posted bail.

Innocentes then filed an omnibus motion for judicial probable cause, contending that the
informations filed against him should be quashed because the Sandiganbayan does not have
jurisdiction over the case. Inocentes held a position with a Salary Grade of 26, claiming that he cannot
fall under the enumeration of managers of GOCCs because his position as department manager
cannot be placed in the same category as the president, general manager, and trustee of the GSIS.

ISSUE: W/N there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of Sandigan Bayan.

HELD: NO, The Sandigan bayan did not abuse its discretion by having jurisdiction over the accused.
the court ruled that even though Inocentes does not occupy a position with a salary grade of 27 since
he was the branch manager of the GSIS’ field office in Tarlac City, a government-owned or –controlled
corporation, at the time of the commission of the offense, which position falls within the coverage of
the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Therefore, regardless of their salary grades, Grade 26 and below may
still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided they hold the positions enumerated by
the law in this category, it is the position held, not the salary grade, which determines the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan

Moreover, The Sandigan bayan already aquired its jurisdiction over the accused after its issuance of
minute resolution finding probable cause to issue warrant of arrest against all the accuse. Inocentes
availed of this remedy after he had posted bail before the Sandiganbayan which, in our jurisdiction, is
tantamount to voluntary surrender. Therefore, questioning the findings of probable cause by the
Sandiganbayan at this point would be pointless as it has already acquired jurisdiction over Inocentes.
DOCTRINE:

-Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon (1) his arrest or
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

apprehension, with or without a warrant, or (2) his voluntary appearance or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.

-Violations of R.A No. 3019 commited by presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of

government-owned or -controlled corporations, and state universities shall be within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Sandganbayan. We have clarified the provision of law defining the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by explaining that the Sandiganbayan maintains its jurisdiction over
those officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of P.D. No.= 1606, as amended,
regardless of their salary grades.

Recite-Ready Case: Inocentes, along with other public officers from the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) in Tarlac City, was charged with a crime under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 for
processing and approving housing loans totaling Php 241,053,600.00 for 491 borrowers in the GSIS
Bahay Ko Program. The charge alleged that they approved these loans for individuals who did not
qualify and were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Tarlac City Field Office.

The Sandiganbayan found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest for all the accused. Inocentes
posted bail to avoid imprisonment.

Subsequently, Inocentes filed an omnibus motion for judicial probable cause, arguing that the
Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over the case. He claimed that his position, with a Salary Grade of
26, should not be categorized as a manager of Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations
(GOCCs) and therefore should not fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Cojuangco v. SB, GR No. 134707, 21 December 1998

Cojuangco v. SB, GR No. 134707, 21 December 1998

FACTS: Petitioner Cojuanco filed a petition to dismiss criminal charge against him.

Petitioner contends that the warrant of arrest issued respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, and
to prohibit said court from further proceeding with the case. According to petitioner, there is lack of
sufficient basis upon which it could have "personally" determined the existence of probable cause to
issue the warrant of arrest against him.

Petitioner invokes his constitutional right to due process, a speedy trial, and a speedy determination
of his cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies.

Further, he prays for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction enjoining respondent Sandiganbayan (First Division) from further enforcing
and or implementing its order which bans petitioner from leaving the country except upon prior
approval by said court.

ISSUE: W/N the warrant of arrest issued by respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void.
W/N respondent Sandiganbayan could still exercise jurisdiction over the petitioner and proceed with
the trial of the case.
HELD: The rule was well-settled that giving or posting bail by the accused is tantamount to submission
of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. thus, it has been held that:

When a defendant in a criminal case is brought before a competent court by virtue of a warrant of
arrest or otherwise, in order to avoid the submission of his body to the jurisdiction of the court he
must raise the question of the court's jurisdiction over his person at the very earliest opportunity. If he
gives bail, demurs to the complaint or files any dilatory plea or pleads to the merits, he thereby gives
the court jurisdiction over his person.

In this case, conceding again that the warrant issue in this case was void for the reason that no
probable cause was found by the court before issuing it, the defendant waived all his rights to object
to the same by appearing and giving bond. Therefore, by posting bail, petitioner cannot claim
exemption from the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
DOCTRINE:
Recite-Ready Case: Petitioner Cojuanco has filed a petition to dismiss a criminal charge against him.
He argues that the warrant of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan is invalid because there was
insufficient basis for the court to personally determine the existence of probable cause for his arrest.

Cojuanco also asserts his constitutional rights to due process and a speedy trial, requesting a speedy
resolution of his cases in all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies.

Additionally, he seeks the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction to prevent the Sandiganbayan (First Division) from enforcing its order that restricts him
from leaving the country without prior court approval.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Recite-Ready Summary: Petitioner Cojuanco has filed a petition seeking the dismissal of a criminal
charge against him. He argues that the warrant of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan is invalid, and
he requests the court to stop further proceedings. Cojuanco claims there was insufficient basis for the
Sandiganbayan to personally determine probable cause for his arrest.

Furthermore, he asserts his constitutional rights to due process, a speedy trial, and a prompt
resolution of his cases in all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies.

Cojuanco also asks for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to prevent
the Sandiganbayan (First Division) from enforcing its order restricting him from leaving the country
without prior court approval.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Circumstancial Evidence
Atienza v PP, GR No. 188694, 12 Feb 2014

Atienza v PP, GR No. 188694, 12 Feb 2014

FACTS: Atienza and Castro, who work at the Court of Appeals (CA) Budget Division, had an encounter
with Atibula, a Records Officer at the CA Reporter's Division. Atibula was introduced to Dario by Castro
at Atienza's birthday party, where they discussed finding a specific CA decision. Later, Atibula and
Dario searched for this decision in CA volumes, during which Atibula noticed Dario comparing pages to
discolored papers he had.

After work, Dario asked Atibula to insert a decision into one of the volumes, which Atibula refused.
Atienza offered Atibula 50,000.00 for Volume 260, but he declined. Atibula reported these incidents to
Atty. Macapagal, who instructed him to hide Volumes 260, 265, and 267. Later, Atibula discovered
Volume 266 missing and reported it to Atty. Macapagal.

Nelson de Castro, a Clerk IV at the CA Reporter's Division, returned the missing Volume 266 to Atibula,
claiming Castro asked him to do so. Atibula was tasked with finding out who had borrowed the volume
but found no records of borrowing. He also discovered two new decisions in Volume 266 and reported
this to his superiors.

Upon investigation, it was revealed that these new decisions were not authentic, leading to a report to
CA Presiding Justice Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr., who requested the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) to conduct an investigation into the matter. They found out that (a) Volume 266 had indeed been
altered and (b) the signatures of the CA Justices in the subject resolution and decision (questioned
signatures) and their standard/sample signatures "were not written by one and the same person,
leading to the conclusion that the questioned signatures were forgeries.

an inspection of the air-conditioning units at the office of the CA Reporter’s Division later discovered
that the improvised angle bar supporting the air conditioning unit at the right most end from the main
door was corroded with rust and the portion of the wall holding the same was broken.

NBI Agents, Atty. Daniel D. Daganzo (Atty. Daganzo) and Norman R. Decampong then conducted an
ocular inspection of the premises, Said investigation yielded the following findings:
(a) there were no signs of forcible entry;
(b) the perpetrators gained entry to the office of the CA Reporter’s Division "by passing
through the hole on the concrete wall after removing the air conditioning unit"41 located on
the right most [sic] end from the main door;
(c) there was conspiracy to commit the crime of Falsification of Public Document between
Atienza and Dario in view of their "concerted efforts through previous or simultaneous acts
and deeds;"
(d) Castro assisted Atienza and Dario "to profit from the effects of the crime by returning
safely the missing volume to the [CA Reporter’s Division]."

Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed by the NBI and the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

of the Office of the Ombudsman against Atienza, Castro, and Dario before the Evaluation and
Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the OMB, charging them for the following crimes: (a) Falsification
of Public Document; (b) violation of Section 3(a)46 of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,47 as amended; and
(c) violation of Section 848 of RA 6713.49
RTC held the petitioners guilty of the crime charges. CA also upheld the decision.

ISSUE: W/N petitioners’ conviction for the crimes of Robbery and Falsification of Public Document
should be upheld on account of the circumstantial evidence in this case proving their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt
HELD: The Court finds that no sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented in this case to establish
the elements of the two crimes, contrary to the conclusions reached by the RTC and concurred in by
the CA.

The prosecution’s evidence on the circumstances in this case do not sufficiently establish Atienza’s
guilt for the crimes of Robbery and Falsification of Public Document. While records show that Atienza
was positively identified by Atibula as having attempted to bribe him to take out Volume 260 of the CA
Original Decisions from the Reporter’s Division the fact is that the alleged intercalation actually
occurred in a different document, that is Volume 266.

DOCTRINE:

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence, failing
which, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted. 97 This, despite the fact
that his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the
prosecution and not on the weakness or even absence of defense. If the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of
the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction, as in this case. Courts should be guided by the
principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged
than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.9

Recite-Ready Summary: Atienza and Castro, employees at the Court of Appeals, had interactions with
Atibula, another staff member, regarding a specific CA decision. Suspicious activities led to Atibula
reporting the incidents to superiors, and missing volumes were discovered. An investigation revealed
forged signatures and tampering with an air-conditioning unit to gain entry. It was concluded that
Atienza, Dario, and Castro conspired to falsify public documents. They were charged and found guilty
by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Asistio v. PP, GR No. 200465, 20 April 2010

Asistio v. PP, GR No. 200465, 20 April 2010

FACTS: Petitioner Consino Chairperson of the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose
Cooperative was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines
(Republic Act No. [RA] 6938) by amassing a substantive amount of money by entering into an exclusive
dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., (Coca Cola) for the sale of soft drink
products at the school.

After further investigation, Neaiga, representing the Cooperative, filed the Information before the RTC
but the latter dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC opined that offenses bearing a
penalty of imprisonment which does not exceed six years are within the exclusive jurisdiction of first-
level courts. After the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration, Nealiga and the OSG appealed the
case before the Court of Appeals which reversed the lower Court’s decision. Aggrieved, Asistio filed
the instant petition.

ISSUE: W/N REMANDING THE CASE BACK TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND TO HIGHER PENALTY
HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED.
HELD: NO, the dismissal having been granted upon petitioner's instance, double jeopardy did not
attach. The accused-appellee cannot contend that she will be placed in double jeopardy upon this
appeal. It must be stressed that the dismissal of the case against her was premised upon her filing of a
demurrer to evidence, and the finding, albeit erroneous, of the trial court that it is bereft of
jurisdiction.

there is no double jeopardy in this case as the dismissal was with the accused-appellee's consent, that
is, by moving for the dismissal of the case through a demurrer to evidence. As correctly argued by the
People, where the dismissal was ordered upon or with express assent of the accused, he is deemed to
have waived his protection against double jeopardy. In this case at bar, the dismissal was granted upon
motion of petitioners. Doublejeopardy, thus, did not attach.

DOCTRINE: It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for
the same offense or identical offenses. A simple act may offend against two (or more) entirely distinct
and unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact or element
which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does
not bar prosecution under the other. Phrased else wise, where two different laws (or articles of the
same code) defines two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the
other, although both offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime involves some important act
which is not an essential element of the other. Thus, since the Informations filed against petitioner in
this case were for separate and distinct offenses — the first against Article 172 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code and the second against Section 46 of the Cooperative Code (RA 6938)—one cannot be pleaded
as a bar to the other under the rule on double jeopardy. Besides, it is basic in criminal procedure that
an accused may be charged with as many crimes as defined in our penal laws even if these arose from
one incident. Thus, where a single act is directed against one person but said act constitutes a
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

violation of two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, or by a special law and the
Revised Penal Code, as in this case, the prosecution against one is not an obstacle to the prosecution
of the other. (Asistio v. People, G.R. No. 200465, 20 April 2015)
Recite-Ready Summary: Petitioner Consino, Chairperson of a teachers' cooperative, faced charges for
violating Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 6938) due to an
exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola for selling soft drink products at a school.

The case was initially filed by Neaiga representing the Cooperative but was dismissed by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) citing a lack of jurisdiction, stating that offenses with a penalty of imprisonment not
exceeding six years fall under the jurisdiction of first-level courts. Neaiga and the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's decision. Dissatisfied,
Asistio filed a petition challenging the Court of Appeals' ruling.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Doctrine of Hierarchy of Court

De Lima v. Hon. Guerrero, GR No. 229781, 10 October 2017

De Lima v. Hon. Guerrero, GR No. 229781, 10 October 2017

FACTS: De Lima was arrested for allegedly receiving money from drug convicts inside the Bilibid in
exchange for their protection. According to the testimonies of the convicts, the money was intended
to fund De Lima’s senatorial bid in 2016.

The Congress conducted several inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the
New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in support of their testimonies.

A panel of prosecutors from Department of Justice (DOJ) handled the complaints and filed the
information to the RTC, despite De Lima’s contention that it is the Ommbudsman who has the
jurisdiction over her.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner is excused from compliance with the doctrine on hierarchy of courts
considering that the petition should first be filed with the Court of Appeals.
HELD: No. Petitioner is not excused from compliance with the doctrine on hierarchy of courts.

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy of courts is an important component
of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons.
In Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy
on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious
consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with
causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and thus leave time for the Court
to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it.
The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to
the policy.

In the case at bar, none of the exceptions provided in the law were sufficiently established in the
present petition so as to convince this court to brush aside the rules on the hierarchy of courts.
Therefore, Petitioner should observe the rule on hierarchy of courts.
DOCTRINE:

The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure that every
level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not
only determine the facts from the evaluation of the evidence presented before them. They are likewise
competent to determine issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even an
executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform these functions, they are
territorially organized into regions and then into branches. Their writs generally reach within those
territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from
the evidence as these are physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts occur within their
territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the "actual case" that makes ripe a determination of the
constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be national in scope. There are,
however, some cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical considering their decisions
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

could still be appealed before the higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals.
Exceptions:

this Court may be allowed when any of the following grounds are
present:
(1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediately;
(2) when the case involves transcendental importance;
(3) when the case is novel;
(4) when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;
(5) when time is of the essence;
(6) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;
(7) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
(8) when the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by
the broader interest of justice;
(9) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal was considered as
an inappropriate remedy.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, GR. 184800, 05 May 2010

Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, GR. 184800, 05 May 2010

FACTS: Respondent Gimenez filed a criminal complaint on behalf of the Yuchengco Family before the
Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, for thirteen (13) counts of libel punishable under Revised Penal Code
against all Petitioners.

Petitioner being then the trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition and as such trustees they hold
the legal title to the website www.pepcoalition.com which is of general circulation, and publication to
the public conspiring together with John Does, publicly and maliciously attacked the honesty, virtue,
honor and integrity, character and reputation of complainant Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., Yuchengco
Family particularly Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Dee by publishing an article imputing a
vice or defect to the complainant and caused to be composed, posted and published in the said
website www.pepcoalition.com and injurious and defamatory article.

the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, finding probable cause to indict the accused, filed thirteen (13)
separate Informations charging them with libel.

Secretary of Justice reversed the finding of probable cause and ordered the withdrawal of the
information’s for libel.

Petitioners filed before the public respondent, a Motion to Quash the Information on the grounds that
it failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC.

the public respondent, albeit finding that probable cause existed, quashed the Information. However,
the prosecution moved to reconsider the quashal of the Information, insisting that the Information
sufficiently conferred jurisdiction on the public respondent.

the public respondent granted the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and accordingly ordered
the public prosecutor to "amend the Information to cure the defect of want of venue."

Petitioners moved to quash the Amended Information25 which, they alleged, still failed to vest
jurisdiction upon the public respondent because it failed to allege that the libelous articles were
"Printed and first published" by the accused in Makati; and the prosecution erroneously laid the
venue of the case in the place where the offended party accessed the internet-published article.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner violated the rule on hierarchy of courts to thus render the petition dismissible.
HELD: No. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime was
committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential element of
jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given that Article 360, as
amended, specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and civil
aspects of such cases.

venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited

to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
ZAMAR, ALBERT JOHN JD 1-C

commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first
published. The Amended Information in the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the
second. Thus, it stated that the offending article "was first published and accessed by the private
complainant in Makati City." In other words, it considered the phrase to be equivalent to the requisite
allegation of printing and first publication.

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used by the offended
party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the Information must allege with
particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidenced or supported
by, for instance, the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers,
magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall any
inclination to harass.
DOCTRINE:
Recite-Ready Case Summary: Respondent Gimenez filed a libel complaint against petitioners for
allegedly defamatory articles published on a website they managed. The Makati City Prosecutor's
Office initially filed charges, but the Secretary of Justice later ordered their withdrawal.

Petitioners sought to quash the Information in the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing it didn't
establish jurisdiction. The RTC initially agreed but later reversed its decision upon the prosecution's
request to amend the Information. Petitioners claimed the amended version still didn't confer
jurisdiction and had venue issues.