Case # 8

People v. Henry T. Go
# DeadNasiEnrile

Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private person who has conspired with a deceased public official
with a salary grade of 27.

Facts:
1. The late Arturo Enrile who was then secretary of DOTC, committed the offense in re : his office and took advantage of the
same when he entered into a contract with the accused, Henry Go (Chairman and President of the Philippine International Air
Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO)
2. Henry’s contention was that he was a private individual and Arturo passed away hence the court has lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling: The Court ruled in the negative.

Ratio: At the outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers,
may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance with
the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike constituting graft or
corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto.
The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If
circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer
has already died, the private person may be indicted alone.
The death of one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor or survivors

Case # 9
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan
#labanngasawa

Issue: Whether the SB has jurisdiction.

Facts:
1. Maj. General Garcia was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, J6, of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
2. Petitioner (wife) contends that the Sandiganbayan (SB) is not conferred jurisdiction over the "civil action" for forfeiture of
unlawfully acquired properties under R.A. No. 1379, maintaining that such jurisdiction actually resides in the Regional Trial
Courts.
3. He posits that the Sandiganbayan, under P.D. No. 1606 or the law creating it, was intended principally as a criminal court,
with no jurisdiction over separate civil actions,

petitioner points to President Corazon C. Aquino’s issuances after the EDSA Revolution, namely: (1) E.O. No. 1 creating the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth amassed by President Ferdinand
E. Marcos, his family and cronies, (2) E.O. No. 14 which amended P.D. No. 1606 and R.A. No. 1379 by transferring to the
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over civil actions filed against President Marcos, his family and cronies based on R.A. No. 1379,
the Civil Code and other existing laws, and (3) E.O. No. 14-A whch further amended E.O. No. 14, P.D. No. 1606 and R.A. No.
1379 by providing that the civil action under R.A. No. 1379 which may be filed against President Marcos, his family and
cronies, may proceed independently of the criminal action.

Ruling: The Court held in the positive.

Ratio: In the face of the prevailing jurisprudence and the present state of statutory law on the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, petitioner’s argument—that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petition for forfeiture it being
"civil" in nature and the Sandiganbayan allegedly having no jurisdiction over civil actions—collapses completely.

Case # 10
People v. Benipayo
#defamation

Facts:
1. Respondent Benipayo, then Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), delivered a speech held at the Balay
Kalinaw, University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, Quezon City.

Petitioner corporation, believing that it

was the one alluded to by the
respondent when he stated in his
speech that: “Now, they are at it again,
trying to hoodwink us into 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.”
filed, through its authorized representative,
an Affidavit-Complaint for libel.
Petitioner corporation, believing that it
was the one alluded to by the
respondent when he stated in his
speech that: “Now, they are at it again,
trying to hoodwink us into 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.”
filed, through its authorized representative,
an Affidavit-Complaint for libel.
2. Petitioner corporation, through its authorized representative, an Affidavit-Complaint for libel.
3. Arguing that he was an impeachable officer, respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City (OCP-QC).

Ruling: The court held in the positive.

Ratio: we must, in the same way, declare herein that the law, as it still stands at present, 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.

Case # 11
Sanchez v. Demetrio
#rapeinlaguna

Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction over his person.

Facts: 1. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of appropriate charges against several persons,
including the petitioner, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez.
2. The panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted a preliminary investigation on August 9, 1993.
Petitioner Sanchez was not present but was represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr.
3. At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan,
who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. The
petitioner was then placed on "arrest status" and taken to the Department of Justice.

Ruling: The Court held in the positive.

Ratio: Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the petitioner. The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he
may move to quash the information, but only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the
motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of that
court.

Case # 11
Sanchez v. Demetrio
#rapeinlaguna

Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction over his person. Facts: 1. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the
filing of appropriate charges against several persons, including the petitioner, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary
Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. 2. The panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted a
preliminary investigation on August 9, 1993. Petitioner Sanchez was not present but was represented by his counsel, Atty.
Marciano Brion, Jr. 3. At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPO III
Vivencio Malabanan, who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the
killing of Gomez. The petitioner was then placed on "arrest status" and taken to the Department of Justice. Ruling: The Court
held in the positive. Ratio: Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court still lawfully
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, he may move to quash the information, but only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other
grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the
jurisdiction of that court.

Case # 12
De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781
#bilibid

De Lima was arrested late February for allegedly receiving money from drug convicts inside Bilibid in exchange for their
protection. The money, the convicts said, was intended to fund De Lima’s senatorial bid in 2016 It was the conclusion of a
series of sensational congressional inquiries where Bilibid convicts pointed to De Lima, as having been complicit in the
proliferation of the drug trade inside the jails. A panel of prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) handled the
complaints, despite De Lima’s contention that it is the Ombudsman who has jurisdiction over her.

The issue resolved was whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over De Lima’s Case given that she falls under the
classification of a public official with Salary Grade 27 and higher, and that the alleged offense was committed in relation to
her office thus should be under the Sandiganbayan.

The Court sided with Calida’s argument that under the Dangerous Drugs Act, it is the RTC which has sole jurisdiction to try
the charges under that law. “The Court did not agree with petitioner’s characterization of the offense as Direct Bribery under
the Revised Penal Code but maintained that the Information are sufficient to characterize the offense asa violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act,” the SC said in a summary sent by Te

Case # 13
Duncano v. Sandiganbayan
#BIRofficer

Issue: Whether the SB had jurisdiction.

Facts:
1. Duncano is, at the time material to the case, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Salary
Grade 26 as classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758.
2. 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.
3. Quoting Inding, 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

Ruling: The court ruled in the negative.

Ratio: 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.

Case # 14
Innocentes v. People
#GSIS

Issue: Whether the SB has jurisdiction over public employees with a salary grade less than 27.
Facts: 1. Inoncentes and his group are all public officers working in the Government Service Insurance System.
2. Allegedly, they transgressed RA 3019, for conferring housing loans to unqualified individuals.
3. He prayed that the information be quashed because it was outside the jurisdiction of the SB.

Ruling: The Court held in the positive.

Ratio: On the issue on jurisdiction, it is of no moment that 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.

The applicable law provides that violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed 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.

Case # 15
Crisostomo v. De Guzman
#MTCC

Issue: Whether the MTCC has jurisdiction.

Facts: 1. Crisostomo allegedly purchased bakery products from respondent De Guzman with a total value of P1,262,121.00,
and left an unpaid balance of P277,121.00.

De Guzman promised to pay respondent in June 2003 but failed to do so despite several demands.
2. Petitioner claimed that since the complaint before the second adjustment in jurisdictional amount allegedly took effect on
April 12, 2004, the MTCC should dismiss the same for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Thereafter, the MTCC issued an Order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. The MTCC observed that petitioner was
actually assailing the correctness and validity of OCA Circular Nos. 21-99 and 65-2004 fixing the effectivity dates of the
increase in jurisdictional amount of first, level courts. It held that it had no authority "to alter, modify or declare as invalid
the Circulars issued by the Supreme Court.

Ruling: The Court held in the affirmative.

Ratio: As correctly observed by the RTC, the MTCC merely followed the effectivity dates fixed by the OCA for the increase in
the jurisdictional amounts and applied the OCA circulars in determining that it in fact had jurisdiction over the complaint
filed by respondent. The MTCC did not evade any positive duty or refuse to perform an act enjoined by law when it refused
to dismiss Civil Case No. 3706. On the contrary, it acted in accordance with law and in compliance with the OCA directive

Case # 16
Edgar Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398
#JAIL

Crisostomo, a member of the PNP and a jail guard at the Solano Municipal Jail was charged with the murder of Renato, a
detention prisoner at the SolanoMunicipal Jail. The two-fold duties of a jail guard are to insure the safe
custody andproper confinement of persons detained in the jail. The law restricts access to a prisoner. However, because of the
very nature of the work of a jail guard, he has access to the prisoner. The Court explained that a public officer commits an
offense in relation to his office if he perpetrates the offense while performing, though in an improper or irregular manner, his
official functions and he cannot commit the offense without holding his public office. In such a case, there is an intimate
connection between the offense and the office of the accused. Therefore, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime
charged against petitioner.

Issue: Whether the SB has jurisdiction.

RULING: The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to try the case. However, the prosecution failed to prove Crisostomo and
Calingayan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we acquit Crisostomo and Calingayan.

Case # 17
Esteban v. Sandiganbayan
#manyak
Issue: Whether SB has jurisdiction over the case.

Facts:
1. Ana May alleged that she was a casual employee of the City Government of Cabanatuan City. Sometime in February 1997,
she was detailed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch Cabanatuan City, upon incessant request of
Presiding Judge Reogelio Esteban.
2. After her detail with Branch 1, the item of bookbinder became vacant. Thus, she applied for the position but petitioner did
not take any action on her application. On July 25, 1997, when she approached Esteban in his chambers to follow up her
application, he told her, "Ano naman ang magiging kapalit ng pagpirma ko rito? Mula ngayon, girlfriend na kita. Araw-araw
papasok ka dito sa opisina ko, at araw-araw, isang halik." ("What can you offer me in exchange for my signature? From now
on, you are my girlfriend. You will enter this office everyday and everyday, I get one kiss.") Ana May refused to accede to his
proposal as she considered him like her own father.
3. Petitioner contends that the alleged acts of lasciviousness were not committed in relation to his office as a judge; and the
fact that he is a public official is not an essential element of the crimes charged.

Ruling: The Court ruled in the affirmative.

Ratio: In People v. Montejo, we ruled that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is
"intimately connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official
functions. This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the
Information. This is in accordance with the rule that the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts
in the complaint or information. Hence, where the information is wanting in specific factual averments to show the intimate
relationship/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official functions, the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over the case. The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The
Amended Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 24703-04 contain allegations showing that the acts of lasciviousness were
committed by the petitioner in relation to his official function.

Case # 18
Bonifacio et al., vs RTC Makati
#

Facts: Jessie John Gimenez (Gimenez) filed in behalf of Yuchenco Family of Yuchenco Group of Companies (YGC) and
Malayan Insurance Co., (Malayan), a criminal complain for 13 counts of libel under Art. 355 in relation to Art. 353 of the RPC
against the members of Paents Enabling Parents Coalition Inc (PEPCI), a group of discontented planholders of Pacific Plans,
Inc (PPI) which is owned by the Yuchengco’s, for they previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were
unable to collect thereon or avail of the benefits of such after PPI, due to liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation
with prayer of suspension of payments. That PEPCI members owns and moderates a website and a blog with web domains:
www.pacificnoplan.blogspot.com, www.pepcoalition.com, and no2pep2010@yahoogroups.com. Gimenez alleged that upon
accessing such websites in Makati he red various article containing highly derogatory statements and false accusations
attacking the Yuchengco Family. Since the article was first published and accessed by Gimenez at Makati City, pursuant to
Art. 360 of the RPC as amended by RA 4363. Issue: How should an online article be treated in relation to a written
defamation/libel with respect to jurisdiction of the case provided by law specifically Art. 360 of the RPC? Ruling: Art. 360 of
the RPC provides: “Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing
or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. xxxx The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of
written defamations, as provided for in this chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC of the province
or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the oofense. xxxx” That venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is
limited only to: 1. Where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2. Where the
alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published was used as basis forthe venue of the action, the
Information must allege with particularity where the defamatoryarticle was printed and first published. The same measures
cannot be reasonably expected whenit pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there
would be noway of determining the point of its printing and first publication. TO give credence to Gimenez’sargument
would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Art. 360 of the RPC sought todiscourage and prevent. It would do
chaos wherein website author, writer, blogger or anyonewho post messages in websites could be sued for libel anywhere in
the Philippines.The information is quashed and the case is dismissed

Case # 19
Disini Jr. v. Secretary of Justice
#
Issue: Whether the trial court has jurisdiction.

Facts: 1. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Cyber Crime Prevention as it infringes the people’s right to free speech.

Ruling: The Court ruled in the affirmative.

Ratio: The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012. Including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if
any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or
partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the
time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines

Case # 20
Jimenez v. Sorongon
#underpeople

Facts:
The petitioner who was then president of Unlad Shipping & Management Corporation, a local manning agency, filed a case
for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment against Tsakos Maritime Services, Inc. (TMSI) in the Regional Trial Court.
The trial court dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal in the RTC which the
latter denied on the basis that the petitioner filed it without the conformity of the Solicitor General, who is mandated to
represent the People of the Philippines in criminal actions.

Issue:
Whether or not the case would prosper without the conformity of the Solicitor General.

Held:
No. According to the Supreme Court, 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. Procedural
law basically mandates that "all criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of a public prosecutor. 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. 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.

Case # 21
People v. Valdez
#3homicide

Facts:
Two accused were tried for three counts of murder: Edwin Valdez and Eduardo Valdez. The RTC convicted them as charged.
The two accused then came to the SC on final appeal, but on May 9, 2007, Edwin Valdez filed a motion to withdraw appeal,
which the Court granted.
On January 18, 2012, the Court promulgated its judgment on the appeal of Eduardo Valdez, finding him guilty of three counts
of homicide, instead of three counts of murder. Edwin Valdez sent to the Court Administrator a self-explanatory letter, where
he pleaded for the application to him of the judgment promulgated on January 18, 2012 on the ground that the judgment
would be beneficial to him as an accused. The SC granted the request of Edwin Valdez.
Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court rightfully granted the request of Edwin Valdez and thus he is only guilty of
homicide and not murder.

Held: Yes, the grant of the request is valid and Edwin Valdez is only guilty of three counts of homicide. According to the
Supreme Court, it is unavoidable for the Court to pronounce guilty of three homicides, instead of three murders, on account of
the information not sufficiently alleging the attendance of treachery. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in
such form 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. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and
clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information

Case # 22
Miguel v. Sandiganbayan
#underpeople

Facts:
Vice Mayor Lucido and other officials were charged with violation of RA 3019. The Information filed against them states the
following wordings: and as such while in the performance of his official functions, committing the offense in relation to his
office, taking advantage of his official position, conspiring and confederating with the private [individuals] xxx acting with
evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits and
advantages. The petitioner contends that the Informaiton is invalid. He alleges that the phrases "evident bad faith" and
"manifest partiality" actually refers not to him, but to his co-accused, rendering the information fatally defective.

Issue:
Whether or not the Information is valid

Held:
Yes, the Information is valid. The Supreme Court ruled 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. The petitioner actually disputes is simply the clarity of the
phrase’s position, in relation with the other averments in the information. Given the supposed ambiguity of the subject being
qualified by the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality," the remedy of the petitioner, if at all, is merely
to move for a bill of particulars and not for the quashal of an information which sufficiently alleges the elements of the offense
charged

Case # 23
People v. Soria
#underpeople

Facts:
Accused, who is the father of private complainant "AAA", was charged of the crime of rape. The Information states that the
accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with force and intimidation commit an act of sexual assault
upon the person of one "AAA", a minor, 7 years of age, by then and there inserting his penis into the genital of said
complainant, all against her will and consent, which act debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of said
"AAA", as a human being. However, in the Information filed, there was no proof attached on the age of the private
complainant at the time the crime was committed. Nevertheless, the RTC convicted the accused for the crime charged and was
sentence with the maximum penalty of death.

Issue: WON the RTC rightfully convicted the accused

Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty should only be Reclusion Temporal because minority in this rape case
was only considered as aggravating circumstance and not qualifying because of the failure to describe minority in the
Information. It is settled that when either one of the qualifying circumstances is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in
the information and proved by the evidence, may be considered only as an aggravating circumstance.

to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the offended party the amount of P75,000.00, to pay moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to deter other fathers with
perverse proclivities for aberrant sexual behavior for sexually abusing their own daughters.

is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prison mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay "AAA" the amounts of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral
damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. "AAA" is entitled to an interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of
6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

Case # 24
Corpus Jr. v. Pamular, 879
#mayor

CORPUS V. JUDGE PAMULAR [ G.R. No. 186403, September 05, 2018 ] 3rd Division: Leonen This case discusses the
significance of the JAR to the exclusive and personal responsibility of judges in determining probable cause.

Facts: An information for murder was filed against Carlito Lapitan for causing the death of Angelito Espinosa. Upon
arraignment, he admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense. Priscilla Espinosa, the wife of the deceased, filed a complaint-
affidavit. Together with her affidavit, other affidavits of witnesses were also filed before the prosecutor’s office, which
included the original affidavit and a supplemental affidavit of witness Alexander Lozano. Based on Lozano’s affidavit, Mayor
Corpuz was the one who instructed Samonte to kill Angelito. The public prosecutor found probable cause to indict Corpus for
Angelito’s murder. He filed a Motion to Amend the Information before the Regional Trial Court. Judge Pamular, the trial
court judge, granted the motion, and directed the issuance of warrant of arrest against Corpus. Corpus alleged that the warrant
of arrest was made in utter disregard of the constitutional mandate which directs judges to personally conduct an independent
examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce. Judge Pamular, in his
Comment, said that sufficient copies of supporting documents and evidence were read and evaluated upon which, independent
judgment as to the existence of probable cause was based.

Issue: Whether or not it was erroneous for Judge Pamular to rely on the documents and affidavits gathered by the prosecutor
in determining that there was probable cause sufficient to charge Corpus with the crime of murder.

Ruling: NO In the case of Soliven v. Makasiar, the Supreme Court interpreted Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that when a judge convinces himself or herself on the presence of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant, the issuing judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Otherwise, judges would
be unduly burdened with the preliminary examination and investigation of complaints. However, recent developments, such as
the Judicial Affidavit Rule, have already prevented the evil sought to be prevented in the Soliven case. As provided under
Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, judicial affidavits shall take the place of witnesses’ direct testimonies. The use of
judicial affidavits was approved by the Supreme Court in order to minimize the time required for completing the testimonies
of witnesses in litigated cases. With that, the burden imposed upon judges is lessened, as cases become expeditiously litigated
with the use of judicial affidavits, allowing them to attend to their responsibility of satisfying themselves with the existence of
probable cause when issuing a warrant.

Case # 25
Union Bank v. People
#mayor

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS, Petitioners, versus PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. G.R. No. 192565 | 2012-02-28Facts:Desi Tomas was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court-Makati City
forperjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum
Shopping. Tomas filed a Motion to Quash. She argued that the venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City
Court (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and used) and not the Metropolitan Trial
Court-Makati City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed)that has jurisdiction over the perjury case.
MeTC-Makati denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction overthe case since the Certificate against Forum
Shopping was notarized in MakatiCity. The petitioner’s petition for certiorari before the RTC-Makati was also
denied hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not MeTC Makati has jurisdiction over the case

Ruling: Yes. The Court held that the MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and proper court to take cognizance of the perjury
case against the petitioners. Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that subject to existing laws,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the courtor municipality or territory where the offense was committed or
where any ofits essential ingredients occurred. Section 10 also provides that the complaintor information is sufficient if it can
be understood from its allegations that theoffense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at someplace
within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where itwas committed constitutes an essential element of the
offense charged or isnecessary for its identification. The venue of criminal cases is not only in the place where the offense was
committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. The petition was denied for lack of merit.